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

Terrorism in the Quran or The Bible?

 

Responding to yet another failure of Quennal Gale

 

(Round 4)

 

By Sami Zaatari

 

 

 

 

Quennal Gale has come up with yet another supposed rebuttal against me, his supposed rebuttal can be found here:

 

http://www.answer-islam.org/counter_rebuttal_to_Sami_Zaatari_4.html

 

Quenn did post this rebuttal of his to me some time ago, but I choose to ignore it for a while since I did not really feel he addressed anything so I felt it would have been a waste of my time. But since I don’t want to give this missionary the impression that he has won the debate I decided to respond now to crush his response yet again.

 

Quennal Gale's words will be in red followed by responses in black.

 

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

 

Quennal Gale begins his article by trying to be smart, which as usual backfires against him; Quennal Gale was saying that I had such a hard time in refuting his 3rd rebuttal to me because my rebuttal against his 3rd rebuttal came out about 3-4 weeks after he published it. Let me silence Quenn on that and prove that this mean is a serious fool, you see folks I usually write a rebuttal within one to two days after someone publishes something against me, and this is what I was doing with Quennal Gale, when he first started writing against me I would have a rebuttal out within two days, Quennal Gale was so upset and fearful of this that he cried saying:

 

Wow it seems like Saami Zaatari is very desperate; he couldn’t even wait until I finished my second part of my response this weekend before he responded <http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.htm> (http://answer-islam.org/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.html)

 

So note when I did reply very quickly this loser started crying I was desperate, when I took my time he claims that I find his articles so hard which is why it took me so long to release my rebuttal. This proves that these missionaries are very sick in the head, because no matter what you do they will bark against you, if you respond quickly against them they claim you are desperate, if you take your time they claim we found their material so hard and challenging and put a smirk on their face. What can I say to that?

 

But you see folks, the joke is on Quenn himself, because you see folks in my last rebuttal to Quenn my rebuttal was a TWO part rebuttal, Quennal was barking and acting so smart by saying it took me so long to write my rebuttal when in fact he COMPLETLY IGNORED AND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REPLY TO MY REBUTTAL! That rebuttal which Quenn failed to respond to and has yet to respond to can be found here:

 

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_quennalgale_3_2.htm

 

This rebuttal completely wiped the floor with Quenn and he did not even bother in replying to it as he should have, so talk about STUPID! This guy was trying to laugh at me when the joke is really on him! And since Quenn is fond of saying how long it takes for someone to write a reply, it is now roughly 6 months since I released that rebuttal, and Quennal Gale has yet to respond to it, so using this fools logic this means he has really hit a brick wall and has been shut down by my third rebuttal. Some advice to Quenn and I mean it, please stop making a fool out of yourself, since that is what you have done over and over again in your rebuttals to me.

 

For readers who have not followed this long debate between me and Quenn please visit these rebuttals:

 

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

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/continuation_to_quennals_response.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_quennalgale_3_2.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_4.htm

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

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

From (Source <http://answer-islam.org/childkiller.html>)

 

Notice how Quennal Gale's own source refutes him! Quennal Gale adds his own commentary to a text that says something he doesn’t, not Quenn says that the prophet Muhammad had the young boys beheaded, yet the text tells us that the men who had reached puberty had been executed, how convenient that Quenn leaves this out. Under God's eyes boys who reach puberty and who are going through puberty are no longer considered as children or kids, they are considered as young men, not children, this is what Quennal keeps on forgetting. Secondly Quennal Gale needs to learn a bit about Islamic history, since it was not the prophet Muhammad who ordered this execution, rather it was a former Jewish man who was an ally of the Banu Qurayza clan:

 

The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah

 

We have already noted that when the Confederates came and camped outside Al-Madinah, Banu Qurayzah broke the covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of Allah . This happened by the agency of Huyay bin Akhtab An-Nadari, may Allah curse him, who entered their stronghold and would not leave their leader, Ka`b bin Asad, alone until he agreed to break the covenant. Among the things that he said to him was, "Woe to you! This is the opportunity for glory. The Quraysh and their company of men from various tribes, and the Ghatafan and their followers, have come to you, and they will stay here until they eliminate Muhammad and his companions.'' Ka`b said to him, "No, by Allah, this is the opportunity for humiliation. Woe to you, O Huyay, you are a bad omen. Leave us alone.'' But Huyay kept trying to persuade him until he agreed to his request. He laid down the condition that if the Confederates went away without doing anything, he [Huyay] would join them in their stronghold and would share their fate. When Banu Qurayzah broke their covenant and news of this reached the Messenger of Allah , he and the Muslims were very distressed by that. When Allah helped him by suppressing his enemy and driving them back disappointed and lost, having gained nothing, the Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, "Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.'' Then he said: "Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Qurayzah.'' According to another report, "What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.'' He said: "Where'' He said, "Banu Qurayzah, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.'' So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Qurayzah, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said,

 

«??? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ????? ?????????»(No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Qurayzah.) So, the people set out, and the time for the prayer came while they were still on the road. Some of them prayed on the road, saying, "The Messenger of Allah only wanted to make us march quickly.'' Others said, "We will not pray it until we reach Banu Qurayzah.'' Neither of the two groups were rebuked for what they did. The Messenger of Allah followed them. He left Ibn Umm Maktum, may Allah be pleased with him, in charge of Al-Madinah, and he had given the flag to `Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him. Then the Messenger of Allah went to them (Banu Qurayzah) laying seige to them for twenty-five days. When this had gone on for too long, they agreed to accept the judgement of Sa`d bin Mu`adh, the leader of `Aws because they had been their allies during the Jahiliyyah, so they thought that he would treat them kindly as `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul had done for his allies of Banu Qaynuqa` when he had asked the Messenger of Allah to set them free. So, these people thought that Sa`d would do the same for them as Ibn Ubayy had done for those people. They did not know that Sa`d had been struck by an arrow in his medial arm vein during the campaign of Al-Khandaq. The Messenger of Allah had had his vein cauterized and had brought him to stay in a tent in the Masjid so that he could keep a close eye on him. One of the things that Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said in his supplication was, "O Allah, if there is still anything that has to do with the war against Quraysh, then keep me alive for it, and if You decree that the war between us and them is over, then let the bleeding be renewed, but do not let me die until I get my satisfaction with regard to Banu Qurayzah.'' Allah answered his prayer and decreed that they would agree to be referred to him for judgement, and this was their own free choice. When this happened, the Messenger of Allah called him to come from Al-Madinah to pass judgement on them. When he arrived, riding on a donkey that had been specially equipped for him to ride, some of the `Aws began to urge him not to be too harsh, saying, "O Sa`d, they are your clients so be kind to them, trying to soften his heart.'' But he kept quiet and did not answer them. When they persisted in their request, he said, "Now it is time for Sa`d to make sure that no rebuke or censure will divert him from the path of Allah.'' Then they knew that he would not let them live. kWhen he reached the tent where the Messenger of Allah was, the Messenger of Allah said:

 

«??????? ????? ??????????»(Stand up for your leader.) So the Muslims stood up for him, and welcomed him with honor and respect as befitted his status and so that his judgement would have more impact. When he sat down, the Messenger of Allah said:

«????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ????? ?????»(These people) -- and he pointed to them -- (have agreed to accept your judgement, so pass judgement on them as you wish.) Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "My judgement will be carried out'' The Messenger of Allah said: "Yes.'' He said, "And it will be carried out on those who are in this tent'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "And on those who are on this side'' -- and he pointed towards the side where the Messenger of Allah was, but he did not look directly at the Messenger of Allah out of respect for him. The Messenger of Allah said to him: "Yes.'' So Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "My judgement is that their fighters should be killed and their children and wealth should be seized.'' The Messenger of Allah said:

 

«?????? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????????»(You have judged according to the ruling of Allah from above the seven heavens.) According to another report:

 

«?????? ???????? ???????? ????????»(You have judged according to the ruling of the Sovereign.) Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized. All of this is stated both briefly and in detail, with evidence and Hadiths, in the book of Sirah which we have written, praise and blessings be to Allah. Allah said:

 

[????????? ????????? ???????????](And those who backed them, Allah brought them down) means, those who helped and supported them in their war against the Messenger of Allah .

 

[????? ?????? ??????????](of the People of the Scripture) means, Banu Qurayzah, who were Jews from one of the tribes of Israel. Their forefathers had settled in the Hijaz long ago, seeking to follow the Unlettered Prophet of whom they read in the Tawrah and Injil.

 

[???????? ???????? ???? ????????? ????????? ????](then when there came to them that which they had recognized, they disbelieved in it) (2:89). May the curse of Allah be upon them.

 

[??? ????????????](from their forts) means, from their strongholds. This was the view of Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Qatadah, As-Suddi and others of the Salaf.

 

[???????? ??? ??????????? ?????????](and cast terror into their hearts;) means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. They wanted to eradicate the Muslims but they were themselves eradicated. In addition to all this, they are doomed in the Hereafter, so by all acounts they are counted as losers. Allah says:

 

[???????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????](a group you killed, and a group you made captives.) Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Atiyah Al-Qurazi said, "I was shown to the Prophet on the day of Qurayzah, because they were not sure about me. The Prophet told them to look at me to see whether I had grown any body hair yet. They looked and saw that I had not grown any body hair, so they let me go and I was put with the other prisoners.'' This was also recorded by the Sunan compilers, and At-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Sahih.'' An-Nasa'i also recorded something similar from `Atiyah.

 

[?????????????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????????](And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches,) means, `He gave these things to you after you killed them.'

 

[????????? ????? ??????????](and a land which you had not trodden.) It was said that this was Khaybar, or that it was the lands of the Persians and Romans. Ibn Jarir said, "It could be that all of these are referred to

 

[??????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ????????](And Allah is able to do all things.)'' (Ibn Kathir's tafsir)

 

So several things are to be noted, firstly it was not the prophet Muhammad who had ordered this execution, rather it was Sa'd who was an ally to the Banu Qurayza, and it was the Jews who had called on Sa'd to pass judgement on them! So Quenn must read his sources more carefully next time and I am sure he did not miss this point, but simply conveniently left it out.

 

Secondly notice how they kept the children ALIVE, and the women as well, the ones who were killed were only the ones who had gone through puberty and were going through puberty, hence no children were killed. So therefore Quennal Gale has no case and he knows it himself, yet he will keep trying to build one which is fun and amusing to watch. What Quennal has to show is young boys who had not gone through puberty being killed, including little babies, this we find in the Bible:

 

Isaiah 13:15-18

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

 

John Gill commentary:

15

Every one that is found shall be thrust through


With a sword, spear, or lance, and be slain; that is, everyone that is found in the city of Babylon; and so the Targum adds,

 

``and everyone that is found in it shall be slain;''

 

so Kimchi, in the midst of it, or without; in the street, as Jarchi. The orders of Cyrus F8 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=015> were, that those that were found without (in the streets) should be slain; and to proclaim in the Syriac language, that those that were within doors should continue there, but, if they were found without, they should be put to death; which orders were executed, and well agrees with this prophecy:

 

and everyone that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword;

or "added" unto them; any of other nations that joined them as auxiliaries, see (Revelation 18:4 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+18:4>) or "that is gathered"; so the Septuagint, "they that are gathered"; that are gathered together in a body to resist the enemy, and defend themselves. Some render the word, "every one that is consumed", with age; neither old nor young, as follows, should be spared.

 

The Targum is,

``everyone that enters into the fortified cities,''

flees there for safety and protection.

 

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their
eyes


Upon the ground, or against the wall, as was foretold should be, (Psalms 137:8,9 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ps+137:8,9>) and in way of retaliation for what they did to the Jews, (2 Chronicles 36:17 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=2ch+36:17>) and this was to be done "before their eyes", in the sight of the inhabitants, which must make it the more distressing and afflicting; and, as Kimchi observes, this phrase is to be applied to the following clauses:

 

their houses shall be spoiled;

plundered of the substance, wealth, and riches in them, by the Persian soldiers:

and their wives ravished;

by the same, and both before their eyes, and after that slain, in like manner as they had

 

ravished the women in Zion, (Lamentations 5:11 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=la+5:11>) ..

 

[Their] bows also shall dash their young men to pieces,

&c.] That is, the bows of the Medes should dash in pieces the young men of the Babylonians. The meaning is, either that they should put them into their bows, instead of arrows, and shoot them upon the ground, or against a wall, and so dash them to pieces; or that they should first shoot them through with their arrows, and then dash them with their bows; according to Xenophon F12 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=018>, Cyrus came to Babylon with great numbers of archers and slingers:

 

and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb;

even of those that were in the womb, but should rip up women with child, and cut

them in pieces: their eyes shall not spare children;

in the arms of their parents, or running to them, shrieking and crying, and in the utmost fright; and yet their tender and innocent age would meet with no mercy. The Medes were notorious for their cruelty F13 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=018>, and which issued at last in the ruin of their empire.

 

I would like to see Quenn reply to this verse and this Christian commentary which is a very popular and known commentary. Note the verses not only order the killing of women and children, but the raping of women as well! I shall wait in anticipation for Quennal Gale to respond to this verse, and I shall wait in great anticipation for Quennal Gale to bring me something like this from the Quran, or the Hadiths, something Quenn knows he won’t be able to do.

 

Mr. Zaatari responded by saying:

 

My Response

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I am amused that Quenn has to lie against me, because he very well knows that I made it clear that those men who were killed were NOT BOYS, but since Quennal Gale is a liar by nature he has to take me out of context.

Let me break it down for Quennal Gale so he understands what I did say:

 

1- The execution of the men of the Banu Qurayza tribe was legit and not a crime

 

2- It was not a crime because Banu Qurayza conspired to kill and wipe the Muslim ummah off the map

 

3- The Banu Qurayza tribe were under a treaty with the Muslims and it was agreed upon by BOTH parties that anyone who broke the treaty would be punished by death. (Consult Ibn Kathirs sirat, and Tabaris, and Ibn Ishaqs)

 

4- Only the men of the Banu Qurayza tribe were killed, not the women and children, they were spared

 

5- The judgement passed on the Banu Qurayza tribe was ordered by Sa'd a former ally of the Qurayza tribe

 

6- The Banu Qurayza tribe had specifically called for Sa'd to order judgement on them agreeing to obey any judgement he passed on them

 

So hopefully this will make things easy for Quenn.

 

treaty is defined as:

 

TREATY

 

1 : the action of treating <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treating> and especially of negotiating

2 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : PRIVATE TREATY <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private+treaty> (2) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state b : a document in which such a contract is set down (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

 

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

In the case of the Banu Qurayzah:

 

1. All young boys would be beheaded

 

2. Some women who fought would also be beheaded

 

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

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

It is okay to kill enemy combatants who break a treaty, since violating such an agreement results in their just and fair punishment. (Source <http://www.answer-islam.org/violent_bible.html>)

 

Quenn again has to lie and distort the information he has, the treaty the Muslims made with the Jews in Madinah was that ANYONE WHO BROKE IT including Muslims would be punished, and punished by death, all parties agreed to it, so by Banu Qurayza breaking this treaty they had open themselves up for attack.

 

Secondly no boys were killed, they were young men, under God's eyes boys who go through puberty or are going through puberty are considered as young men and not boys, something many Christians and Jews also agree

on.

 

However so, Muslims are not allowed to kill women and children, innocent women that is, unlike the Bible were everyone is killed including innocent pregnant women, and innocent helpless babies, they are all put to the sword.

 

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

 

The punishment executed against the tribe was passed by Sa'd a man who the tribe placed as the judge to pass judgement on them, if Quenn feels this is bad or wrong, then he should go complain against the Banu Qurayza for appointing Sa'd as the judge for them. Secondly, Quenn should also go complain to Qurayza for breaking the treaty in the first place which put them in all this trouble.

 

And no Quenn, I am not in a dilemma, it is you who is in a dilemma, and you are in a very bad dilemma, your Bible allows the slaughtering of women and children, which we all know is heinous and disgusting, however so you are obliged to follow it hence you are in a dilemma, do you follow such sick sadistic barbarity, or do you throw this book away. It is your choice, but maybe this shall help you make that choice:

 

Ezekiel 9:5-7

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

 

Matthew Henry commentary:

 

I. A command given to the destroyers to do execution according to their commission. They stood by the brazen altar, waiting for orders; and orders are here given them to cut off and destroy all that were either guilty of, or accessory to, the abominations of Jerusalem, and that did not sigh and cry for them. Note, When God has gathered his wheat into his garner nothing remains but to burn up the chaff, Matthew 3:12 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+3:12&t=kjv>.

 

1. They are ordered to destroy all, (1.) Without exception. They must go through the city, and smite; they must slay utterly, slay to destruction, give them their death's wound. They must make no distinction of age or sex, but cut off old and young; neither the beauty of the virgins, nor the innocency of the babes, shall secure them. This was fulfilled in the death of multitudes by famine and pestilence, especially by the sword of the Chaldeans, as far as the military execution went. Sometimes even such bloody work as this has been God's work. But what an evil thing is sin, then, which provokes the God of infinite mercy to such severity! (2.) Without compassion: "Let not your eye spare, neither have you pity (Ezekiel 9:5 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+9:5&t=kjv>); you must not save any whom God has doomed to destruction, as Saul did Agag and the Amalekites, for that is doing the work of God deceitfully, Jeremiah 48:10 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+48:10&t=kjv>. None need to be more merciful than God is; and he had said (Ezekiel 8:18 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+8:18&t=kjv>), My eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity." Note, Those that live in sin, and hate to be reformed, will perish in sin, and deserve not to be pitied; for they might easily have prevented the ruin, and would not.

 

2. They are warned not to do the least hurt to those that were marked for salvation: "Come not near any man upon whom is the mark; do not so much as threaten or frighten any of them; it is promised them that there shall no evil come nigh them, and therefore you must keep at a distance from them." The king of Babylon gave particular orders that Jeremiah should be protected. Baruch and Ebed-melech were secured, and, it is likely, others of Jeremiah's friends, for his sake. God had promised that it should go well with his remnant and they should be well treated (Jeremiah 15:11 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+15:11&t=kjv>); and we have reason to think that none of the mourning praying remnant fell by the sword of the Chaldeans, but that God found out some way or other to secure them all, as, in the last destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Christians were all secured in a city called Pella, and none of them perished with the unbelieving Jews. Note, None of those shall be lost whom God has marked for life and salvation; for the foundation of God stands sure.

 

3. They are directed to begin at the sanctuary (Ezekiel 9:6 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+9:6&t=kjv>), that sanctuary which, in the chapter before, he had seen the horrid profanation of; they must begin there because there the wickedness began which provoked God to send these judgments. The debaucheries of the priests were the poisoning of the springs, to which all the corruption of the streams was owing. The wickedness of the sanctuary was of all wickedness the most offensive to God, and therefore there the slaughter must begin: "Begin there, to try if the people will take warning by the judgments of God upon their priests, and will repent and reform; begin there, that all the world may see and know that the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God, and hates sin most in those that are nearest to him." Note, When judgments are abroad they commonly begin at the house of God, 1 Peter 4:17 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1pe+4:17&t=kjv>. You only have I known, and therefore I will punish you, Amos 3:2 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=am+3:2&t=kjv>. God's temple is a sanctuary, a refuge and protection for penitent sinners, but not for any that go on still in their trespasses; neither the sacredness of the place nor the eminency of their place in it will be their security. It should seem the destroyers made some difficulty of putting men to death in the temple, but God bids them not to hesitate at that, but (Ezekiel 9:7 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+9:7&t=kjv>), Defile the house, and fill the courts with slain. They will not be taken from the altar (as was appointed by the law, Exodus 21:14 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ex+21:14&t=kjv>), but think to secure themselves by keeping hold of the horns of it, like Joab, and therefore, like him, let them die there, 1 Kings 2:30,31 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1ki+2:30,31&t=kjv>. There the blood of one of God's prophets had been shed (Matthew 23:35 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+23:35&t=kjv>) and therefore let their blood be shed. Note, If the servants of God's house defile it with their idolatries, God will justly suffer the enemies of it to defile it with their violences, Psalms 79:1 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ps+79:1&t=kjv>. But these acts of necessary justice were really, whatever they were ceremonially, rather a purification than a pollution of the sanctuary; it was putting away evil from among them. 4. They are appointed to go forth into the city, Ezekiel 9:6,7 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+9:6,7&t=kjv>. Note, Wherever sin has gone before judgement will follow after; and, though judgement begins at the house of God, yet it shall not end there. The holy city shall be no more a protection to the wicked people then the holy house was to the wicked priests.

 

II. Here is execution done accordingly. They observed their orders, and, 1. They began at the elders, the ancient men that were before the house, and slew them first, either those seventy ancients who worshipped idols in their chambers (Ezekiel 8:12 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+8:12&t=kjv>) or those twenty-five who worshipped the sun between the porch and the altar, who might more properly be said to be before the house. Note, Ringleaders in sin may expect to be first met with by the judgments of God; and the sins of those who are in the most eminent and public stations call for the most exemplary punishments. 2. They proceeded to the common people: They went forth and slew in the city; for, when the decree has gone forth, there shall be no delay; if God begin, he will make an end.

 

Jeremiah 51:20-26

 

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.

 

Adam Clarke commentary:

 

Verse 20. Thou art my battle axe
I believe Nebuchadnezzar is meant, who is called, Jeremiah 50:23 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+50:23>, the hammer of the whole earth. Others think the words are spoken of Cyrus. All the verbs are in the past tense: "With thee have I broken in pieces,"

 

Verse 24. And I will render
The vau should be translated but, of which it has here the full power: "But I will render unto
Babylon."

 

Verse 25. O destroying mountain
An epithet which he applies to the Babylonish government; it is like a burning mountain, which, by vomiting continual streams of burning lava, inundates and destroys all towns, villages fields,

 

And roll thee down from the rocks
I will tumble thee from the rocky base on which thou restest. The combustible matter in thy bowels being exhausted, thou shalt appear as an extinguished crater; and the stony matter which thou castest out shall not be of sufficient substance to make a foundation stone for solidity, or a corner stone for beauty, Jeremiah 51:26 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+51:26>. Under this beautiful and most expressive metaphor, the prophet shows the nature of the Babylonish government; setting the nations on fire, deluging and destroying them by its troops, till at last, exhausted, it tumbles down, is extinguished, and leaves nothing as a basis to erect a new form of government on; but is altogether useless, like the cooled lava, which is, properly speaking, fit for no human purpose.

 

What more can I say to such barbarity?

 

To show you how this is further substantiated we turn to Zaatari’s very own comments further down in this article in reference to Surah 17:

 

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

 

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

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

 

Notice that according to Zaatari’s very own words:

 

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

 

So using this logic we must ask Zaatari this:

 

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

 

Thank you Quenn, thank you very much for your challenge to me asking me where the Quran or hadith state that all the young men fought against the prophet. I do not need to show it, because I just showed that the Jews had asked Sa'd to pass judgement on them, so therefore they were punished accordingly, so as I said and will say again, go complain to the Qurayza tribe about why they asked Sa'd to pass judgement on them since we will never know what the prophet would have done to them.

 

Secondly, Quenn again has to quote out of context and give a false image against me, let us quote in context to establish what was said:

 

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

 

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

 

To which I replied:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

So notice this coward was trying to equate the Quranic story with that of his own Bible! Yet the Quranic story says nothing about slaying women and children, the Quran says the land was given to Moses, and that he should assault the inhabitants, but from WHERE DOES QUENN CONCLUDE THAT THIS MEANS THAT HE WAS COMMANDED TO KILL THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

 

Notice Quennal Gale's stupid logic, a general gives his soldier an order to fight the people of China, this means the general told the soldier to kill all the women and children just because he gave an order to fight China, do people use such stupid logic! There is something called RULES OF WAR, and since Quenn follows the Bible he doesn’t believe in them, but too bad in Islam and the Quran and the hadith we have RULES. The rules are DO NOT KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN, and since Moses was a Muslim according to Islam, this then means he would have not killed women and children.

 

But to refute Quennal Gales assertion that I need a clear explicit reference to believe in something is FALSE, the reason I asked Quenn to show me WHERE WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE killed in those passages it because it does not even suggest it! Here is what it says:

 

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

 

From where does anyone conclude that these passages say go kill women and children as said in the Bible? What Quenn did is READ INTO THE TEXT, HE HAS CLAIMED SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE NOR SUGGESTED.

 

In fact let us also consult the tafsir since the tafsir refutes Quennal Gale even further:

 

The Speeches of Yuwsha` (Joshua) and Kalib (Caleb)

Allah said,

 

[????? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ???????????](Two men of those who feared (Allah and) on whom Allah had bestowed His grace said...) When the Children of Israel declined to obey Allah and follow His Messenger Musa, two righteous men among them, on whom Allah had bestowed a great bounty and who were afraid of Allah and His punishment, encouraged them to go forward. It was also said that the Ayah reads in a way that means that these men were respected and honored by their people. These two men were Yuwsha`, the son of Nun, and Kalib, the son of Yufna, as Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Atiyyah, As-Suddi, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and several other Salaf and latter scholars stated. These two men said to their people,

 

[?????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????????? ??? ?????? ????????????]("Assault them through the gate, for when you are in, victory will be yours. And put your trust in Allah if you are believers indeed.") Therefore, they said, if you rely on and trust in Allah, follow His command and obey His Messenger, then Allah will give you victory over your enemies and will give you triumph and dominance over them. Thus, you will conquer the city that Allah has promised you. This advice did not benefit them in the least,

 

[???????? ????????? ?????? ???? ???????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ](They said, "O Musa! We shall never enter it as long as they are there. So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.") This is how they declined to join Jihad, defied their Messenger, and refused to fight their enemy.

 

The Righteous Response of the Companions During the Battle of Badr

Compare this to the better response the Companions gave to the Messenger of Allah during the battle of Badr, when he asked for their advice about fighting the Quraysh army that came to protect the caravan led by Abu Sufyan. When the Muslim army missed the caravan and the Quraysh army, between nine hundred and one thousand strong, helmeted and drawing closer, Abu Bakr stood up and said something good. Several more Muhajirin also spoke, all the while the Messenger of Allah saying,

 

«?????? ??? ???? ????????»(Advise me, O Muslims!) inquiring of what the Ansar, the majority then, had to say. Sa`d bin Mu`adh said, "It looks like you mean us, O Messenger of Allah! By He Who has sent you with the Truth! If you seek to cross this sea and went in it, we will follow you and none among us will remain behind. We would not hate for you to lead us to meet our enemy tomorrow. We are patient in war, vicious in battle. May Allah allow you to witness from our efforts what comforts your eyes. Therefore, march forward with the blessing of Allah.'' The Messenger of Allah () was pleased with the words of Sa`d and was encouraged to march on. Abu Bakr bin Marduwyah recorded that Anas said that when the Messenger of Allah went to Badr, he asked the Muslims for their opinion, and `Umar gave his. The Prophet again asked the Muslims for their opinion and the Ansar said, "O Ansar! It is you whom the Prophet wants to hear.'' They said, "We will never say as the Children of Israel said to Musa,

 

[????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????????](So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.) By He Who has sent you with the Truth! If you took the camels to Bark Al-Ghimad (near Makkah) we shall follow you.'' Imam Ahmad, An-Nasa'i and Ibn Hibban also recorded this Hadith. In the Book of Al-Maghazi and At-Tafsir, Al-Bukhari recorded that `Abdullah bin Mas`ud said, "On the day of Badr, Al-Miqdad said, `O Messenger of Allah! We will never say to you what the Children of Israel said to Musa,

 

[????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????????](So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.) Rather, march on and we will be with you.' The Messenger of Allah was satisfied after hearing this statement.''

Conquering Jerusalem

Allah's statement,

 

[??????????? ??????](for forty years;) defines,

[?????????? ??? ?????????](in distraction they will wander through the land.) When these years ended, Yuwsha` bin Nun led those who remained among them and the second generation, and laid siege to Jerusalem, conquering it on a Friday afternoon. When the sun was about to set and Yuwsha` feared that the Sabbath would begin, he said (to the sun), "You are commanded and I am commanded, as well. O Allah! Make it stop setting for me.'' Allah made the sun stop setting until Yuwsha` bin Nun conquered Jerusalem. Next, Allah commanded Yuwsha` to order the Children of Israel to enter Jerusalem from its gate while bowing and saying Hittah, meaning, `remove our sins.' Yet, they changed what they were commanded and entered it while dragging themselves on their behinds and saying, `Habbah (a seed) in Sha`rah (a hair).'' We mentioned all of this in the Tafsir of Surat Al-Baqarah. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas commented,

 

[?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?????????](Therefore it is forbidden to them for forty years; in distraction they will wander through the land.) "They wandered in the land for forty years, during which Musa and Harun died, as well as everyone above forty years of age. When the forty years ended, Yuwsha` son of Nun assumed their leadership and later conquered Jerusalem. When Yuwsha` was reminded that the day was Friday and the sun was about to set, while they were still attacking Jerusalem, he feared that the Sabbath might begin. Therefore, he said to the sun, `I am commanded and you are commanded.' Allah made the sun stop setting and the Jews conquered Jerusalem and found wealth unseen before. They wanted to let the fire consume the booty, but the fire would not do that. Yuwsha` said, `Some of you have committed theft from the booty.' So he summoned the twelve leaders of the twelve tribes and took the pledge from them. Then, the hand of one of them became stuck to the hand of Yuwsha` and Yuwsha` said, `You committed the theft, so bring it forth.' So, that man brought a cow's head made of gold with two eyes made of precious stones and a set of teeth made of pearls. When Yuwsha` added it to the booty, the fire consumed it, as they were prohibited to keep the booty.'' There is evidence supporting all of this in the Sahih.

 

Notice even the tafsir say nothing of women and children being massacred, and we know the tafsir goes into every minor detail concerning stories and events, had women and children been killed the tafsir would have clearly mentioned it but yet this incident is absent here as well! So the burden of proof is on Quenn, Quenn has to show us where women and children are killed, so far he has not that, what he has done is quote a verse and came up with his own explanation which is not even to be found in the text nor the tafsir! Or oh wait should now accept tafsir Quennal Gale?

 

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

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

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

 

I will say non or none whenever I feel like. This missionary is trying to be smart with me when he thinks 3=1, I suggest you back to kg1 and learn maths since it seems all you Christians failed basic kindergarden maths.

Secondly since Quenn likes to play games, let us play the game on him, you see folks it is a known fact that the Bible specifically the NT is written in bad poor form of Greek usually written by low class un-educated people, who would typically be referred to as idiots, I shall quote Sam Shamoun himself to prove this:

 

Third, the reason why God chose men to write "bad" Greek is to demonstrate His sovereign power in taking men considered worthless and foolish by worldly standards to silence and confound those who presume to be scholars and wise men:

 

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things-and the things that are not-to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." 1 Corinthians 1:18-29

 

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." 1 Corinthians 2:1-7

 

"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a ‘fool’ so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’; and again, ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.’" 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

 

This doesn’t mean that God didn’t use men who were educated in the Greek language to record His Word, but that it was God’s specific purpose to use unlearned men as well to highlight His supreme power and ability to use even the base elements of this world for his glory. (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo2.htm)

 

This is from Sam Shamoun's very own article where he admits the Bible is written in bad Greek, and that this was done on purpose by God, to choose men who were not that smart. So if Quenn has a problem with me committing a few spelling mistakes, then what about his own God who specifically choose men who were not that smart! And remember God inspired the men of the NT, so could not God at least teach them how to spell and write properly? HMMMMMMM once again Quenn puts himself in a nice hole, Quenn has just in-directly attacked his own God, and his apostles since they too wrote bad Greek! So maybe next time Quenn should not try to be so smart with me because I will always counter it back against him.

 

Also on a side note I am not attacking the fact that the NT is written in bad Greek, I am just showing Queen's ignorance of his own book and of his own God and apostles, perhaps this will teach Quenn to not think he is so smart in the future.

 

Perhaps Quennal Gale should go teach his God on how to teach men to spell proper Greek since he likes bringing up my small spelling mistakes here and there. AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

l

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

It is fun to read this rubbish especially when this missionary thinks he has scored a slam dunk argument. He keeps challenging me to show him where ALL the young men fought against the prophet, and yet again my reply is that  the punishment of killing all the men including the fighters was ordered by Sa'd who the Jews placed as their judge. So Quenn go learn Islamic history please because you show your stupidity and ignorance with these stupid challenges of yours.

 

Indeed Christian tafsir at its best, they read the Quran and make up meanings which are not even found or suggest from the text, they then ignore all known Islamic tafsirs and Islamic history and come up with a conclusion of their own! In other words Quennal Gale's tafsir is like someone who said that WW1 AND WW2 was really a war with aliens and not man vs man, Quennal will ignore all the historic evidence showing the contrary, and Quennal will also read stories of WW1 and WW2 and make up his own meanings which are not backed by the stories themselves!

 

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

 

If it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Islamic text why did you claim the young boys were enemy combatants?

 

Where does the Islamic text say that “the young boys who passed puberty” fought Muhammad in a war?

 

If you say that Muhammad was justified in beheading even those males who hadn’t fought him then we must ask you whether you are claiming that this is what Islam prescribes as part of its religion? In other words, does Muhammad’s example set precedence for all Muslim Jihadists to also kill non-combatants?

 

Your rants are really boring me now, for the millionth time, the reason why ALL the men were killed and not the male fighters only was because this is what Sa'd had prescribed, and it was the Jews who had called for Sa'd to punish them, so Quenn to nag to Banu Qurayza telling them why did you appoint Sa'd as your judge! So please STOP REPEATING YOURSELF, this is amazing Quennal Gale has repeated his challenge to me over and over again just within a few paragraphs, WE SAW YOUR CHALLENGE HOW MANY MORE TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT IT?

 

Perhaps Quenn should have just filled his article with the challenge over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What is a Muhammadan? What a stupid missionary calling us Muhammadans! This shows the level of stupidity and backwardness I am facing, this idiot is still living in the times of crusades and popes declaring wars on the Islamic nation! We do not worship a man named Muhammad, you on the other hand worship a man named Jesus, so do not twist it please.

 

He again repeats his stupid claim, and again I tell him Sa'd ordered the execution with the backing of the Qurayza tribe since they put him in charge and agreed to follow his ruling.

 

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

 

You should know all about cookies and candies shouldn’t you? Since the west is generally the fatest place on the face of the earth with the USA as the capital of fatness, and I do not say this in offence I am just stating a plane fact, just like Quenn keeps bringing up my small spelling errors here and there I thought I would add this little smart comment of my own. :)

 

It also seems that you had too much candy while you wrote this rebuttal of yours since you repeated your challenge to me within every paragraph of yours. But anyway it is good; eat candy instead of pig since that is better for you.

 

Deuteronomy 2:32-37

 

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

 

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us. Deut 2:32-37

 

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

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


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


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



1. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. (God spoke to Moses and told him he will begin to give Sihon’s land for the Hebrews’ possession)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

My Response

 

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

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

 

Response:

 

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us. Deut 2:32-37

 

Actually Zaatri doesn’t show how I’ve exposed the Bible or Christianity. This is common Muhammadan rhetoric which is basically saying, “I can’t answer what you claim so I will just brush it aside.”

 

This missionary has to lie saying I did not respond to his stupid claims, I did respond and showed how stupid he really is, but thanks Quenn thanks for lying yet again I really enjoying crushing a missionary like you:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us. Deut 2:32-37

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Note he states:

 

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

 

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

 

So so much for this liar claiming I didn’t respond, this is taken from my last rebuttal. Notice how stupid I make Quenn look, Quenn is trying to justify the slaughter of ALL women and children because the text says that the people of the town came out to fight him, but Quenn makes such a moron out of himself because this also means the BABIES CAME OUT TO FIGHT AS WELL! AND HOW DO 4 MONTH OLD BABIES FIGHT?!!!!!!!! DO THEY HOLD SWORDS? I am forced to say WHAT AN IDIOT.

 

Go on quenn, keep your great work up, I am loving this and so are our Muslim readers, and I bet our Christian readers have their hands on their heads with your stupidity.

 

In his comments, which we documented earlier, Zaatari clearly says:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The reason I brought the point up of ALL and not some is because this liar wrote:

 

It is obvious that Mr. Zaatari doesn’t understand English too well, along with attempting to read more into my statements then what was intended. He is focusing on the fact that some women and children were killed intentionally, not being the result of collateral damage, in the Bible

 

SOME women and children weren’t killed, ALL women and children were killed as the text shows:

 

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

The liar tried to trick his readers by saying only some women and children were killed which is false.

 

ALL is SOME

 

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

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

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

 

WOW! I am refuted now, Quennal gale has refuted me! He has shown the women and children who were killed were not innocent because they came out and fought, so 2 year old boys and girls came with knives in their hands, including 5 month old babies, wowwwwwwww!!!!!!! This is so funny I must say, is this serious or what? Does Quenn believe that babies really came out to fight?

 

QUENNAL GALE BELIEVES THAT BABIES CAN FIGHT IN WAR!

 

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

 

Please do not tell us what you THINK, bring us proof and evidences, bring us proof and evidence for the prophet Muhammad committing atrocities, do not tell us your own Christian biased opinion.

 

Secondly Quennal Gale is lying yet again, he is trying to make it seem that I am slandering the Bible, but since this fool is a missionary he is lying so openly now, I QUOTED THE BIBLE NOT MY OPINIAN YOU FOOL! And I shall quote it again:

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

 

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

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 3

 

1-7

 

1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. 4 And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. 6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. 7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves

 

Joshua
Chapter 6

 

17-27

17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. 18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it. 19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD. 20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. 22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. 23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel. 24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. 25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. 26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. 27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.

 

So please stop lying, your own Bible shows that ALL MEANS ALL, AND THAT INCLUDES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, I did not make this up. But it is nice that Quenn claims that this is a slander, very good he finally sees the light, it is a slander indeed, and that slander is your own very Bible!

 

1. Since “ALL” is not “SOME”

Then

 

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

 

Quennal Gale thinks he has refuted me when all he has done is make us laugh at him, he is really trying to show that little babies fought in battle! What can I say to that but DESPERATION, this is Christian aplogetics for you, and this is a missionary for you.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Response:

 

Actually Muhammad never said that he adhered to a higher standard of warfare then the Biblical prophets. This is nothing more than the figment of Zaatari’s imagination.

 

When I say the prophet has a higher moral standard of warfare than the Bible I do not say this as meaning the prophet is more moral than the former prophets, Quennal Gale is putting words in my mouth like the stupid missionary he is. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS BIBLICAL STORIES, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MOSES, JOSHUA, AND OTHERS CONDUCTED THEMSELVES IN THIS WAY NOR MASSACRED ALL THESE PEOPLE. So please do not act like I believe this filthy rubbish found in your Bible, I believe they are lies ascribed to the prophets of God, and I believe that every prophet of God is righteous and merciful and would not massacre women and children.

 

Secondly I never said that the prophet Muhammad said that, so therefore you saying I said that is a figment of your own imagination, so again your insults backfire on you! What a fool you are, and me calling you stupid and a fool is not an insult, its actually true, you believe babies fight in battles!

 

In fact Muhammad claimed to adhere to the very same Bible Zaatari attacks:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Quennal Gale assumes that these books mentioned here are referring to his corrupt Bible! Amazing! Every major tafsir, and every major scholar from Imam Hanafi, Imam Shafi, Imam Malik, and Imam Hanbali all head your Bible to be corrupt and not the one referred to in the Quran. Should us Muslims abandon the consensus of the very best Islamic scholars for your own interpretation when we have seen that over and over again that you are a liar.

 

But this is another topic which I will be addressing very soon in full detail which will silence this missionary. How desperate they are they now need the Quran to back their Bible up, but I though the Quran is all corrupt and bad? Now it is good for you to use? Hmmmmm again Quenn shows how unreliable and inconsistent he is, what criteria does Quenn have to use the Quran to back his Bible up? He has NON, Quenn does not believe in the authority of the Quran and believes its corrupt and not of God, so therefore why does he quote it to prove his Bible is true? Do you use a corrupt book to prove your own book?

 

Secondly Quenn may counter saying why do Muslims use the Bible if we believe it is corrupt? Us Muslims do not believe the Bible is 100% corrupt, we believe that the Bible and the Torah were revealed by God, but over time you corrupted it and the original ones are lost and gone, however so some of its contents do remain in your books, and the parts which agree with the Quran we agree with, and the ones that don’t we don’t agree with. The Quran and hadiths give us this criterion, WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU HAVE TO USE THE QURAN TO BACK YOU UP? YOU HAVE NON. So thank you for exposing your hypocrisy, and inconsistency.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you, YOU have to show me the Quran allowing the killing of children and women, I showed it does not, so therefore the Bible contradicts. Pay attention.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I do not contradict myself at all, it is Quenn who cannot read English, here is what I said:

 

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

 

I said that if something CONTRADICTS THE QURAN THEN I WONT BELIEVE IT, AND I FURTHER SAID THAT IF SOMETHING IS NOT IN THE HADITHS AS WELL. So pay attention next time.

 

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

 

A typical liar, he quotes me and lies about what I say, typical missionary I must say, I did not say I won’t believe anything that is not the Quran, I said I won’t believe something THAT CONTRADICTS THE QURAN and that something is not even found in the Quran nor the hadiths.

Notice what Quenn says I said:

 

So after saying that he won’t believe anything “not mentioned in the Quran

 

And here is what I said :

 

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

 

So as you can see, Quennal Gale is lying and even lies right after quoting me! What a blind idiot I must say, Quenn keeps telling me to correct my spelling, my advice to Quenn is to tell his holy spirit to teach him languages and learn on how to read English.

 

So dear reader you see how dumb and stupid Quenn is? You see how bankrupt Christian polemic is? What more can I say?

Babies fight in battles- Quennal Gale

 

What more?

 

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

 

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

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

 

THE TRUE BIBLE VERSES ARE THOSE WHICH AGREE WITH THE QURAN

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

 

Notice Quenn says that we twist what the Quran says, yet he claims from this verse:

 

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

 

Quenn claims that from this verse it says that women and children are massacred! Talk about twisting!

 

And yes Quenn has his information right for once, things in the Bible which agree with the Quran are true, and those that don’t are false, this is a criteria which we have from Islam, however so WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU HAVE TO USE THE QURAN TO BACK YOU UP?! Talk about logical fallacy! Quenn uses a book he attacks 24-7 to prove his Bible is authentic!

 

Quenn attacks many verses of the Quran as false, but when he sees a verse saying the Bible is true Quenn he jumps up screaming that the Quran says the Bible is true therefore Muslims must follow the Bible and that the Bible is true. Hmmmm what is wrong with that? Although it must be said the Bible being referred to in the Quran is not the corrupt book that Quenn has.

 

Quennal Gale then changes topic, which is what a coward will do, note folks the topic of this debate is terrorism in the Quran or Bible? Quenn now jumps to another topic about what the Quran says about the Bible! What a fool indeed I must say, this is the sign of a loser, when he has been beat he jumps to another topic. I shall ignore Quenn's red herring and if he is so intent on this other topic then I challenge Quenn for an open audio debate on what the Quran says about the Bible.

 

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

 

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

 

I shall use Quenn's own Bible to refute him, this is amazing:

 

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

 

Quennal Gale now denies his own very Bible, his Bible says women and children were killed and Quenn is saying there are no infants! Or wait a minute, are little ones referring to little green Martians?

 

I would also like to point out that so far Quennal Gale has only attempted to address ONE of the passages I have brought ignoring the others ones I had posted, so I shall take this time to remind Quenn of other terror verses found in the Bible which he is ignoring:

 

Ezekiel 9:5-7

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

 

Isaiah 13:15-18

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

 

Perhaps this missionary will attempt to respond to these 2 passages, and what is worst for Quenn is that his pathetic response for Deuteronomy will not work here, because Quenn is arguing that in Deuteronomy that the slaughter of women and children was legit because they came out to fight Moses (this includes little babies). However so as we see in these passages it is God's army that is the one attacking the people and committing the raids, and that these men are being commanded to kill all the children whom they find. So please Quenn respond to these verses as well, although I know you can’t.

 

Note he states:

 

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

 

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

 

We must reiterate this portion of the biblical text again:

 

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

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

 

Explain to us why “ALL” no longer means that everyone went to fight, but that it actually implies that there were “SOME” who did not go with Sihon to war against God’s people.

 

He must also show us where the Quran speaks against these wars, that these biblical references are contradicting what is taught in the Quran.

Basically, he must show where the Quran says that the Bible is corrupt for saying that prophets killed innocent babies during these wars.

 

This is getting really funny now; especially Quenn's second and third challenges to me, this fool doesn’t realize the burden of proof is not on me but on him! It is Quenn who has to show me the Quran mentioning these wars with women and children being killed, not me showing the Quran condemning these incidents, the very fact that the Quran mentions some of these incidents and also makes no mention of women and children being killed is enough to silence Quenn, what Quenn now has to do is show where the Quran or tafsir or hadith talk about Moses and Joshua killing women and children. And Quenn knows he can never do this, so the burden of proof is on the stupid missionary not on me, and even this fool knows that but he wants to play games.

 

Secondly I already posted the passages from Deuteronomy that all women and children were killed, the LITTLE ONES, so therefore Quenn should go read his Bible instead of playing dumb. Secondly notice how desperate Quenn is becoming, he is now arguing that the people of Sihon had NO BABIES, what?! You are telling me that a tribe of large people have no little kids? Once again this fool makes assumptions without backing it up, the burden of proof is on Quenn to show us that the people of Sihon were all grown up and had no little kids, all Quenn can do is guess and give us assumptions and what he thinks yet its so strange he never provides a text to prove his argument.

And here is the passage again:

 

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

 

These verses sufficiently silence Quenn and his non stop guess work, the Bible tells us that these people did have little children, so therefore as we can see Quennal Gale's guesswork and suggestions are never to be trusted or taken seriously since as we see this man is very weak on his sources. And if Quenn is so weak on his own Bible then what about the Quran?! Do you expect me or any other Muslim to believe anything this fool has to say on the Quran when he does not even know his own Bible? Please let us get real.

 

Zaatari’s own words say it best for us:

 

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

 

Because we obviously know that the Quran mentions nothing about innocent children being killed in these battles Zaatari is not applying his own criteria consistently or honestly!

 

The Quran does mention the battles, but the Quran does not mention anything about commanding Moses and his army to kill women and children, so therefore I am not being inconsistent. It is Quenn who is being consistent and is becoming so desperate he is trying to put words in the Quran. We also saw the tafsir and the tafsir said nothing about women and children being killed, why not? We all know the tafsirs and hadith material always give very detailed accounts of everything that happened and so on, so why didn’t the tafsirs or hadiths mention Moses and his army killing women and children?

 

Secondly the doctrine of the Quran does not teach us to kill women and children neither, so therefore Allah would not have told Moses to kill women and children when Allah never makes such a command to us in the Quran concerning wars and so on. In fact Allah tells us this in the Quran:

 

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

The Prohibition of mutilating the Dead and stealing from the captured Goods

Allah said:

 

[????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????????????](but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.)

This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.'' This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said:

 

«??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????????»(Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)

It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children. '' There are many other Hadiths on this subject.

 

So therefore the Biblical stories DO CONTRADICT THE QURAN, the Quran commanded us not to transgress the limits in war which meant DONT KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN, the Biblical wars had no limits and everyone was killed including women and children hence this stands on complete odds with the Bible.

 

After all, Zaatari later says in reference to Surah 17:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Sihon , HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE,

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

 

How sad that Quenn has to play dumb, here is the passage yet again:

 

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

 

You see I always quoted the verse in context, I did not just quote verse 32 to 33 as Quenn is making it out to be, I was quoting from 32 TO 37, and as we see the people of Sihon were all murdered including women and children, Quenn is simply trying to ignore the passage in context but that’s okay, he is a missionary and that’s what we expect of them to hide the evil nature of the Bible.

 

After some rants the fool writes:

 

This is a great example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the authors of Osama’s site that we are constantly having to deal with.

 

It is always nice to see an idiot who thinks he is smart, indeed the only bankrupt one is Quennal Gale who even contradicts his very own Bible. I would like to also thank Quenn for this 'rebuttal' of his since it really does strengthen the faith of Muslims when they read such rubbish garbage and it also weakens the faith of Christians when they see how stupid their apologists are. My advice to Christians is open your eyes and accept the true faith of Islam, just look at how stupid your apologist really is!

 

Quenn also basically gives the same response for:

Deuteronomy 3:1-7

Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei. And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of
Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

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

 

Response:

 

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

 

Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei. And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Notice once again Quenn is playing stupid even as he quotes the verses, note the passages he quotes shows that WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED, does Quenn bother to reply to this? No, he just barks like a fool completely ignoring it giving the false impression that he has actually dealt with it.

 

Notice how stupid Quenn also sounds, he is now trying to say all means some and all does not really mean ALL, now that response would work if he could back it up, but yet again this loser resorts to guess work and assumptions and provides no proof! The verses themselves show us that the king of OG and all his people were killed:

 

Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei. And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

 

Notice how the text says that Moses and his men killed all the women and children of not only OG, but Sihon as well, and Quenn denies that the women and children of Sihon were killed how amusing.

 

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

 

Considered enemy combatants because they are now in a war.

 

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

 

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

 

Typical missionary liar, my criteria never included killing women and children as your sick filthy Bible allows, so please do not twist what I said and do not twist your book with mine. This missionary is so bankrupt that not only does he try to put words in the Quran, he also now tries to put words in my mouth!

 

And once again Quenn makes us laugh more; Quenn is basically telling us that little babies came out to fight so therefore they were enemy combatants, how funny indeed.

 

After some rants Quenn says:

 

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

Where does Muhammad say these actions were wrong?

Where does the Quran say that women and kids weren’t being killed?

 

Talk about a broken record, Quenn repeats the same challenge again! I have already shown how the Quran tells us to not transgress the limits during war which means do not kill women and children, and that the prophet Muhammad himself explicitly said do not kill women and children. On top of that I have showed that the Quranic account of the Moses and his people fighting mentions no such thing of women and children being killed, nor do the tafsirs and hadiths. But what proof does Quenn have to show the contrary? NOTHING! All he has is his stupid assumptions and guess work which even contradict his own Bible!

 

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

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

 

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

 

And

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

 

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

 

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

 

Notice how Quenn assumes and makes a claim which is not backed by what he quotes! What a fool indeed, note how Quenn assumes that since the Jews explained the Torah in Arabic this then automatically means that they explained every single passage to the prophet Muhammad! Notice how Quenn also says Muhammad OBVIOUSLY knew, oh did he? Where is your proof, don’t give us your stupid assumptions and guesswork.

 

This is all Quenn has folks, guess work, and assumptions, he keeps making claims that he does not back up. What Quenn has to show us is that the Jews explained the WHOLE Torah to the prophet Muhammad. All the hadiths show is that the Jews would explain the Torah in Arabic, the hadith doesn’t say they explained the whole Torah, indeed Quenn makes a lot of stupid assumptions.

 

But what is most amusing is that Quenn is really blind, note what Quenn said:

 

His own prophet and false god deemed it unnecessary to say anything specifically against the Bible and these wars.

 

Notice Quenn says that the prophet Muhammad said nothing against these wars; this is assuming that he heard about it from the Jews which Quenn has not backed up, but for the sake of argument let us assume that the prophet Muhammad heard this story. Quenn is now arguing that the prophet Muhammad said nothing against the story meaning the story is correct, but here is true proof that Quenn is truly brain-dead since the hadith says:

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

 

The prophet Muhammad told the Muslims do not believe in the book nor disbelieve in them but just say we believe in Allah and whatever he revealed to us! So if the prophet didn’t attack it it does not mean its true, as the prophet said DO NOT CONFIRM IT NOR DENY IT, just say we believe in what Allah has revealed. So therefore Quenn proves he is dumb by making such a claim since the hadith refutes him on that! NICE ONE QUENN!

 

So the fact that the prophet Muhammad didn’t speak against the Biblical wars (supposing he heard it) was because this was not his style nor his way of doing things, since he knew the Bible was corrupt he simply said we don’t confirm it nor disbelieve in it we just believe in what Allah has revealed.

 

However so if we see something in the Bible that flat out contradicts the Quran such as Jesus dying, then we can say the Bible is dead wrong there and correct them. And in this case of the Bible telling us about Moses killing women and children we can say the Bible is wrong since we have enough proof from the Quran showing us that the Bible distorted the claims of what really happened and what Moses really did.

 

Quennal Gale continues to rant some more but there is no need to respond to the other rants since he simply repeats himself yet again.

 

Conclusion

 

We have clearly seen how illogical and silly Quennal Gale is, as we saw he could not refute any of the claims that we presented and that he was so short of answers that he only attempted to respond to 2 of the passages I had brought up from the Bible showing women and children being killed.

We also saw that Quennal Gale has absolutely nothing on the Quran or hadiths, he tried to bring some issues up to try and claim that the Quran preaches terrorism but he was shut down as he usually is.

 

In conclusion I say that the Quran is a great book with great rules of war, while the Bible is a book with no rules and that anything goes, I urge Christians to really examine the arguments by both sides, and by doing so one cannot escape the fact that Quennal Gale has made a complete fool of himself and has brought up the most laughable responses and the most distorted arguments.

 

Indeed may Allah guide us all.

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

Islam and the Noble Quran: Questions and Answers.

The Scientific Miracles in the Noble Quran.

Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.

Pedophelia, Terrorism and Mass Killings against innocent children and civilians in the Bible.

Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.