Responding to yet another failed attempt by Saami Zaatari

Responding to yet another failed attempt by Quennal Gale? Hardly

Quennel Gale

Here is our response to Sami Zaatari’s second laughable article:

He bites the dust again

Part 2 (A)

By Sami Zaatari

Christian apologist Quennal Gale has come up with a counter response to my complete annihilation of his initial response. His latest response can be found here:

http://answer-islam.org/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.html

Readers who wish to see my complete annihilation of his first response can read it on this link:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.htm

I suggest that readers go read my first response, so they can grasp the arguments that have been put forth, and what the debate is being cantered around. With that said, we now proceed to Quennal’s response.

Response:

Wow it seems like Saami Zaatari is very desperate; he couldn’t even wait until I finished my second part of my response this weekend before he responded. Okay, with this being said, let’s expose him for all to see. First off, I find it amusing that Mr. Zaatari wants others to “grasp the arguments” when I showed in my response that he failed to do the very same thing. I don’t see how you can annihilate someone when you don’t even read what they write. As for annihilation, Mr. Zaatari needs to take a look at this link:

http://answer-islam.org/god_has_god.html

Anybody who has read Mr. Zaatari’s material obviously knows that he is very inexperience in writing sound articles on religion, whether it be Christianity or Islam. But enough of this, let’s proceed with responding to his so-called response:

He Wrote

Sami Zaatari has decided to respond to our initial article on the debate between him and Sam Shamoun, of http://answer-islam.org/www.answering-islam.org, on the issue of violence in both Christianity and Islam. In this follow up, we will focus on Mr. Zaatari’s response to my first article to see if he actually addressed my paper coherently as he tries to portray. He begins his article by saying:

http://answer-islam.org/childkiller.html

Friend and fellow missionary of Sam Shamoun has decided to respond to one of my counter rebuttals, this missionary happens to be Quennal Gale. As we shall shortly see, much like his buddy Shamoun, Quennal fails to refute anything at all. in fact what is more amusing about this response is that it cant even be considered a response! The reason being is because Quennal hardly even addresses the main topic, which is the slaughter of women and children in the Bible in huge numbers, i.e. the Amakilites. All Quennal sets out to do is try and save face by trying to show that in Islam women and children are also killed etc. My responses on this specific topic can be found on these links:

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm
http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm

We now proceed to Quennal's complete failure in responding to anything I said.

Such rhetoric has become common place in Mr. Zaatari’s articles on http://answer-islam.org/www.answering-christianity.com. He usually claims that someone has always failed to respond to his material, particularly in the beginning. This sly tactic usually attempts to influence the reader against the person Mr. Zaatari is addressing before allowing them to actually read the information given by both sides.

My Response

Anyone reading the previous rebuttal of mine will clearly see you really failed to address anything I said. You did not even try to defend the massacres of women and children in your Bible, you simply brushed it aside. So yes, you did fail to address anything in your initial supposed response. Hopefully in this response of yours, you will be able to respond unlike last time. We shall await and see, me and the readers are very excited and anxious to see if you will do it. So common Quenn! Make us proud.

Response:

I do not find it strange where I failed to address anything, especially since Zaatari hasn’t given us a list of what I’ve missed nor has he shown why “I’m required to address him on “violence in the bible” in which the original debate is between him and Sam Shamoun Apparently Mr. Zaatari has a hard time realizing that “as a third party I can choose what I want to respond to on a pre-existing issue”. If Zaatari is so intent on worrying about me addressing a certain issue, then the above link should satisfy him sufficiently since he left it totally unanswered. But I’m not going to parade around like a child saying “you didn’t answer this link, you totally missed this and that”, like Zaatari.

He Wrote

According to Mr. Zaatari, my reason for not responding to his original article in full which is “the slaughter of women and children in the Bible”, is to save face. However, Mr. Zaatari actually has resorted to building a straw man argument, exposing his gross ignorance of my paper, while ignoring the purpose for my response. Let me reiterate again why I chose to respond the way I did:

Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM. According to Mr. Zaatari, such actions are wrong and contrary to Islam, even though we find many instances of children being killed in bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan which are predominately Muslim countries. The perpetrators even find ways to justify these actions and show no sympathy at all.

Now compare this to Mr. Zaatari’s straw man argument:

Quennal fails to refute anything at all. in fact what is more amusing about this response is that it cant even be considered a response! The reason being is because Quennal hardly even addresses the main topic, which is the slaughter of women and children in the Bible in huge numbers, i.e. the Amakilites.

My Response

As we shall shortly see, you trying to get yourself out of a whole by making this claim severely backfires against you, because it seems it is you who doesn’t even understand what you write in your articles. I will shortly be showing you why you must pay attention to what you write next time, but first I will post the rest of what you say.

Response:

First off, Zaatari, please learn how to spell. I think you mean, “you trying to get yourself out of a hole” instead of “whole”? Secondly Zaatari can hardly teach anyone to pay attention to an argument, since IF THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT ISN’T BETWEEN THE PERSON IN QUESTION THEY AREN’T NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO THAT ARGUMENT.

He Wrote

It is obvious that Mr. Zaatari has a glaring reading incomprehension that stems from his lack of carefully reviewing my article. My purpose wasn’t to address the killing of women and children in the Bible, but to review Mr. Zaatari’s response about the same issue in Islam. These are two totally different topics just in case he hasn’t figured this out yet. If he wants to build his response by claiming that I’m saving face, then he needs to go back and review my article carefully to see what my original purpose truly was. As a third party, I can choose what aspects I want to focus on, since the original debate is between Mr. Zaatari and Mr. Shamoun. If I was originally debating Zaatari on this issue, then I could see his point. However, I only chose to focus on one aspect of this broad debate, and because he doesn’t have a legitimate response, Zaatari seeks to introduce red herrings instead of addressing what I said and my particular points.

My Response

Yes, you trying to save face now isn’t going to help you, because as we will see right now, you have the problem in reading not me. Here is what you said in your initial article:

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of

www.answering-christianity.com

dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.

Note, you claim you are focusing on a debate between me and Shamoun, on the topic involving BOTH the Quran, AND the Bible. However so, you hardly ever touched on the Bible. So next time I suggest you comprehend what you say, you started your article by saying you will be focusing on the violence in the Quran AND the Bible. So thank you for shooting yourself in the foot. I suggest you don’t try and play a trick on your readers next time, but just admit you were trying to save face, since it will lesson the embarrassment on your part.

Response:

He Wrote

My Response

Yes, you trying to save face now isn’t going to help you, because as we will see right now, you have the problem in reading not me. Here is what you said in your initial article:

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.

Response:

Notice how Zaatari only posts my comments out of context. Yes I am focusing on THE ISSUE OF VIOLENCE IN BOTH THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN, however this issue has several phases linked to it:

1. Violence in the Bible.

2. Violence in the Quran.

3. Violence outside the Bible.

4. Violence outside the Quran.

As you can clearly see, dealing with the argument at hand, I CHOSE TO FOCUS ON #2 & #4 instead of 1 & 3. Hence, my issue was not to touch on the Bible in that particular article at all. Zaatari is too stupid to recognize this then it’s his problem not mine. How can I play a trick on the reader when I specifically mentioned:

Would you as the reader be tricked by this, especially when I state what my purpose was in THIS ENTIRE ISSUE? Zaatari obviously is aware of this and that is why he tries to save himself here:

Also Quennal Gale makes this statement:

Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM.

Quenn makes this statement AFTER he first says he will be focusing on the issue of violence in the Quran and the Bible. He says immediately after I quote the killing of women and children in the Bible, go figure!

Response:

Okay, so I made this statement after “focusing on the issue of violence in the Quran and the Bible”. But let’s show you how Zaatari doesn’t understand English real well. Notice this:

Here WE WILL FOCUS ON THE ONGOING DEBATE between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.

As you can see that my focus is on THE ONGOING DEBATE, WHICH CONSISTS OF ISSUES RELATING TO VIOLENCE IN BOTH THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE. Let’s state some of these issues again:

1. Violence in the Bible.

2. Violence in the Quran.

3. Violence outside the Bible.

4. Violence outside the Quran.

As you can clearly see the entire debate encompasses a number of issues (note that I only stated 4). Hence, since the debate is such a broad topic I must choose which specific issue I want to focus on first, which is what I expressly stated to the reader:

Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM

So logically if I would break this down it would look like this:

I want to focus on the debate topic of violence in both the Bible in the Quran by addressing the issue of whether the killing of children is allowed in Islam

Logical Conclusion: My intent is to focus on the issue of whether “killing children is allowed in Islam” in relation to the ongoing debate of “Violence in both the Bible and the Quran”.

Now let us use a Quranic example to show you how Zaatari and his fellow Muslims would harmonize certain statements in the Quran. The Quran says that Allah commanded the angels to worship Adam:

And when We said to the angels, 'Bow yourselves to Adam'; so they bowed themselves, save Iblis; he was one of the jinn, and committed ungodliness against his Lord's command. What, and do you take him and his seed to be your friends, apart from Me, and they an enemy to you? How evil is that exchange for the evildoers! S. 18:50 Shakir

The late Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote in his Quranic translation:

50a. Iblis is one of the jinn or the evil spirits, so it is an error to take him for an angel or a good spirit. The spirit of evil is always rebellious, and it is against this that man is warned, so that he should resist every evil tendency. ( 50a. Iblis is one of the jinn or the evil spirits, so it is an error to take him for an angel or a good spirit. The spirit of evil is always rebellious, and it is against this that man is warned, so that he should resist every evil tendency. (Source; underline emphasis ours)

Why then does Allah blame Iblis for not obeying a command directed to angels, not to the jinn, seeing that he isn't an angel? The following Muslim thinks he has the answer:

18. IBLIS - ANGEL OR JINN?

Question:

The Qur’an in several places says that Iblis was an angel, but in Surah Kahf it says that Iblis was a Jinn. Isn’t this a contradiction in the Qur’an?

Answer:

1. Incidence of Iblis and Angels mentioned in the Qur’an

The story of Adam and Iblis is mentioned in the Qur’an in various places in which Allah (swt) says, "We said to the angels bow down to Adam: and they bowed down: not so Iblis".

This is mentioned in:

Surah Al Baqarah chapter 2 verse 43
Surah Al ‘Araf chapter 7 verse 17
Surah Al Hijr chapter 15 verses 28-31
Surah Al Isra chapter 17 verse 61
Surah Ta Ha chapter 20 verse 116
Surah Sad chapter 38 verses 71-74

But in Surah Al Kahf chapter 18 verse 50 the Qur’an says:

"Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam." they bowed down except Iblis He was one of the Jinns."
[Al-Qur’an 18:50]

2. Arabic Rule Of Tagleeb

The English translation of the first part of the verse ‘We said to the angels bow down to Adam: they bowed down except Iblis’, gives us the impression that Iblis was an angel. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic. In Arabic grammar there is a rule known as Tagleeb, according to which, if the majority is addressed, even the minority is included. If for example, I address a class containing 100 students of whom 99 are boys and one is a girl, and if I say in Arabic that the boys should stand up, it includes the girl as well. I need not mention her seperately.

Similarly in the Qur’an, when Allah addressed the angels, even Iblis was present, but it is not required that he be mentioned separately. Therefore according to that sentence Iblis may be an angel or may not be an angel, but we come to know from Surah Al Kahf chapter 18 verse 50 that Iblis was a Jinn. No where does the Qur’an say Iblis was an angel. Therefore there is no contradiction in the Qur’an. (Source) (Source)

The reason I appealed to this example is because in certain places Satan is mentioned as being one of the Jinn, particularly when God commanded the Angels to bow before Adam. However, Satan is punished for not bowing to Adam. Now should I argue that Satan “as an angel” disobeyed God or should I go along with the Quranic statement that “Satan was one of the jinn”? Obviously Zaatari would harmonize this and claim that Satan is one of the jinn instead of an angel. His purpose would be that you must read the entire Quran to see if it explains itself. Yet, Zaatari just can’t seem to fathom how I can only choose to focus on “THE DEBATE OF VIOLENCE IN THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN” by only discussing “the killing of women and children in Islam”, especially after I specified that this is the part that I chose to focus on in relation to the ONGING DEBATE BETWEEN HIM AND SHAMOUN.

Apparently it never occurred to Zaatari that when you read articles as a whole you can perceive a better understanding of what’s being discussed. But judging by the quickness of his response, Zaatari only thought about providing a real fast response so as to somehow show that he can address the refutations to his position. He didn’t even give me time to write my second part yet. LOL!!!

Note how hilarious this looks:

Here is a slight example of why we cannot compare the OT with the Quran when it comes down to wars:

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

Now let us see what the Quran says:

004.075

YUSUFALI: And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

So does anyone else see the difference? The Bible commanded people to kill women and children, the Quran commands people to fight for women and children. Big difference between the two.

Also from my standpoint, I never feel that I have to justify the Islamic wars fought during the time of Muhammad by bringing up the OT; the reason to this is because I do not feel there is anything slightly wrong with what Muhammad did during the wars. The same cannot be said for the OT, the Christians must have to justify every war in the Bible as it allowed the killing of women and children.

As I said, the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children:

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

From reading these hadiths, what exactly do I have to justify or defend? The prophet Muhammad said DO NOT KILL women and kids. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm

Again, please see our position above at the beginning of this paper. Our focus is to deal with the fact of whether killing children is allowed in Islam.

So note, right after I quote the terror verses from the Bible, Quennal immediately evades the real topic at hand, and switches it solely on the Quran! This does show he was trying to save face big time, because rather than address those terror verses I showed, he simply evades them and then changes the topic to deal with the issue of women and children being killed in Islam. How convenient on his part, and how funny to see him shift his position, at the beginning of his article he said the focus is on the violence in BOTH the Quran and the Bible. When I quote the irrefutable terror verses in the Bible, he then says the focus will now be on Islam. Hilarious!!!!!!!

Response:

Notice that Zaatari calls these terror verses. What is this conclusion based off of? His own opinion! Didn’t I state that Zaatari has a bad habit of stating his opinion as fact and then arguing from this assumed stated fact as truth! Apparently Zaatari failed to realize that these terror verses, especially those from Deuteronomy, were inspired by Allah. Let me repost this from my previous paper with slight modifications:

So my book tells me to fight for oppressed women and children, Quenn's book tells him to kill the women and children:

Zaatari needs to be careful here because he is now stabbing himself with a double-edged sword. Claiming that the Bible is my book, while the Quran is his book goes against the very tenants OF HIS BOOK! Secondly, Zaatari is so desperate to prove that the books of Moses, the Torah (in which he has posted most of his verses from) is vile that he would dare slander a prophet of God by placing him on the level of uninspired Christians of today who often do misunderstand what they read from the Holy Bible. By so doing he has only managed to slander his false prophet and his false book which command him to say the following:

And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters. SAY (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which THE PROPHETS received from their Lord. WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANY OF THEM, and unto Him we have surrendered. S. 2:135-136 Pickthall

The apostle believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books AND HIS APOSTLES; WE MAKE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF HIS APOSTLES; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course. S. 2:285 Shakir

Zaatari has committed unbelief (kufr) by making a distinction between the prophets, Moses, Joshua and others, claiming that their teachings are vile, breaking the command of his god and prophet! If Zaatari’s belief were correct about the Bible, this would mean his god and his messenger were liars since they commanded Muslims to believe all messengers and prophets! Either that or both Muhammad and Allah were ignorant since they weren’t aware that the Hebrew prophets were false prophets or were mistaken. So I challenge Zaatari and his big mouth to:

Show me explicitly from the Quran where Allah specifically spoke against the killing of women and children in the OT.
Show me where the Quran says “THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG FOR TEACHING THAT WOMEN AND CHILDREN CAN BE KILLED”. –Previous article.

As you can clearly see Zaatari is in very hot water since

He obviously doesn’t have any proof that Allah had a problem with these specific verses of the Bible.
Allah never told Muhammad or his followers that the “people of the book” were wrong for killing women and children.
He can’t give you one example of Muhammad rebuking Moses for his actions.

What more can I say on this? Why argue with someone who can’t even produce proof from his own religion to specifically reply to this very issue, which he so much cares about?

He Wrote

As for his links he gave as a response, Zaatari failed to mention to his readers that the points dealing with “the killing of women and children in Islam” were the very same points I addressed and refuted in my original paper. Instead of addressing them, he deemed it much easier to repost them without offering a counter response. From reviewing his response, Zaatari could only offer up general responses and avoid the fact that his own Islamic sources showed that “killing of children and women” was allowed by Muhammad under certain circumstances.

My Response

Now would you please be specific? Which links? Are you talking about these links:

http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm
http://answering-christianity.com/karim/no_killing_of_civilians.htm

If you are talking about these links, then I must correct you, you gave NO response to them whatsoever, and I even told you, you are free to contact both those writers, brother Karim, and brother Bassam responding back to them, in which they will be glad to refute you. Also, if you did supposedly respond to them in your initial response, then this shows what a bad response you gave since I missed them and didn’t realize you gave one!

Response:

What more evidence do we need to show you that Zaatari doesn’t read carefully! Why do I have to be more specific when these were the only links Zaatari posted in his paper? In fact Zaatari will later on address my response to these very links, while here he apparently seems to WONDER WHICH LINKS I’M TALKING ABOUT! Talk about confusion (or is it really deception masking itself as confusion?)!! As for giving no response, apparently Zaatari failed to highlight what I missed, so this wonderful revelation (no pun intended) has somewhat eluded him.

He Wrote

He Wrote

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran. Zaatari’s article can be found here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm

Before we begin we must start by saying that we, unlike others, don’t have a problem with God bringing judgment upon unbelieving civilizations that refuse to adhere to his commands and his servants. We understand the clear fact that the Lord God is the all-merciful God who loves all of his creation but we also understand that this same God of mercy is also a God of justice. Modern civilization tries to impose its current thinking upon God in trying to say that he is vicious to unbelievers without failing to take in the context and scope of the particular situation.

My Response

It is quite amusing that Quennal brings up the argument of how modern society tries to impose current issues with the way God did things in the past. It seems when what modern society thinks will hurt his cause, then he will simply brush their opinion aside, yet when modern society has an argument against Islam he will happily jump on board that train and argue along with them. Such as the issue of Aisha, which we know is something that is strange only in today’s society, and something that is not practiced anymore. However so, we do know in the prophet Muhammad’s time, and even before and after his time, marrying girls at a young age was seen as something normal. In fact the prophet Muhammad's enemies did not even attack him for marrying Aisha, and also around Europe and Asia young girls would be married off, this was nothing perverted or ub normal.

However so, Quennal Gale would have no problem in attacking the prophet Muhammad for something which was okay and normal for his time, so hence this is clear double standards on Quennals part. In fact, here is my little challenge to Quennal Gale, bring me one logical argument against the Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha, not from a modernist point of view, but from the point of view of how society was in the time before, and after the prophet Muhammad. He will completely fail to bring anything to the table, but it will be amusing to see what he will say.

Actually what I’m about to show you will be anything but amusing to Mr. Zaatari, dealing with his prophet and his marriage to Aisha. Before I do this I must state that the reason I brought up the issue of modern society attempting to impose its thinking on biblical events is to illustrate how fallacious an argument of this nature can be. In a way it is sort of an “Argumentum ad novitatem” fallacy which can be defined as thus:

Argumentum ad novitatem

This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.

"BeOS is a far better choice of operating system than OpenStep, as it has a much newer design." (Source)

My Response

Yes, you have no problem in arguing a modern approach to Aisha and the prophet Muhammad, yet in their time, and before their time, and just 100 years ago it was something normal and not bad.

The reason I have no problem using modern standards and approaches in relation to Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is because Muhammad is supposed to be the guide for all mankind IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME PERIOD. Hence, if he is the perfect model for all men then all of his practices would be wholesome for all generations. As this Muslim illustrated here:

A. Prophet Muhammad r was an inspired man with an extraordinary personality. He was gifted with mighty powers of imagination, elevation of mind, delicacy and refinement of feeling. His intellectual qualities were extra ordinary. He had a quick apprehension, a retentive memory, a vivid imagination and an inventive genius. Pure-hearted and beloved in his circle, he was of sweet and gentle disposition. He set a shining example to his people. His character was pure and stainless. The real cause of his many marriages at an old age was charity, and in order to protect the widows of his persecuted followers…

D. The Prophet r was endowed with great words of wisdom and teachings. The words that he uttered are not the words of an ordinary man. The Hâdîth , the body of transmitted actions and sayings of the Prophet r conveys precious information. The practical character of his teachings gave birth to the scientific spirit. His teachings are simple, comprehensive and original. They remained in their original purity. Everything in the teachings and postulates of Islâm is in its proper place. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other; nothing is superfluous and nothing is lacking with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. The dicta of the Prophet in all matters of law and religion were inspired and suggested by Allâh I , though expressed in his own words. Every word the Prophet r uttered was inspired by Providence divulging some hidden truths of human life and laying down some rules for its guidance on earth. The Prophet’s teaching of the oneness of God, His innumerable attributes, of His love and mercy to His creatures are unequaled by others. Character training is achieved through the well-established teachings of Islâm, the model behavior of the Prophet. All the teachings of the Prophet are simple and intelligible. The Prophet’s wisdom, being divinely inspired, is so important that the Muslims have been ordained not only to recite the Qur’ân but to recite the wisdom also. The Sunnah of the Prophet r became a standard of living which every Muslim should aspire to reach.

E. Prophet Muhammad r is the greatest educator of mankind. - http://www.wefound.org/texts/Muhammad_files/Muhammad1.htm

So let me ask Zaatari this simple question. Is it because you are embarrassed by Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl when he was in his 50s which explains why you try to argue the point of “Muhammad’s practice was normal for his time”? And in light of the fact that Muhammad is suppose to be a model for mankind whose Sunna all peoples need to emulate:

Do you think that it is okay to marry a 6 year old girl based on Muhammad's perfect example?
Do you think it is okay to have sex with them at the age of 9 since Muhammad did so who is the perfect example to follow?

Remember my dear reader, Muhammad’s actions were divinely inspired by Allah and he is the perfect role model for all Muslims. If Zaatari says no to both of these questions he will only be demonstrating that Muhammad does commit practices that were not acceptable by modern standards. The problem for Zaatari is that, “if your prophet is a model for all people of all times,” then his practices wouldn’t be considered shameful in any time period. Simple as that. Now let’s see if Zaatari is going to answer these questions.

He Wrote

Zaatari is arguing along this line of reasoning because he feels that many of the biblical wars are atrocious, which is obviously appealing to modern thinking, without failing to take into context of whether such was the case in ancient times. More on this later. The issue of “modern society and it’s relation to biblical wars” doesn’t hurt my cause whatsoever since ancient wars in the Bible must be judged in light of their historical context and regional practices. Whether Zaatari realizes this or not, he resorts to using this same thinking by judging Islam in light of its time and practice dealing with Muhammad’s beheading of young boys from various tribes. You will see this reasoning later on in this paper. So when it is beneficial to him Zaatari will claim that his religion must be judged in light of its historical climate and context, but the Bible which is even older than Islam must be judged according to how Zaatari thinks, which is obviously modern. Either way Zaatari is fighting a losing battle as well as contradicting himself.

My Response

Actually, in which century, and in which time period was it ever deemed acceptable to kill women and children? You trying to even argue along such a line as saying: ‘oh yah in the past, such as Biblical times, it was okay to kill women and children’. Are you that silly?

So Quennal really embarrasses himself here, even if I was living in those Biblical time, I would object to such atrocities, never in the history of mankind has it been something normal and okay to kill women and kids, unless you were some sick pagan, or in this case, a follower of Quenns God.

So note what Quenn is arguing, he is arguing in one point of history, it was okay to kill women and children, something completely normal and justifiable and not bad at all. Can this get any worse for him?

Response:

First off, instead of worrying about whether I’m silly or not Zaatari needs to provide some type of historical evidence to support his case, which he has failed to do thus far. All he did was quote Bible verses without doing any extensive research on those verses. Again it is obvious that Zaatari is arguing along the line of the fallacy known as:

Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan." (Source)

In this instance Zaatari’s reasoning can clearly be illustrated like this:

“It is very sick to see the killing of women and children in the Bible, since such action is horrible”.

Don’t you see why this argument is fallacious? Zaatari proves what I’ve been saying all along when he claims:

Actually, in which century, and in which time period was it ever deemed acceptable to kill women and children? You trying to even argue along such a line as saying: ‘oh yah in the past, such as Biblical times, it was okay to kill women and children’. Are you that silly?

If this isn’t a logical fallacy then I don’t know what one is! Instead of showing where it wasn’t deemed acceptable in ancient times, Zaatari has to resort to criticizing me for not agreeing with his assessment of it being wrong. THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE HASN’T BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT IN ANCIENT TIMES SUCH PRACTICES WERE EVEIL OR OUT OF THE ORDINARY! So where does Zaatari get his conclusion that “this is wrong”? FROM USING THE FALLACY OF “ARGUMENTUM AD MISCERICORDIAM”!

How can I be called silly for a practice Zaatari has yet to prove wrong according to standard practices and views held during the biblical period? Let’s show you a list of missing items in Zaatari’s argument:

He hasn’t shown anywhere in ancient history where such practices were deemed out of the ordinary.
He hasn’t provided a single document or statement showing that the ancients viewed these as atrocities!
He hasn’t even shown us where Muhammad and Allah viewed these wars as atrocities!

For all prractical purposes Zaatari has argued in the following manner:

Killing women and children is wrong because……. HE THINKS IT’S WRONG BASED ON HIS MODERN ASSESMENTS!

HENCE ZAATARI IS TRYING TO USE MODERN STANDARDS TO PROVE THAT THE BIBLE'S TEACHINGS ARE EVIL AND INTOLERANT! In light of this, an obvious question for Zaatari is:

WHY DIDN’T ALLAH PUNISH THE JEWS FOR THESE ACTIONS AND WHY DIDN’T ALLAH EXPRESSLY TELL MUHAMMAD THAT THESE ACTS WERE WRONG?

The answer is rather simple, neither Muhammad nor Allah viewed these actions as atrocities which would explain why such sensitive issues weren’t dealt with. Zaatari's "response" shows that he himself knows that he doesn’t have anything to concretely show that these biblical actions are atrocities other than “his own opinion”. Here are more of his comments:

Zaatari clearly has a problem with the position that AT ONE POINT IN TIME CERTAIN ACTIONS THAT WERE PERMITTED WERE THEN CANCELED OUT AT A LATER TIME. According to him this makes it worse for me. First off, for all of us sane people out here we obviously know that in the world certain issues relating to law, society, religion, etc. change and because of this factor certain commands and actions that were in use at a specific period will not be in use during later times. If Zaatari thinks this is worse then what does he have to say about the Quran?

And when We exchange a verse in the place of another verse and God knows very well what He is sending down -- they say, 'Thou art a mere forgerr!<' Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge. S. 16:101 Arberry

And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything? S. 2:106 Arberry

Renowned Muslim philologist and commentator Al-Zamakhshari stated in reference to Sura 2:106:

(As the occasion of the revelation of this verse) the following is related: The unbelievers had challenged the canceling of verses and said: 'Look at Muhammad, how he commands his companions to do something, and then forbids it to them and commands the opposite. He says something today and retracts it tomorrow.'

THEREUPON THIS VERSE CAME DOWN.

Instead of whatever verse We abrogate (nansakh), some read: whatever verse we allow (or cause) to be abrogated (nunsikh). ...

Or cast into oblivion (nansa'ha): Some read: or cause to be cast into oblivion (nunsiha or nunassiha). Others read this as if addressed specifically to the Messenger of God: or when you forget it (tansaha). Still others read: or when you are caused to forget it (tunsaha). 'Abd Allah (ibn 'Abbas) read: when we cause you to forget (nunsika) or to abrogate it (nansakkha). And Hudhaifa read: when we abrogate (nansakh) a verse or cause you to forget it (nunsikaha).

To abrogate a verse means that God removes (azala) it by putting another in its place. To cause a verse to be abrogated means that God gives the command that it be abrogated; that is, he commands Gabriel to set forth the verse as abrogated by announcing its cancellation. Deferring a verse means that God sets it aside (with the proclamation) and causes it to disappear without a substitute. To cause a verse to be cast into oblivion means that it no longer is preserved in the heart. The following is the meaning: Every verse is made to vanish whenever the well-being (maslaha) (of the community) requires that it be eliminated - either on the basis of the wording or the virtue of what is right, or on the basis of both these reasons together, either with or without substitute.

We bring a verse which is better for the servants (of God), that is, a verse through which one gains a greater benefit, or one which is equal to it in this respect.

God is powerful over everything: he is able to produce what is good, but also something which is even better or something which is equal in its goodness to the first. (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 1996], p. 58; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Clearly, Muhammad’s doctrine of abrogation was nothing more than his attempt of trying to explain away all his contradictions and inconsistencies. Muhammad needed to come up with an explanation for having changed his mind regarding certain issues which resulted in contradictions with what he had previously said about those same things. Now if Zaatari is so concerned about certain commands being applicable at one time but AT LATER TIMES NOT FOLLOWED THEN WHY IS HE A MUSLIM?

He Wrote

Secondly, Mr. Zaatari has failed to show how my case was hurt by the issue of “modern thinking and the bible”, he just merely stated this and ran away with it like this was an established fact. Hence, he begs the question, assuming what he has yet to prove on this issue. After arguing from his fallacious point, Zaatari now seeks to shift the argument in his favor, claiming that I’d use this reasoning against Muhammad in relation to his marriage to Aisha. As for responding to his challenge, I’d say to Mr. Zaatari that it isn’t hard at all and that I’ve already discussed this on my site. Here is my response to this very issue, dealing with his master, Osama Abdallah:

What is even more embarrassing for him is that Muhammad can’t be judged based on cultural standards of the Arabs alone:

"he does not speak out of low desires. It is not but inspiration which is inspired" (Q. 53:3-4). The ONLY DIFFERENCE between the Qur'an and the Hadith is that whereas the former was revealed directly through Gabriel with the very letters that are embodied from Allah, the latter was revealed without letters and words."(Mishkat-ul-Masabih, the English translation, Book 1, the importance of the Qur'an and Hadith, P.2,3. )

"Thus, next to the Holy Qur'an the Hadith is the second source of the Islamic Law of social and personal behaviour, because THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE HOLY PROPHET ARE AS BINDING ON THE BELIEVERS AS THE COMMANDMENTS OF ALLAH. 'Whenever Allah and the Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a faithful man or woman to follow a course of their own choice (Q.33:36).'" (Sahih Muslim, Introduction to English translation, P. ii. ) The Hadith is to be FOLLOWED EXACTLY "for that which differs from the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up." (Mishkat-ul-Masabih, the English translation, Book 1, the importance of the Qur'an and Hadith, P.5, Quoted from Malabudda Minhu, P.8 )

"A Muslim therefore stands in absolute need of a copy of the Qur'an AND A COPY OF THE HADITH for the guidance of his life" (ibid, P. 2,3.)

And,

"If ye do love Allah, FOLLOW ME: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." S. 3:31

My Response

What Quennal is essentially saying here is that the prophet is the perfect role model, and that we should follow him in the exact way he lived his life. First of all, Quennal Gale doesn’t seem to understand his points.

When Muslims say we should follow the example of the prophet, we do not mean exactly literally the same. For one, that is not possible, because the prophet was allowed to marry more than 4 wives, we aren’t.

Secondly, times have changed, specifically in the issue of the age of marriages these days. So unlike the times of the prophet, in this area we to can’t follow him in the exact way, since in today’s society the age of marriage has changed and girls get married in an older age etc.

It would be illogical to say to follow the prophet in every single way, because this cannot be, times change, so therefore there could be things the prophet did in his time, which we cannot do now, this is something logical. So hence it seems Quennal doesn’t even understand his points properly. When Muslims say the prophet is our example, he is, we should live up to his moral standards and so on, and be a good man like him. However at the same time, we do know it is impossible to follow the hadiths 100%, because times have changed, and the way you do something things have also changed. This is not a sin, nor a crime; this is just how it is.

Response:

I find it very amusing that Zaatari is claiming that I don’t understand my points. This is false for the Mishkat explicit claims that:

1. "Thus, next to the Holy Qur'an the Hadith is the second source of the Islamic Law of social and personal behaviour, because THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE HOLY PROPHET ARE AS BINDING ON THE BELIEVERS AS THE COMMANDMENTS OF ALLAH.

2. 'Whenever Allah and the Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a faithful man or woman to follow a course of their own choice (Q.33:36).

Notice that a believer in Islam can’t follow his or her own choice when a matter is practiced or decided by Muhammad. That is why the Mishkat says:

The Hadith is to be FOLLOWED EXACTLY "for that which differs from the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up."