Responding to Quennal Gale's analysis of the terrorist Biblical verses

返回新站 返回总目录 Responding to Quennal Gale's analysis of the terrorist Biblical verses

Saami Zaatari has finally finished his response to my articles in which I refuted his gross ignorance on both the Biblical verses which he claims promote terror along with other related issues. Mr. Zaatari obviously had to really take the time and think over his material since it literally took him over a month to formulate a response. He exchanged emails with me weeks ago saying how his material would be out in a couple of days but for some strange reason these days turn into weeks and finally over a month. As usual Mr. Zaatari has managed to corner himself and contradict his own statements that he made in his previous articles, as we shall illustrate here in great detail.

He begins by saying:

Responding to Quennal Gale's analysis of the terrorist Biblical verses

By Sami Zaatari

In his second part response to me, Quennal Gale now tries to attempt to respond to a few of the Terrorist Biblical verses I posted in my initial rebuttal.

All red-herrings will be left out.

Response:

Actually I did more than respond to what Zaatari posted; I used his very own criteria to refute his very claims. Notice that Zaatari calls all of his own words and my analysis of them “red-herrings”. Of course, Mr. Zaatari fails to show how these are red-herrings other than just stating this as some “established fact”. We will repost it to show you just why he didn’t want his readers to view it:

I first wrote how Muhammad beheaded the boys of the Banu Qurayzah tribe:

Al-Tabari also mentioned that Muhammad had the young boys of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah beheaded:

The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, p. 38)

Another source tells us how they determined whether a person had reached puberty:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390)

From (Source)

Mr. Zaatari responded by saying:

My Response

The reason this was done was because the tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with the Muslims. So THEY WERE RIGHTFULLY PUNISHED, also even this episode doesn’t compare with the Bible. Unlike the Bible, the prophet Muhammad spared the women and kids, whereas the Bible just killed the women and the children.

Also boys who had passed puberty back then were considered as men, so those boys who had passed puberty WERE TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS since their tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with the Muslims. So hence Quenn has nothing again. The people who were killed were not innocent, so hence there is no crime. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.htm (Emphasis ours)

If you break down Zaatari’s response he is clearly saying that:

1. It is okay for Muhammad to behead young boys because they broke the treaty with the Muslims.

2. This was rightful punishment to be beheaded because of the broken treaty with the Muslims.

3. Any boy who passed puberty was considered an enemy combatant because of the broken treaty with the Muslims.

4. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

A treaty is defined as:

TREATY

1 : the action of treating and especially of negotiating
2 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : PRIVATE TREATY (2) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state b : a document in which such a contract is set down (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

A treaty is defined as the negotiation or result of a negation between two parties with agreements to hold to certain terms and conditions. In the case of Muhammad, it was a treaty among various tribes. To break a treaty basically means to annul the previous agreements among the binding parties. Hence, Mr. Zaatari has clearly stated that Muslims can attack others just for breaking the treaty and that the punishment they incur is therefore justified.

In the case of the Banu Qurayzah:

1. All young boys would be beheaded

2. Some women who fought would also be beheaded

3. Because the treaty was broken all who passed puberty were considered enemy combatants.

With Zaatari’s criteria being laid out, we can conclude that:

It is okay to kill enemy combatants who break a treaty, since violating such an agreement results in their just and fair punishment. (Source)

Mr. Zaatari obviously has a dilemma because in trying to defend the beheading of the “young boys” of the Banu Qurayzah he claimed that if they passed puberty “they were considered enemy combatants” and deserved to be beheaded! Notice that Zaatari hasn’t presented corroborating data from Islamic history to show that the entire tribe fought against the Muslims and has therefore not proven that “all of these enemy combatants” actually fought Muhammad. Hence, we can conclude that boys who were considered “enemy combatants” who necessarily didn’t fight in a war WERE BEHEADED just because they fit in this group. To show you how this is further substantiated we turn to Zaatari’s very own comments further down in this article in reference to Surah 17:

Where in any of those verses does it mention children and women being killed to the full? WHERE? It seems that Quenn has read something that is not even in the text! Note non of the passages he posts state anything about women and children being killed, all Quenn does is invent this lie on his own!

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

Notice that according to Zaatari’s very own words:

It must be mentioned that women and children are killed and that if it isn’t mention Zaatari assumes that it didn’t happen.

So using this logic we must ask Zaatari this:

1. Where exactly did the Hadith’s or Islamic history OR THE QURAN (since you only believe things found in it) mention that the “young boys” fought against Muhammad and that “they were considered enemy combatants”?

It is obvious that when trying to defend Islam Zaatari will read things into the Islamic texts THAT ARE NOT EVEN IN THE TEXT! In his words and logic:

Note non of the passages he posts state anything about young boys being “enemy combatants along with fighting Muhammad”, all Zaatari does is invent this lie on his own!

As a side note, Zaatari it is “none” not “non”. Learn how to spell before trying to do rebuttals.

In light of the above, I want to ask Zaatari by using the logic he employed to defend Muhammad’s beheading of the “young boys”

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE TEXTS DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUNG BOYS BEING ENEMY COMBATANTS ALONG WITH FIGHTING MUHAMMAD IN THE WAR.

As the wise saying goes, “What is good for goose is also good for the gander”! Since it is obvious that Zaatari won’t be able to find this we wonder why he would leave himself to open ridicule in trying to address my material. It took him over a month to come up with a response and this is the best he can do. The Answering Christianity website must really be desperate because they will publish just about anything on their page. Zaatari sums it up best by saying:

What a nice missionary deception tactic by Quenn, Quenn believes that saying assault them means kill their women and kids! HILLARIOUS! This is what you call the Christian tafsir, which is making an interpretation of something that is not there. Christian tafsir at its best.

According to him, it is deceptive to add something to the text that isn’t there and it is a Christian method of Tafsir. So we need to ask Zaatari these questions:

If it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Islamic text why did you claim the young boys were enemy combatants?
Where does the Islamic text say that “the young boys who passed puberty” fought Muhammad in a war?
If you say that Muhammad was justified in beheading even those males who hadn’t fought him then we must ask you whether you are claiming that this is what Islam prescribes as part of its religion? In other words, does Muhammad’s example set precedence for all Muslim Jihadists to also kill non-combatants?

Because we are quite certain that Zaatari’s statements in reference to “enemy combatants” and “rightful punishment” are not supported by his own sources we therefore conclude with his very own words:

What a nice Muhammadan deception tactic by Zaatari, Zaatari believes that “rightful punishment and enemy combatant along with assuming all young boys passed puberty should have been killed” is considered justifiable! HILLARIOUS! This is what you call the Muhammadan tafsir, which is making an interpretation of something that is not there. Muhammadan tafsir at its best.

I’m sure our readers would agree that Mr. Zaatari is actually the one guilty of doing what he accuses Christians of. Now you know why he wanted to sweep this information under the rug by claiming that it was a mere “red-herring”. He expects his Muslim audience to blindly accept his statements without giving them the opportunity to actually see the other side of the debate.

And now with this point of Zaatari serving as a foundation you’re going to see just how Zaatari’s paper offers nothing more than mere general statements and intellectual hogwash fit for preschoolers who overdose on sugar treats such as cookies and candy.

He Wrote

Deuteronomy 2:32-37

Zaatari believes this passage shows the killing of innocent women and children:

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. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. 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. 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. Deut 2:32-37

Now let’s show you more of Mr. Zaatari’s comments dealing with these related passages:

Also Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up is down, how hilariously not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.

This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.

Zaatari is expressively clear to holding that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone” and not “some” which would leave room for others to be left over. Therefore looking at Deuteronomy 2:32-37 we find that:

1. 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. (God spoke to Moses and told him he will begin to give Sihon’s land for the Hebrews’ possession)

So far no aggressive action has taken place on the part of Moses and the Hebrews, they were only given a word from God and nothing more.

2. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. (After getting the word from God, Sihon decided to attack the Hebrews)

Based on Mr. Zaatari’s criteria, Sihon’s people would be:

1. Considered enemy combatants because they are now in a war.

2. Their punishment would be considered just because they were fighting against the prophets.

3. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

My Response

Basically what Quenn is arguing is that since the people of Sihon came to fight Moses and his army, it was therefore justifiable for Moses and his men to kill all the women and children.

In thinking he is refuting me Quenn further exposes his own book and cult.

Response:

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. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. 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. 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. Deut 2:32-37

Actually Zaatri doesn’t show how I’ve exposed the Bible or Christianity. This is common Muhammadan rhetoric which is basically saying, “I can’t answer what you claim so I will just brush it aside.” In his comments, which we documented earlier, Zaatari clearly says:

Also Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up is down, how hilariously not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.

This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.

Zaatari is expressively clear in holding that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone” and not “some” which would leave room for others to be left over. Also if Zaatari claims that it’s okay to go to war against people who “break treaties’, how much more justifiable is it when someone goes to war in response to an attack by someone else? Also Zaatari is doing the very same thing he claims I did earlier assuming that

ALL is SOME

That is why he questioned the justification of Moses killing “the women and children,” since these groups weren’t fighting in battle even though Deuteronomy 2 clearly says:

Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.

If Zaatari clearly says that ALL CAN’T BE SOME then the conclusion is inescapable that Moses fought EVERYBODY INCLUDING THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHO WERE FIGHTING in the war. This would leave no room for innocent bystanders because the Bible clearly mentions that “ALL” not “SOME” came to fight. So I would have to conclude in Zaatari’s words:

So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.

This is why I say, you can never trust a muhammadean. NEVER.

Now if Zaatari is trying to defend Muhammad’s atrocities along the lines that this was “justifiable” we must only remind him of his very own classification of “enemy combatants”. Anyone who fights against someone is an enemy combatant and the Bible clearly says “ALL FOUGHT MOSES”. This clearly means that the Israelites didn’t kill innocent women and children since they apparently were all fighting in this instance. It is very easy for Zaatari to chide me for saying, “how can all be some,” when speaking of Muhammad murdering young boys who were not combatants. But when I show that the texts in the Bible clearly states that ALL the people engaged the Israelites in battle, Zaatari abandons his own criteria regarding all meaning all in order to slander the Bible.

1. Since “ALL” is not “SOME”

Then

2. There is no way “innocent” women and children were killed because the Bible would have clearly mentioned that “SOME” fought.

Zaatari continues by saying:

Why do I say that? The reason I say that is because when you compare this with the prophet Muhammad they do not even come close, unlike the Bible, the prophet Muhammad has a far higher moral standard of warfare and how to conduct it.

We must ask ourselves, when the prophet went to war with the people WHO HAD FIRST ATTACKED HIM, did he kill them all? Did he slaughter each single one of them till he left non alive? The answer is a simple NO.

The prophet ALWAYS captured his enemies when they had won a battle, not kill them all, the prophet would also spare the women and children!

As we see, in the Bible there is no mercy, the so called men of God just fought till they killed everyone including the little helpless kids and babies.

Quenn also further digs a hole for himself, because note what the verses say:

Response:

Actually Muhammad never said that he adhered to a higher standard of warfare then the Biblical prophets. This is nothing more than the figment of Zaatari’s imagination. In fact Muhammad claimed to adhere to the very same Bible Zaatari attacks:

This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; but it is a verification of that (the Torah and Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands, and the explanation of the Book, WHEREIN THERE IS NO DOUBT, from the Lord of the worlds." S. 10:37

"And BEFORE THIS WAS THE BOOK OF MOSES as a guide and a mercy: and THIS BOOK IS A VERIFICATION (OF IT) IN ARABIC TONGUE to warn those who transgress and as glad tidings to the righteous." S. 46:12

"And lo! It is a revelation of the Lord of the Worlds, which the True Spirit hath brought down upon thy heart, that thou mayest be (one) of the warners, In Plain Arabic Speech. And lo! IT IS IN THE SCRIPTURES OF THE MEN OF OLD. Is it not a token for them THAT THE DOCTORS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL KNOW IT?" S. 26:192-197

Say: "I AM NO BRINGER OF NEW-FANGLED DOCTRINE AMONG THE MESSENGERS, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear." S. 46:9

According to the Quran we see that Muhammad's message is:

1. A VERIFICATION of the Torah and Gospel
2. A VERIFICATION of the book of Moses in Arabic tongue
3. The SCRIPTURES OF MEN OF OLD in Plain Arabic Speech.

In other words if there is no mercy in the Bible and Muhammad is a follower of it, bringing no new doctrine to the people of Arabia, we must then conclude that Muhammad offered no mercy! Notice Zaatari’s comments later in his article:

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it. Do I make myself clear Mr.Quenn? It doesn’t mean that I wont believe anything not mentioned in the Quran, what I don’t believe is things that CONTRADICT the Quran found in a supposed holy book which ascribes things to men of God which contradict God's true word.

So with Zaatari’s comments in mind, let’s ask him these questions:

1. What verses of the Quran do these Bible passages contradict?

2. Since you don’t believe something not mentioned in the Quran, where exactly does the Quran chastise the method of warfare observed in the Holy Bible?

Zaatari clearly stated that he will disbelieve in specific Biblical practices if they are not mentioned in the Quran and/or contradict it. Where are these practices condemned in the Quran? Where does Allah specifically say, “Biblical practices of warfare are wrong”?

Also we want to point out that Zaatari’s comment is again self-refuting and contradictory. He says:

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.

Notice that he says something must be mentioned in the Quran for him to believe it. But he contradicts himself in this same paragraph:

It doesn’t mean that I wont believe anything not mentioned in the Quran, what I don’t believe is things that CONTRADICT the Quran found in a supposed holy book which ascribes things to men of God which contradict God's true word.

So after saying that he won’t believe anything “not mentioned in the Quran” Zaatari contradicts this very stance by saying “it doesn’t mean he won’t believe anything not mentioned in the Quran” but only that which contradicts it! So which one is it Zaatari? If you don’t believe things not found in the Quran and then later claim you would believe something not necessarily found in the Quran, why would you disbelieve material not found in the Quran? Dear reader do you see how intellectually confused and bankrupt this so-called polemicist’s points truly are! He doesn’t know what to believe. He changes positions and stances like the weather!

Mr. Zaatari has committed an obvious logical fallacy in his stance. In each type of anti-Christian argument, Muhammadan propagandists like Zaatari usually employ assumptions and misinterpretations which are commonly called “fallacies.” Read the definition of fallacy and then continue on to get a better understanding of Islamic deceitful conversion tactics:

FALLACY- An idea OR OPINION FOUNDED ON MISTAKEN LOGIC OR PERCEPTION; a false notion. 2. A statment or thesis that is INCONSISTENT with logic or fact and thus renders the conclusion invalid. 3. The quality of being in error; incorrectness of reasoning or belief. 4. The quality of BEING DECEPTIVE. [Latin fallacia, deceit, trick, from fallax (stem fallac-), decietful, from fallere, to decieve]

Fallacy refers to something that is based on incorrect logic, whether presumptuous or intentional. This word originally comes from a Latin word which means deceit or trick!! In the Bible people who deceive others are those who clearly follow the leading of Satan, the master of deceit and craftiness. Zaatari is arguing along this line:

THE TRUE BIBLE VERSES ARE THOSE WHICH AGREE WITH THE QURAN

Zaatari and Muhammadan propagandists who use this argument are intentionally twisting what their Quran says, assuming that the Quran says something which it does not say and proceed to use this mistaken assumption in their debate and argumentation. They are also committing the fallacy of false dilemma in which they intentionally limit the number of options one has to choose from, such as believing that only biblical verses which agree with the Quran are correct and those that do not are therefore false. Hence, the Muslim is claiming that the only uncorrupted verses in the Bible are those that agree with the Quran!

This fallacy is easily refuted since these propagandists by the fact that the Quran nowhere claims that the Bible is only true in so far if it agrees with Muhammad’s revelations. Rather, the Quran quite expressly teaches that the Bible is entirely true and inspired.

If you look at these passages you will see that the Quran instructs Muhammad to enquire from the People of the Book (Jews, Christians) to verify the Quran itself, not the other way around. Read:

"The (Qur'an) is indeed a message for you (Muhammad) and your people, (all of) you shall be brought to account, and ASK those of our apostles whom WE SENT BEFORE THEE, `Did We appoint any deities other than the Most Merciful whom they should worship?'" S. 43:44-45

"If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you..." S. 10:94

"And We have not sent before you (Muhammad) other than men to whom we granted revelation. And (all of you) ASK the people of the (Scripture) Message if you don't know." S. 16:43-44

"To Moses We gave nine clear signs. ASK (O Muhammad) the Children of Israel..." S. 17:101

The Quran is very clear: it is for Muhammad and his followers to turn and ask Jews and Christians dealing with matters of doubt or issues in which they have questions and consult the Bible.

Most of the unbelievers follow only conjecture which certainly cannot serve as a substitute for the Truth. God knows well what they do. No one could have composed this Quran besides God. THIS CONFIRMS THE EXISTING BOOK (THE BIBLE) and explains itself. There is no doubt that it is from the Lord of the Universe. Do they say that Muhammad has invented it? (Muhammad), tell them, "If your claim is true, compose only one chapter like it and call on anyone besides God for help. S. 10:36-38 Sarwar (http://al-shia.com/html/eng/books/quran/quran-and-hadith/10.htm)

Zaatari is trying to force the Quran to say something that was never was intended. Nowhere would we find the Quran asking Jews and Christians to verify their scripture through the Quran. Also Zaatari’s stance of believing something that is only mentioned in the Quran disagrees with Muhammad even further:

Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in WHATEVER BOOK Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal. S. 42:15

Here Muhammad clearly says that he believes whatever God sends down, whether the Torah, Gospel, Quran or any other book that has God's words in it, i.e. this can refer to the NT Epistles or even the Hindu Vedas since Islam claims that Allah sent messengers to all nations!!

To put it simply, Muslims must believe what the Quran says regarding this issue, otherwise they will be viewed as heretics, unbelievers and/or just plain liars for having rejected and/or distorted what their own religious scripture teaches about the Bible.

Moreover, since Zaatari believes that these particular biblical passages on warfare are not God’s words, implying that the Bible has been corrupted, he must present some kind of manuscript evidence in order to show us what the original Bible actually looked like and said. He must provide some hard data telling us what God’s prophets really taught about warfare and the rules of engagement.

More importantly, let us remind the readers once again what said about the use of the word “ALL”:

…but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.

Zaatari abandons his own position by arguing that ALL really does mean “SOME”:

Note it says ALL HIS PEOPLE, what does that mean? That means that even 3 month old babies were included in it!!!! And 1 month old babies! And 1 year old kids!!!!

Is Quenn that silly to actually believe it was okay and justifiable to not try and spare those kids once the battle had dwindled down?

What makes it more hilarious is that Quenn is calling them enemy combatants! Yes, little babies are enemy combatants indeed.

And once again, how did those babies fight? HOW.

Note how twisted Zaatari’s arguments are. He first claimed I was being silly for believing that all could be some, but now accuses me of being silly for not believing that all can be referring to some!

Moreover, Zaatari has assumed without any evidence from either the Bible OR THE QURAN that young infants were included in these battles which the Israelites fought. Zaatari has committed the fallacy of “begging the question”, assuming something he hasn’t proven and then tries to argue this unproven assumption as a means of refuting me.

The fact that the texts specifically say ALL the inhabitants of Sihon came to fight the Hebrews actually proves that there were no infants which were involved or killed. In other words, the text presuppose that everyone which went out to fight the Israelites were of a mature age, at least old enough to be able to fight in a warfare.

Note he states:

3. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

Yes, in your dreams pal. Those people who were killed included little helpless babies, the least God's chosen people could have done was spare them and take them as prisoners, or even adopt them as their own. Instead they kill those babies who did not even have a say in the fight, they just got dragged into the battle. Secondly, the whole episode of babies going into such a battle is very hard to believe anyway, which does throw some doubts into this whole event.

We must reiterate this portion of the biblical text again:

Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.

All of Sihon came to fight the Hebrews, which means that there were no innocent babies in this battle. If Zaatari believes otherwise then he has to:

Explain to us why “ALL” no longer means that everyone went to fight, but that it actually implies that there were “SOME” who did not go with Sihon to war against God’s people.
He must also show us where the Quran speaks against these wars, that these biblical references are contradicting what is taught in the Quran.
Basically, he must show where the Quran says that the Bible is corrupt for saying that prophets killed innocent babies during these wars.

Zaatari’s own words say it best for us:

Because we obviously know that the Quran mentions nothing about innocent children being killed in these battles Zaatari is not applying his own criteria consistently or honestly! After all, Zaatari later says in reference to Surah 17:

Where in any of those verses does it mention children and women being killed to the full? WHERE? It seems that Quenn has read something that is not even in the text! Note non of the passages he posts state anything about women and children being killed, all Quenn does is invent this lie on his own!

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

A better question is where do the biblical passages say that INNOCENT women and children were killed? The only persons killed in this battle were

Sihon , HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE,

Who came out to fight the Hebrews at the battle of Jahaz. These people weren’t innocent.

Since Zaatari is against reading something into a text, I’m sure he would be consistent and not read “innocent women and children” into the Biblical text when it plainly says that “ALL OF THEM WERE FIGHTING THE HEBREWS”. I could care less about Zaatari’s rants and raves and his failed attempts of trying to be logical in explaining Islam, when in reality he has simply shown that he can only posit illogical explanations and commit gross fallacies when dealing with the Biblical text. To show you just how stupid the authors of “Answering Christianity” are and how illogical their method of argumentation is, we recommend the following article by Sam Shamoun:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/abraham_sarah.htm

This great article shows how Osama Abdallah had a problem about Abraham marrying his sister Sarah but fails to seriously consider how his argument greatly affects Islam. This is a great example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the authors of Osama’s site that we are constantly having to deal with.

Quenn also basically gives the same response for:

Deuteronomy 3:1-7

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. 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. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

He once again uses the same weak response which further hurts him and which further shows how superior Allah, Islam, and the prophet Muhammad is compared to his fake god.

Response:

My response was hardly weak, as Zaatari would have you believe. If Zaatari truly believed in his argument he would have never deleted the first half of my article that dealt with these passages. My article wasn’t long since it was the shortest response out of all of my articles addressing him. Here is what Zaatari tries to call weak:

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. 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. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

Not to sound like a broken record, but here again is what Zaatari said regarding the use of “ALL”:

This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.

Zaatari is expressly saying that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone.” It does not mean “some” which would imply that there were non-combatants which the Israelites killed. Looking again at Deuteronomy 3:1-7, the references say:

the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei.

Based on Mr. Zaatari’s criteria, Bashan’s people would be:

Considered enemy combatants because they are now in a war.
Their punishment would be considered just because they were fighting against the prophets.
The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

Since “ALL” of Bashan’s people came out to fight the Hebrews, this leaves no room for innocent people. All of the people would have been enemy combatants. There is no way possible that there could have been innocent women and children since the passage clearly says “ALL” the people of Bashan came to fight against the Hebrews. Logically we can conclude that there was no one under the age of “being an enemy combatant” since the passage clearly didn’t say “SOME” but “ALL” people fought in the war. Zaatari mentioned himself that “ALL” refers to everybody and leaves no possible room for anyone being left behind. Zaatari is obviously angry because his very own trump card, his own argument, was found to be as good as a 2 of clubs. This explains why he has to resort to calling the Biblical God “fake”. It seems we need to remind him of the following verses from his fake Quran:

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. S. 2:62 Shakir

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 Pickthall

According to the Quran, Allah is the same God of the Jews and Christians! Maybe Zaatari thinks that he worships a different god:

Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. S. 109:1-6 Pickthall

For more on the contradictory nature of what Muslims worship see here:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/what_i_worship.html

If Zaatari claims that he doesn’t worship the same God as we do, this is fine since we’ve always said this about Islam in the first place. However this would contradict the Quran which says that the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the very same God. “Answering Christianity” has always propagated this belief. If Zaatari does believe what mainstream Islam believes, then he just called his very own God a “fake”. What more can we say besides laughing at such argumentation! What stupid religion inspires its followers to call their god a fake? Only Islam!

He Wrote

Deuteronomy 6:17-27

Zaatari believes this passage shows the killing of innocent women and children:

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. 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 Israel a curse, and trouble it. But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD. So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel. And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country. Deut. 6:17-27

Here Zaatari posted a passage which obviously doesn’t fit under his established criteria for being considered justified. In this offensive war, Joshua, in the celebrated story of “fighting the battle of Jericho”, is instructed by God to march around the city for seven days before the wall “come tumbling down,” allowing the Hebrews to take the city and its inhabitants. Even though this passage is outside the realm of what Zaatari considers just we actually have more of Zaatari’s words that we present:

He Wrote

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 Holy Land detail the stories associated with Joshua b. Nun. Ibn Kathir reports that Joshua was a great warrior and lived for 127 years. (Source)

My Response

I never denied the prophet of Joshua did I? It seems all Quenn can do is attack straw man. I don’t BELIEVE what your corrupted Bible says, now do you get it? These stories are not mentioned in Quran or hadith, if they were important enough and truthful enough, they would at least be found in the hadiths, but they are not neither.

Secondly, the prophet Muhammad simply judged with the Torah on one simple law, the law of stoning. Even that event didn’t help Quenn as we saw it severely backfired against him, because it showed how corrupt the Torah really was that they needed a MUSLIM to come and judge them with the Torah. (Source)

Even though Zaatari claims to not deny the prophethood of Joshua, his defense is that “he doesn’t believe what the Bible” says about the story of Jericho. According to him, if they were truthful and important they would have been at least found in the Hadiths but aren’t. Apparently Zaatari is ignorant of this verse:

Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd. S. 17:102-104

The problem for Zaatari is that Allah does mention how he gave the Children of Israel THE PROMISE LAND. Surah 17 is named “The Children of Israel”! Here is more from the Quran:

O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our apostles, lest ye should say: "There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)": But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things. Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. "O my people! ENTER THE HOLY LANDE which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." They said: "O Moses! In this land are a people of exceeding strength: Never shall we enter it until they leave it: if (once) they leave, then shall we enter." (But) among (their) Allah fearing men were two on whom Allah had bestowed His grace: They said: "ASSAULT THEM at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on Allah put your trust if ye have faith." S. 5:21-24

If you read this Quranic passage, Allah himself is saying that he is for the Children of Israel “assaulting” the people of the Promised Land! This would include Sihon, Bashan and all the others the Hebrews fought! These same wars were considered atrocities by Zaatari. According to the God-fearing men, whom the Quran mentions, the way to enter the Holy Land was to fight for it in offensively! Just because the Quran isn’t as detailed as the Bible regarding the wars doesn’t mean IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE QURAN! If Zaatari tries to argue that this didn’t refer to all the Hebrew battles with the specific inhabitants of the Holy Land then by his own words he must show us where this specific information is given in the Quran and the Hadiths! Logically we can conclude that:

1. Zaatari believes the Quran is totally true

2. The Quran mentions that the Israelites must assault the people of the Holy Land to get the land

3. Allah promised the Holy Land to the Israelites

4. Because the “assault and issue of the Holy Land is mentioned in the Quran” it is therefore true.

My Response

Note how Quenn cannot respond to the verse, so what he has to do is run around the bush like a coward by bringing up the argument that I to have to believe in this story.

First things first, how is me believing in this story or not an answer to the massacre of women and children in the Bible? HOW? This is a simple run around by Quenn in trying to skip away from the un-deniable terrorist verses in the Bible.

Response:

I find it amusing that Zaatari claims someone can’t respond to his argument when he deleted the first half of my article under the guise that it was some sort of “red herring.” He has shown that he doesn’t know what a red herring is, but simply classifies whatever argument he cannot refute as a red herring so as to avoid dealing with them. Zaatari recognizes that his stance has been used against him. Also Zaatari seems to forget that much of his claim for this story being wrong consisted of his own personal beliefs which required us to refute his every assertion. Since he argued that something must be mentioned in the Quran to be true and we’ve shown that this event was, he now recognizes that it did occur but has to resort to using this excuse below:

Secondly, Quenn's attempt in trying to show that The Quran confirms this story is even worse. Let us Quote the verses he posted and let us see if it says what he believes it does:

The problem for Zaatari is that Allah does mention how he gave the Children of Israel THE PROMISE LAND. Surah 17 is named “The Children of Israel”! Here is more from the Quran:

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

So now that we’ve proven that the story is found in Islam, Zaatari must resort to using an even more laughable excuse, i.e. IT ISN’T MENTIONED IN THE TEXT SPECIFICALLY! Now wasn’t this the same guy who was trying to read “enemy combatants” into the Islamic traditions and “innocent women and children” into the Biblical text EVEN THOUGH NIETHER SOURCE EXPRESSLY STATED THIS? Zaatari’s responses would sound more credible if he didn’t do the very same thing! Also the problem for Zaatari is simply this, since you now know that the story is found in the Quran and Hadith:

Since you now know that the story is found in the Quran and Hadith:

Where does Muhammad say these actions were wrong?
Where does the Quran say that women and kids weren’t being killed?

Muhammad was very familiar with the story of the Torah, which the Hadiths themselves prove:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah IN HEBREW AND THEY USED TO EXPLAIN IT IN ARABIC TO THE MUSLIMS. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136) Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12

And

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " Found also in Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 632 Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460

Muhammad obviously knew about the killing of the women and children but said nothing about it being wrong! What more do we need to state in this case proving that Zaatari’s argument of “terrorism” in the Bible is nothing more than the figment of his imagination! His own prophet and false god deemed it unnecessary to say anything specifically against the Bible and these wars. Since Zaatari obviously believes that:

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

We can ask him this:

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING THAT IT WAS WRONG TO KILL THE WOMEN AND KIDS IN THESE WARS?

If Zaatari tries to appeal to the fact that the Quran doesn’t mention “women and children” being killed then he shouldn’t have a problem with us applying the same method to prove that the Quran doesn’t expressly condemn the Biblical wars!

Zaatari is only refuting himself with these types of arguments. He claims that the Quran doesn’t mention anything about the women and children being killed and yet he attacks the Holy Bible even though the Quran nowhere censures the Bible for its wars! We again need to remind him of his comments:

Zaatari clearly says, “It doesn’t mean he won’t believe anything not mentioned in the Quran,” just as long as it doesn’t contradict the Quran! So we must ask him this:

1. Where does the Bible contradict the Quran regarding the nature of the OT Wars?

2. Where does the Quran condemn these wars as atrocious or inhumane?

Remember Zaatari said he wouldn’t believe it IF IT CONTRADICTS HIS HOLY BOOK! Therefore he must show explicitly from the Quran where the Biblical actions in these ancient wars were wrong. Zaatari’s statement isn’t so much a contradiction as it is a total self-destructive stance!

Quenn also posts a hadith on Joshua, yet the hadith doesn’t mention anything about women and children being killed!

Even though the Bible does mention women and children being killed in the Biblical wars, Zaatari fails to elaborate on the point that his prophet called this a “HOLY MILITARY EXPEDITION”:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "A prophet amongst the prophets carried out A HOLY MILITARY EXPEDITION, so he said to his followers, 'Anyone who has married a woman and wants to consummate the marriage, and has not done so yet, should not accompany me; nor should a man who has built a house but has not completed its roof; nor a man who has sheep or shecamels and is waiting for the birth of their young ones.' So, the prophet carried out the expedition and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the 'Asr prayer, he said to the sun, 'O sun! You are under Allah's Order and I am under Allah's Order O Allah! Stop it (i.e. the sun) from setting.' It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it. He said (to his men), 'Some of you have stolen something from the booty. So one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' (They did so and) the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their prophet. Then that prophet said (to the man), 'The theft has been committed by your people. So all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of their prophet and he said, "You have committed the theft.' Then they brought a head of gold like the head of a cow and put it there, and the fire came and consumed the booty. The Prophet added: Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 353: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.353)

Why would Muhammad call this military expedition “holy”, especially since he knew that women and children were killed? The story of the sun standing still is found in Joshua 10:12-14 in the context of Joshua and the Israelites fighting against the five Amorite kings (cf. 10:1-15):

On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel! Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal. Joshua 10:12-14

Since Muhammad quoted this event specifically why didn’t he chastise Joshua or any of the Biblical prophets for their actions? This is a question that Zaatari has failed to answer yet again.

Quenn then does an amazing red-herring on the ending of his article which does not even deserve a response. Although it did give me a good laugh.

Response:

Zaatari needs to learn the definition of a red herring. I know it sounds nice to quote this to his audience but a red herring is defined as thus:

Red herring

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

"You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?" (Source)

If you notice in this example, the death penalty is being used to illustrate what a “red herring” is, which in this instance refers to the opponent trying to justify death for murderers by appealing to the feelings of the family’s victims. The reason this is a red herring is because it has nothing to do with showing how the death penalty is ineffective but only shows how a victim’s family may feel against the perpetrator. Now my example on the “TRINITY” at the end of my paper dealt specifically with Zaatari’s statements here:

I don’t BELIEVE what your corrupted Bible says, now do you get it? These stories are not mentioned in Quran or hadith, if they were important enough and truthful enough, they would at least be found in the hadiths, but they are not neither.

Zaatari claims that a story must be mentioned in the Quran or Hadith for it to be truthful and important. THEREFORE it is perfectly in the scope of the context of the argument to point out something he does believe in WHICH ISN’T FOUND IN EITHER THE QURAN OR THE HADITH. This is not a red herring because we addressed his accusation that “something must be mentioned in the Quran” in order for it to be true, with Zaatari clearly implying that “anything not being mentioned” would be untrue. Since Zaatari believes that the Trinity is false and he stated that all true things are mentioned in the Quran, then we can investigate this claim and we found his statements to be totally wrong. The Quran doesn’t state anything about the “TRINITY” as we’ve shown in our previous article. Zaatari knows this clearly and because it exposed him yet again he had to delete it so that his readers wouldn’t read it. Zaatari needs to stop confusing sound logical arguments with logical fallacies. My example would have been a red herring if I said something like, “The Trinity is the true doctrine of God proving Islam is false”. This is a red herring because I am not using the “TRINITY” in response to how Zaatari claimed, “something must be found in the Quran to be true”. However when I pointed out that his disbelief of the Trinity wasn’t specifically mentioned in the Quran, which proves that he is wrong ACCORDING TO HIS OWN CRTIERIA, and is therefore not a red herring.

I took philosophy and courses on logic and logical fallacies in college, and I passed with an “A”. Zaatari basically has generalized anything that is specifically mentioned as a fallacy, and so doing commits the fallacy of “hasty generalization”. He ends by saying:

Had these events really happened in the way they did, we would find that it would be in the Quran. But as we see, the Quran does mention some of the stories, but no where does it mention the killing and slaughter of children, this is sufficient enough to show that the Quran corrected the Bible's wrong version. :)

CONCLUSION:

Zaatari has a problem with his conclusion:

If the Quran didn’t mention the slaughter of women and children

Then,

How can it correct the Bible IF THE ACTION IN QUESTION IS NEVER MENTIONED?

In order to correct something, the action needs to be stated, showing what was wrong with it while offering the correct solution. If the action isn’t stated then how can it correct it WHEN IT ISN’T EVEN MENTIONED? Again using Zaatari’s own words:

These stories are not mentioned in Quran or hadith, if they were important enough and truthful enough, they would at least be found in the hadiths, but they are not neither.

If these stories of “slaughter of women and children” aren’t mentioned in the Quran or Hadith, THEN WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THEY AREN’T IMPORTANT OR TRUTHFUL ENOUGH TO BE CORRECTED! Since the Quran specifically says nothing about them, then using Zaatari’s logic we can’t believe that the Quran corrects the Bible thereby implying that these parts are fabrications! Zaatari is the epitome of self-refutation! This response was laughable at best!!

Home Back Home
New Articles Back to New Section