Analyzing a Muslim's offense of the slaughter of women and
children in the Bible
Another one should keep his head in the sand pt1
Sami Zaatari has decided to respond to
our initial article on the debate between him and Sam Shamoun, of 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 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. 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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
According to the Quran and Hadith, Muhammad
is the perfect role model for all mankind. These above quotes just give a hint
into this. Now if we are to base his marriage to Aisha on cultural norms then he can’t be a role
model for all since his action is particular to only one culture. What is even
more detrimental to Islam is that science has shown that early sex with females
is actually more detrimental to the girl:
"Sexual contact between
children and adults: A life course perspective."
Browning, Christopher R; Laumann, Edward O
Citation: American
Sociological Review, v62n4,
pp.540-560, Aug 1997
Number: 03374356 Features:
Table; Illustration; References
Copyright: American
Sociological Association 1997
"Research interest in the long-term effects of sexual contact between
female children and adults has increased dramatically in the last two decades.
Two sets of issues have driven this enhanced attention. The first concerns the
nature and extent of the impact these experiences have on subsequent well-being
in adulthood. Empirical research has
offered evidence of the severe and wide ranging effects of adult-child sex by
documenting its associations with a host of later "symptoms," such as
low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and sexual dysfunction."
"In each reduced model (Model 1), we see that adult-child sexual contact
is significantly associated with the outcome considered. Women who experienced adult-child sexual
contact were 1.6 times as likely to report sexual desire dysfunction, 2.1 times
as likely to report sexual response dysfunction, 2.4 times as likely to report
high dysfunction, 1.6 times as likely to report low overall well being, 1.7
times as likely to report low relationship satisfaction, and had more sexual
activities that they found appealing compared with those who had no coupled
sexual experiences as children. For every outcome except high
dysfunction and number of sex acts found appealing, the introduction of the
sexual trajectory variables (Models 2 and 3) renders the adult-child sexual contact
coefficient insignificant, indicating that the effects of adult-child sex on
adult outcomes are largely indirect, mediated through sexual
trajectories."
Look what happens when you follow
Muhammad’s example! Trying to hide behind cultural norm only shows that Osama
can’t defend Muhammad’s vile actions. Since he loves science so much we wonder
what will he say about this?
Even the United Nations has shown that Muhammad’s perfect example is, well, not
so perfect:
"HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES AFFECTION
THE HEALTH OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN"
"An appraisal of harmful traditional
practices and their effects on women and the girl child.
Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a
community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the
world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which
are beneficial to all members, while
others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful
traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding
of women; EARLY MARRIAGE; the various taboos or practices which prevent
women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional
birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl
child; female infanticide; early
pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their
harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such
practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of
morality in the eyes of those practicing them....
(NOTE: most of
these are practiced by the Islamic world).
...Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to
develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage
inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents'
home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably
be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It
is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and
physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically
she might not be fully developed....
...Health complications that result from early marriage in the Middle
East and North Africa, for example, include the risk of operative delivery, low
weight and malnutrition resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in
the period of life when the young mothers are themselves still growing....
The work of the Committee has also permitted the identification of certain
areas where law reform should be undertaken, in both civil and penal areas,
such as the minimum age for marriage and establishment of the age of criminal
responsibility as being the attainment of puberty. Some States have argued that
girls attain their physical maturity earlier, but it is the view of the Committee that maturity cannot simply be
identified with physical development when social and mental development are
lacking and that, on the basis of such criteria, girls are considered adults
before the law upon marriage, thus being deprived of the comprehensive
protection ensured by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The International
Conference on Population and Development, held at
Early pregnancy can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their
babies. According to UNICEF, no girl
should become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically
ready to bear children. Babies of mothers younger than 18 tend to be
born premature and have low body weight; such babies are more likely to die in
the first year of life. The risk to the young mother's own health is also
greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating women. ...
An additional health risk to young
mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby's head is too big for
the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal
fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the
baby's head out unduly....
Generally throughout the developing world, the average food intake of pregnant
and lactating mothers is far below that of the average male. Cultural
practices, including nutritional taboos, ensure that pregnant women are
deprived of essential nutriments, and as a result they tend to suffer from iron
and protein deficiencies...." - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs23.htm UNITED NATIONS
Even if Osama tries to claim that is wrong to judge
by modern standards, scientific standards have proven that no matter what time
period, this early marriage to a young girl, following Muhammad’s example is
detrimental to her health. So Muhammad’s perfect example, whether back then or
now is still wrong based on scientific findings!!! Remember this next time when
you see Muslims try and appeal to science to verify Islam. The Quran claims about Muhammad:
Surely in the Messenger of God you have a good example. 33:21
This is echoed by this Muslim site on Muhammad’s
perfect example:
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
E. Prophet Muhammad r is the greatest educator of mankind. - http://www.wefound.org/texts/Muhammad_files/Muhammad1.htm
So Allah’s good example is following cultural norms
that are detrimental to your health! So according to Osama’s explanation since
we must judge Muhammad based on his culture and nobody really found anything
wrong with his marriage to Aisha,
even though medical science proves other wise then:
1. Can we smoke
cigarettes since it is a cultural norm and nobody says anything against it?
Did Muhammad's people and culture benefit from
establishing this practice? No. Muhammad proclaimed himself as a
guide and a light for his followers however millions of Muslim girls have been
subjected to this harmful practice. Where was the light, guidance or
wisdom in this practice? It was nothing more than a cultural practice,
instituted by Muhammad as part of Islam then scientifically turns out to be
destructive. But because it was good enough for Muhammad, it is good
enough for Muslims; many of their female children suffer as a result? (Source)
Based on the Islamic texts and interpretation, Muhammad can be
judged in light of modern standards since he is considered a model for all
mankind! If his acts could only be judged in light of his cultural norm,
Muslims today wouldn’t still be practicing his sunna on these very same
issues! We’ve shown that sex at a young age is very detrimental to the young
girl. Surely Allah and Muhammad must have known this since Allah is all
knowing, and did not make any claim that “this is only a cultural practice and
later generations need not follow it, etc.”.
I wonder if Mr. Zaatari amused now?
He Wrote
Even in today’s modern
society, many of those who accuse God of such vile actions, would themselves
find certain actions justified. For example:
1. If a country is attacked by another country, retaliation is considered
justified and usually necessary if possible.
2. One is usually not held accountable if they take someone’s life, out of the
fear of being killed by that person.
3. In war, the killing of women and children, although unacceptable, is usually
tolerated if kept to a minimum since collateral damage is impossible to avoid
every time.
There are many more examples we can give but these will suffice for now. One
issue we want to look at during this on going debate between both Mr. Shamoun
and Mr. Zaatari is the issue of children being
killed. We begin with Mr. Zaatari’s comments here:
My Response
Quennal Gale tries to play
a trick on the readers here, and he also manages to prove his Bible is a vile
and violent book. Notice what he says:
3. In war, the killing of
women and children, although unacceptable, is usually tolerated if kept to a
minimum since collateral damage is impossible to avoid every time.
So note, Quennal Gale said
that in war, killing of women is UNACCEPTABLE, and if they are killed, they
should be kept to a minimum, such as collateral damage. Well there is a slight
problem with that, in Quennals
own book, the Bible, women and children were INTENTIONALLY slaughtered and
killed, they weren’t killed as result of collateral damage. Here are the
relevant passages:
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
Deuteronomy
Chapter 3
1-7
1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan:
and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he
and all his people, to battle at Edrei.
2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his
people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which
dwelt at Heshbon. 3 So the
LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of
Joshua
Chapter 6
17-27
17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the
LORD: only Rahab the harlot
shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the
messengers that we sent. 18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the
accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed
thing, and make the camp of
So note, women and children being killed in the Bible is not as a result of
collateral damage, but they are intentionally killed with the sword. So Quennal's own point backfires
against him.
In reality I’ve done nothing in proving that the Bible is a
violent and vile book, as Mr. Zaatari claimed. It’s
very apparent that he is so desperate to defend Islam that he forgets to read
my points carefully. Zaatari is so confused that he
thinks that “up is down” and “down is up”. Let’s show you where he made a
blundering error:
First he says:
So note, Quennal
Gale said that in war, killing of women is UNACCEPTABLE, and if they are
killed, they should be kept to a minimum, such as collateral damage. Well there
is a slight problem with that, in Quennals
own book, the Bible, women and children were INTENTIONALLY slaughtered and
killed, they weren’t killed as result of collateral damage.
But I said:
3. In war, the killing of women and children, although unacceptable, is usually tolerated if kept to a
minimum since collateral damage is
impossible to avoid every time.
It is obvious that Mr. Zaatari
doesn’t understand English too well, along with attempting to read more into my
statements then what was intended. He is focusing on the fact that some women
and children were killed intentionally, not being the result of collateral
damage, in the Bible, while my point is strictly saying:
1.
Killing of women and children (whether intentional or
not) is usually accepted if kept to a minimum.
2.
Is impossible to avoid (the killing of women and
children) all the time.
Zaatari also ignored my statements
before my third point since I also mentioned at the beginning of my article
that:
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.
Didn’t I say that God brings justice upon people and nations (even though it
may seem unacceptable to some, like Zaatari) and that
this same God of mercy is also just? Yes. Zaatari’s
obvious problem in his attempt to paint this as being “vile and violent” is
that he is committing this same “Argumentum ad novitatem” fallacy mentioned at the beginning of
this article.
Zaatari’s reasoning can clearly be
illustrated like this:
“Killing women and children is vile because
such atrocities are considered wrong and typically by today’s standards”
Zaatari is trying to impose his
modern assessment and opinion on God Almighty. If he claims that he isn’t then
he must show us in the ancient time period where this wasn’t acceptable or in
wide practice. Also the problem for Zaatari is that
neither Muhammad nor Allah specifically points to any biblical war as an
example to avoid. Why the silence? Since Zaatari has
argued on many occasions (including later on in his response) that if Allah
didn’t give specific instructions or prohibitions etc., then it wasn’t
considered binding for or against someone or something. In this case, since
there was no prohibition by Allah this indicates that neither he nor Muhammad
saw anything wrong. Instead, modern propagandists like Zaatari
are trying to impose their will and thinking on issues not prohibited or spoken
against by Muhammad and Allah.
Mr. Zaatari also commits another
commonly used fallacy in Muslim apologetics, namely trying to appeal to the
emotion of his reader:
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”.
As you can clearly see, Zaatari’s
line of arguing is not taking the nature or the context of the situations at
hand in the Bible. This requires extensive historical research, time and effort
to offer a proper conclusion. There are many passages in the Bible that may
seem awkward on the surface but it’s not “what to read, but knowing what you’re
reading” to determine the proper conclusion. In relation to Christianity, Zaatari is suddenly trying to play pacifist pretending to
be horrified at such killings but in Islam, it is justified because the party
either was disobedient to Allah, etc. I am the first to say that God isn’t a
pacifist but in no ways does it make his judgment vile! Such conclusions are
only the opinion of Mr. Zaatari alone. Hence, my
point doesn’t backfire on me since I’m not focusing on whether the killing is
done intentionally or not, so this is a red herring to say the least. If you
breakdown Zaatari’s argument in detail even more, it
can be structured like this:
1.
The Bible allows you to kill children and women so this
is vile and violent.
But what is this conclusion based on?
2.
He doesn’t tell us specifically.
However, it can easily be shown, as we did above, that he is
arguing from the above fallacies (appeal to pity, and ad novitatem) along with his opinion as some sort of
establish criteria on ancient Biblical practices. If Zaatari
wants to argue in this manner he either needs to validate his claim
historically, in light of the context of Biblical practices or state that he is
using his opinion. So far he has done neither. Arguing an opinion as a
statement of fact only proves that it’s one opinion, no matter how intricate
one tries to word their argument. Many Christians and non-Christians alike
don’t view these actions as outright senseless violence because they are smart
enough to know that each event needs to be judge in light of its historical
context. In a nutshell, Zaatari has only exposed his emotions, that he feels angry at certain Biblical passages
which disagree with how he expects God to run the world. He continues by
saying:
So note, women and children being killed in the Bible is not as a
result of collateral damage, but they are intentionally killed with the sword.
So Quennal's own point
backfires against him.
Secondly, the reason I said Quenn
tried to trick his readers is because he was actually trying to infer that in
his Bible, when women and children are killed, only a small amount are killed,
and they are collateral damage. As we see, this is not the case.
So those certain justified acts that Quenn
bring up are not found in the Bible, since the Bible simply tells you to kill
everyone, women and children included. If Quenn tries to back track and say thats not his position, here is
what he said again:
Even in today’s modern society, many of those who accuse God of such vile
actions, would themselves find certain actions justified. For example:
Anyone reading that will see that Quenn
was trying to show that his Bible's wars are justified in certain events, in
which even modern societies would agree with the Bible.
In dealing with this situation, Glen Miller
answers these issues very well beginning with this link: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html
In reality this is a dead issue and Mr. Miller has dedicated
tons of pages and resources to answering this very same accusation. Time would
fail me to elaborate in great detail here. As for his last statement, I do
agree that Biblical wars are justified in certain events and circumstances.
This fact is something Judaism, Christianity and Islam all agree upon.
He Wrote
My Response
To begin with, we cannot even compare the OT and the Quran when it comes down to wars. The OT commands
you to go kill women and children, and also to show no mercy on them
whatsoever. The Quran
however never commands us to go kill women and children in war, in fact it
tells us to fight for the oppressed women and children, the prophet Muhammad
also forbade the killing of women and children.
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. 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
Narrated 'Abdullah:
During some of the Ghazawat
of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the
killing of women and children. (Sahih
Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book
52, Number 257)
Narrated 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. (Sahih
Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book
52, Number 258)
However he seems to be ignorant of the fact that Sam Shamoun already discussed
this very same issue and refutes these hadith:
As a side note, this statement is a third party report. We do not have the
exact words of Muhammad to evaluate them at this point. Yet there is a narration
in Sunan Abu Dawud where Muhammad is directly
quoted:
Narrated Rabah ibn Rabi':
When we were with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)
on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent
a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and
said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with
whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid
ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and
said: Tell Khalid not to
kill a woman or a hired servant. (Sunan
Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number
2663) - http://wwww.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism2.htm
Mr. Shamoun is correct in claiming that there is no exact word of Muhammad prohibiting
killing of women and children, so the issue isn’t as clear-cut as Mr. Zaatari would have you to believe. Shamoun proves this case
from the very same Islamic sources, added emphasis ours:
My Response
The fact that Quenn tries
to brush aside an authentic hadith from Bukhari just like that is
pathetic to say the least. Quenn
seeing that he has no way out from the truth, which is that the prophet
Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children, so he goes to the most lame argument possible, oh the
hadith isn’t true! Its not fully trust worthy. Also,
anyone reading what Shamoun said will actually see that Shamoun was really not
refuting the hadith or saying the hadiths
I showed were false, here is what Shamoun said:
As a side note, this statement is a third party report. We do not have the
exact words of Muhammad to evaluate them at this point. Yet there is a
narration in Sunan Abu Dawud where Muhammad is directly
quoted:
All Shamoun is saying that this is a third party report, that doesn’t at all
refute the hadith as being un-true. So no, Shamoun
does not refute the hadiths what so ever.
Quenn is going to have to
do much better than that if he wants to deny the authenticity of the hadiths.
So yes, the issue is clear cut as I would have people believe, your pathetic
attempt in trying to question these hadiths just
shows how you have lost this debate and have nothing meaningful to say. In fact
I want to thank you for bringing that point up on the hadiths,
since it just shows that missionaries in general really cannot refute solid
facts about Islam, as I have been saying all along.
Here, again we have another attempt by Mr. Zaatari
in trying to build a straw man on this issue. Where exactly did I disagree with
the Hadith from Bukhari? Where did I claim that it should be brushed
aside? Since Mr. Zaatari has a hard time
understanding what I wrote, let me reiterate it for him again:
As you can clearly see, killing children and women is
permissible in Islam. Mr. Zaatari is wrong because he is arguing from the belief that
this prohibition is absolute when Islamic sources clearly show that there were
certain cases in which it can be done and is actually encouraged.
I never questioned Bukhari’s hadith on this issue. I mentioned that Zaatari’s
belief that killing of women and children being totally prohibited in Islam was
in question! My purpose for this conclusion is that there were hadiths which contradicted the ones Zaatari
used to prove that Muhammad disallowed this practice. We will show more on this
in just a bit. Zaatari tries to establish this very
same conclusion:
Quenn seeing that he
has no way out from the truth, which is that the prophet Muhammad forbade the
killing of women and children, so he goes to the most lame argument possible, oh the hadith isn’t true!
However, Zaatari must continue to
ignore hadiths which disagree with his assessment
including this one here:
Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND
CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama
that the Prophet of Allah (may
peace be upon him), when asked about the
women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said:
They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321)
This was a clear opportunity for Muhammad to prohibit the
killing of women and children during the night raids but he didn’t! The reason
why, as the Hadith compiler illustrates, is because
“it is permissible in night raids to kill women and children as long as it
isn’t deliberate”. Zaatari is clearly wrong, and the
links he provides, which we will address in just a bit, doesn’t help his cause
also. This is why I said in my article:
Mr. Zaatari is wrong because he is
arguing from the belief that this prohibition is absolute when Islamic sources
clearly show that there were certain cases in which it can be done and is
actually encouraged. If you look at
Muhammad’s response, he wasn’t overly concerned that women and children died
among the pagan population, he only claimed, “oh well, they are a part of
them”, in other words, guilty by association. Taking the hadiths
Mr. Zaatari used in his defense along with these hadiths, logically we must conclude that killing of
children is permissible in special circumstances.
This was in response to these hadiths
posted:
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama
that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He
said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4322)
Sa'b
b. Jaththama has narrated
that the Prophet (may peace
be upon him) asked: What about the
children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said:
They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4323)
Narrated Samurah
ibn Jundub:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him)
said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children. (Sunan Abu Dawud,
Book 14, Number 2664) (Ibid)
Zaatari can go on arguing all he wants
as to how I mysteriously claimed that the Hadith of Bukhari must be brushed aside. I
only responded in saying that IN CERTAIN INSTANCES AND EXCEPTIONS, KILLING OF
WOMEN AND CHILDREN WAS PERMITTED, as in the case of the night raids. If Zaatari is so fascinated by the facts of Islam, why is he
ignoring this? Why posts hadith which prohibit
killing but ignore hadiths which don’t prohibit
killing?
He Wrote
HOWEVER, there are certain other narrations that permit the killing of women
and children, specifically during Muslim raids where they attack unsuspecting
victims at night:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan,
and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night
with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The
Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e.
pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah
and His Apostle." (Sahih
Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book
52, Number 256)
I.e., they are all the same—both the women and children are nothing more than
pagans! The above narration is repeated in several, different hadith collections:
Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS,
PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b
b. Jaththama that the
Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and
children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are
from them. (Sahih Muslim,
Book 019, Number 4321)
Keep in mind that the subheading is not part of the narration, it is added by the collector of the hadiths. In other words, the statement regarding the
killing of women and children being permissible as long as it isn’t deliberate
is not part of the narration. The hadiths do not
explicitly say this, and yet the compiler assumed that this was the clear
implication and meaning of these narrations.
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the
Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists
during the night raids. He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4322)
Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What
about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid?
He said: They are from them. (Sahih
Muslim, Book 019, Number 4323)
Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him)
said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664) (Ibid)
As you can clearly see, killing children and women is permissible in Islam. Mr.
Zaatari is wrong because he is arguing from the
belief that this prohibition is absolute when Islamic sources clearly show that
there were certain cases in which it can be done and is actually encouraged. If
you look at Muhammad’s response, he wasn’t overly concerned that women and
children died among the pagan population, he only claimed, “oh well, they are
apart of them”, in other words, guilty by association. Taking the hadiths Mr. Zaatari used in his
defense along with these hadiths, logically we must
conclude that killing of children is permissible in special circumstances.
My Response
Quennals points have
already been dealt with on these links:
http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm
http://answering-christianity.com/karim/no_killing_of_civilians.htm
So nothing new is brought to
the table by Quennal. if he would like to respond to
those links, he is free to do so and then engage in a dialog with brother Bassam and Karim.
Should I laugh or should I cry? I’ve already looked at these
articles and this is what led me to write my initial response in the first
place. The problem for Zaatari is that these very
same links refute what he has been saying all along:
Zaatari: As I said, the
prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children:
Zaatari clearly believes that this
practice is totally forbidden in Islam. However, it may come as a shock to him
that his own brother and fellow Answering-Christianity writer, Karim, wrote this in the very same link he referred to us
for review:
Saheeh Bukhari
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.
Saheeh Muslim
Book
019, Hadith Number 4320
Chapter
: Prohibition of killing women and children in war
It is narrated
by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and
children
In
islam it is strict forbidden to kill women , children and/or innocents. The only way that they can be killed is as
an unintentional consequence of fighting against the enemy combatants. (http://answering-christianity.com/karim/no_killing_of_civilians.htm)
This is
what we’ve been saying all along, that both women and children can be killed in
Islam providing that it isn’t intentional! This is also in accordance to what
Mr. Shamoun was saying:
Keep in mind that the subheading is not part of the narration, it is added by the
collector of the hadiths. In other words, the statement regarding the killing of women and
children being permissible as long as it isn’t deliberate is not part of the
narration. The hadiths do not explicitly say
this, and yet the compiler assumed that this was the clear implication and
meaning of these narrations.
According
to Zaatari, such action isn’t permitted at all, while we have his fellow Muslim
Karim admitting that it is permissable in certain circumstances! Next Zaatari
turns to Osama Abdallah to help him out on this issue. Osama says:
|
From me, Osama Abdallah:
As further proven beyond the shadow of the a doubt in the two links, the
Prophet peace be upon him was confronted with a situation where right
in the middle of the raid/battle, the Muslims brought to his
attention the problem of women and children being accidentally
killed, and asked for the Prophet's opinion on what to do with the
situation. The Prophet, peace be upon him, commanded the Muslims to continue the battle because it was in the
Muslims' best interest at that time to win these wars. The polytheist trinitarian
pagan is trying to draw the false picture that Islam promotes the killing of
innocent people at any time and any place. This is absolutely false,
and he himself knows that. The proof for him knowing it is clearly seen
in his lame and ridiculous response to brother Sami's Hadiths
above. Instead of answering them, he rather attacked their authenticity
because he knows that they clearly blow away his points. It is clear that because he is a desperate liar, we can't expect much
truth to be uttered by him. |
Since I
can logically assume that this is referring to me, I must say that Mr. Abdallah
has no room to call anyone a liar. In this article, A LIST OF OSAMA
ABDALLAH’S CLEAR CUT LIES AND CONTRADICTIONS, we document some very
embarrassing blunders against Mr Abdallah. If Zaatari and Osama want to hide
behind calling other people liars then they should review this article
carefully, especially the 360 joint argument by Osama Abdallah which made him a
laughingstock on the internet:
http://answer-islam.org/who_really_lied.html
Mr.
Abdallah should take a look in the mirror before criticizing anyone.
He Wrote
Apparently Mr. Zaatari has never seen this article or
purposely overlooked it. Whatever the case, by virtue of his own words, he has
condemned Islam and Muhammad. Notice how he argued against Mr. Shamoun about
this same issue in the OT:
My Response
Apparently you are not the
one who has seen the responses from the Muslims, or you are the one who
purposely over-looked it since our website specifically dealt with those hadiths you just brought up! So I suggest you visit those 2
links I sent you which silence your argument.
I would also like to say that Quenn has so far brought nothing to the table to
defend the massacres of women and children in his Bible. It seems he is trying
to evade the topic at hand, but this just exposes his in-ability to deal with
the arguments set before him, therefore he feels he has to lash out against
Islam.
I did
take a look at these very same articles and they were unconvincing. Zawadi,
another friend of Zaatari does precisely the same thing he accuses Shamoun of
doing. To show you this we repost what Zaatari said about Shamoun:
Also, anyone reading what Shamoun said will actually see that
Shamoun was really not refuting the hadith or saying
the hadiths I showed were false, here is what Shamoun
said:
As a side note, this statement is a third party report. We do not have the
exact words of Muhammad to evaluate them at this point. Yet there is a
narration in Sunan Abu Dawud where Muhammad is directly
quoted:
All Shamoun is saying that this is a third party report, that doesn’t at all
refute the hadith as being un-true. So no, Shamoun
does not refute the hadiths what so ever.
Here, Zaatari chides Shamoun for
calling this a third party report because he mentioned that “the exact words”
of Muhammad aren’t found except in Sunan
Abu Dawud. However, Mr. Zaatari’s reliance on Zawadi backfires on him also:
The Prophet
made some exceptions to the Killing of Women and Children
Saheeh
Bukhari
Volumn 004, Book
052, Hadith Number 256.
Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place
called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it
was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of
exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They
(i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the
Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima
is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."
Saheeh
Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4321.
Chapter : Permissibility of
killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate.
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b
b. Jaththama that the
Prophet of Allah (may peace
be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being
killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.
There are many possible meanings for these Hadith. I was kind of surprised when I read it at first. But we don’t know the EXACT situation or what the Prophet
truly meant. Maybe, maybe THOSE particular women and children were planning to
fight against the Muslims with the enemy.
Maybe the Muslim army just could not have
blown this chance to attack the enemy that they still had to attack them no
matter at what cost in order to stop the risk of more blood shed (do a little
bad for the greater good).
The very fact that the companions of the
Prophet asked the Prophet's permission shows that the Prophet used to be strict
regarding his prohibition on the killing of women and children. However, when a situation arises and there is no choice,
things could get ugly. The Prophet even forbade the cutting down of palm
trees in war, however during the siege of Banu Nadir the Prophet had to make an exception. So
exceptions do arise unfortunately. (http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm)
Zaatari obviously has a problem with
appealing to Zawadi. His
fellow Muslim mentions in his paper that there are some exceptions to killing
women and children in Islam, while Zaatari claims that
it isn’t tolerated on any term. Hence, we have Zawadi contradicting both Zaatari
and Karim. How laughable! Also Zawadi gives some very amusing explanations
including wanting us to accept that “we don’t know the actual meaning” so we
assume that “it was done for the greater good”! This proves what we’ve been
saying all along that “killing of women and children” was permitted in Islam in
special circumstances! Also what are these other meanings for this Hadith? Zawadi
fails to give us this answer whatsoever since he knows of no other meaning!
This is just a cop out! It is very glaring that Zawadi has a hard time trying to reconcile this Hadith with the “prohibition to kill women and children”,
so that’s why he offered the excuse of “we don’t know exactly what the
situation truly was or what Muhammad actually meant”, even though it was
explicit!
I’m glad Zaatari pointed us to these links because
it is self-refuting! Zawadi
for example has a total section called “The Prophet made some exceptions to the Killing of Women
and Children”, even though Zaatari
claims that this isn’t possible since it was totally prohibited to kill them
under any circumstance!
He Wrote
My Response
First two responses are in
order. Firstly, whether these commands that God gave to the Israelites, to go
kill women and children, whether these commands are allowed or not allowed
today is irrelevant. The fact that your God did at one time allow the killing
of women and children is itself bad enough, it seems Shamoun wants us to forget
about the dark history that his Bible contains. The fact is Shamoun’s God did at one time allow the killing of
women and kids, how can we just forget about this?
Secondly, how do you know these commands are no longer to be followed? Your NT
doesn’t even agree with you:
1- 1- 2 Timothy 3:16 states:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
So the NT says ALL scripture is God breathed, and this includes the OT. The NT
tells us that we should look to the whole Bible for instruction, doctrine,
correction and reproof. So hence these commands of killing women and kids can
still be applied by Christians today, they could be followed under the category
of instruction.
As for the rules of warfare being binding upon all Muslims in all times, there
is nothing wrong with that, because to start off there is nothing wrong with
the rules of war in the Quran.
- http://www..>answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm
From reading his response we clearly find that he considers this a dark side of
God’s character, which is bad enough. Next he argues that there is nothing
wrong with the rules of war in the Quran
and Islam in general. Again, it is very apparent that Mr. Zaatari
isn’t as knowledgeable about his own Islamic history for if he considers what
the OT teaches to be wrong, then
Muhammad and Allah would also be condemned as being bad as well! The hadiths that deal with the night raids and the pagans are a
death blow to Mr. Zaatari’s argument. So if he is
worried about Christians killing kids today, then why doesn’t he have a problem
with Muslims doing the same thing also! What’s good for the goose is also good
for the gander! Mr. Shamoun elaborates on this further:
My Response
The night raids have not dealt any blow to my argument since they have already
been adressed. Now
secondly, even if we do compare the night raids with your Bible, they still do
not even compare!
In non of those night raids
did the prophet actually command his fighters to kill women and children! He
was just responding to the question of what about the women and children? He
was just giving an answer, he never commanded the fighters to kill the women
and children. Unlike Quenn's
own Bible, which deliberately tells Moses
and his army to go kill women and kids. So even Quenn's best argument, which is
the night raids fall flat on his face since they don’t even compare with his
own book.
Read those 2 links I posted since they will deal with the issue of the night
raids and will show no evil was meant by the prophet.
Zaatari must be absolutely in denial
to think that the Night raids don’t deal a blow to his argument! He claimed
that Islam doesn’t allow for such killings, when the night raids clearly show
that it does, which is even verified by his own fellow authors, Karim and Zawadi! Another problem for Zaatari
about Muhammad not commanding his followers to kill women and children can
easily be turned against him as we illustrate here:
Claiming that: Muhammad didn’t command his fighters to kill
women and children in wars and battles
Doesn’t
mean that: Muhammad is strictly
prohibiting the killing of women and children in wars and battles.
Zaatari is assuming this in
reference to the night battles. Since he is obviously aware of the weakness of
his answer Zaatari tries to explain the obvious away
by saying:
In non of those
night raids did the prophet actually command his fighters to kill women and
children! He was just responding to the question of what about the women and
children?
Here is Muhammad’s response again:
when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed
during the night raid,
Muhammad said: They are from
them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321)
They
are from them! Muhammad is basically saying that the women and children of the
polytheists are the same as the polytheists themselves. This is all. Zaatari’s
response is weak and pathetic when he claims that:
He was just giving an answer, he never commanded the
fighters to kill the women and children.
There
was no need for Muhammad to give command to kill the women and children since
THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD! The clear problem before Zaatari is simply this:
1.
If Muhammad knew that he was going to fight the polytheists WHY DIDN’T HE
GIVE THE COMMAND NOT TO KILL THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN?
2.
Why didn’t Muhammad reiterate his command after women and children were
dead specifically WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED BY HIS FOLLOWERS THAT WOMEN AND
CHILDREN WERE KILLED?
3.
Since it’s already established (according to Zaatari) that killing women and
children is wrong, WHERE DO WE FIND THESE MUSLIMS BEING PUNISHED FOR KILLING
THEM?
Zaatari
needs to do better than claiming “Muhammad was answering his followers”. The
glaring questions that needed to be answered were left silent by the prophet of
Allah. Zaatari continues to expose himself by saying:
Also my problem is with the fact your Bible ordered women and kids
to be killed. That’s my problem, I also do have a problem with supposed Muslims
who kill women and kids, when did I ever say I didn’t? However so, unlike the
Christian, my book doesn’t command us Muslims to kill women and children, nor
did our prophet Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad specifically said DO NOT KILL
WOMEN AND CHILDREN; your Bible specifically commanded his followers TO KILL
WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
So
Zaatari reveals in detail that he is basing his argument on “appealing to the
emotion of the reader”, which is a major logical fallacy. Just because Muhammad
claimed that “one mustn’t kill women and children” doesn’t mean that Muhammad
applied this command at all times. Let’s give you some examples of how Islam
gives commands and then takes them back.
The following list is taken from Dr.
Muhammad Taqi-ud Din Al-Hilali & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s The Noble Qur’an – English Translation of the Meanings and
Commentary, King Fahd
Complex For the Printing of
the Holy Qur’an, Madinah, K.S.A. You can find this
list pretty much in all the Hilali-Khan’s
Quranic translations,
irrespective of date or publisher.
1. 3:85 abrogates 2:62 and 5:69
(V. 2:62) This Verse (and Verse
5:69), mentioned in the Qur’an
should not be misinterpreted by the reader as mentioned by Ibn Abbas
... (Tafsir At-Tabari)
that the provision of this Verse was abrogated by the Verse 3:85 ... (fn. 1, p.
14; see also fn. 1, p. 157)
2. 9:29 abrogates 2:109
(V. 2:109) The provision of this verse has been abrogated by the
(V. 9:29). (Tafsir At-Tabari) (fn. 1, p. 21)
3. 2:185 abrogates 184
(V. 2:184) The provision of this Verse has been abrogated by the
next Verse: 185, with a few exceptions, i.e. very old person, or pregnancy,
etc. (fn. 1, p. 37)
4. 9:36 abrogates 2:217 and 45:14
(V. 2:217) The provision of this Verse has been abrogated by
Verse 9:36. Jihad cf., (V. 2:216).
(fn. 2, p. 46; see also fn. 1, p. 677)
5. 5:90 abrogates 2:219
(V. 2:219) The provision of this Verse concerning alcoholic
drinks and gambling has been abrogated by the Verse 5:90. (fn. 1, p. 47)
6. 4:12 abrogates 2:240
(V. 2:240): The provision of this
Verse has been abrogated by Verse (4:12). (fn. 1, p. 53)
7. 24:2 abrogates 4:15-16
(V. 4:15) The provision of this Verse has been abrogated by the
Verses of (V. 24:2), ordaining lashing for the unmarried and stoning to death
for the married, when four witnesses testify to the crime. (fn. 1, p. 109)
As you
can see, in Islam, many commands and practices were given at one time but later
canceled out. Hence, to tell me that Muhammad prohibited something doesn’t hold
water!
Secondly, if the hadiths
are not good enough for you, here is a verse which you did not even touch upon:
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!"
This
verse doesn’t help Zaatari. Let’s post it for you, this time with emphasis:
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!" S. 4:75
There are several problems with appealing to this verse:
1.
If Zaatari believes that it
prohibits killing of women and children, apparently he forgot that MEN WERE
ALSO MENTIONED AND THEREFORE SHOULDN’T BE KILLED EITHER. Hence, if Muslims must
use this verse to fight for women and children and not kill them in war, then
it would mean Islam must become a totally pacifistic religion since MEN must
not be killed either SINCE ALL THREE ARE MENTIONED!
2.
If you are saying that it’s ok to kill men then
wouldn’t you be disobeying Allah since men, women, and children are mentioned
as subgroups to not be killed according to you Zaatari?
3.
Where has it been shown in Islamic history that the
women and children of the polytheists were being oppressed?
It is plainly obvious that this verse does nothing for Zaatari’s argument. He has read his own meaning into it,
and yet it backfired against him since if women and children are to be spared
according to this verse, then men must also be spared and hence Islam would
never had to go to war with it’s enemies!! Zaatari
may say that he is isn’t using this verse to refute
the notion that “men” are not be fought. If he tries to say that “he only
wanted to focus on the women and children” aspect he still must show us why
only 2 of these 3 groups must be spared according to his criteria. If he claims
that Muhammad allowed the killing of men, then this would bring up another
contradiction since this verse was used as an argument to spare women and
children, while men are mentioned, but they aren’t spared and must be killed as
the Quran and Hadith clearly have shown!!!
Either way Zaatari loses. Also here is more about how
to treat the polytheists. According to Ibn Kathir Surah
9:5 abrogated every peace treaty that had been made with the idolaters:
This is the Ayah
of the Sword ...
<But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give Zakah, then leave their
way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.>
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq
used this and other honorable Ayat as proof
for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat
allowed fighting people unless,
and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations... In
the two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn ‘Umar
said that the Messenger of Allah said,
<I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify there
is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger
of Allah, establish the prayer and pay Zakah.>
This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah
of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace
between the Prophet and any idolator,
EVERY TREATY, AND EVERY TERM." Al-‘Awfi said that Ibn ‘Abbas
commented: "No idolator
had any more treaty or promise ever since Sura Bara’ah
was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted
before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the
tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir."
(Tafsir Ibn
Kathir (Abridged) Volume 4
(Surat Al-A’raf to the end of Surah Yunus), by Shaykh Safiur-Rahman
Al-Mubarakpuri, First
Edition: May 2000, pp. 375, 377; cf. online edition; bold italic and capital emphasis ours)
The above refers to Surah 9:5 which permits fighting against anyone who isn’t following Islam:
When the forbidden months are past, then FIGHT AND SLAY THE PAGANS WHEREVER YE
FIND THEM, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every
stratagem (of war); but if they repent (become Muslims), and establish regular
prayers and practise regular
charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
S. 9:5
As you can see, this verse doesn’t say “spare women or
children”, it says to fight the pagans, wherever they are found and slay them.
Their only way of escape is to accept Islam and become Muslims. And please note, I didn’t have to read any more
into the verse then what was found.
So my book tells me to fight for oppressed women and children, Quenn's book tells him to kill
the women and children:
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
Actually if we use Zaatari’s
reasoning, his book would prohibit war all together and then contradict itself
with all of the other passages that allow war. As for his comments about the
Bible:
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:
1. Show
me explicitly from the Quran
where Allah spoke against the killing of women and children in the OT
specifically
2. Show
us where the Quran says
“THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG IN KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN”.
In the Quran,
there are verses chastising Christians for believing in the divinity of Jesus,
so there is no excuse for Allah not knowing about the wars of the Bible. Just
in case Zaatari tries to say that the Quran doesn’t mention some of the
Biblical prophets who were commanded to engage in some of these wars are
reported by name, and that he is therefore not obligated to embrace them, we
only remind him of these texts:
We have revealed to thee as We
revealed to Noah, and the Prophets after him, and We revealed to Abraham,
Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, Jesus and Job, Jonah and Aaron and
Solomon, and We gave to David Psalms, and Messengers We have already told thee
of before, and Messengers We have not
told thee of; and unto Moses God spoke directly -- S. 4:163-164 Arberry
We sent Messengers before thee; of
some We have related to thee,
and some We have not related to thee.
It was not for any Messenger to bring a sign, save by God's leave. When God's
command comes, justly the issue shall be decided; then the vain-doers shall be
lost. S. 40:78 Arberry
It even gets worse for Zaatari
since many of the verses he used as a sign of being vile, (i.e. the reference
from Deuteronomy) comes from the Torah in which Allah says:
And in their footsteps (of Moses and
the Jews) We sent Jesus the
son of Mary, attesting to the Torah
WHICH WAS BETWEEN HIS HANDS (bayna yadayhi);
and We gave him the Gospel - therein is guidance and light and attesting to the Torah WHICH WAS BETWEEN
HIS HANDS (bayna yadayhi): a guidance and
an admonition to the righteous." S. 5:46
According to Zaatari, his own
pagan god is a child and woman killer since he authorized the Torah and even
allowed Jesus to follow in the footsteps of the Jews and Moses, who practice
the Torah, the Law. Allah even claims that both the Torah and the Gospel are
“guidance and an admonition to the righteous”! So what Zaatari
calls vile and violent in the Torah, his pagan god claims to be guidance to the
righteous!
It doesn’t stop here, Zaatari’s
god claimed to be the very same God who gave the Bible:
And argue not with the People of
the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as
do wrong; and say: We believe IN THAT
which hath been revealed unto us AND REVEALED UNTO YOU; our God and your God is
One, and unto Him we surrender. S. 29:46
How explicit can this be? Allah claims to be the very same God
who spoke in the OT to the Jews of ancient times!! What is even more
embarrassing is that Muhammad read this same Torah and mentioned this:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited
the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)
to Quff. So he visited them
in their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication
with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the
Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)
who sat on it and said: Bring the
Torah. IT WAS THEN BROUGHT. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and
placed the Torah on it saying: I BELIEVED IN THEE and in Him Who revealed thee.
He then said: Bring me one who is
learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned
the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)." (Sunan Abu Dawud,
Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, "Prescribed
Punishments"), Number 4434)
Noted Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq wrote that:
Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam
and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila
came to him and said: "Do you not allege that you follow the religion of
Abraham AND BELIEVE IN THE TORAH WHICH
WE HAVE AND TESTIFY THAT IT IS THE TRUTH FROM GOD?" He replied, "CERTAINLY, but you have sinned
and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered
to make plain to man, and I disassociate myself from your sin." They said,
"We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth
and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you." So God sent down
concerning them: "Say O Scripture folk, you have no standing until you
observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your
Lord. What has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will assuredly increase
many of them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of the unbelieving
people." (The Life of Muhammad: A
Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul
Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University
Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 268; bold and capital emphasis ours)
And:
The apostle entered a Jewish school
where there was a number of Jews and called them to God. Al-Nu'man b. 'Amr
and al-Harith b. Zayd said to him:
‘What is your religion, Muhammad?’
‘The religion of Abraham.’
‘But Abraham was a Jew.’
‘Then let the Torah judge between us.’
They refused, and so God sent down concerning them: ‘Hast thou not seen how
those who have received a portion of scripture when invited to God's book that
it may judge between them, a party of them turn their backs in opposition. That
is because they say, The fire
will not touch us except for a limited time. What they were inventing has
deceived them in their religion.’ (Ibid., p. 260; bold emphasis ours)
Muhammad judged according to the
Torah and professed complete belief in it. Unlike Zaatari,
he didn’t believe that its instructions to kill women and children were vile
and violent. Zaatari must obviously know more than
his own prophet on this issue, and Muslims should therefore trust him rather
than what their own prophet and Islamic sources say! As for Zaatari’s
anger about Joshua and his conquests (which included the killing of women and
children) this source says:
Joshua
Joshua is not mentioned by name in the Quran but Muslim exegetes claim
that he is the "companion" [Ar. fata] of Moses mentioned in Q 18:60-65 and inherited
prophethood after Moses.
Exegesis on the narratives in the Quran
referring to the Israelites' conquest of the
Let’s illustrate to you how self-destructing Zaatari’s argument really is:
1. He
claims the Bible, particularly the Torah, is vile and violent.
2. Allah
says that the Books of the Bible are guidance to the righteous!
3. This
means that Allah is vile and violent (according to Zaatari)
and his righteous message is evil!!
This conclusion is inescapable! How can you criticize
practices in the Bible and then claim to worship a God WHO INSPIRED THESE VERY
SAME PRACTICES?
Need we say more? We didn’t think
so.
He Wrote
One Muslim apparently was so troubled by this concession on the part of
Muhammad that he claimed that the killing of women and children was abrogated!
Al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah said that he asked the
Apostle of Allah (may peace
be upon him) about the polytheists whose settlements were attacked at night
when some of their offspring and women were smitten. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: They
are of them. ‘Amr b. Dinar used to say: They are
regarded in the same way as their parents.
Al-Zuhri said: Thereafter
the Apostle of Allah (may
peace be upon him) prohibited to kill women and children. (Sunan Abu Dawud,
Book 14, Number 2666)
Not all Muslims share al-Zuhri’s
conviction. The English translator makes the following comments regarding the
above narration:
2018. This tradition allows to kill
women and children of the infidels IN THE BATTLE. The other traditions indicate
that it is prohibited to kill women and children in the battle. These
CONTRADICTORY traditions have been reconciled by saying that the tradition of
al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah has been abrogated.
The other interpretation is that it is allowable to kill women and children
when the settlements of the infidels are attacked AT NIGHT, as they cannot be distinguished
from the fighting men in the dark. (Sunan
Abu Dawud, English
translation with explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh.
Muhammad Ashraf Publishers,
Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984], Volume II, p. 739;
capital emphasis ours)
Ahmad Hasan’s explanation
is no excuse and provides absolute no comfort for the women and children who
were killed, or for their surviving families. A true God-inspired prophet would
be more cautious and not allow such night raids so as to prevent the unnecessary
killing of women and children.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism2.htm
Mr. Shamoun is totally correct, and using Mr. Zaatari’s
logic we must conclude that it is even worse for women and children to be
killed at night, as opposed to the OT when most wars among the Israelites and
their enemies were fought during the day! It is much more difficult to be
careful and avoid collateral damage at night. However this is the same tactical
offensive that Muhammad, the so-called prophet of Allah, instituted! Since the Quran and Hadith are binding on Muslims I guess we should deem
it okay for Muslims to attack at night and kill women and children. Mr. Shamoun
continues:
|
From me, Osama Abdallah:
It's better for them to be killed during the day than the night? This has got to be the most absurd and laughable argument I have ever
encountered in my entire life! Truly, Quennel Gale and his master, Sam Shamoun, are the
biggest jokers on the internet! |
RESPONSE TO OSAMA ABDALLAH: Does
Osama Abdallah call this a
response? What he fails to tackle is the gist of the argument at hand. Zaatari is arguing under the assumption that women and
children weren’t allowed to be killed but what both Mr. Abdallah and Zaatari
failed to address is why would Muhammad attack a tribe knowing that the danger
of killing women and children was greater? To refresh their memory, we post
from this hadith again:
Narrated
As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan,
and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with
the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women
and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet
saying, "The institution of Hima
is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." (Sahih Al-Bukhari,
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256)
If you notice, Muhammad was asked “was it permissible to attack the pagans at night, even though it would expose their women and children to danger?”. He replies to the “women and children” by saying “they are from them”, showing no sympathy whatsoever. He was given a chance to say “no” or say “don’t harm the women and children.” He gave a response that contradicts Zaatari’s stance that Muslims were forbidden from killing women and children since they had to be spared. However, Muhammad mentioned nothing about sparing their lives. Since Zaatari wants us to assume that it was forbidden to kill both women and children, WHY THEN IS MUHAMMAD’S FOLLOWERS ASKING HIM THIS QUESTION? Why didn’t Muhammad say, “you know it’s forbidden to do so”? This hadith gives us a clear instance in which Muhammad and his followers didn’t follow his so-called prohibition! Why would the loving prophet of Allah attack people at night when the danger is at its highest? Instead of answering this question among others, both Zaatari and Osama have to resort to red herrings and misdirection.
END of Part 1. Part 2 to follow shortly.
- Home Back Home
- New Articles Back to New
Section
