Continuation to Quennals Response
By Sami Zaatari
He Wrote
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.
My Response
Yes, so you agree it was okay to go out and slaughter women and children intentionally. So
no, we are not in agreement, maybe you and Judaism are since these atrocities are found in
your book and you both have to believe in them. However so, my prophet forbade the killing
of women and children. So therefore we are in a major disagreement.
He Wrote
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!
My Response
Here is where you tried to attack the hadith and try to show it was un-reliable:
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.
He Wrote
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?
My Response
Yes, in certain instances children and women were killed in the night raids, this is what
you call collateral damage, I never argued against collateral damage now did I? My main
argument is that in the Bible the children and women were killed INTENTIONALLY, not
because they could not be distinguished in the night.
So hence Quenn posting
these hadiths prove nothing, the hadiths don’t show the prophet commanding his
followers to kill women and children now do they? No, they do not, unlike the BIBLE which
commands its followers to go kill women and kids. In this situation the Muslims could not
tell whether you were a child, or a lady since it was dark, hence there would be no sin on
the person who killed them since they didn’t know they were women and kids. Had
Quennal Gale had any logical sense, he would have seen this, because there is this hadith:
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)
So note, the prophet
completely forbade the killing of women and children. Once we read the hadiths Quenn
posts, it still doesn’t cause a problem at all, but shows that those women and
children killed in the night raid are killed as collateral damage, not intentionally,
since the raiders could not distinguish between the people. However so, Quenn is blind,
and just thinks there is a contradiction between the hadiths when there in fact is none, they actually help us resolve this issue.
Note what Quennal Gale
also said earlier:
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 hence Quenn has to be
consistent. Does he agree with his criteria or not, also note I never attacked that point
of Quenns, what I did attack is that his Bible fails that criteria he sets up. The prophet
Muhammad does not, those women and children who were killed in night raids, were
collateral damage, as Quenn said, it is impossible to avoid them every time, and would be
tolerated if it was kept to a minimum. Hence Quennal should have no problem against the
prophet Muhammad; this shows how inconsistent Quenn really is.
For the millionth time,
my argument is that in the Bible women and children are killed INTENTIONALLY. Not by
mistake, or collateral damage, it seems Quenn cant get this
through his head. If the women and children in the Bible were killed by mistake, or
un-intentionally, then I would be silent, and I would not say anything. However they were
killed intentionally, so therefore I am arguing against that. The hadiths Quenn show prove
nothing, all they show is that women and kids were killed
un-intentionally since the raiders were not able to distinguish between man and women,
child and man.
He Wrote
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:
My Response
Yes, as we shall shortly see, you continue to
attack straw man. Again let me repeat my stance:
My argument is based on
the Bible intentionally allowing women and children to be killed. The prophet forbade the
killing of women in children, however in night raids the people who killed the women and
kids would not be held accountable because they could not distinguish between the women
and children, it was dark and they couldn’t tell very well. Hence those women and
children were killed by collateral damage.
He Wrote
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.
My Response
I am the one laughing here now. When did I ever say it is wrong to kill women and children
by mistake???????? WHERE DID I SAY THAT. You blind missionary,
my argument is that in your Bible women and children were killed intentionally!!!!!!!!!
So if you have been
arguing that women and children being killed in Islam is
allowed unless it is by mistake proves how great Islam is, and how weak Christianity is!
So thank you for proving how great Islam is.
So this whole time you
have built a straw man, since I never said it would be wrong if women and children were
killed by mistake, un-intentionally as collateral damage, I never said that was bad or
wrong. What I did say is that women and children in your Bible were killed INTENTIONALLY.
Do you get it?
What Quenn has to do now,
is go to the terror verses I quoted from his Bible, and show me those women and children
killed were killed by mistake, and not intentionally. He will not be able to do that.
He Wrote
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.
My Response
Excuse me?
Where did I say actions isnt permissible at all? Stop making lies against me, and stop
putting words in my mouth, I said killing women and children intentionally is wrong. So it
seems your whole rebuttal is based on a straw man! How sad.
Secondly, if you reffering to
me as turning to Osama for help to be a cheap shot or an insult to me, need I remind you,
you are the one here nosing your business in a debate you were not part off. The original
debate was between me and Sam, and then you popped out of no where to help your buddy out
Shamoun, so hence what exactly is your point in claiming I turned to Osama for help?
He Wrote
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
My Response
Well my freind, you are a liar
and I showed that in this article by your nice deception tricks. Secondly, you trying to
poke fun at Osama for supposedly writing a bad article doesnt help you out buddy, let us
concentrate on now wouldnt you say? And right now I am
making you the laughing stock on the internet among Muslims when they read how bad your
responses really are, even Christians will have to admit your inconsistent blabbers are
pathetic, put that with your continous straw man attacks.
Secondly, you claim if I want
to hide? Need I remind you once again, you NEVER informed of any of your rebuttals, your
buddy Shamoun had to tell me. So Quenn, why didnt you have the guts to email me telling me
about your pathetic responses, did you have something to hide? Did you not want me to find
them? So the only one hiding is you.
Again, dont throw stones if
you live in a glass house!
He Wrote
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:
My Response
If you find Zawadi’s response unconvincing, then write a response to him, so he like me, can crush you and further embaress you.
He Wrote
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!
My Response
First off, I suggest you pick
your color fonts more wisely next time, since alot of people’s eyes are going to get
annoyed by the one you choose for highlighting Zawadi.
Now to your comments, my
appealing to Zawadi does not backfire at all, I never said it would be bad if women and
children were killed un-intentionally. Again, Quennal doesnt understand my main argument,
here it is again:
He Wrote
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!
My Response
Another
straw man, in fact to completely expose Quenn, I will quote myself where I show that in
Islam, Allah did kill women and kids, in fact I said that in the first rebuttal of mine on
this debate subject!
AND
When Allah destroys a place with a natural disaster the deaths of the inhabitants is almost instant and feeling not much pain. Secondly, yes some women and kids are among the dead, however so in Islam babies automatically go to heaven! So hence when Allah destroys a town, and babies are killed, the babies go straight to heaven which is much better than this world, hence the babies have a free ride you could say
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm
So you see
how this missionary is lying. I never said it is not permissible to kill women and
children under any circumstance; you are putting words in mouth. As everyone sees, in my
first response, in this whole debate, in my first response to Shamoun I said that yes
Allah did kill children! So it seems Quenn is in straw man land. All he is doing is
representing what I said, and attacking me from there. How sad.
So Quenn, you
should really apologize for this, it is so obvious to anyone reading this that you have
completely missed the boat and have miss-interpreted me big time. The most decent thing
you could do is apologize for doing it, and you will get a lot of respect from us here at
answering-Christianity, trust me. Don’t let your pride get to you, just do the right
thing and apologize.
Also again,
what I am against is women and children being killed with such brutal ness which is found
in the OT.
He Wrote
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.
My Response
The women and children
killed in the night raids were killed by collateral damage, not intentionally, I am not
against collateral damage!!!!!!
You know I honestly feel
embarrassed for Quenn because of all these straw mans he has done against me. It has
reached the point where it’s not even pleasurable to call him out for it; he has done
it so many times it has become so tiring on me!
He Wrote
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.
My Response
There is nothing weak
and pathetic about it; did he order them to kill the women and children like your God did?
NO. Secondly, the raiders had no choice, they could not distinguish between women and man,
man and child. So therefore it was an unfortunate incident, at least I can say it was not
intentionally. Unlike Quennals Bible.
He Wrote
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”.
My Response
Again, these were night
raids, the fighters would not be able to distinguish, and during these fights there was no
time to think and stop, they had to do what they had to do, they could not distinguish the
women from the man, and the man from the child. They did not kill the women and children
intentionally, had they known they were women and children they would not kill them, but
there was no way they could tell.
What I do say is to kill
women and children intentionally like in the OT, killing them by mistake is unfortunate
and sad, but that is life. Now do you get me?
He Wrote
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.
My Response
I would like you to show
me where the prophet abrogated that rule, because it sure wasn’t abrogated by those
night raids, women and children being killed in the night raids was un-avoidable and not
intentionally. So show me where that hadith has been abrogated.
He Wrote
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.
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 (
7. 24:2 abrogates 4:15-16
(V.
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!
My Response
He Wrote
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?
My Response
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
Note the verse is
telling Muslims to fight for WEAK OPRESSED people, which include men, women and children.
So hence Quenns silly point about ‘oh wait then this means you cant kill men to’
means nothing, since this verse is talking about oppressed people.
Now my point in showing
this verse is that the Quran commands us to fight for the oppressed people, including man,
while Quenns book, the Bible commands him to kill women and children. How sick is that? So again, my book commands me to fight for women
and children, Quenns book commands him to kill them.
He Wrote
My Response
Firstly, again, the
verse is talking about OPRESSED PEOPLE. Smart one, my aim in showing the verse was to show
how my book commands me to fight for women and children, while your book commands you to
kill them.
It is also funny to see
how Quenn just blabbers off into his own world with all these arguments which are a result
of his mis-interpretation. AGAIN.
He Wrote
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.
My Response
He Wrote
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.
My Response
The verse is talking
about the WEAK, OPRESSED people. Is Quenn blind? Can’t he see that? The verse is
telling you to fight for the weak oppressed women and man, and child; this would naturally
mean fighting their oppressors who are other men! So
this is quite amusing that Quenn cannot even read this verse properly. This verse is
strictly speaking about the OPRESSED people. Again, my point in posting the verse is to
show my Quran tells us to fight for oppressed women and children, your Bible tells you go
and kill women and children. As they say, truth stands clear from falsehood.
He Wrote
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.
My Response
Secondly, I don’t
really believe all these events in the OT as they exactly happened; your book doesn’t
really apply to me. What is also a bit more amusing is that this book called Deuteronomy,
is most likely not even written by Moses since the very same book talks about his death
and burial! So hence the books authenticity is in doubt. I believe the true narrations of
the prophets are found in the hadiths and the Quran, all other sources are doubtful and
not to trustworthy.
He Wrote
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.
My Response
So the only ignorant one
here is you, who is trying to mix up what I am saying and attack me from there. Again, if
you don’t get it, I don’t really believe those stories in the OT, I doubt their
authenticity and truthfulness.
He Wrote
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”.
My Response
Actually I counter
challenge Quenn and his big mouth to:
2- Show me where Allah
condoned the acts of the OT.
The burden of proof is
not on my shoulders, it is on Quenns shoulders to show me that the Quran condones the acts
mentioned in the OT.
Quennal Gale is also
committing a fallacy, just because something is wrong does not mean the Quran has to
specifically address it. Does the Quran have to condemn every evil act done during the
ages? No, it does not. Using such logic is absurd on Quenns part, so no, the burden of
proof is on his shoulders to show where exactly in the Quran that these events are
mentioned. As far as I am concerned, the fact they are not mentioned is enough to doubt
their authenticity and truthfulness.
He Wrote
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