Continuation to Quennals Response - Part 2B.

Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

Continuation to Quennals Response


Part 2 (B)

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 Iraq and Afghanistan which are predominately Muslim countries. The perpetrators even find ways to justify these actions and show no sympathy at all. Mr. Zaatari resorts to using these hadiths, which he feels is enough to prove his case:

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:

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.

So yes you did try to brush the hadith aside by making that comment, it is obvious you were trying to show the hadith wasn’t to reliable, so therefore I suggest you remember what you write.

 

 

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.

Now do you get it?

 

 

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?

Also, all Osama does is post some small information, unlike you, your here writing a long response to me on a debate which you are not involved in! So hence Shamoun turned to you for help to, and if that is something bad, then what exactly is your point? As usual you had non, you tried to take a cheap shot which falls flat on your face since you are the one writing an article on a topic you werent involved in.

As they say, dont throw stones if you live in a glass house.

 

 

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:

My main argument is that in the Bible, women and children were killed INTENTIONALLY, not by mistake. Secondly they were killed in a barbaric way. Had the women and children been killed by mistake I would not object. Had God also killed them in a less brutal way I would also not object, however the fact they were killed with such barbarism is what I am arguing.

Why would I completly object to the killing of women and children when I as a Muslim admit that God did wipe out several towns where woman and children lived, and they were among the dead. So again, Quenn is building up a straw man. My argument is in the brutalness in the way women and children were killed with the intention of killing them. That is my argument. So stop mis-representing me. Now do you understand my position Quenn?

This is becoming very tiring for me now, that I have to keep repeating myself over and over again. This is supposed response by Quennal Gale is not a response at all, he should rename his article to: My straw-mans against Zaatari.

Again, if women and children are killed by mistake, then I accept that, what I dont accept is when they are killed intentionally in such a brutal way as found in the OT, by the sword. The same thing with brother Karim.

 

 

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

The following list is taken from Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud Din Al-Hilali & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s The Noble Qur’an – English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, King Fahd Complex For the Printing of the Holy Qur’an, Madinah, K.S.A. You can find this list pretty much in all the Hilali-Khan’s Quranic translations, irrespective of date or publisher.

 

1. 3:85 abrogates 2:62 and 5:69

 

(V. 2:62) This Verse (and Verse 5:69), mentioned in the Qur’an should not be misinterpreted by the reader as mentioned by Ibn Abbas ... (Tafsir At-Tabari) that the provision of this Verse was abrogated by the Verse 3:85 ... (fn. 1, p. 14; see also fn. 1, p. 157)

 

2. 9:29 abrogates 2:109

 

(V. 2:109) The provision of this verse has been abrogated by the (V. 9:29). (Tafsir At-Tabari) (fn. 1, p. 21)

 

3. 2:185 abrogates 184

 

(V. 2:184) The provision of this Verse has been abrogated by the next Verse: 185, with a few exceptions, i.e. very old person, or pregnancy, etc. (fn. 1, p. 37)

 

4. 9:36 abrogates 2:217 and 45:14

 

(V. 2:217) The provision of this Verse has been abrogated by Verse 9:36. Jihad cf., (V. 2:216). (fn. 2, p. 46; see also fn. 1, p. 677)

 

5. 5:90 abrogates 2:219

 

(V. 2:219) The provision of this Verse concerning alcoholic drinks and gambling has been abrogated by the Verse 5:90. (fn. 1, p. 47)

 

6. 4:12 abrogates 2:240

 

(V. 2:240): The provision of this Verse has been abrogated by Verse (4:12). (fn. 1, p. 53)

 

7. 24:2 abrogates 4:15-16

 

(V. 4:15) The provision of this Verse has been abrogated by the Verses of (V. 24:2), ordaining lashing for the unmarried and stoning to death for the married, when four witnesses testify to the crime. (fn. 1, p. 109)

 

As you can see, in Islam, many commands and practices were given at one time but later canceled out. Hence, to tell me that Muhammad prohibited something doesn’t hold water!

 

 

My Response

As you can see, Quenn does not show us where this hadith of the prophet is abrogated. What makes this more amusing is that Quenn shows several verses which have been abrogated and so on, yet he has not information regarding whether this hadith has been abrogated. Hence he is only guessing and assuming. So again, show me where this hadith has been abrogated, I shall be waiting until you do so.

 

 

He Wrote

Secondly, if the hadiths are not good enough for you, here is a verse which you did not even touch upon:


004.075

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

 

This verse doesn’t help Zaatari. Let’s post it for you, this time with emphasis:

 

And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" S. 4:75

 

There are several problems with appealing to this verse:

 

1.      If Zaatari believes that it prohibits killing of women and children, apparently he forgot that MEN WERE ALSO MENTIONED AND THEREFORE SHOULDN’T BE KILLED EITHER. Hence, if Muslims must use this verse to fight for women and children and not kill them in war, then it would mean Islam must become a totally pacifistic religion since MEN must not be killed either SINCE ALL THREE ARE MENTIONED!

 

2.      If you are saying that it’s ok to kill men then wouldn’t you be disobeying Allah since men, women, and children are mentioned as subgroups to not be killed according to you Zaatari?

 

3.      Where has it been shown in Islamic history that the women and children of the polytheists were being oppressed?     

 

 

My Response

It seems Quenn has a hard time reading the verse; here is what it says again:

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

It is plainly obvious that this verse does nothing for Zaatari’s argument. He has read his own meaning into it, and yet it backfired against him since if women and children are to be spared according to this verse, then men must also be spared and hence Islam would never had to go to war with it’s enemies!! Zaatari may say that he is isn’t using this verse to refute the notion that “men” are not be fought. If he tries to say that “he only wanted to focus on the women and children” aspect he still must show us why only 2 of these 3 groups must be spared according to his criteria. If he claims that Muhammad allowed the killing of men, then this would bring up another contradiction since this verse was used as an argument to spare women and children, while men are mentioned, but they aren’t spared and must be killed as the Quran and Hadith clearly have shown!!! Either way Zaatari loses. Also here is more about how to treat the polytheists.

 

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

Actually, Quenn again forgets the hadith. Yes, we are permitted to fight those evil pagans, however so, we have limits also, not just to go out and fight like barbarians in the OT.

 

 

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 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

 

 

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

It seems Quenn really doesn’t understand how to read things, here is the verse again:

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

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

As for his comments about the Bible:

 

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


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

 

 

 

My Response

I would like to thank Quenn for shooting himself in the foot again, note his hypocrisy:

, 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

Note Quenn is now getting all fired up claiming I am slandering a prophet, what makes this so amusing is that Quennal Gale has no problems in insulting the prophet Muhammad! So Quenns blatant hypocrisy is out for all to see, when he feels that I am insulting a prophet, he acts like it’s the end of the world, yet when he insults the prophet Muhammad, he feels it’s alright.

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

My Response

This is highly amusing, what I did attack was the teachings found IN THE BIBLE. Get it? Your Bible claims that Lot had sex with his daughters!!! Am I supposed to believe that to? What your Bible says on prophets, and what my Quran says on them is something completely different. Do not mix two with one, I am attacking your Bible, as I said I doubt those stories are even true, and I doubt that the modern day OT you have was even written by Moses, specifically the first 5 books.

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:

1- Show me where the Quran mentioned any of these stories of women and children being killed and wiped out in the way they were.

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

 

We sent Messengers before thee; of some We have related to thee, and some We have not related to thee. It was not for any Messenger to bring a sign, save by God's leave. When God's command comes, justly the issue shall be decided; then the vain-doers shall be lost. S. 40:78 Arberry

It even gets worse for Zaatari since many of the verses he used as a sign of being vile, (i.e. the reference from Deuteronomy) comes from the Torah in which Allah says:

And in their footsteps (of Moses and the Jews) We sent Jesus the son of Mary, attesting to the Torah WHICH WAS BETWEEN HIS HANDS (bayna yadayhi); and We gave him the Gospel - therein is guidance and light and attesting to the Torah WHICH WAS BETWEEN HIS HANDS (bayna yadayhi): a guidance and an admonition to the righteous." S. 5:46

 

My Response

Yes, this verse was referring to the un-corrupted Torah that was still intact. Unlike the ones you have today. The ones you have today are highly doubtful, full of contradictions, mistakes, inconsistencies, that it would be the joke of the century to actually claim that this is the book of God. Lest Quenn has a problem with that, I guide him to these articles:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/paul_contradicted_himself.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/parallel_passages_in_bible.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/parallel_passages_in_the_bible.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/contradictions_in_the_psalms.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/false_prophecies_in_the_bible.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/argument_of_jeremiah_8.htm

 

Quenn is free to read those articles in and engage in dialog with brother Abdullah Smith, who I am sure will be more than happy to refute you again like he did before:

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_quenalle_gale_1.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_quenalle_gale_2.htm

 

Also visit this link which talks about the Quran’s stance on the Bible/Torah:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltomattslick1.htm

 

Here are some more:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_not_error_free.htm

 

 

He Wrote

According to Zaatari, his own pagan god is a child and woman killer since he authorized the Torah and even allowed Jesus to follow in the footsteps of the Jews and Moses, who practice the Torah, the Law. Allah even claims that both the Torah and the Gospel are “guidance and an admonition to the righteous”! So what Zaatari calls vile and violent in the Torah, his pagan god claims to be guidance to the righteous!

 

My Response

Correction, the only pagan god we have here is yours, who sacrificed his own innocent son just like all the pagans sacrificed their innocent children, so you trying to be insulting and smart backfires against you once again.

Also Quenn commits another blunder when he assumes the Torah and Gospel mentioned in the Quran are referring to his porn book of a Bible:

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

Visit this link and read point one, and you will see why I do call your un holy Bible a porn book.

 

He Wrote

doesn’t stop here, Zaatari’s god claimed to be the very same God who gave the Bible:

And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe IN THAT which hath been revealed unto us AND REVEALED UNTO YOU; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender. S. 29:46

 

 

My Response

Yes, the God who gave the TRUE Bible, and actually, call it by its correct name, which is the Gospel, not the Bible.

 

He Wrote

Allah claims to be the very same God who spoke in the OT to the Jews of ancient times!! What is even more embarrassing is that Muhammad read this same Torah and mentioned this:

 

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:

 

A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

 

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. IT WAS THEN BROUGHT. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I BELIEVED IN THEE and in Him Who revealed thee.

 

He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, "Prescribed Punishments"), Number 4434)

 

 

My Response

To begin with, if someone brought the corrupted Torah to me today, I would do the same thing the prophet did, because at the end of the day, yes the Torah was revealed by the true God, its corruption came from normal men. Even with that said, there is still some truth intact in these books, which is why we believe in them. They still contain the main doctrine message which is there is only one God.

However, what makes this very interesting, is that Quenns hadith actually backfires against him, because this hadith actually proves the Bible corruption, rather than the Bible’s authenticity, here is the back round information of this event:

The Jews Alter and Change the Law, Such As Stoning the Adulterer

 

[ ]

 

(They change the words from their places:) by altering their meanings and knowingly distorting them after they comprehended them,

 

[ ]

(they say, "If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!") It was reported that this part of the Ayah was revealed about some Jews who committed murder and who said to each other, "Let us ask Muhammad to judge between us, and if he decides that we pay the Diyah, accept his judgement. If he decides on capital punishment, do not accept his judgement.'' The correct opinion is that this Ayah was revealed about the two Jews who committed adultery. The Jews changed the law they had in their Book from Allah on the matter of punishment for adultery, from stoning to death, to a hundred flogs and making the offenders ride a donkey facing the back of the donkey. When this incident of adultery occurred after the Hijrah, they said to each other, "Let us go to Muhammad and seek his judgement. If he gives a ruling of flogging, then implement his decision and make it a proof for you with Allah. This way, one of Allah's Prophets will have upheld this ruling amongst you. But if he decides that the punishment should be stoning to death, then do not accept his decision.'' There are several Hadiths mentioning this story. Malik reported that Nafi` said that `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "The Jews came to Allah's Messenger and mentioned that a man and a woman from them committed adultery. Allah's Messenger said to them,

 

 

(What do find of the ruling about stoning in the Tawrah) They said, `We only find that they should be exposed and flogged.' `Abdullah bin Salam said, `You lie. The Tawrah mentions stoning, so bring the Tawrah.' They brought the Tawrah and opened it but one of them hid the verse about stoning with his hand and recited what is before and after that verse. `Abdullah bin Salam said to him, `Remove your hand,' and he removed it, thus uncovering the verse about stoning. So they said, He (`Abdullah bin Salam) has said the truth, O Muhammad! It is the verse about stoning.' The Messenger of Allah decided that the adulterers be stoned to death and his command was carried out. I saw that man shading the woman from the stones with his body.'' Al-Bukhari and Muslim also collected this Hadith and this is the wording collected by Al-Bukhari. In another narration by Al-Bukhari, the Prophet said to the Jews,

 

ǿ

 

(What would you do in this case) They said, "We would humiliate and expose them.'' The Prophet recited,

 

[ ]

 

(Bring here the Tawrah and recite it, if you are truthful.) So they brought a man who was blind in one eye and who was respected among them and said to him, "Read (from the Tawrah).'' So he read until he reached a certain verse and then covered it with his hand. He was told, "Remove your hand,'' and it was the verse about stoning. So that man said, "O Muhammad! This is the verse about stoning, and we had hid its knowledge among us.'' So the Messenger ordered that the two adulterers be stoned, and they were stoned. Muslim recorded that a Jewish man and a Jewish woman were brought before Allah's Messenger because they committed adultery. The Messenger of Allah went to the Jews and asked them,

 

 

(What is the ruling that you find in the Tawrah for adultery) hThey said, "We expose them, carry them (on donkeys) backwards and parade them in public.'' The Prophet recited;

 

[ ]

 

(Bring here the Tawrah and recite it, if you are truthful.) So they brought the Tawrah and read from it until the reader reached the verse about stoning. Then he placed his hand on that verse and read what was before and after it. `Abdullah bin Salam, who was with the Messenger of Allah , said, "Order him to remove his hand,'' and he removed his hand and under it was the verse about stoning. So the Messenger of Allah commanded that the adulterers be stoned, and they were stoned. `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "I was among those who stoned them and I saw the man shading the woman from the stones with his body.'' Abu Dawud recorded that Ibn `Umar said, "Some Jews came to the Messenger of Allah and invited him to go to the Quff area. So he went to the house of Al-Midras and they said, `O Abu Al-Qasim! A man from us committed adultery with a woman, so decide on their matter.' They arranged a pillow for the Messenger of Allah and he sat on it and said,

 

ɻ

 

(Bring the Tawrah to me.) He was brought the Tawrah and he removed the pillow from under him and placed the Tawrah on it, saying,

 

߻

 

(I trust you and He Who revealed it to you.) He then said,

 

 

(Bring me your most knowledgeable person.) So he was brought a young man... '' and then he mentioned the rest of the story that Malik narrated from Nafi`. These Hadiths state that the Messenger of Allah issued a decision that conforms with the ruling in the Tawrah, not to honor the Jews in what they believe in, for the Jews were commanded to follow the Law of Muhammad only. Rather, the Prophet did this because Allah commanded him to do so. He asked them about the ruling of stoning in the Tawrah to make them admit to what the Tawrah contains and what they collaborated to hide, deny and exclude from implementing for all that time. They had to admit to what they did, although they did it while having knowledge of the correct ruling. What made them go to the Prophet for judgement in this matter was their lusts and desires, hoping that the Prophet would agree with their opinion, not that they believed in the correctness of his judgment. This is why they said,

 

[ ]

 

(If you are given this,) referring to flogging, then take it,

[ ]

 

(but if you are not given this, then beware!) and do not accept or implement it. Allah said next,

[ ]

 

(And whomsoever Allah wants to put in Fitnah, you can do nothing for him against Allah. Those are the ones whose hearts Allah does not want to purify; for them there is a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a great torment. They (like to) listen to falsehood, to devour Suht) `Suht' refers to bribes, as Ibn Mas`ud and others stated. The Ayah states that if one is like this, how can Allah cleanse his heart and accept his supplication Allah said to His Prophet ,

 

[ ]

 

(So if they come to you...) so that you judge between them,

 

[ ]

 

(either judge between them, or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot hurt you in the least.) meaning, there is no harm if you do not judge between them. This is because when they came to you to judge between them, they did not seek to follow the truth, but only what conformed to their lusts. We should mention here that Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, As-Suddi, Zayd bin Aslam, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, and several others said that this part of the Ayah was abrogated by Allah's statement,

 

[ ]

 

(And so judge among them by what Allah has revealed.)

 

[ ]

 

(And if you judge, judge with justice between them.) and with fairness, even if the Jews were unjust and outcasts from the path of fairness,

 

[ ]

 

(Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.)

 

So note, this whole incident actually proves Bible corruption! Note the Jews were hiding this verse on stoning, and there are several ways in which you corrupt a book. You can corrupt a book by altering its text, hiding its meaning or miss-interpreting it. Each one is a form of corruption. However so, as we see, the Jews were hiding the rule of stoning, it reached the point where most Jews weren’t even following this law and didn’t even believe it existed! So who knows what else those rabbis hid and altered with their distorted miss-interpretation, this is just one case in which they were expose and the truth was revealed, no one knows how many more rulings were hidden away by the rabbis to the point where no one knew of these rules, to which they suddenly disappear.

Logic tells you that if you mis-interpret a book over a long period of time, the book will become corrupt, and if you start to add your own interpretations to the book, and hide the real meaning to it, this will also corrupt the book over time, your own interpretation will find its way into the book while the true meaning will be blotted out.

Here is some more information regarding Jewish corruption of their Torah:

Allah states that the Jews, may Allah's continued curse fall on them until the Day of Resurrection, have purchased the wrong path instead of guidance, and ignored what Allah sent down to His Messenger Muhammad . They also ignored the knowledge that they inherited from previous Prophets, about the description of Muhammad , so that they may have a small amount of the delights of this life.

 

[ ]

 

(and wishing that you should go astray from the right path.) for they would like that you disbelieve in what was sent down to you, O believers, and that you abandon the guidance and beneficial knowledge that you have.

 

[ ]

 

(Allah has full knowledge of your enemies) meaning, Allah has better knowledge of your enemies, and He warns you against them.

 

[ ]

 

(and Allah is sufficient as a Wali (Protector), and Allah is Sufficient as a Helper) He is a Sufficient Protector for those who seek refuge with Him and a Sufficient Supporter for those who seek His help. Allah then said,

 

[ ]

 

(there are some who displace words from (their) right places) meaning, they intentionally and falsely alter the meanings of the Words of Allah and explain them in a different manner than what Allah meant,

 

[ ]

 

(And say: "We hear your word and disobey) saying, "We hear what you say, O Muhammad, but we do not obey you in it,'' as Mujahid and Ibn Zayd explained. This is the implied meaning of the Ayah, and it demonstrates the Jews' disbelief, stubbornness and disregard for Allah's Book after they understood it, all the while aware of the sin and punishment that this behavior will earn for them. Allah's statement,

 

[ ]

 

(And "Hear and let you hear nothing.'') means, hear our words, may you never hear anything, as Ad-Dahhak reported from Ibn `Abbas. This is the Jews' way of mocking and jesting, may Allah's curse descend on them.

 

[ ]

 

(And Ra`ina, with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion.) meaning, they pretend to say, `Hear us,' when they say, Ra`ina (an insult in Hebrew, but in Arabic it means `Listen to us.').' Yet, their true aim is to curse the Prophet . We mentioned this subject when we explained Allah's statement,

 

[ ]

 

(O you who believe! Say not Ra`ina but say Unzurna (make us understand)). Therefore, Allah said about them, while they pretend to say other than what they truly mean,

 

[ ]

 

(With a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion) because of their cursing the Prophet . Allah then said,

 

 

[ ]

 

(And if only they had said: "We hear and obey'', and "Do make us understand,'' it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except a few.) meaning, their hearts are cast away from the path of righteousness and therefore, no beneficial part of faith enters it. Earlier, when we explained,

 

[ ]

 

(so little is that which they believe) which means they do not have beneficial faith.

 

 

So note, the Jews ALTERED the words of God, and explained them in a different manner, meaning they added their own interpretation to it corrupting the ORIGINAL message and mixing their own message up with the truth. This is perfectly summed up by the Quran when it states:

 

 

002.079
YUSUFALI: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

This verse speaking about the children of Israel who were given the Torah, note it says woe to them for writing the book with their own hands and saying it is from Allah. This means they wrote false books, and claimed they were from God i.e. the Torah. What they basically did was make a corrupted version of the Torah by writing it with their own hands, with their own miss-interpretations, added with their own rules, and hiding out the truth.

 

However so, I would like to point out that this has nothing to do with the REAL TOPIC. All of a sudden the debate is moving on biblical terrorism to what the Quran says about the Bible. A typical missionary move, to diverge off topic, so they can argue 10 different point and make it seem like they have really established anything. So Quenn, stick to the original topic please. You couldn’t do it the first time, when you ran from Biblical terrorism, then you jumped to try and show Islam teaches terrorism etc, and you failed again, now you are running to a third completely different topic.

 

STAY ON TOPIC.

 

 

He Wrote

Noted Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq wrote that:

 

Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila came to him and said: "Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham AND BELIEVE IN THE TORAH WHICH WE HAVE AND TESTIFY THAT IT IS THE TRUTH FROM GOD?" He replied, "CERTAINLY, but you have sinned and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to make plain to man, and I disassociate myself from your sin." They said, "We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you." So God sent down concerning them: "Say O Scripture folk, you have no standing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord. What has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will assuredly increase many of them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of the unbelieving people." (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 268; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

And:

 

The apostle entered a Jewish school where there was a number of Jews and called them to God. Al-Nu'man b. 'Amr and al-Harith b. Zayd said to him:
‘What is your religion, Muhammad?’
‘The religion of Abraham.’
‘But Abraham was a Jew.’
Then let the Torah judge between us.’
They refused, and so God sent down concerning them: ‘Hast thou not seen how those who have received a portion of scripture when invited to God's book that it may judge between them, a party of them turn their backs in opposition. That is because they say, The fire will not touch us except for a limited time. What they were inventing has deceived them in their religion.’ (Ibid., p. 260; bold emphasis ours)

 

 

My Response

Quennals source doesn’t help him, note the Jews refused to judge by the Torah, why? Were they afraid that the complete corruption of the book would expose them? It seems so, which is exactly why they didn’t judge from the Torah.

Secondly, contrary to the Jews belief, Abraham was not a Jew, and the Torah was not revealed until after him as the Quran says. However so as we see, the prophet Muhammad did not disagree with them when they said it, and he told them bring the Torah, he was going along with them in their belief that Abraham was a Jew who had the Torah, in other words the prophet Muhammad simply wanted to expose them for their corruption with the Torah! This was a very smart move by the prophet.

 

002.132
YUSUFALI: And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam."

 

002.133
YUSUFALI: Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy god and the god of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) Allah: To Him we bow (in Islam)."

 

002.135
YUSUFALI: They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."

 

002.140
YUSUFALI: Or do ye say that Abraham, Isma'il Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah? but Allah is not unmindful of what ye do!

 

003.065 PICKTHAL: O People of the Scripture! Why will ye argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him? Have ye then no sense?

 

003.067
YUSUFALI: Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

 

 

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.

 

 

He Wrote

Let’s illustrate to you how self-destructing Zaatari’s argument really is:

 

1.      He claims the Bible, particularly the Torah, is vile and violent.

2.      Allah says that the Books of the Bible are guidance to the righteous!

3.      This means that Allah is vile and violent (according to Zaatari) and his righteous message is evil!!

 

This conclusion is inescapable! How can you criticize practices in the Bible and then claim to worship a God WHO INSPIRED THESE VERY SAME PRACTICES?

 

 

My Response

This just shows how silly you are and what happens when a missionary starts to think to much.

The Quran refer to the TRUE Torah and Gospel. As I also showed, from Islamic sources, the Torah of today is corrupted. Either way, this is not the topic, you have simply gone on to a red-herring just to make your article longer and make it seem like you had a lot to say, when in fact most of what you said was off topic, and straw man attacks.

 

He Wrote

He Wrote

One Muslim apparently was so troubled by this concession on the part of Muhammad that he claimed that the killing of women and children was abrogated!

Al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah said that he asked the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) about the polytheists whose settlements were attacked at night when some of their offspring and women were smitten. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: They are of them. ‘Amr b. Dinar used to say: They are regarded in the same way as their parents.

Al-Zuhri said: Thereafter the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) prohibited to kill women and children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2666)

Not all Muslims share al-Zuhri’s conviction. The English translator makes the following comments regarding the above narration:

2018. This tradition allows to kill women and children of the infidels IN THE BATTLE. The other traditions indicate that it is prohibited to kill women and children in the battle. These CONTRADICTORY traditions have been reconciled by saying that the tradition of al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah has been abrogated. The other interpretation is that it is allowable to kill women and children when the settlements of the infidels are attacked AT NIGHT, as they cannot be distinguished from the fighting men in the dark. (Sunan Abu Dawud, English translation with explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984], Volume II, p. 739; capital emphasis ours)

Ahmad Hasan’s explanation is no excuse and provides absolute no comfort for the women and children who were killed, or for their surviving families. A true God-inspired prophet would be more cautious and not allow such night raids so as to prevent the unnecessary killing of women and children. http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism2.htm

Mr. Shamoun is totally correct, and using Mr. Zaatari’s logic we must conclude that it is even worse for women and children to be killed at night, as opposed to the OT when most wars among the Israelites and their enemies were fought during the day! It is much more difficult to be careful and avoid collateral damage at night. However this is the same tactical offensive that Muhammad, the so-called prophet of Allah, instituted! Since the Quran and Hadith are binding on Muslims I guess we should deem it okay for Muslims to attack at night and kill women and children. Mr. Shamoun continues:

From me, Osama Abdallah:

It's better for them to be killed during the day than the night?

This has got to be the most absurd and laughable argument I have ever encountered in my entire life!  Truly, Quennel Gale and his master, Sam Shamoun, are the biggest jokers on the internet!

 

RESPONSE TO OSAMA ABDALLAH: Does Osama Abdallah call this a response? What he fails to tackle is the gist of the argument at hand. Zaatari is arguing under the assumption that women and children weren’t allowed to be killed but what both Mr. Abdallah and Zaatari failed to address is why would Muhammad attack a tribe knowing that the danger of killing women and children was greater? To refresh their memory, we post from this hadith again:

Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:


The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256)

If you notice, Muhammad was asked “was it permissible to attack the pagans at night, even though it would expose their women and children to danger?”. He replies to the “women and children” by saying “they are from them”, showing no sympathy whatsoever. He was given a chance to say “no” or say “don’t harm the women and children.” He gave a response that contradicts Zaatari’s stance that Muslims were forbidden from killing women and children since they had to be spared. However, Muhammad mentioned nothing about sparing their lives. Since Zaatari wants us to assume that it was forbidden to kill both women and children, WHY THEN IS MUHAMMAD’S FOLLOWERS ASKING HIM THIS QUESTION? Why didn’t Muhammad say, “you know it’s forbidden to do so”? This hadith gives us a clear instance in which Muhammad and his followers didn’t follow his so-called prohibition! Why would the loving prophet of Allah attack people at night when the danger is at its highest? Instead of answering this question among others, both Zaatari and Osama have to resort to red herrings and misdirection.

END of Part 1. Part 2 to follow shortly.

 

 

 

My Response

Once again, the same rubbish argument. Those women and children were collateral damage, they were kept to a minimum as well, and we shall refresh Quenns memory with that he said:

3. In war, the killing of women and children, although unacceptable, is usually tolerated if kept to a minimum since collateral damage is impossible to avoid every time.

So hence why is Quenn complaining? Are you backtracking what you said? I think not, so now eat your own words and enjoy it to, since this criteria perfectly fits the hadith you posted, showing you must have no problem with it.

However so, the Bible FAILS this criteria since women and children were killed INTENTIONALLY, and to the full, and were NOT collateral damage.

So as we see, Quenn has not addressed anything once again, all he did with build an army of straw man against me and filled it up with red-herrings. He is still in a hole, his Bible is still a terror book, and Islam is still the truth.

 

 

APPENDIX

 

 

What does straw man mean? Or what does a straw man argument mean?

 

 

 

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1.                  Person A has position X.

2.                  Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3.                  Person B attacks position Y.

4.                  Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

1.                  Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

2.                  "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

3.                  Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

 

 

 


Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Quennel Gale's Articles section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

Back to the Dumpster section.  Obviously, this is where Quennel Gale and clowns like him belong to.

Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.