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

Analyzing Quennal Gale’s third response

Part 3

By Sami Zaatari

 

 

 

 

 

Before venturing off into this rebuttal, I would like the readers to know that this rebuttal is rather lengthy. For reading tips, take some 2 minute breaks here and there as it will comfort the eyes and relax you a bit. You will all hopefully enjoy this rebuttal, as usual, I am thankful to Allah for this.

Quennal Gale has come out with yet another response to me. To keep everything neat and tidy, I will keep everyone up to date with what has been happening so far.


As you may have all known, there has recently been quite a few online debates taking place between myself and Quenn. Here is a chain of events that have happened throughout the debate:


Sam Shamoun wrote: http://www.answeringislam.net/Shamoun/q_amalekites.htm

I responded back: http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm

Shamoun’s response:
http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm

My counter response: http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm

Then Quenn entered the debate:
 http://answer-islam.org/childkiller.html

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

Quenn released another counter response:
http://answer-islam.org/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.html  

My counter responses:

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

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



That is the complete chain of events, in the exact order in which all dialogs/debates occurred.


Readers who have not read those articles should go read them before reading this, since it will be easier, and will allow the reader to fully understand what has been going on. Also the reader will be able to see how bad missionary Quennal Gale is doing. It seems his Jesus cannot save him.

We now proceed to Quennal’s response, however so I will not be posting his article in the order he wrote it. Although all points will be addressed.

I will also be leaving out all his pasting of what I and he said in earlier debates, since this just takes up a lot of space, and un-necessary reading for the readers who have already read those debates.

We now proceed to yet another failing attempt by Quenn.


 

He Wrote

Here is our response to Sami Zaatari’s second laughable article:

 

My Response

Indeed, the only reason my responses were laughable was because I had to paste your pathetic responses, which were very laughable and made us all laugh. I mean anyone who read the previous responses would see how you had managed to build an army of straw man against me which was pathetic. So yes, I am with you on this, my responses were laughable thanks to your rubbish material. So please keep it up, hopefully me and my readers, and fellow authors on this site will be able to laugh some more. 



 

He Wrote

I do not find it strange where I failed to address anything, especially since Zaatari hasn’t given us a list of what I’ve missed nor has he shown why “I’m required to address him on “violence in the bible” in which the original debate is between him and Sam Shamoun Apparently Mr. Zaatari has a hard time realizing that “as a third party I can choose what I want to respond to on a pre-existing issue”. If Zaatari is so intent on worrying about me addressing a certain issue, then the above link should satisfy him sufficiently since he left it totally unanswered. But I’m not going to parade around like a child saying “you didn’t answer this link, you totally missed this and that”, like Zaatari.

 

My Response

It seems I have to remind you of what you wrote, so here it is again:

 

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of  http://www.answering-christianity.com/

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

dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran. <http://www.answering-christianity.com/>

 


Oh wait, did you forget saying that? You clearly said you will be focusing on the issue of violence in both the noble Quran and the Bible. You did not even touch your un-holy Bible and simply ran like a coward.



Secondly, as for you claim that I didn’t respond to one of your responses to me:

http://answer-islam.org/god_has_god.html

The reason I did not address it is not because I couldn’t, or had no answer. No, not at all, that is your wishful thinking. The only reason I did not bother with it is because you are simply giving me your own view! There are other Christians who disagree with you on this issue, and they believe that once Jesus died and rose and went back to the Father, he no longer had the man nature, but just the divine nature. So hence you should go debate your own brethren on this issue.

Secondly, in your own response you refute yourself and prove my point, just by your title which says:
 

Yes, God does have a God!

Quennel Gale

 

So why should I write a response!!!!! My article asked, does God have a God? You say yes God has a God, which proves my point, that your God cannot be God, because as we all know God does NOT have a God. So thank you for refuting yourself, and answering me in the way I wanted a Christian to answer, which was in the affirmative. So tell me why should I respond to an article which agrees with mine?

So you see how easy you are? It just took me 2 paragraphs to refute this supposed response of yours that I ignored or intentionally left out. So next time do not be so quick to scream victory, I only did not respond because your response was too pathetic to actually be dealt with. Anyhow, thanks for bringing it up, since I have now easily dealt with it. So thank you.



He Wrote

Response:

First off, Zaatari, please learn how to spell. I think you mean, “you trying to get yourself out of a hole” instead of “whole”? Secondly Zaatari can hardly teach anyone to pay attention to an argument, since IF THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT ISN’T BETWEEN THE PERSON IN QUESTION THEY AREN’T NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO THAT ARGUMENT.




My Response

Yes, hopefully I will not make those typos, sometimes it naturally comes up like that, when I say hole, I put the ‘w’ by mistake. However so, I want to thank you for pointing this out, since you aren’t pointing this typo error of mine to be friendly or out of good will. You are only doing this to score a cheap shot in me. I guess that is all you have now, you cannot refute my arguments, so instead you want to try and take cheap shots.

However so, thanks to God, he exposed you as an idiot. Note Quenn tells me to learn how to spell, however in this same article of his he makes a typo error himself!



He Wrote

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>. Okay, with this being said, let’s expose him for all to see. First off, I find it amusing that Mr. Zaatari wants others to “grasp the arguments” when I showed in my response that he failed to do the very same thing. I don’t see how you can annihilate someone when you don’t even read what they write.




My Response

So me responding before you spread more lies is being desperate? How is it desperate of me to respond to a supposed response of yours when I see one? No my friend, when I see lies I will immediately expose it, you are just mad that I responded to your articles in about 2 days, which was a blow to you since you thought you had silenced me with your long response.

I did grasp your arguments, your arguments were:

1- Islam allows killing of women and children

2- The prophet Muhammad allowed killing of women and children

3- So why is Mr.Zaatari complaining if the Bible does to

Those were your arguments, and people who read my responses to you will see how I completely crushed your supposed arguments on the prophet Muhammad ordering the killing of women and children, and your arguments of Islam allows it. So hence yes, I did crush your arguments very badly.

For instance, here is one example:

In this year a raiding party led by Zayd b. Harithah set out against Umm Qirfah in the month of Ramadan. During it, Umm Qirfah (Fatimah bt. Rabi‘ah b. Badr) suffered a cruel death. He tied her legs with rope and then tied her between two camels until they split her in two. She was a very old woman.

Her story is as follows. According to Ibn Humayd - Salamah - Ibn Ishaq - ‘Abdallah b. Abi Bakr, who said: The Messenger of God sent Zayd b. Harithah to Wadi al-Qura, where he encountered the Banu Fazarah. Some of his companions were killed there, and Zayd was carried away wounded from among the slain. One of those killed was Ward b. ‘Amr, one of the Banu Sa‘d b. Hudhaym: he was killed by one of the Banu Badr [b. Fazarah]. When Zayd returned, he vowed that no washing [to cleanse him] from impurity should touch his head until he had raided the Fazarah. After he recovered from his wounds, the Messenger of God sent him with an army against the Banu Fazarah. He met them in Wadi al-Qura and inflicted causalities on them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Ya‘muri killed Mas‘adah b. Hakamah b. Malik b. Badr and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. (Her name was Fatimah bt. Rabi‘ah b. Badr. She was married to Malik b. Hudhayfah b. Badr. She was a very old woman.) He also took one of Umm Qirfah’ daughters and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah prisoner. Zayd b. Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two. Then they brought Umm Qirfah’s daughter and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah to the Messenger of God. Umm Qirfah’s daughter belonged to Salamah b. ‘Amr b. al-Akwa‘, who had taken her - she was a member of a distinguished family among her people: the Arabs used to say, "Had you been more powerful than Umm Qirfah, you could have done no more." The Messenger of God asked Salamah for her, and Salamah gave her to him. He then gave her to his maternal uncle, Hazn b. Abi Wahb and she bore him ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hazn. (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated b Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 95-97)





My Response

This gets better and better. I would like to ask Quenn what is the point of this? Let us look closer to what this account says:

He also took one of Umm Qirfah’ daughters and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah prisoner. Zayd b. Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two

There are two problems for Quenn.

1- The prophet Muhammad did not order this killing it was Zayd

2- From the text we read, we also don’t specifically see Zayd ordering Qays to kill Umm Qifrah the way he did. All Zayd did was order her death. No where does the text show he ordered Qays to kill her like that.

So Quenn proves absolutely nothing by this. All he shows is that one Muslim cruelly killed a lady. He doesn’t show the prophet giving the order for the kill, nor does he show the prophet commanding the lady to be killed in that specific way. Nor does he show Zayd ordering Qays to kill the lady in that specific way. So hence Quenn really has nothing.



So note how easily I refuted Quenn on that point. This is just one example.





He Wrote


Response:

Okay, so I made this statement after “focusing on the issue of violence in the Quran and the Bible”. But let’s show you how Zaatari doesn’t understand English real well. Notice this:


Here WE WILL FOCUS ON THE ONGOING DEBATE between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com <http://www.answering-christianity.com/>   dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.

 
As you can see that my focus is on THE ONGOING DEBATE, WHICH CONSISTS OF ISSUES RELATING TO VIOLENCE IN BOTH THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE. Let’s state some of these issues again: 


1.      Violence in the Bible.

2.     Violence in the Quran.

3.     Violence outside the Bible.

4.     Violence outside the Quran.


As you can clearly see the entire debate encompasses a number of issues (note that I only stated 4). Hence, since the debate is such a broad topic I must choose which specific issue I want to focus on first, which is what I expressly stated to the reader:


        Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM

 



My Response

This is very amusing of you trying to get yourself out of a HOLE again. To expose you once again, here is what you said in context, now everyone will see how you EVADED the original topic when I smashed your Bible:


My Response

Yes, you trying to save face now isn’t going to help you, because as we will see right now, you have the problem in reading not me. Here is what you said in your initial article:

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of http://www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.


Note, you claim you are focusing on a debate between me and Shamoun, on the topic involving BOTH the Quran, AND the Bible. However so, you hardly ever touched on the Bible. So next time I suggest you comprehend what you say, you started your article by saying you will be focusing on the violence in the Quran AND the Bible. So thank you for shooting yourself in the foot. I suggest you don’t try and play a trick on your readers next time, but just admit you were trying to save face, since it will lesson the embarrassment on your part.



Also Quennal Gale makes this statement:

Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM.

Quenn makes this statement AFTER he first says he will be focusing on the issue of violence in the Quran and the Bible. He says immediately after I quote the killing of women and children in the Bible, go figure!

Note how hilarious this looks:

Here is a slight example of why we cannot compare the OT with the Quran when it comes down to wars:

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

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

Now let us see what the Quran says:

004.075

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

So does anyone else see the difference? The Bible commanded people to kill women and children, the Quran commands people to fight for women and children. Big difference between the two.

Also from my standpoint, I never feel that I have to justify the Islamic wars fought during the time of Muhammad by bringing up the OT; the reason to this is because I do not feel there is anything slightly wrong with what Muhammad did during the wars. The same cannot be said for the OT, the Christians must have to justify every war in the Bible as it allowed the killing of women and children.

As I said, the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children:

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

From reading these hadiths, what exactly do I have to justify or defend? The prophet Muhammad said DO NOT KILL women and kids. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm  


Again, please see our position above at the beginning of this paper. Our focus is to deal with the fact of whether killing children is allowed in Islam.



So note, right after I quote the terror verses from the Bible, Quennal immediately evades the real topic at hand, and switches it solely on the Quran! This does show he was trying to save face big time, because rather than address those terror verses I showed, he simply evades them and then changes the topic to deal with the issue of women and children being killed in Islam. How convenient on his part, and how funny to see him shift his position, at the beginning of his article he said the focus is on the violence in BOTH the Quran and the Bible. When I quote the irrefutable terror verses in the Bible, he then says the focus will now be on Islam. Hilarious!!!!!!!


So keep making a clown out of yourself Quenn. Everyone sees how you ran like a coward the second I smashed your Bible, I do not blame you though.

Quenn then goes on to red-herrings to make his article look long. I will not be posting his red-herrings. Although here are links which deal with his red-herrings:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Internal/qi010.html

http://answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_disobey.htm


http://answering-christianity.com/quran/1601.htm  





He Wrote

Notice that Zaatari calls these terror verses. What is this conclusion based off of? His own opinion! Didn’t I state that Zaatari has a bad habit of stating his opinion as fact and then arguing from this assumed stated fact as truth! Apparently Zaatari failed to realize that these terror verses, especially those from Deuteronomy, were inspired by Allah.




My Response

Actually correction, the lies in your Bible were not inspired by Allah but by your monks and rabbis who distorted the book. So do not twist it. Secondly, I will quote the Bible passages again, and we will let the reader decide whether he feels these Bible verses are terrorism or not:

 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


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.


Zephaniah 2:12-15

"You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert. The city that once was so proud will become a pasture for sheep and cattle. All sorts of wild animals will settle there. Owls of many kinds will live among the ruins of its palaces, hooting from the gaping windows. Rubble will block all the doorways, and the cedar paneling will lie open to the wind and weather. This is the fate of that boisterous city, once so secure. "In all the world there is no city as great as I," it boasted. But now, look how it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist


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."



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.



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



Numbers
Chapter 31

7-12

7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.


I wonder what Christians have to say about this? Using their own criteria against them this makes their God a false violent God. So once again Christians should not throw stones if they live in a glass house.



17-18


17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves


So we will let the reader decide whether those passages are terror passages, or peaceful loving Gospel passages.





He Wrote

Let me repost this from my previous paper with slight modifications:


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


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


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

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

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

1.   Show me explicitly from the Quran where Allah specifically spoke against the killing of women and children in the OT.  

2.   Show me where the Quran says “THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG FOR TEACHING THAT WOMEN AND CHILDREN CAN BE KILLED”. -Previous article.

As you can clearly see Zaatari is in very hot water since

1.   He obviously doesn’t have any proof that Allah had a problem with these specific verses of the Bible.  

2.   Allah never told Muhammad or his followers that the “people of the book” were wrong for killing women and children.

3.   He can’t give you one example of Muhammad rebuking Moses for his actions.

What more can I say on this? Why argue with someone who can’t even produce proof from his own religion to specifically reply to this very issue, which he so much cares about?

 


My Response

I know what you can say, you can first start off by calling yourself an idiot, then a clown. In case people think I am being rude, I am not. The reason I call Quenn an idiot ( and rightfully so) is because all these points he just brought up I addressed in my previous rebuttal to him!!!!!!!!!! So all Quenn did, was repeat himself!!!

It seems Quenn suffers from a defect which his colleague Shamoun often likes to mention as the mantra syndrome, which is repeating yourself over and over again, which still does not make your argument true. So perhaps Shamoun should teach his little friend Queball on this.

So maybe next time Quenn should read my rebuttals a little more carefully.




He Wrote

What more evidence do we need to show you that Zaatari doesn’t read carefully! Why do I have to be more specific when these were the only links Zaatari posted in his paper? In fact Zaatari will later on address my response to these very links, while here he apparently seems to WONDER WHICH LINKS I’M TALKING ABOUT! Talk about confusion (or is it really deception masking itself as confusion?)!! As for giving no response, apparently Zaatari failed to highlight what I missed, so this wonderful revelation (no pun intended) has somewhat eluded him.



My Response

Actually, let me prove you do not understand properly. Here is all of what Quenn said in context with what I said:

 

He Wrote


As for his links he gave as a response, Zaatari failed to mention to his readers that the points dealing with “the killing of women and children in Islam” were the very same points I addressed and refuted in my original paper. Instead of addressing them, he deemed it much easier to repost them without offering a counter response. From reviewing his response, Zaatari could only offer up general responses and avoid the fact that his own Islamic sources showed that “killing of children and women” was allowed by Muhammad under certain circumstances.

 

 

My Response

Now would you please be specific? Which links? Are you talking about these links:

http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm 
http://answering-christianity.com/karim/no_killing_of_civilians.htm

If you are talking about these links, then I must correct you, you gave NO response to them whatsoever, and I even told you, you are free to contact both those writers, brother Karim, and brother Bassam responding back to them, in which they will be glad to refute you. Also, if you did supposedly respond to them in your initial response, then this shows what a bad response you gave since I missed them and didn’t realize you gave one!

 

Response:

What more evidence do we need to show you that Zaatari doesn’t read carefully! Why do I have to be more specific when these were the only links Zaatari posted in his paper? In fact Zaatari will later on address my response to these very links, while here he apparently seems to WONDER WHICH LINKS I’M TALKING ABOUT! Talk about confusion (or is it really deception masking itself as confusion?)!! As for giving no response, apparently Zaatari failed to highlight what I missed, so this wonderful revelation (no pun intended) has somewhat eluded him.

The reason I asked you which links you were talking about, is because you said you specifically addressed them, however so I saw no response to them! So I asked, are you talking about these 2 links I posted? Now do you  understand? Your response was so bad, that I did not even realize you gave one to those 2 links! In fact I even said this in my previous rebuttal!!!!!!!!!!!!

So maybe you should follow along next time. I posted two links for you to read, you later on said you specifically addressed the points in them, however so I did not see this, so I asked are you talking about the links I posted, because I see no response to them so what links you talking about! 


Now get it?



Its like if I post a link on women, and you respond back by making arguments for men, I will rightfully ask you hey are you talking about the link I gave you or what?





He Wrote

First off, instead of worrying about whether I’m silly or not Zaatari needs to provide some type of historical evidence to support his case, which he has failed to do thus far. All he did was quote Bible verses without doing any extensive research on those verses. Again it is obvious that Zaatari is arguing along the line of the fallacy known as:

Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan." (Source <http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html>)

 

In this instance Zaatari’s reasoning can clearly be illustrated like this:

 

“It is very sick to see the killing of women and children in the Bible, since such action is horrible”.

 

Don’t you see why this argument is fallacious? Zaatari proves what I’ve been saying all along when he claims:

 

Actually, in which century, and in which time period was it ever deemed acceptable to kill women and children? You trying to even argue along such a line as saying: ‘oh yah in the past, such as Biblical times, it was okay to kill women and children’. Are you that silly?





My Response


But you are silly my freind.

Anyway, what Quenn is arguing again, is that back then it was OKAY to kill children, how sick is that? It was NEVER okay to kill children, the people who did so were WRONG. However so, the Christian morals are pretty sick as we see, maybe to them it is okay to kill women and children, but not to my God and prophet. In fact the prophet Muhammad has higher moral standards than the fake god of the Bible. The prophet Muhammad says do not kill women and children, the fake god of the Bible says kill women and kids. It is apparent that Quenn’s God is really satan, not the true God Allah, Allah did not reveal this corrupted version of the Bible you have today, o do NOT twist it again and turn around saying ohhh you just insulted your own book and God.

I mean I could just end this debate here, all I am doing is repeating myself over and over again, Quenn cannot refute the arguments, women and children were killed in the Bible, this is FACT, nothing will change this, so hence what are we really arguing about? Oh I see, Quenn wants to try and justify the barbaric murders. It is obvious that Quenn is an extremist.

Also since Quenn is arguing that I have to take in the context, historical back round of the situation, this means that according to Quenn, if the situation is just right, then it is okay to kill women and children. This means that one day if Quenn was in a situation, which was just right to kill women and kids, he would do it. I am debating an extremist lunatic!!!!!!  





He Wrote

How can I be called silly for a practice Zaatari has yet to prove wrong according to standard practices and views held during the biblical period? Let’s show you a list of missing items in Zaatari’s argument:

 

1.   He hasn’t shown anywhere in ancient history where such practices were deemed out of the ordinary.

2.   He hasn’t provided a single document or statement showing that the ancients viewed these as atrocities!

3.   He hasn’t even shown us where Muhammad and Allah viewed these wars as atrocities!

 

 

My Response


This is getting hilariously funny now, Quenn is actually trying to show that in one point of time it was okay to kill women and children! No, correction, MASSACRE women and children! That is hilarious! 

If you think it was not out of the ordinary to kill women and children in the Bible, then you have a very very sick mind and need immediate help. As I said, what are we debating for?! All Quenn is doing is further strengthening my arguments.

I have shown that the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children, that is good enough for me. Secondly, again, the Quran does NOT have to condemn every single atrocity committed now does it? NO. so hence such an argument is silly, and I already addressed this in my previous rebuttal. So Quenn is just repeating himself over and over again. I guess my responses are to much for him.




He Wrote

For all prractical purposes Zaatari has argued in the following manner:

Killing women and children is wrong because……. HE THINKS IT’S WRONG BASED ON HIS MODERN ASSESMENTS!



My Response

Actually, correction, I believe that killing of women and children is wrong because the prophet Muhammad forbade it! Not because of what today’s world tells us, but because the prophet Muhammad who was inspired by God told us it is wrong 1400 years ago!!!! So you keep on saying this is a modern approach is silly, since the Quran forbade it 1400 years ago. Or was 1400 years ago a modern way of thinking that can be fully applied to today’s society.




He Wrote

1.   WHY DIDN’T ALLAH PUNISH THE JEWS FOR THESE ACTIONS AND WHY DIDN’T ALLAH EXPRESSLY TELL MUHAMMAD THAT THESE ACTS WERE WRONG?

 

My Response

Two fallacies, firstly Quenn assumes the story in the Bible is true and authentic. So that is fallacy number one.

Fallacy number 2, Quenn expects Allah to condemn EVERY SINGLE sin committed by mankind, which is ludicrous and silly to say the least.




He Wrote

The answer is rather simple, neither Muhammad nor Allah viewed these actions as atrocities which would explain why such sensitive issues weren’t dealt with. Zaatari's "response" shows that he himself knows that he doesn’t have anything to concretely show that these biblical actions are atrocities other than “his own opinion”.





My Response

My own opinion? It seems you cannot stop lying, so let me post the hadiths for you where the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children, so no it is not my opinion:


Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.


Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.


Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.


So no this is not my opinion. I state it is wrong because God’s prophet said it was wrong! And the Quran tells me to follow and obey the prophet Muhammad, which to do so, with be obeying Allah. So hence stop saying it is my own opinion, and a modern approach. Stop being a coward, and state this for what it is, my opinion is based solely on what the prophet Muhammad said about this issue, you are too embarrassed to say that because the prophet has higher moral standards than your fake god.

Quenn later comes up with red-herrings which have nothing to do with the topic, he does this just to make his article look long. I will not be posting his red-herrings.





He Wrote

I find it very amusing that Zaatari is claiming that I don’t understand my points. This is false for the Mishkat explicit claims that:

 

1.      "Thus, next to the Holy Qur'an the Hadith is the second source of the Islamic Law of social and personal behaviour, because THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE HOLY PROPHET ARE AS BINDING ON THE BELIEVERS AS THE COMMANDMENTS OF ALLAH.

2.      'Whenever Allah and the Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a faithful man or woman to follow a course of their own choice (Q.33:36).

 

Notice that a believer in Islam can’t follow his or her own choice when a matter is practiced or decided by Muhammad. That is why the Mishkat says:

 

The Hadith is to be FOLLOWED EXACTLY "for that which differs from the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up."

 

Now according to Zaatari, I don’t understand what I’m talking about since I mentioned that:

 

1.   Muhammad’s command and practices must be followed exactly unless the Quran says something different.

2.   That a Muslim can’t follow his or her own manner of thinking when an issue or matter was practiced or decided by Muhammad.

 

Secondly Zaatari’s weak excuse for using “Muhammad’s wives” as a defense doesn’t help him either since the Quran explicitly claims that his privilege to marry more than 4 women was for him alone. As you can see the Quran limits the number of wives that a Muslim can have to four:

 

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. S. 4:3

 

My Response

Thank you, you prove my point. We cannot follow the Hadiths fully, the prophet was allowed more than 4 wives, something the Quran gave him ONLY. Therefore to follow the Hadiths fully would mean to contradict the Quran, and that cannot be, hence my point stands! That you cannot follow the Hadiths word for word, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Technology has also dramatically changed since then, so this also means we cant follow the prophet in every way possible, we can drive cars now, fly planes, call people by phone, make athan by microphones etc. To follow the hadiths word for word would mean we cant do any of this, however so I do not see any sheikhs who say its haram to drive a car, or call someone by phone, or use a plane, or at least I haven’t seen any major sheikh forbid these acts. Hence my point still stands.




He Wrote

On at least two occasions Muhammad forced certain men who had more than four wives to divorce some of them:


Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar

Ghaylan ibn Salamah ath-Thaqafi accepted Islam and that he had ten wives in the pre-Islamic period who accepted Islam along with him; so the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him to keep four and separate from the rest of them.


Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah transmitted it. (Al-Tirmidhi, Number 945 taken from the Alim CD-ROM Version)


Narrated Al-Harith ibn Qays al-Asadi

I embraced Islam while I had eight wives. So I mentioned it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Select four of them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 12,
Number 2233 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/012.sat.html)

 

My Response

Yes, this further proves my point, that we CANNOT follow the prophets actions word for word, for this to happen would mean to contradict the Quran.

He then makes a small red-herring which will not be posted.




He Wrote

Zaatari’s defense is going to backfire on him again since Muhammad was explicitly given this special command, but no where does Allah or Muhammad claim that only he could marry a 6 year old girl. To illustrate the fallacious nature of Zaatari’s argument note the following:

HE CLAIMS: Muhammad was given special command to marry more than 4 wives.

Evidence given: The Quran, Hadith other Islamic sources.

However,

HE CLAIMS: In light of the above, a Muslim doesn’t have to follow Muhammad's perfect example of marrying a girl 6 years of age (implying that this only applied to Muhammad).

Evidence given: None whatsoever since there is no support from the Quran, Hadith or other Islamic sources for this position.

Conclusion: Zaatari has committed the fallacy of “begging the question” for assuming what he has yet to prove while also committing the fallacy of false analogy.





My Response


I would like to thank Quenn for exposing himself as an idiot, and a liar. He once again completely makes up bogus claims on me and says THIS IS WHAT ZAATARI IS SAYING.

Let me expose his first shallow lie:


HE CLAIMS
: In light of the above, a Muslim doesn’t have to follow Muhammad's perfect example of marrying a girl 6 years of age (implying that this only applied to Muhammad).


Where did I ever say that marrying a 9 year old girl only applied to the prophet Muhammad. SHOW ME THIS, I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME THIS. Everyone will now see what a liar you are, I NEVER once said that this marriage only applied to the prophet, NOT ONCE.


It seems you do not follow my arguments, so let me repeat it for you again in summary form:

1- People say Hadiths should be followed exactly word for word

2- However so, this cannot be.

3- The prophet had more than 4 wives.

4- The Quran  gives this rule only to the prophet Muhammad.

5- Us Muslims are not allowed to have more than 4 wives.

6- Hence we CANNOT follow the hadiths word for word, to do so would be to contradict the Quran on this command.

Now do you get it? So my whole point is that you CANT follow ALL hadiths word for word, it is impossible, and it would contradict the Quran. So stop attacking straw man, stop being a liar, stop being a typical missionary. You made up your own point and said that was my point. Stay consistent.





He Wrote


Zaatari has not given any evidence whatsoever for his desperate explanations. It is nothing more than the figment of his imagination. Even in today’s modern times, Muslims across the world still practice Muhammad’s perfect example as we illustrate here:


By Stephen Buckley

Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, December 13, 1997; Page A01


KORHOGO, Ivory Coast-The griots are wailing.

They howl into a squealing microphone as fellow storytellers, in a storm of sunflower golds and indigos and teals and cornflower blues, dip, leap, shake, stomp, twirl and shudder in fierce ecstatic dancing.

It is just after noon, and inside, in a steamy square room no larger than a prison cell, Aisha Camara is covered in a pink-and-white striped blanket. She briefly lifts a veil that hides her angular features. The griots and her neighbors are celebrating her wedding day, but she is not smiling.

She is 14 years old, and in this town in northern Ivory Coast, and throughout sub-Saharan Africa, such ceremonies are common. It does not matter that in numerous countries on this continent, such early marriages have been illegal for years.

Aisha's family will not publicly discuss this tradition, but people in her community eagerly defend it. People such as Boubacar Maiga, a neighbor who did not attend Aisha's wedding, say forcing girls to marry at such ages protects them from immorality, strengthens clan relationships AND HONORS ISLAM.

"If a girl doesn't marry at an early age, she'll sleep with many men. Nobody would want to marry her later," said Maiga, 55. Such marriages, he said, keep girls from "adventures."


He married his first wife when she was 11. He forced his oldest daughter to marry last year when she was 12. His next daughter, age 7, is scheduled to wed next year. Constance Yai, a prominent women's rights activist in this West African country, sees only tyranny in the tradition. Her battle to eradicate childhood marriage is for her a struggle between an oppressive Africa tied blindly to traditions versus one urgently seeking to embrace the modern world.

"Pedophilia is a phrase that's only recently become popular in the developed world," she said in her office in Abidjan, Ivory Coast's capital. "But in Africa, it's been around a long time."

The practice of forcing girls into marriage took hold decades ago throughout sub-Saharan Africa and is especially widespread in countries there WITH LARGE MUSLIM POPULATIONS.

The marriages typically occur within clans, the girl compelled to wed a distant relative-often two or three times her age-who sometimes has chosen her long before puberty.

Experts on Islamic law say the Koran does teach that a girl can be married as soon as she can conceive, but they say the religion does not condone forcing girls into wedlock.

Sociologists and teachers of Islamic law say that West African Muslims have accepted the tradition because it ostensibly promotes social stability, cementing ties between clans and preventing promiscuity.

Activists and medical professionals say pre-adolescent marriage is partly responsible for Africa's maternal mortality rates, among the highest in the world. Yai says it is not unusual for both mother and child to die during birth.

Yai said that "often the girls are pulled from school and forced to drop their education and become a wife overnight. These young women cannot turn to anyone to say no or to seek help." The real reason the practice has prevailed, she said, is that families often receive hundreds, even thousands of dollars as dowry. "It is what keeps this practice alive," she said.

But the practice has come under increasing assault since last year, when a then-12-year-old named Fanta Keita killed her 30-year-old husband. (Washington Post.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/africanlives/ivory/ivory.htm emphasis ours)

 




 

My Response

So what? Some Muslims practice it still, but most Muslims don’t, and neither do I. However so, since you like to bring up the actions of people, I will be more than glad to return the favour.

However warning to reader, what I post is adult-content and A-rated.

From a Christian website http://www.sexinchrist.com :

 

Threesomes Within a Christian Marriage


When a man and woman have joined together in a loving and holy marriage union, they may sometimes find that their love for one another and for God spills over outside of their relationship. Or they may find that other people are drawn to the joy, bliss, and passion that they radiate. In such situations, the desire or opportunity may arise to involve a third individual in their relationship - to form a threesome. Is this a temptation into sin, or a calling to a higher spiritual love? The answer is not clear in all situations, so we must turn to the Scriptures for guidance.

 

Is a Christian Threesome Possible?


The possibility of a threesome, or ménage a trois, brings up two main issues of concern to Christians, those of homosexuality and adultery. Much has been said about Biblical prohibitions against both of these behaviors, but we must look at this situation carefully in context to see how and whether these rules apply. Let’s first consider the problem of homosexuality as it relates to a threesome. It’s common knowledge that in several passages in both the Old and New Testament the Bible prohibits homosexual acts between men. Although two men having simultaneous sexual relations with one woman may not have any overt homosexual contact between them, the act of sharing a woman and being together in a sexual situation is nevertheless homoerotic and suggests implied homosexuality, as well as presenting a temptation to experiment where one may ordinarily not. For this reason, we feel it is best for a couple to avoid bringing another man into the picture.

Most people assume the Biblical prohibition against male homosexuality also includes sex between women - lesbianism or female bisexuality. However, this is a questionable conclusion, since the Bible makes little or no mention of women with regard to this subject, and because the Bible, for better or worse, often holds men and women to different standards regarding sex and sexual roles. Therefore, we believe that lesbianism cannot be seen in the same light as male homosexuality through the Scriptures.

The one passage that is frequently cited as condemning female homosexuality is found in Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts…” The idea of women going “against nature” is typically interpreted to mean women lusting after women. However, we believe that what Paul is referring to when he speaks of women “going against nature” is not female homosexuality per se, but rather the reversal of sexual roles that goes against the natural order established by God.

Of course, this does have relevance to the issue of female homosexuality, as many lesbians do assume masculine roles and attitudes, adopt male clothing and mannerisms, and play the part of a male in their relationships with women. Women who fall into this category (“butch” lesbians, or “bulldykes”) are indeed going against nature with regards to their sexuality. At the same time, however, there are many women who engage in lesbian or bisexual activity who nevertheless maintain a traditional feminine role and demeanor (i.e., “lipstick” lesbians). Since there is no specific prohibition against lesbian sex, as long as these women remain within the boundaries of the female role prescribed by Scripture, and submit to the authority of the men in their lives, we assume it is permissible. Of course, if their husband or father objected, that would be another story.


Isn’t a Threesome Adultery?

This leads directly to the subject of adultery, and whether female bisexual relations would be considered adultery in this context. This is another Biblical gray area, because within the Scripture and within the codes of Biblical law, adultery is always represented as intercourse between a man and a woman, specifically between a man and another man’s wife. Numbers 5 describes in detail the procedure for trying and punishing a woman for adultery, a process that can be initiated by the woman’s husband if his “wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, and a man has intercourse with her.” or “(I)f a spirit of jealousy comes over (the husband) and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself.” (Numbers 5:12-14) Since a husband’s jealousy can be aroused whether or not his wife has actually had sex with another man, what is pertinent here is not the act of extramarital intercourse, but the husband’s feeling of being wronged. So a wife’s lesbian activities, even though not in the parameters of what the Bible defines as adulterous behavior, could nevertheless be considered adultery if it makes the wife’s husband jealous.

Of course, many heterosexual men, rather than feeling threatened by lesbian sex, are fascinated by it, and in this case, the exploration of the wife’s sexuality with another woman could actually serve to draw the husband and wife closer together. However, in this situation we must ask what degree of participation is appropriate for the male, and how should he conduct himself so as not to commit adultery against his wife. This is a slippery slope, but if we look to the Scriptures, we can establish some guidelines for what is permissible.

The Old Testament is full of references to Biblical men, such as Solomon, David, and others, who had not only multiple wives, but also harems of concubines at their disposal. Today the practice of polygyny (one man having multiple wives) is illegal in most places. Although we can acknowledge polygyny in principal, we must recognize and honor the primacy and priority of the marriage bond between one husband and one wife. Whenever a third party is introduced into this equation, it must only be to support and strengthen the existing marriage bond between those two individuals. So, if bringing in another woman would in any way undermine the relationship between husband and wife, it should not be pursued.


Playing by God’s Rules

If, on the other hand, a married couple feels their relationship would benefit from them establishing a loving involvement another woman, out of respect for the couple’s marriage, and out of respect for any marital attachments of the other woman, they must abide by certain limits and conditions:

(1) To avoid the impropriety of male homosexuality, a heterosexual couple should not under any circumstances form a threesome with another man.

(2) Both women involved in the threesome must be willing to keep within traditional female roles (i.e., not taking on masculine appearance or behavior in or out of the bedroom) and recognize the male as the leader in the relationship.

(3) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is unmarried, it may be permissible for the husband to have relations with her only with his wife’s consent.

(4) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is unmarried, but the wife does not wish her to have relations with the other woman, the husband should respect this.

(5) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is married, her husband must not have objections to the relationship.

(6) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is married, the husband should refrain from having any sexual relations with her, and should make every effort to control his fantasies about her. He should concentrate his attention on his own wife.


The latter case is the most difficult for the husband, since he must not only refrain from having relations with the other married woman, in order to avoid making them both adulterers, but he must also refrain from having lustful thoughts about her, because of what Matthew 5:28 tells us: “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In this situation it is recommended that in order to avoid temptation, both the husband and his wife’s female partner focus their attentions and affection on the wife. If the husband finds it difficult to control his thoughts and fantasies about the other woman, it may be helpful to realize the meaning of this passage, which is that if you commit an act in your thoughts, it’s the same as committing it in real life. If a man imagines having intercourse with a married woman, then indeed, he has committed adultery in his heart. Instead, we would counsel this man to imagine that same married woman having sex with his wife; by taking himself out of the picture, he renders himself blameless. When in doubt, a married man would do well to apply this same principle in any situation involving a threesome with his wife and another woman.

To summarize, we feel a Christian threesome is morally acceptable if it meets these conditions: It must be composed of one man and two women, all of whom recognize and maintain proper sex roles for men and women in and out of the bedroom. All married members of the threesome must consent to the arrangement and have consent from their spouses. And finally, the purpose of the relationship must be that it ultimately strengthens the existing bond between husband and wife and allows all three parties to share and celebrate their love of God together.




ALSO

 

A Proposal for a Christian Pornography
September 28, 2005

Many readers have written in to ask us about pornography. Is it acceptable for Christians to view adult entertainment? Our stance on pornography is directly informed by our position on sex and sexuality with regards to Christianity. Depending on the circumstances, the act of intercourse can be either a defilement of the body and soul through lust and indulgence of the senses, or it can be a celebration of God-given sexuality that uplifts the bodies and spirits of both partners. Likewise, pornography could be either degrading and sinful (as it almost always is), or it could depict acts that, when viewed appropriately, could enhance the sexual and sensual relationships of believers.


Erotica with Biblical Foundations

Consider the Song of Solomon, a deeply sensual and erotic book of the Bible, which describes in lyrical detail the sexual and romantic relationship between a bride and bridegroom. Their dialogue relates to spiritual matters, but relates spirituality through a loving physical relationship between husband and wife. This is the model of erotic “edutainment” that we are proposing. We believe that under the right circumstances, and given the correct content, such adult media has the potential to enrich the sexual lives of married Christian partners.

Of course, there is little, if any adult entertainment currently on the market that reflects these values and would be a good choice for Christians. That leads us to call for a new kind of porn - porn that upholds the Christian ethos. Christ-centered porn, made to be viewed by Christians and tailored to their unique needs. We challenge Christians in the adult industry (yes, they do exist - and you know who you are) to step up and truly walk their walk and live their faith by producing pornography that men and women of God can view without compromising their relationship with their Savior, or their relationship with their spouse.

Christians have so many questions about sexuality: what is acceptable or not, how to express sexual desires to their husband or wife, how to have a more fulfilling sex life, and much more. Unfortunately, few in the church are willing to talk openly and in detail about these matters. Most sexual guides for Christians are vague or coy, glossing over graphic details. Believers need sexual resources that are unafraid to actually demonstrate and show them what healthy sexuality in a Christian marriage looks like. For these reasons, we believe there is both a need and a demand for Christian adult entertainment, and so we are issuing this manifesto calling for a new paradigm in pornography.



Toward a Framework for Christian Porn

ˇ

        It must depict only married couples engaging in sexual acts. This means that any sexual partners in a Christian porn production must be husband and wife, both on and off screen. All actors must be married in real life and portray married couples onscreen. And they must only be depicted having sex with their wedded spouses.
 

ˇ      It must portray sex within the context of a Christian marriage. It must be apparent through the actions, behaviors, and speech of the characters portrayed that they are Christian, lead a Christian lifestyle, and have a marriage in which their faith is central. This could be depicted in a variety of ways, with scenes showing a couple praying together, studying the Bible, attending church or church functions, and generally relating to one another as loving Christian spouses outside of the bedroom.
 

ˇ      It must be instructional. Part of the mission of Christian pornography is to graphically educate married believers in how to achieve more sexual pleasure, intimacy, and closeness in their relationships. It can do this by dramatizing various sexual techniques and positions so that couples can learn how to incorporate them into their lovemaking routines. In their onscreen roles, the actors should model both correct sexual techniques and appropriate sexual attitudes, by being respectful and treating one another’s bodies as the sacred gift from God that they are.
 

ˇ      Husband and wife must both receive their due benevolence. This is in keeping with the scriptural mandate of I Corinthians 7:3, which says “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.” This means that both sex partners must be shown getting equal pleasure and sexual attention from one another.
 

ˇ      No extramarital sex, unless it is to illustrate the downfalls of adultery. The spouses in a Christian porn production must never have adulterous relations, unless they (and their partner in extramarital crime) suffer and are punished fittingly for their sins. (In deference to modern conventions, the punishment does not have to be one mandated by scripture, i.e., being stoned to death.)
 

ˇ      It must be uplifting and inspirational, focusing on strengthening Christian marriage and Christian faith. Christian porn must have an overall positive message. Of course, its primary message would be to demonstrate the sacred use of sexuality and sensuality to reinforce the bonds of Christian marriage. But in all other respects, it should affirm Christian values of community, family, faith, honesty, charity, and so forth. It should show that having a joyous and fulfilling married sex life is one of the fruits of following the path of righteousness.
 

ˇ      No profanity. Although exclamations of pleasure are acceptable, as are the natural sounds and vocalizations of lovemaking, Christian porn should contain no profanity or swearing. The participants should address each other lovingly and respectfully at all times. Of course, it goes without saying that the actors will not take the Lord’s name in vain, nor that of his Son.

 

The Correct Use of Christian Porn

The primary purpose of Christian pornography is to allow married Christian couples to better celebrate their sexuality in order to become more intimate with each other and enjoy a closer walk with the Lord. We envision married couples watching these films or videos together, using them to initiate a frank and open dialogue about sexuality and their own sexual relationship, and then applying the techniques illustrated in the films and incorporating them into their own lovemaking. Watching Christian porn is not intended to replace sex in the marriage, nor is its purpose simply to arouse the sexual appetites of the husband and wife, but to encourage them to use their sexual drives to a higher purpose.

The point of Christian pornography is not to provide material for the fantasies of individuals to use for their own gratification or to fuel masturbation. Although masturbation in itself is not wrong, the highest purpose of Christian porn is to enrich the sexual relationship between believers. It is not primarily intended to be used by individuals to inflame their own desires or as a substitute for a relationship. Under some circumstances, an individual might be justified in viewing this material on his or her own. For example, if the purpose of viewing the pornography is ultimately in the service of the marriage, if a man wanted to become better instructed in how to please his wife orally, or if a wife needed help getting in touch with her sexuality in order to be more open to intimacy with her husband.

Likewise, a single person might find Christian porn instructional if it better prepares them for relating to their future spouse. One of the complaints against conventional pornography is that it creates unrealistic expectations about sex and warps the viewer’s attitudes towards sexuality and the opposite sex. This argument could not be made against Christian porn, because it would be presenting a healthy and realistic representation of married Christian sexual life, and would be modeling correct and respectful husband-wife relationships, creating a positive vision for what can be expected in a future marriage.



LOLLLLL so I suggest you do not bring up the actions of people next time. Also lest you say they are following the Quran and the prophet, then same here. These Christians are following the Bible. :).

 


He Wrote

WHERE DID ALLAH OR MUHAMMAD PROHIBIT MARRYING YOUNG GIRLS, OR SAID THAT ONLY MUHAMMAD WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILD BRIDES?

 

My Response

This is one of the greatest straw man argument I have ever seen.

WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT HAVING A YOUNG BRIDE WAS ONLY RESTRICTED TO THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD? I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THIS, BRING ME THE QUOTATION AND QUOTE IT FOR ALL OF US TO SEE.


Quenn is in a very bad hole now.




He Wrote

What makes this even more amusing is that Zaatari actually winds up contradicting himself. Earlier he said:


So note what Quenn is arguing, he is arguing IN ONE POINT OF HISTORY, it was okay to kill women and children, something completely normal and justifiable and not bad at all. Can this get any worse for him?

 
This clearly illustrates that Zaatari is against me using the argument that for that the Biblical wars were acceptable in light of its historical and cultural contexts, even though they may not deemed acceptable today, but then ends up using this very same type of argument to justify Muhammad's molesting a young girl!


It would be illogical to say to follow the prophet in every single way, because this cannot be, TIMES CHANGE, so therefore THERE COULD BE THINGS THE PROPHET DID IN HIS TIME, WHICH WE CANNOT DO NOW, this is something logical. So hence it seems Quennal doesn’t even understand his points properly.




My Response

Thank you for showing how silly and pathetic you really are.

Note what Quenn is doing, Quenn is trying to compare the murder of women and children in the Bible, with the age of marriages throughout history!!!!!!

Everyone knows throughout history the age of marriages have changed, in fact it is just recently that the age of consent has been brought up. However so we all know that it was NEVER okay to kill women and children. So hence Quenn shows how silly he really is.

Secondly, it seems Quenn forgot something very very important. Those children being killed in the Bible are INNOCENT. They committed no crimes, so hence Quenn is justifying the killing of innocent women and children, something his Bible condemns!!!!!!  Or wait a minute, we have a Bible contradiction, on one hand its say do not kill innocent people, on the other hand it does.

Unlike in Islam, when babies are killed by God, God will grant them mercy and paradise, unlike the Bible where they will be doomed to hell thanks to original sin.

Also, it wasn’t just in ONE POINT of history where it was okay to marry at young ages, in the majority of history it was okay! Heck people were still practicing it 100 years ago in Europe! In the states as well! So hence its not even classified as history yet!

So Quenn tried to be smart, however it failed again. Everyone knows that the age of marriages changes throughout time, this is something normal, however so, everyone also knows that it is WRONG to kill women and children, no matter what century you live in. 1400 years ago, the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children, that was not the modern times now was it, so hence this is one historical point of time where killing women and children was seen as something wrong!

So two completely different things, the fact he tried to compare them shows how pathetic he really is.




He Wrote

So while it is wrong to argue this way in seeking to understanding the Bible's teaching on warfare, IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO USE THIS ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY MUHAMMAD BANGING A 9 YEAR OLD GIRL!! Zaatari himself states it better than we could:


However at the same time, we do know it is impossible to follow the hadiths 100%, because TIMES HAVE CHANGED, and the way YOU DO SOMETHING things have also changed. This is not a sin, nor a crime; this is just how it is.

 

My Response

Yes, however so, it was ALWAYS wrong to kill women and children in warfare. So hence you show what a lunatic you are by thinking it is okay in one point of history to massacre women and children, you are very very sick. As I said, I am debating an extremist.





He Wrote

Based on Zaatari’s own statements


When times change you as a person have to change and so do your practices, and this is neither a sin nor a crime.

 

He is explicitly claiming that ancient practices such as Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha aren’t necessarily crimes or sins just because times and people's thinking have changed today. And yet he conveniently ignores this line of reasoning when it comes to the Holy Bible's teachings:


Actually, in which century, and in which time period was it ever deemed acceptable to kill women and children? You trying to even argue along such a line as saying: ‘oh yah in the past, such as Biblical times, it was okay to kill women and children’. Are you that silly?

 
Notice that I was chastised for saying that, “we must judge cultural events in light of their ancient culture”. I was even called silly!! Yet Zaatari claims that because times have changed in reference to the Hadith and Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha that:


This is not a sin, nor a crime; this is just how it is
.

 
Hence, since the Bible is thousands of years older than Islam and Muhammad we can claim that in reference to the killing of women and children that, in Zaatari’s own words: 


This is not a sin, nor a crime; this is just how it is
.


Zaatari has so obviously embarrassed for being so inconsistent and a hypocrite that no amount of verbal gymnastics is going to help him. It is an obvious contradiction to say:


Muhammad cultural practices, like marrying Aisha is ok


But then claim:

It is wrong to justify the Bible's command to kill women and children since it was cultural acceptable at that time.

 
Zaatari has done the job for us and refuted himself, without us needing to even write anything more on this issue. But for the fun of it and for the readers' enjoyment, we’ll continue.




My Response

Thank you for further destroying your credibility. Again, let me repeat it for you, in no point of history was it okay to kill women and children, and massacre them, it was wrong. So get this through your head. So if rape was okay 3000 years ago, would this mean it was okay and no sin on them for raping people back then? Are you that stupid?

In fact the Bible allows rape:

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

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

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_16.htm


It is your wishful thinking that I refuted myself. It is also your wishful thinking that in one point of history it was okay to kill women and children, using this logic this means that when Romans raped women in their arenas, this was perfectly okay since no one cared about it or objected much since it was a form of entertainment. This shows how sick you are, and how much help you need. So according to Queball, he thinks it was okay for women to get raped in history, thank your for refuting yourself and destroying your entire credibility. 

Never in history was it okay to kill women and kids, nor was it okay to rape women. You and anyone who tries to argue that it was needs help.




He Wrote

Response:

Zaatari is obviously unable to address this damaging evidence against Muhammad. Yes, medical science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s very bad to marry a young girl, contrary to Muhammad’s "perfect" example. However, Zaatari has resorted to the same thing he accuses us of doing throughout his paper, namely, failing to address the argument at hand. Let me repeat what Zaatari said earlier:


Anyone reading the previous rebuttal of mine will clearly see you really failed to address anything I said. You did not even try to defend the massacres of women and children in your Bible, you simply brushed it aside. So yes, you did fail to address anything in your initial supposed response. Hopefully in this response of yours, you will be able to respond unlike last time. We shall await and see, me and the readers are very excited and anxious to see if you will do it. So common Quenn! Make us proud.

 
Now did he address anything at all about how the evidence of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was damaging to her medically?

No.

As you can clearly see, Zaatari brushed it aside by trying to argue that:


As you becoming a doctor to show us it is bad to get married at a young age, Aisha lived and died an as an old lady in her time, and she loved the prophet and loved the marriage.

 

 
My Response

What was there to address? All you showed is that marrying girls at a young age can cause some medical harm, does that prove the prophet Muhammad is false and that Islam is false? NO! So hence that is all that can be said in this issue.

many many things we do cause us medical harm. Walking in the streets cause us medical harms from all the pollution from cars! So hence why doesn’t your Bible forbid you to walk on streets? Why does it no tell you to cover your faces to prevent this harm? Why not? Using your logic, the Bible is now ignorant, and simply did not care, therefore it is not from God. Also remember, I said USING YOUR LOGIC.



He Wrote

Apparently Zaatari is ignorant of the fact that just because Aisha lived to be 50 years old DOESN’T INVALIDATE THE FACT THAT IT IS MEDICALLY DAMAGING TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A GIRL AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE. Crack heads live to old age every day, does it mean because they lived long and loved crack THAT THIS THEREFORE SOMEHOW PROVES THAT CRACK IS NOT DAMAGING? NO! Zaatari wants me to address the extremely broad issue of violence in the Bible, but he can’t even answer a couple of paragraphs dealing with the marriage of his prophet to Aisha! In his words:


you simply brushed it aside

 

My Response


What does this all prove? I brushed it aside?  What is there to say!!!! Yes medical harm can result out of young marriages, but so what? Are we going to forbid everything that causes harm to us? ARE WE? It seems you the master of logical fallacies.

Secondly, to turn the tables on you once again, according to your colleague Sam Shamoun, ALL foods are permissible, as he states in this article:

"‘Are you so dull?’ he asked, ‘Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.’ (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean.’) He went on: ‘What comes out of a man is what makes him "unclean." For from within, out of men’s hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man "unclean".’" Mark 7:18-23

As the Lord says, food entering the body doesn’t defile anyone internally, but rather it is a person’s heart that makes one clean or not. God created all creatures which obviously means that all animals are good by design since nothing that God makes is evil or defiling. The apostle Paul beautifully summed up the words of Jesus:

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 1 Timothy 4:1-5

The statements in the book of Acts do not contradict this in the least, nor do they imply that pork cannot be consumed, since any animal which is offered to idols, is strangled, or has blood in it would be made unlawful irrespective of whether it is a cow or a pig!

Moreover, the context of Acts 15 deals with the apostles and elders actually freeing the Gentile Christians from having to observe certain aspects of the Law such as the ceremonies and dietary prohibitions:

"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni'cia and Sama'ria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.’ The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’ … After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, "After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old." Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues.’ Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: ‘The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’" Acts 15:1-11, 13-29

This in itself shows that the intention behind the council in Acts 15 was to make certain things lawful for the Gentile believers such as the consumption of all foods provided that they met certain conditions, conditions which Jesus didn’t intend to over turn. After all, Jesus wouldn’t permit believers from eating foods offered to idols just as the following references prove(http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_pork.htm)

So note, according to his best pal, ALL foods are permissible. Yet we know that there are several animals out there that can cause harm to us by eating them, so hence the Bible is not from God thanks to Quenns logic. He then does some ranting on this issue which doesn’t establish much, so no need to post it.




He Wrote

Response:

Zaatari never ceases to amaze me. If you look at his quotes and highlight what they are saying, you will actually find out that it is SUPPORTING THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT ALCOHOL WHICH IS BAD, BUT EXCESSIVE MISUSE OF IT THAT IS WRONG! Let’s show you some examples from his own quotes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5194258-103690,00.html

EXCESSIVE DRINKING causes brain damage in women more quickly than in men, according to a team of scientists.

The finding is especially worrying in the light of reports that BINGE DRINKING among women is soaring, according to the charity Alcohol Concern.

Scientists at the University of Heidelberg in Germany took brain scans of 158 volunteers, 76 of whom were alcoholic men and women. They found they could use the brain scans to trace the progression of alcohol dependency in women.

The scans also revealed that alcohol-induced brain damage could be picked up much earlier in women than men.

"The women developed equal brain-volume reductions as the men after a significantly shorter period of alcohol dependence," said Karl Mann, who led the study.

The study, which appears in the May issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, supports evidence that the harmful effects of alcohol differ between the sexes.

Notice here that his quote doesn’t say that “alcohol causes brain damage but that “EXCESSIVE DRINKING” causes serious medical problems! It is known that alcohol is harmful WHEN IT IS USED EXCESSIVELY. But so is medicine such as aspirin, cough medicine, penicillin, and HONEY, WHICH CAN ROT A PERSON’S TEETH! Zaatari may ask why I mentioned ‘honey’. The reason is because Muhammad advocated it as a remedy!

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

(The Prophet said), "Healing is in three things: A gulp of honey, cupping, and branding with fire (cauterizing)." But I forbid my followers to use (cauterization) branding with fire." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 584: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html#007.071.584 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html>)      

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet said, "Healing is in three things: cupping, a gulp of honey or cauterization, (branding with fire) but I forbid my followers to use cauterization (branding with fire)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 585: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html#007.071.585 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html>)      

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

A man came to the Prophet and said, "My brother has some abdominal trouble." The Prophet said to him "Let him drink honey." The man came for the second time and the Prophet said to him, 'Let him drink honey." He came for the third time and the Prophet said, "Let him drink honey." He returned again and said, "I have done that ' The Prophet then said, "Allah has said the truth, but your brother's abdomen has told a lie. Let him drink honey." So he made him drink honey and he was cured. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 588: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html#007.071.588 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html>)      

Narrated Abu Said:

A man came to the Prophet and said, "My brother has got loose motions." The Prophet said, "Let him drink honey." The man again (came) and said, "I made him drink (honey) but that made him worse." The Prophet said, "Allah has said the Truth, and the abdomen of your brother has told a lie." (See Hadith No. 88) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 614: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html#007.071.614 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html>)      

Here are some more quotes from Zaatari's own sources:

<http://corp.aadac.com/for_women/the_basics_about_women/women_effects_alcohol.asp>

Alcohol is often believed to be a stimulant, because it lowers inhibitions and impairs planning and judgment. But alcohol actually acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, slowing down brain functioning.

omen are more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than men, and experience its harmful medical complications in a shorter period of time.

Women who drink heavily tend to develop liver or heart disease after fewer years of heavy drinking than men. (5, 11) These women also experience greater damage to their brain structure after fewer years of heavy drinking than men who are heavy drinkers. (11)

Women who consume as few as two drinks per day are at increased risk of developing high blood pressure. (5)

With as few as two or three drinks a day, a woman is at increased risk of dying from liver disease, cancer or injury. (5)

Consumption of as many as four drinks per day increases the risk of stroke among women. (5)

Higher levels of alcohol consumption may have negative effects on a woman's menstrual cycle. She may have more painful, heavy, or irregular periods as a result. (5, 8, 14)

Heavy alcohol consumption may lead to the deterioration of female reproductive health. Ovarian wasting (shrinkage) or abnormal function, endometriosis (cysts outside the uterus), infertility and sexual dysfunction have all been observed in alcoholic women. (5, 8, 14)

Effects during pregnancy

Drinking while pregnant may harm the developing fetus. Much research is being done, but to date there is still no known safe level of alcohol consumption for pregnant women. Most doctors and researchers believe it is safest not to drink while pregnant.

It is unclear whether a child's health problems are caused solely by a mother's use of alcohol during pregnancy or in combination with other factors including

 

 

My Response


I would like to thank Quenn for exposing himself yet again. His argument is now saying if YOU DRINK ALOT then this leads to damage. However so, it seems he does not read the quotes carefully. Here is one of them again:


Women who consume as few as two drinks per day are at increased risk of developing high blood pressure
. (5)


With as few as two or three drinks a day
, a woman is at increased risk of dying from liver disease, cancer or injury. (5)

 

Does this sound like a lot to you? AS FEW as 2 drinks a day can cause you a lot of harm. Many people to drink 1 to 2 glasses of alcohol everyday, this is what they call MODERATE DRINKING, this is not classified as excessive drinking. So hence thank you for showing us how you do not know how to read.




He Wrote

From this source we find out that:


Women who drink heavily tend to develop liver or heart disease after fewer years of heavy drinking than men
.

Higher levels of alcohol consumption may have negative effects on a woman's menstrual cycle. She may have more painful, heavy, or irregular periods as a result. (5, 8, 14)

Heavy alcohol consumption may lead to the deterioration of female reproductive health. Ovarian wasting (shrinkage) or abnormal function, endometriosis (cysts outside the uterus), infertility and sexual dysfunction have all been observed in alcoholic women. (5, 8, 14)

(Notice that this is focusing on heavy drinking not moderate drinking)


As you can clearly see, this source focuses more on the effects of HEAVY DRINKING and how it harms the body. What is damaging for Zaatari is that none of his sources say that ALCOHOL SHOULD BE TOTALLY REJECTED. They know very well that alcohol in itself wouldn’t cause these conditions but MISUSE AND OVERUSE OF ALCOHOL. This is the equivalent of me saying that we should prohibit aspirin just because some people overdose and die from it! Wouldn’t that sound very foolish? Yes. The same can be said about this argument of Zaatari

 


My Response


Quenn is lying to himself, Quenn actually believes that if you only drink ALOT of alcohol then you will start to feel its affects, such an assumption is hilarious to say the least.

For instance, alcoholics who overcome their abuse, if they even drink one small glass of alcohol this will lead them to drink more and more again! That is why they completely stay away from it, not even taking one sip of it! So hence this silly argument of Quenn that ‘ oh only if your drink a lot of alcohol then you will feel bad’.




He Wrote


The effects of alcohol have been difficult to study because these other factors also have an impact on the pregnancy.

Pregnant women who consume 10 or more drinks per week, or one to two drinks per day, are at higher risk of premature labour and delivery THAN WOMEN WHO RARELY DRINK. (13)

 

Notice that alcohol in and of itself isn’t prohibited but that pregnancy problems occur in women who consume HIGH VOLUMES of alcohol. Hence, if Zaatari is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn’t prohibit alcohol, he has no case since it isn't alcohol in moderation that cause harmful effects on the body BUT EXCESSIVE ALCOHOLIC INTAKE THAT DOES! Zaatari’s own sources prove this by saying that women who drink alcohol moderately (notice that it doesn’t prohibit alcohol like Zaatari wants us to believe) can even breastfeed!

 


My Response


Even moderate drinking can cause you harm!!!!! Drinking one glass of alcohol a day, is considered as MODERATE drinking.

Your Bible does not prohibit alcohol, good you point it out, so this means you can drink as much as you want!!!!!!!! So what are you arguing about???? Your Bible does not prohibit alcohol, so you as a Christian can go drink as much as you want, it is not forbidden for you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20051202-16242100-bc-newzealand-alcohol.xml

AUCKLAND, New Zealand, Dec. 2 (UPI) -- The benefits of drinking alcohol in moderation may be outweighed by the harms, according to New Zealand researchers.

Many studies dating back more than 25 years suggest a 20-percent to 25-percent reduction in heart disease risk linked to light drinking, reported the BBC Friday.

However, lead researcher Dr. Rod Jackson, of the University of Auckland, said any coronary protection from light-to-moderate drinking would be very small and unlikely to outweigh the harms.


"If so, the public health message is clear. Do not assume there is a window in which the health benefits of alcohol are greater than the harms -- there is probably no free lunch," said Jackson.


Quenn then continues to argue nothing, he does not get the fact that his Bible does not prohibit alcohol, so hence someone can drink 5 glasses of alcohol a day, and to that person it could be moderate drinking for him and acceptable. So hence Quenn is arguing nothing at all.




He Wrote

Now Zaatari is trying to pass off the Biblical God as not being his God since alcohol is the issue at hand. However, Zaatari couldn’t even give an answer to this verse here:

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

Do notice that according to his own book his God is suppose to be the very same God who revealed the Bible to the Jews and the Christians! Even in his second part response to me Zaatari tries to overcome this by saying:

 

 

My Response

Yes, he revealed the truth in the Gospel and Torah, not the lies, and he has completed all of it with the Quran. The book which DOES prohibit alcohol, however so you believe the Bible, which NEVER prohibits alcohol.




He Wrote

Zaatari’s statement is loaded with inaccuracies to say the least. If he believes that the TRUE BIBLE is called the Gospel, he eliminates the Torah as being the True Bible! Secondly where exactly did Allah say that the true Bible is called the Gospel in the Quran? What is embarrassing for Zaatari is that the Gospel also has episodes where alcohol is used as in the case of Jesus at the wedding in Cana:


On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. WHEN THE WINE WAS GONE, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have NO MORE WINE." "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water THAT HAD BEEN TURNED INTO WINE. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him. John 2:1-11


This source comments on this episode: 


The first miracle of Jesus took place in the village of Cana, in Galilee
. Jesus, His Mother Mary, and His disciples were quests at a wedding. The wine supply ran out, and through the urging of His Mother, Jesus had six water pots filled to the brim with water. He then had the master of ceremonies taste the water that was now wine. The master of ceremonies then called the bridegroom over and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the quests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now". (Source <http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/m1.htm>)

 

Jesus' first miracle according to the true Bible, the Gospel (in Zaatari’s words), was turning water into wine! Zaatari can’t win for losing in this rebuttal! Even the Quran says that Jesus performed miracles by Allah’s leave! Shabbir Alley, noted Islamic apologist has this to say about Jesus:

 

My Response


Injeel means GOSPEL, not BIBLE. Torah and Injeel are two different books, Quenn goes into circular reasoning when he assumed they are one book just because his church put the OT and NT into one complete book!

Secondly, the true Gospel does not exist, so that story you quote is doubtful to say the least. Secondly, back then alcohol was not forbidden YET. So it was okay, God forbade alcohol later on with the Quran, however so, since you do not believe in the Quran, this means alcohol was NEVER prohibited according to your god. So IF Jesus did it back then, there is no shame, alcohol was not forbidden back then now was it?

So straw-man argument again.

As for Muslims arguing that Jesus performed miracles by Allah’s leave, I even wrote about this! :

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_45.htm

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


So what is your point in bringing Shabir up who also did the same thing? Was this supposed to be a knock-out blow for me? LOL

Also finally, Quenn assumes that all miracles in the Bible are true authentic accounts, that is a major fallacy. He is ASSUMING everything in his corrupted Bible is from God. Hence he makes the mistake of thinking that if the Quran says that God gave Jesus miracles, then this means it includes all the miracles mentioned in the corrupted Bible. That is what you call a stupid fallacy.

Quenn then quotes Shabir, which establishes nothing. All Quenn wants to do is make his article seem longer.




He Wrote

Actually Zaatari’s conclusion doesn’t help him whatsoever on this issue! First off here is a list of things which can be harmful according to medical science but must not be prohibited in any circumstance:

1.   Aspirin (If you use this excessively it will cause an overdose and kill you). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it!

2.   Physical Exercise (If you use this excessively it will cause you to die of exhaustion). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it!

3.   Computers (If you use this excessively it will cause eye loss and other eye problems). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it!

4.   Water (If you use this excessively it can lead to a condition known as water intoxication and to a related problem resulting from the dilution of sodium in the body, hyponatremia. -(Source <http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm>)). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it!

5.   Food (If you use this excessively it can lead to overweight health problems). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it.    

So in Zaatari’s very own words:

Also since you tried to be funny, surely your God is all-knowing isn’t he, so why did he not ban alcohol when he knew all the problems it would cause? Oh well, it seems once again your God is not all-knowing and doesn’t really know much at all.

Since God knows EVERYTHING we must ask Zaatari do you believe that he should ban the 5 examples we gave above SINCE HE OBVIOUSLY WOULD KNOW HOW MANY PROBLEMS THEY CAN AND DO CAUSE? Zaatari is clearly arguing along the line that




My Response

Once again Quenn proves he is really brain dead. When I made that comment, I WAS USING QUENN’S OWN LOGIC. LOLL. I really cant believe he didn’t get that!

Quenn first started arguing that marrying young girls causes medical harm, this supposedly showed the prophet Muhammad was not a prophet, and that Allah was a false God, and he should have known the effects of young marriages.

So THEN I used this very same logic with Quennal Gale!!!!! In fact just earlier I stated:

What does this all prove? I brushed it aside?  What is there to say!!!! Yes medical harm can result out of young marriages, but so what? Are we going to forbid everything that causes harm to us? ARE WE? It seems you the master of logical fallacies.

So thank you Quenn for showing what a brain dead missionary you are. I was using your own form of argumentation AGAINST YOU. In other words, I turned your own reasoning, and your own arguments against you. You must be consistent when you argue. Let me summarize for you to understand:

1- You say the prophet Muhammad cannot be a prophet for marrying Aisha at a young age which could cause medical harm.

2- Therefore your God cannot be God since he does not prohibit things that cause medical harms!

Now do you get it? My God your hilarious!


In fact even in my previous rebuttal I stated:


Yes, I am very amused, because using your logic, your Bible is not the word of God, since according to your criteria, something which may cause medical harm, and is practiced, then that person who practices it cannot be a prophet, so using that criteria, your Bible cannot be from God since it never prohibits alcohol which is something that causes so many problems. So thank you for indirectly stating your Bible is not the word of God, yes I am very amused!


So I suggest you read more carefully next time, since I even told you I was using your stupid logic!!!!! My God you really are brain dead. Thank you for exposing yourself YET AGAIN.


Also note what Quenn said in his previous article:


We’ve shown that sex at a young age is very detrimental to the young girl. Surely Allah and Muhammad must have known this since Allah is all knowing,


So note Quenn is using this argument!!!!!!!! Quenn you really are brain-dead BIG TIME. You are the one who argued along this line, that since Allah didn’t prohibit something, and allowed something that may cause medical harm, this means Allah is not a true God. You were the one who made this argument! I simply turned it on you!

Now do you understand?





He Wrote

Because Alcohol causes problems, it is bad and should be banned.

Needless to say that everything causes problems when used excessively! Zaatari can’t make excuses for eliminating other examples and focusing on alcohol alone for alcohol in moderation is no more dangerous than any of the 5 examples we gave above. Even if all of his examples mentioned excessive alcohol use as being bad, it would be no different than excessive aspirin, physical exercise, computer usage, food and water since they can be and are detrimental to a person’s health. Zaatari wants to know why God wouldn’t prohibit alcohol in biblical times. Here is the answer as given by Dr. Salvatore P. Lucia, professor of medicine at the University of California School of Medicine:

"Wine is the most ancient dietary beverage and the most important medicinal agent in continuous use throughout the history of mankind . . . . Actually, few other substances available to man have been as widely recommended for their curative powers as have wines" (Wine as Food and Medicine; pp. 5, 58).





My Response

This is getting a bit funny. Everyone knows, the harm of alcohol is greater than the good from it, in fact this is something the Quran says. So a Muslim is the last person Quenn wants to come to saying oh alcohol has lots of useful things, because the Quran acknowledged that. However the Quran also acknowledged the fact that there was more harm than good from it.

Secondly, Quenn suddenly starts to play dumb when he says:

Needless to say that everything causes problems when used excessively! Zaatari can’t make excuses for eliminating other examples and focusing on alcohol alone for alcohol in moderation is no more dangerous than any of the 5 examples we gave above.

Everyone knows alcohol is different than all these other substances that Quenn mentions. For instance, why did they ban alcohol in the United states for a while? Why not ban all those medicines? Why did the SPEICIFICALLY ban alcohol? Why do many other countries have a lot of harsh laws dealing with alcohol and not a lot with medicines? So hence Quenn can play dumb all he wants, it will only make him look dumb.

The fact that he is trying to put other substances on the same level as alcohol, and argue that they are just as bad is amusing to say the least.

Go look at the statistics of death cause by alcohol, and compare it with the deaths of people caused by excessive medicine consumption. That in itself will refute Quenn's arguments.

And again, alcohol even in moderation can and does harm you, so stop making up fantasy details from your own head.

ANYWAY, forget about alcohol, this has nothing to do with the REAL topic. I brought alcohol up to use your own stupid logic against you, to which I did, so it is your problem and not mine. Next time I suggest you stay a bit consistent in your arguments.




He Wrote

God in his wisdom knew all of this in relation to alcohol and that is why he didn't totally prohibit its use in the Holy Bible. Zaatari would rather have people dying of diabetes, stress, blood clots, cardiovascular diseases and heart attacks just so people could follow his prophet’s example of total forbiddance! I always said that Islam was:

Ignorance

Stupidity

Lies

Associated with

Muhammad





My Response

To show who is stupid and who isnt, let us look at the death toll cause by alcohol, and all its external effects:

http://www.publichealthnews.com/news/showcontent.asp?id
={EB27D857-8E77-4F01-8FFB-CCD949C8A161}



Alcohol-related deaths in the UK have risen by a massive 18.4 per cent in the past five years, new figures have shown. The figures, obtained from the Office for National Statistics by the Liberal Democrats, reveal an alarming increase in deaths where the underlying cause could be directly related to alcohol use - diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver. Yorkshire and Humber showed by far the biggest increase at 46.5 per cent.

Also showing ‘worrying’ increases were the north-east with 28.4 per cent, the west midlands with 24.2 per cent, the north-west with 24.1 per cent and Wales at 21.4 per cent. The north-west saw the most drink-related deaths last year with 1,179, followed by the south-east with 842, London with 772, the west midlands with 750 and Yorkshire and the Humber at 627. Wales had the lowest count, with 419, and there were 430 alcohol-related deaths in the north-east. The only area to show a decreasing rate was London, which saw 806 drink-related deaths in 2000 compared to the 772 in 2004 - a drop of 4.2 per cent.

Alcohol was recorded as the primary cause of death on 6,544 people’s death certificates in 2004, compared with 5,525 in 2000. Tens of thousands more will have died as an indirect result of alcohol, from conditions like heart disease or cancer.

The revelations came just days after the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges warned that plans to relax licensing laws could lead to an increase in violent crime, including rapes and serious assaults. Lynne Featherstone, Lib Dem spokesperson on home affairs, who requested the figures in a parliamentary question, said: ‘These figures are deeply worrying. The government must address the underlying reasons why people are drinking themselves literally to death.'

‘I’m worried that the proposed change to licensing laws will add to this startling increase in drink-related deaths. The government should pause for more thought before it brings in changes to the licensing laws in November.’

A spokesperson for Alcohol Concern said: ‘The increase in alcohol-related deaths is deeply worrying but, rather sadly, not surprising. Alcohol consumption has been rising for the last 50 years in the UK, and unfortunately many people do drink above the recommended daily benchmarks of two units a day for women and three for men.

‘Alcohol directly causes thousands of deaths a year, and contributes massively to deaths from cancer, stroke and heart attack. We urge the government to think beyond its obsession with binge drinkers and antisocial behaviour, and look at investing much more in specialist alcohol services that meet the needs of those problem drinkers who may or may not be binge drinkers.’


Also note this report states the moderate drinking for a lady is 2 cups, hmm what did a medical doctor say about that?  


Women who consume as few as two drinks per day are at increased risk of developing high blood pressure
. (5)


With as few as two or three drinks a day
, a woman is at increased risk of dying from liver disease, cancer or injury. (5)


So much for moderate drinking being helpful and good. I guess we now know who the real idiot is. YOU.


Also anyone reading this rebuttal will see how pathetic you are, and how you cannot respond to anything. So keep it up, for everytime you respond, you just make yourself look worse as I have shown, you attacked straw mans again, and brought up arguments that you started then attacked me for using the same logic against you even when I told you I was doing so! TALK ABOUT DUMB. This is what I say about Christianity:

Cult

Hopeless

Rapists

Idiocy

Stupidity

Terrorists

Ignorant

Allergic to the truth

No hope

Insanity

Tree worshippers

You're all lost


That is what I say of Christianity.





He Wrote

"No longer drink only water, but use a little wine FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR STOMACH AND YOUR FREQUENT AILMENTS." 1 Timothy 5:23

Yet it does prohibit its abuses:

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. (Romans 13:13)

Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless-not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. (Titus 1:7)

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (1Timothy 3:2-3)

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do-living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. (1 Peter 4:3)

Drunkenness, not alcohol, is prohibited in the Bible! We have shown already that excessive use of alcohol is detrimental to the health of a person, WHICH IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN IN THE BIBLE! However, because alcohol has medical benefits relating to the heart and the blood system among other important factors, IT ISN’T PROHIBITED WHEN CONSUMED IN MODERATION.




My Response

Quenn has fooled himself into a lie which is quite amusing. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE DRUNK TO HAVE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL!

Who ever said to have a harmful effect from alcohol means you have to get drunk? Many people drink alcohol and do not get drunk, and still get the effects.

Secondly, to Quenn, what is moderate drinking to you? How much is moderate drinking to you? 4 glasses? 2? 1? 8? how many? Moderate drinking is minimum of 2 glasses for a lady, and 3 for a man. Even from that we saw it still causes effects on the people.

Also again, Quennals Bible verses do not help him out, because all it says is do not become drunk. There are many many people who can drink ALOT and not get drunk, in fact I have seen this from Arab Christians who live in the UAE. So hence Quennal makes things worse for himself, Quennal assumed that excessive drinking means you get drunk, however that is not the case, because people can drink up to 6-7 glasses of alcohol and not get drunk. Hence he is in a problem, his Bible says DO NOT GET DRUNK, however there are many people who can drink a lot and not get drunk, however so this still causes bodily damage to the human body. So thank you Quenn, thank you for showing how ignorant your Bible is.

So according to the Bible, you can drink, but just do not get drunk. So what does that do? NOTHING. Even moderate drinking causes effects, and many people can drink a lot without getting drunk. Hence Quenn is still in a hole, and now his Bible is in a real big hole since it says DO NOT GET DRUNK. And there are people who can drink a lot without getting drunk. Quenn can solve this mess for us.

Quenn himself said:

Drunkenness, not alcohol, is prohibited in the Bible!

So there you go, drink alcohol, and drink as much as you want, just dont get drunk, and if you do get drunk then your in sin. LOL. His Bible is more stupid than he is.





He Wrote

Obviously Zaatari must convince himself that I have no case since my sources upon which his entire religion is based, namely the Sunnah and the Quran . Yet Zaatari doesn’t show how I don’t have a case other than just stating that I don't. If my case was nonexistent then Zaatari could have easily pointed out where I was wrong based on Islam itself. Instead:

   1. He states that it is illogical to follow everything Muhammad said (based on his own opinion).

   2. He states that I don’t have a case (though he doesn’t show how or why).

   3. He claims that I must be consistent and not attack other prophets (even though he does the same thing with his attacks on Moses and Joshua by claiming that their writings are vile and violent).





My Response

This has already been dealt with. Also again, yes you have NO case, just because your slow, does not mean I have to repeat myself 10 times for you. Scroll up and read, and go back to my previous rebuttal and read.




He Wrote

o if Muslims believe in all the prophets then why is Zaatari claiming that when the prophets killed women and children, THEY WERE VIOLENT AND VILE AND NOT OF GOD? Also Zaatari is desperately looking for a way out by saying, “we shouldn’t judge the prophets by modern thinking”. When I said this he claimed I was silly and wrong but when he does the very same thing, it’s okay! The Million Dollar question Zaatari failed to answer is, “WHERE IS THE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT THE BIBLICAL WARS WERE CONSIDERED VILE AND VIOLENT IN LIGHT OF THEIR ANCIENT CONTEXT”? Zaatari has not given us a single shred of evidence aside from quoting verses of the Bible and claming that, “oh yeah, these are violent”! If he is so honest about examining ancient prophets in light of their historical settings, then why is he claiming that the very wars they fought were violent and vile?

 



My Response

Again, Quenn barks OLD STUFF. He barks the same argument when he says:

if Muslims believe in all the prophets then why is Zaatari claiming that when the prophets killed women and children, THEY WERE VIOLENT AND VILE AND NOT OF GOD?

I specifically addressed this in my last rebuttal to you!!!!!!! My God are you that freaking stupid?!!!!!!

Quenn here is some advice for you, go back to school, go learn on how to read English, since I find myself repeating things to you over and over, and you always seem to be asking the same things to which I have already responded. I honestly now believe you suffer from some mental defect, and you should go check this out immediately. I really believe you are slow, and cannot fully grasp things, there is a term for it, but you can go look it up.

In fact let me quote from my previous rebuttal to you, where you brought up the same point to which I answered:

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

So the only ignorant one here is you, who is trying to mix up what I am saying and attack me from there. Again, if you don’t get it, I don’t really believe those stories in the OT, I doubt their authenticity and truthfulness.

Did you miss that part Mr.Quenn?

Here is more from what I said in the last rebuttal to this point of yours:

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

So I wonder how you missed that part? HOW? You are really lost.

Also in light of ancient context, when Romans raped women in arenas as a form of entertainment, it was seen as something okay, so I guess you will agree that it was ok to rape women? That is how sick you are.

And again, it was NEVER okay to kill women and children, just like it was NEVER okay to rape them.

Also, your Bible says its wrong to kill innocent people! Tell me, what are children? Oh yes I see, children are not innocent because of original sin, this means when they die they go to hell. How nice.

In Islam God knows those children with their pagan parents have no idea about whats going on, thats why when they get killed along with their parents, they go to heaven, hence no in-justice is done against them. Unlike the Bible, which sends these kids to hell.

So yes, your Bible is one piece of documentary. Now what will you say? You are in a very bad hole, you asked me to show you a document or anything that showed it was bad to kill women and children. Children are innocent people, and what does the Bible say? THOU SHALL NOT KILL( innocent people). So CHECKMATE buddy, your only way out now is to admit those children who were killed were not innocent, rather they were sinful, and destined for hell thanks to original sin.

Quenn then repeats himself over and over and establishes nothing as usual. So that part will be left out, since I dont want to waste peoples time by pasting all his rubbish which he keeps on REPEATING.




He Wrote

Notice that

1.     Zaatari brushed aside the medical evidence against Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. He didn’t even try to defend the fact that it was medically and scientifically detrimental to have sex with such a young girl. HE SIMPLY BRUSHED IT ASIDE AND CLAIMED THAT I DIDN’T PRESENT ANYTHING. SO YES HE FAILED TO ADDRESS ANYTHING IN HIS RESPONSE.

2.     Zaatari had to attack the Bible on alcoholic issues even though he didn’t prove that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha wasn’t medically detrimental. Apparently it never occurred to Zaatari that if you try to prove others wrong it never refutes the fact that MUHAMMAD’S MARRIAGE TO A YOUNG GIRL IS STILL MEDICALLY DETRIMENTAL!




My Response

Yes, what would you like me to say? Yes, it may have cause medical harm, so what? Does that disprove Islam? NO! So hence you have no point at all.

The reason I attacked the Bible on alcoholic issues was to use your own logic against you. Again I am repeating myself, if the prophet Muhammad is a fake just because he did something that causes medical harm, then your Bible is also a fake and your god is the biggest fake as well because he allows consumption of alcohol which causes medical harm. And your God also allows the consumption of ALL foods, and as we know, certain animals cause harm to the body such as the PIG.

So hence, Quenn must be consistent, he should therefore also reject his own Bible for using this criteria!!!!!! My God this man is slow, very slow indeed.

Also to Quenn, again, you must be consistent, you cant attack Islam with something that can be used against you. This is common sense and logic, if you reject Islam for this reason, then you should also reject your Bible because it has the same identical situation!!!!!! SO BE CONSISTENT.

This all proves how in-consistent missionaries are, and how they are the biggest liars, deception artists on the planet. So thank you Quenn, you really do a great service for me and my fellow Muslims. Keep it up.




He Wrote

As FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT SOMETHING MEANS, I’VE ALREADY SHOWN THAT THE ISLAMIC EXPERTS PERMITTED MARRYING YOUNG GIRLS SINCE IT IS BASED ON ISLAM. Hence, Zaatari doesn’t understand his own religion!




My Response

AND I HAVE SHOWN CHRISTIAN EXPERTS SAYING ITS OKAY TO HAVE THREESOMES. AND TO MAKE PORNOGRAPHY.



He Wrote

this supposed to be a response? Zaatari is so confused and incapable of addressing my material to such a point that he ends up contradicting himself.

Like his previous article, he is trying to trick his readers again. Note he says killing women and children is okay if its kept to a minimum, and if you cannot avoid them.

Contradicts

However so, Quennal completely misses the point AGAIN. He even quotes the terror verses I showed, and doesn’t seem to understand what they say! His Bible is saying something completely opposite to what he is.

If I don’t understand the verses in question, why did I talk about them in relation to the killing of women and children? Isn’t that what Zaatari’s entire argument is about? Yes. Hence, he is contradicting himself by believing that my comments on women and children being killed in the Bible IS SAYING THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE BIBLE IS REFERRING TO, WHICH WOULD LOGICALLY MEAN THAT THERE WOULD BE NO KILLING OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN! in other words, if the Bible says the opposite of what I said then it would clearly mean that nobody would be killed! If the Bible shows people being killed THEN IT ISN’T SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I’M SAYING NOW IS IT? Zaatari is so intent on trying to prove that I’ve tricked someone that he doesn't realize that he actually ends up confusing and embarrassing himself and committing gross blunders and contradictions!





My Response

Quote me in context please:

Now it seems Quennal doesn’t understand what he says, he further shows how silly he is, and he further shows what a filthy book his Bible is. Note what he says:

while my point is strictly saying:

3.      Killing of women and children (whether intentional or not) is usually accepted if kept to a minimum.

4.      Is impossible to avoid (the killing of women and children) all the time.


Like his previous article, he is trying to trick his readers again. Note he says killing women and children is okay if its kept to a minimum, and if you cannot avoid them. I can accept part 4, since sometimes you cannot avoid killing children in battle, and you do set out to battle to kill men and not children. However so, Quennal completely misses the point AGAIN. He even quotes the terror verses I showed, and doesn’t seem to understand what they say! His Bible is saying something completely opposite to what he is. We will put Quenns words and the Bibles passages together so all can see how Quenn and his Bible are not in agreement:



The un-holy Bible:


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


Quenn:

Killing of women and children (whether intentional or not) is usually accepted if kept to a minimum

So does anyone else see the problem here? Quenns Bible does not keep the killing of women and children to a minimum, in the Bible ALL women and children are killed!!!!!!!! Each one of them were killed as we saw, so hence Quenn is putting a smoke-screen, and is trying to put this nice picture of his Bible, which is failing big time. Unless Quenn is dumb enough to say ‘oh all those women and kids were killed by mistake’. It would be really entertaining if he actually did say that.

So no I did not contradict myself. you not being able to quote me in context shows how shallow you are, and what a sad person you really are.

Anyone reading that would understand what I meant. In fact I even pointed it out by quoting your Bible, and quoting what you said. And as we saw, you contradict your Bible! You claimed:

Killing of women and children (whether intentional or not) is usually accepted if kept to a minimum



Your Bible says:

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

So note, yes you do not understand what your Bible says, and you are saying completely opposite. Your Bible killed EVERYONE INTENTIONALLY, not by collateral damage, and they were not kept to a minimum, they were all killed to the full. Hence you did say the opposite of this verse. So get it through your head, stop trying to be smart, it is severely backfiring against you. 

So next time read properly, everyone will see how I did NOT contradict myself and completely exposed you for saying something quite the opposite to your un-holy Bible.




He Wrote

Response:

Zaatari thinks he has a slam dunk argument with this passage. However he doesn’t tell you the reason why the Hebrews wiped out Sihon:

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

Sihon initiated the war with the Hebrews and brought all his people to fight at the location of Jahaz. Hence, the Israelites wiped them out in the battle! Zaatari is classifying a general war text as a passage condoning terror! People being killed in a war somehow ends up being terror to Zaatari, even though he stresses that the beheading of all the young boys of Banu Qurayzah was justified because they fought against Muhammad!




My Response

The young boys killed were actually young men. In those times once you were in puberty and passed it you were a man. Secondly the children and women of banu Qurayzah was spared UNLIKE your Bible were they killed everyone.

Now it seems Quenn thinks he has hit a slam dunk, where in fact he shoots himself in the foot.

How can babies come out to fight against you? HOWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLLLL slam dunk!!!!!!!!!!

Secondly, did they have to kill EVERYONE? Couldn’t they spare the little kids once the battle had started to finish? Why didn’t they spare any?  WHY NOT? They killed ALL the women and children, each one of them, they did not spare any. Unlike the prophet Muhammad, who spared the women and children of banu Qurayza, so once again we see the higher moral standards of the prophet Muhammad compared to the god of the Bible.

Also again, HOW DID BABIES GO OUT TO FIGHT? HOW? This in itself shows how stupid the Bible really is, and throws doubt on this whole episode now. What, women fought while carrying their babies? Did the babies hold a small knife in their hand? Thank you for making us all laugh at your Bible even more, and giving us more reasons to not believe in this book.

I told you these stories are doubtful, which is why I don’t believe them. And you have proven my point, thank you.

Also I would like to point out that Queball is trying to compare two completely different situations. What the prophet Muhammad did with banu Qurayza cannot even be compared with this. The prophet spared their women and children, in the Bible we see none were spared, no captives, no nothing, just killed.




He Wrote

In this biblical passage the killing of women and children WAS IN THE BATTLEFIELD SINCE:

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

This action is very much tolerated since, in the words of Zaatari, PEOPLE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU IN A WAR ARE CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS. Clearly it is Zaatari who is eating his words not me. If he is against this passage in the Bible why is he then making excuses for Muhammad beheading the men of the Jewish tribe? Particularly when all they did was break a treaty, while the ancient Hebrews were in an all out war!!




My Response

Yes, continue, you have no clearly shown this story and battle is a fake. HOW DID BABIES GO OUT ON THE BATTLEFIELD? Would you plz tell me? How did the mentally ill people go out and fight? HOW? So keep on further humiliating your Bible with such stupidity.




He Wrote


Response:

Zaatari has just strengthened our argument by using this passage. He strictly believes that

ALL women and children being killed, not a few here and there

The Bible clearly says:

Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jah

And Zaatari says in reference to the Jewish tribe fighting Muhammad,

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 

We We can therefore conclude that since all the people came and fought the Hebrews this made all of them enemy combatants, which therefore proves that THERE WAS NO CRIME OF KILLING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN EVEN ACCORDING TO ZAATARI'S CRITERIA WHICH HE USED TO DEFEND MUHAMMAD'S ACTIONS AGAINST THE JEWISH TRIBE THAT BROKE THE TREATY WITH THE MUSLIMS!





My Response

How can little 3 year olds come out to fight??????? How can 1 month old babies come out to fight??????? Are you that thick? Are you that blind? Do you really believe that? If you do you need help.

Secondly, Quenn further proves how greater Islam is than his sick cult. When the Jews and non-Muslims broke treaties, yes the prophet would make war with them, however so, he would not kill ALL OF THEM. He would spare their children and women, UNLIKE the Bible which shows no mercy, and just kills everyone. So thank you Quenn, thank you for showing how superior Islam is to your cult, in Islam the prophet showed mercy to his enemies, something we don’t find in your Bible.

So keep on, you further expose yourself and your cult, which is funny, because you think you are refuting me, when in fact you are making Islam look very good and making Christianity look very bad.




He Wrote

ll since Zaatari has clearly said:

Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME

How can he claim that SOME INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED WHEN THE PASSAGE MENTIONED THAT:

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

If all the people of Sihon came to fight, leaving no room for “some,” then how can Zaatari believe that INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED WHEN ALL OF THEM WERE FIGHTING IN THIS BATTLE? This would be a self-refuting contradiction! If all the people of Sihon were fighting the Hebrews then it clearly means that NO INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN THIS WAR! Hence, by his own words in trying to refute me, Zaatari has refuted his entire argument.

   1. There is no innocent women and children killed in his passage because ALL THE PEOPLE WERE FIGHTING.

   2. Since ALL refers to everybody, this leaves no room to argue that innocent people were killed.

   3. People who do as little as break treaties (which occurs even before the war starts) are considered enemy combatants, then how much more a people WHO ACTUALLY FIGHT IN WARS!

Need we say more? No.




My Response

Yes, you should quote context, since when you said SOME, you were not only referring to a passage in Deuteronomy. Here is what you said in context, once again you are exposed:

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 note, women and children being killed in the Bible is not as a result of collateral damage, but they are intentionally killed with the sword. So Quennal's own point backfires against him.

In reality I’ve done nothing in proving that the Bible is a violent and vile book, as Mr. Zaatari claimed. It’s very apparent that he is so desperate to defend Islam that he forgets to read my points carefully. Zaatari is so confused that he thinks that “up is down” and “down is up”. Let’s show you where he made a blundering error:

First he says:

So note, Quennal Gale said that in war, killing of women is UNACCEPTABLE, and if they are killed, they should be kept to a minimum, such as collateral damage. Well there is a slight problem with that, in Quennals own book, the Bible, women and children were INTENTIONALLY slaughtered and killed, they weren’t killed as result of collateral damage.

But I said:

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

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

So note, there were 2 other passages include, this lying coward is not trying to act that we were only discussing Deuteronomy 3 when in fact we were also discussing:


Joshua


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.

Note in Joshua that him and his army RAID the city, they attack it and go in it and kill everyone except the harlot and her family. Hence Quenn trying to brush this passage aside shows he is a coward, and a liar, he tried to trick his readers once again.




He Wrote

Response:

Again Zaatari is contradicting himself claiming that killing of women and children is wrong no matter what time you lived in. Now compare what he said about the Jewish tribe who had its boys beheaded:

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 

Now if boys were considered men back then THIS WOULD MEAN THAT AT CERTAIN TIMES IT WAS OK TO KILL PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED CHILDREN! Zaatari is trying to hide behind cultural norm to explain Muhammad’s actions saying that young boys were considered men, but he is trying to say against the bible that NO SUCH TOLERANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN! Logically if it is wrong to kill women and children NO MATTER WHAT CENTURY YOU LIVED IN, then logically Zaatari can’t argue that “boys were considered men who passed puberty”, since this is medically wrong! It’s call logic 101 Zaatari, try using it some time. Secondly, where has Zaatari shown that the Bible was wrong when it showed that women and children were killed in this passage? Particularly when THEY WERE CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS BY ZAATARI’S OWN STANDARDS AND COMMENTS IF THEY PARTICIPATED IN BATTLE?





My Response

Note, Quenn is truly blind, he reads what I say and does not read properly:

Also boys who had passed puberty back then were considered as men

It was boys who had specifically passed puberty, boys who had not were not children. So no, I did not say boys back then were considered men, I said boys WHO PASSED PUBERTY. So get it right, do not twist it.

2 year old boys, and 5 year old boys, and 6 year old boys, and all those young ages were NOT considered men incase you are implying that. Unless you really believe a 1 month old boy was considered a man, now you dont believe that do you?

Again, Quenn really exposes himself, BABIES WERE CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS, LOLLLLLLLLLLL. In the words of Quennal Gale:

THEY WERE CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS BY ZAATARI’S OWN STANDARDS AND COMMENTS IF THEY PARTICIPATED IN BATTLE?

Since this is not my standards, they are yours. So according to you, babies who are 3 years old, and below, and 6 years old and so on are ENEMY COMBATANTS. LOLLLL. You are such a clown. Thank you for that, everyone will laugh at you, even your own Christians will say ' Quenn please stop embarrassing us'.

Again, Quenn believes that 2 year old kids are enemy combatants, LOLLL.

He also considers BABIES as enemy combatants!!!!!! Again, how did those babies fight? Did they carry a small knife or something? Tell me Quenny.

Also, those young boys who were killed were considered MEN by the people back then, hence there is a difference, they were not VIEWED as kids, and however those who were viewed as kids were spared. So in reality no wrong doing was done, unlike the Bible. Which makes no distinction, the Bible so those kids as kids; they saw those little ones as little ones and still killed them!




He Wrote

Let us use Zaatari’s words against him yet again. In relation to Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha he says:

There was no sin, and no crime on the prophet for marrying Aisha, none of his enemies even attacked him for it.

Hence, Zaatari is basing Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha being right simply because none of Muhammad’s enemies attacked him on this issue. So where exactly did:

The ancient enemies of the Hebrews attack them for killing women and children in wars in their documents?

Remember in order to be proven incorrect Zaatari must bring us the above information and not just claim that “he believes something is terrorism”. He isn’t the ancient enemy of the Hebrews and HE IS A MODERN APOLOGIST TRYING TO BRING UP ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ANCIENT PEOPLE. So why didn’t anybody in the time of the OT bring up this same accusation that Zaatari mentions? According to his own criteria, the Bible would then be considered correct SINCE NONE OF ITS ANCIENT ENEMIES ATTACKED IT FOR THIS PRACTICE.




My Response

There is a difference. It was NEVER acceptable to kill women and kids, whether the Hebrews saw it as wrong or right doesn’t matter. Why? Because you’re Bible did! Your Bible says thou shall not kill. Also remember, when God became regretful for making mankind, because they were sinners (according to your Bible), however so, those sinners did not view themselves as doing wrong or bad, does that mean they weren’t? Just because they didn’t view it as something wrong, does it mean they were good people? Such faulty logic is ridicules.

The reason I say no one attacked the prophet for marrying Aisha is because you and your goons always attack the prophet saying look how evil! Look how sick! Look how bad, if this was the case, then why did no one oppose it? If it was as sick as they claim, you would at least find one person in Arabia opposing it, one Christian or Jew. But even Christians or Jews did not oppose it! Also the age of marriage being compared with killing of women and children is completely something different. Everyone knows this, again, it is like saying in one point of history it was okay to rape, so therefore we will accept it. So therefore, Jews and Christians back then were also sick for not opposing the prophet Muhammad for marrying Aisha. Yet Christians won’t argue that. So the reason I bring up this point, that no one attacked the prophet Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha is because it exposes you and all your arguments. Not ONE person opposed it, or spoke against it.

Secondly, correction, there were people who opposed the killing of women and children in the Bible. The fact that the people were scared of it, shows their dis-taste for it. So I now want Quenn to show me anyone who became scared from the prophet Muhammad for marrying Aisha, show me hadiths which showed young girls becoming scared that other men would now marry them. Bring this. He will never do.

Also the fact that people fought back shows they were against it! Did anyone go and try and stop the prophet Muhammad? Did anyone say, 'oh I will go save Aisha from this crime'. DID ANYONE DO THAT? NO.

Finally, marrying young girls is not something very historic yet, just a 100 years ago, just 50 years ago they were still doing it! It just in the last 20 years that this has been considered as something very bad and heinous. Hence we don’t even have to appeal to the Prophet Muhammad’s people; we can just look back a couple of decades ago and will find it was still something perfectly normal! So either way, he loses.

After more repetition he says:

Zaatari represents the essence of stupidity. If you point out a logical fallacy in a person’s argument, IT PROVES THAT THEY ARE ARGUING ALONG A CERTAIN LINE OF THINKING WHETHER THEY ARE CONSCIOUS OF IT OR NOT. If I said that:

There is no God because Atheists say there is no God

This would be considered a circular argument. How would it look if I said “I never brought up the issue of circular argument” EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PROVEN THAT MY ARGUMENT WAS CIRCULAR? Stupid! This is how Zaatari actually sounds. Also Zaatari has failed to illustrate how I built a straw man argument. He just took what I said in my paper and then began using it because it sounded good to him. You don’t have to consciously bring a point up for this to manifest itself. If you believe that it is wrong to kill unborn babies, but then say that you didn’t bring up the issue of abortion, you would prove yourself of being a total fool. As for blind rampage, I’m not the one who don’t read what I post as in the case of here:




My Response

Everyone reading this response will see the only stupid one here is you.

Yes you are on a huge blind rampage, since I had to repeat the same answers I gave over and over again, hence you were blind and did not read anything I said.



He Wrote

Response:

Again Zaatari does nothing to address my point. He just rattles off at me being demented and trying to justify the OT, which he calls vile but here is one specific point, he chose to ignore:

As you can clearly see, Zaatari’s line of arguing is not taking the nature or the context of the situations at hand in the Bible. This requires extensive historical research, time and effort to offer a proper conclusion.

So my question to Zaatari is:

1.      Where is your evidence that these actions were considered vile in light of the ancient historical setting which these events took place?




My Response

Easy, YOUR BIBLE. Remember? THOU SHALL NOT KILL. I guess that rule is thrown out the window now isn’t it. How nice.

Secondly, again, rape was once considered okay, does that mean we can sit back now and say ah yes it was okay for Romans to rape women in an arena for entertainment? Are you that thick? I think you are.

Also again, IT WAS NEVER OKAY TO KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN, even if your sick Hebrew brethren didn’t consider it bad, it still was. Those Hebrews did lots of sin in which they did not consider it to be bad, so what? Does it mean what they did was okay? Using your logic yes.

You trying to argue that it was okay to kill women and children in one point of history shows you are really sick, and that you have lost the plot.



He Wrote

Actually Zaatari’s conclusion is based on his assessment of the Holy Bible. Zaatari basically picked out some verses which shows women and children being killed in war and concluded that THESE VERSES WERE VILE AND VIOLENT. He has yet to show us how did he arrive at the conclusion that it was vile and violent. Zaatari has done nothing more than offered up his own opinion as a matter of fact on certain biblical verses he copied and pasted. Zaatari has also issued another challenge:



My Response

Note how sick Quenn is:

Zaatari basically picked out some verses which shows women and children being killed in war and concluded that THESE VERSES WERE VILE AND VIOLENT. He has yet to show us how did he arrive at the conclusion that it was vile and violent

So note, Quenn admits the women and children were massacred. Yet he says I have yet to show him how it is vile and violent!!!!! This man is utterly sick, he needs help.

To all readers, note this brain-dead missionary has brainwashed himself into thinking that it is okay to kill women and kids, given the right situation. This means he would not hesitate to kill children given the right situation!

So according to Quenn, killing women and children, brutally slaughtering them is not cruel and vile and violent. This debate is clearly over.




He Wrote

This is wrong: My main reason for rejecting Muhammad as a prophet isn't based on the fact that he married Aisha at a young age. I used this as a reason for not following Muhammad, but not as my main logical reason. You can view my site and see this for yourself. When Zaatari issues challenges such as this, he tends to try to put words in people’s mouths because it is much easier to refute what you assume you know about your opponent instead of actually studying their argument.



My Response

Once again you expose how shallow you are. You always put words in my mouth throughout these debates to which I always exposed you. So keep exposing yourself more, it makes you look real nice.



He Wrote

What does Zaatari constitute as valid? If you look at his original challenge it says “bring me one logical argument against the Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha”. A logical argument unspecified can be anything I want it to be since Zaatari’s only criteria for acceptance is for it to be logical and to make sense. As you saw from my examples in the beginning of my paper, MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR OR AGAINST A PRACTICE is definitely considered logical and standard. However Zaatari has just contradicted his own challenge because he said:

Just one, he cannot bring this, oh yes, he will say ohh it’s medically bad.




My Response

I said bring one logical argument. Tell me, is it logical to bring something up that can be used in the same exact way against you? IS THAT LOGICAL YOU BRAIN DEAD MISSIONARY?

See, I told you, this man is slow. How is it logical to bring an argument up, which can be used to attack the Bible? You must remain consistent, not inconsistent. As a Christian you must make sure arguments you use cannot be used back against you in the same way.



He Wrote

Remember he wanted “ONE LOGICAL ARGUMENT”, unspecified from any parameter in which I can choose. When Zaatari got this from me, all he could do was say that, “ohh he’ll say it’s medically bad”, as if this is somehow illogical. If you don’t answer everything Zaatari asks you to answer he will say that you brushed it aside. However, it is okay for Zaatari to brush aside whatever he chooses EVEN IF IT WAS PROVEN TO BE LOGICAL ACCORDING TO HIS OWN CHALLENGE!

   1. Did Zaatari ever prove that medical and scientific evidence is illogical? No.

   2. Did Zaatari ever specify where you must go to get your logical argument? No.

 


My Response

Now you are being illogical. When I told you bring one logical argument, I was telling you as you being a Christian bring ONE logical argument, do not bring one that can be used against you. That is not logical, because it disproves your Bible as well! So hence were both wrong and you lose as well, oh how logical!!!!!




He Wrote

Notice that if I do answer his challenge, which would refute his argument, this still isn’t good enough for Zaatari. If the logical argument was presented against Muhammad, and science and medicine is obviously as logical as you can get, THEN HE HAS LOST THE CHALLENGE HANDS DOWN. Knowing this, Zaatari has to resort to asking, “does the Bible forbid this and why did Abraham marry his sister”. Again, the challenge wasn’t about asking us if the Bible forbade marriage or if Abraham married his sister but,



My Response

No, I want you to be consistent, this is something you are finding very hard. You realize that the only way to dis-credit the prophet Muhammad is to dis-credit your own Bible since the same exact argument has been thrown on your on your un-holy Bible.



He Wrote

Now the problem for Zaatari is that Abraham, even though he serves as a model in Judaism or Christianity as well as in Islam, this doesn't mean that everything he did was exemplary. Nor does this mean that we view Abraham the same that Islam or Muslims view Muhammad. Secondly, the Quran doesn’t chastise Abraham for marrying his sister, which is also very medically bad. If Allah that such a practice was medically wrong, how come the Quran didn’t critique the biblical teaching that Abraham married his sister?



My Response

Again, your Bible does not say Abraham marrying his sister was bad, which is also medically harmful. Hence using your criteria it means that your Bible is not from God, because remember, according to you something that causes medical harm, and is not specifically banned, or is allowed, then this mean the one who allows it cannot be a true God or true Prophet. I am using your reasoning against you, so you saying the Quran doesn’t chastise Abraham for marrying his sister means nothing, since I am not making this argument, I am using the same argument you do against yourself, something your thick head cannot comprehend.

Secondly, in the Quran it does not claim that Abrahams wife was his sister. It is your Bible that does.




He Wrote

Last but not least, Zaatari actually refutes himself by saying:

not from a modernist point of view

Which would clearly mean that one shouldn’t use evidence from modern times after Islam. However this contradicts this statement:

but from the point of view of how society was in the time before, and AFTER the prophet Muhammad.

 


My Response


No, it is not a contradiction. I should have further elaborated on this, since I even knew it would seem contradictory.

What I mean by saying AFTER the prophet Muhammad was that even years after he died, people still practiced it, in Europe, and Arabia, this was still not  the modern times. Even hundreds of years after the prophet Muhammad, people still practiced it, however so, those times were still not considered modern times. That is all I meant. When I say modernist view, I mean today’s way of thinking by society, from year 2006. 




He Wrote

Modern times obviously means a period AFTER MUHAMMAD. Hence, Zaatari’s challenge actually leaves the door open for us to use evidence from modern times EVEN THOUGH HE CLAIMS THAT WE SHOULDN’T. In his haste to refute my paper Zaatari has posted challenges with self-refuting, contradictory information! As for his other challenge (which he will modify and reject any response to as well) Zaatari says this:




My Response

No, not really, hundreds of years after the prophet Muhammad were still not considered modern times. Secondly, just say they were, this actually hurts Quenn’s position, since as we can see it was still something perfectly normal to get married at such a young age.




He Wrote

First off, if you look at the passage Zaatari posted you would notice that God didn’t actually command the Hebrews to fight the people of Sihon:

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

Notice in this passage that:

1.      God only said that he would allow the Hebrews to inherit Sihon’s land. God didn’t tell the Hebrews to go out and fight Sihon.

2.      After being told that Sihon’s land would be inherited, SIHON AND ALL HIS PEOPLE CAME OUT AND ATTACKED THE HEBREWS! Hence, they begun the war.

3.      After killing all of Sihon’s people WHO FOUGHT ALL TOGHETHER AT JAHAZ, the Hebrews were then able to take all the cities since all the enemy combatants (women, men, children) were killed in battle, in which Sihon came out and begun against the Hebrews.

 


My Response

Notice all Quenn can do is address this same verse over and over, he thinks he has managed something great. He thinks now just because all of the people of Sihon came out against the Hebrews, this then makes it okay to kill them all etc. Not really, in war there should be limits, and do not go over-board, it seems the Bible doesn’t care about this.

Secondly, again, how could BABIES come out to battle? HOW???????? This just makes this whole issue very funny, small babies were enemy combatants!!!!! Get real.

Also, the battle would surely dwindle down after a while, couldn’t Moses and his army just take the people captives? Couldn’t they show some mercy to the little children? I guess not, they killed all the children, including little babies. How sick is that? Or no wait, according to Quenn killing those babies is not vile or violent because it was seen as something normal and okay. Yeah sure.



He Wrote

Hence, God didn’t command the Hebrews to go and attack them, therefore there was no reason to prohibit something THAT WASN’T EXPLICITLY COMMANDED BY GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE. If Zaatari has problems about the Hebrews attacking people, which they didn’t in this case, then we can post tons of examples of Muhammad attacking other tribes whether they instigated it with the Muslims or not. It’s a losing battle for Zaatari. Nowhere in the verse does it say that God commanded the Hebrews to kill everyone or even to go to war in this instance. The Hebrews praised God for allowing the land to be delivered to them but if Zaatari wants to argue that these are commands HE NEEDS TO SHOW US WHERE GOD EXPLICITLY COMMANDED IT!




My Response

Go ahead, show us the prophet Muhammad attacking people, and show us the prophet Muhammad killing ALL the women and children. I will be waiting for this, oh but wait, you won’t be able to because the prophet Muhammad did not wipe out entire population centres of women and kids like the Hebrew armies did.



He Wrote

Again Zaatari is appealing to the emotion of the reader. It doesn’t matter if Christians object to certain passages in the Bible or if they view it as filth. This is nothing more than their opinion and it has no effect whatsoever on God’s purpose for the way of life. And yes, according to Zaatari’s own words, IF WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE FIGHTING AGAINST THE SERVANTS OF GOD, THEN THEIR KILLING IS JUST. Remember that this is the position Zaatari himself took in reference to the tribe of Banu Qurasyh.



My Response

Correction, no kids were killed from Banu Qurayza, they were considered men, not kids. So there is a difference. Is Quenn now going to counter by saying ‘yes 3 and 1 year old boys were also considered men during the time of Moses’ I hope he does so we can laugh more.

Again, Quenn brings up the point of the people being enemy combatants, yet he forgets that these combatants include 2 year old boys and girls!!!!! How can such kids know what they are even doing? The least the Hebrews could do was spare them when the battle dwindled down, but no, they killed them all.

Also the enemy combatants included little babies!!!!!!!! Quenn seems to take us readers as idiots, he seems we will automatically think that all those who came out to fight the Hebrews were teenagers, grown women, and grown men. He is trying so hard to give that impression.

This concludes part 3 of this rebuttal. To continue to part 4 click here (*)

 

 

 




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

Rebuttals to Quennel Gale's Articles section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.