Responding to yet another failed attempt by Quennal Gale.

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

Responding to yet another failed attempt by Quennal Gale

He bites the dust again

Part 2 (A)


By Sami Zaatari

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christian apologist Quennal Gale has come up with a counter response to my complete annihilation of his initial response. His latest response can be found here:

 

http://answer-islam.org/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.html

 

Readers who wish to see my complete annihilation of his first response can read it on this link:

 

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

 

 

I suggest that readers go read my first response, so they can grasp the arguments that have been put forth, and what the debate is being cantered around. With that said, we now proceed to Quennal’s response.

 

 

He Wrote

 

Sami Zaatari has decided to respond to our initial article on the debate between him and Sam Shamoun, of www.answering-islam.org, on the issue of violence in both Christianity and Islam. In this follow up, we will focus on Mr. Zaatari’s response to my first article to see if he actually addressed my paper coherently as he tries to portray. He begins his article by saying:

 

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

Friend and fellow missionary of Sam Shamoun has decided to respond to one of my counter rebuttals, this missionary happens to be Quennal Gale. As we shall shortly see, much like his buddy Shamoun, Quennal fails to refute anything at all. in fact what is more amusing about this response is that it cant even be considered a response! The reason being is because Quennal hardly even addresses the main topic, which is the slaughter of women and children in the Bible in huge numbers, i.e. the Amakilites. All Quennal sets out to do is try and save face by trying to show that in Islam women and children are also killed etc. My responses on this specific topic can be found on these links:

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm


We now proceed to Quennal's complete failure in responding to anything I said.

Such rhetoric has become common place in Mr. Zaatari’s articles on www.answering-christianity.com. He usually claims that someone has always failed to respond to his material, particularly in the beginning. This sly tactic usually attempts to influence the reader against the person Mr. Zaatari is addressing before allowing them to actually read the information given by both sides.

 

My Response


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.

 

He Wrote


According to Mr. Zaatari, my reason for not responding to his original article in full which is “the slaughter of women and children in the Bible”, is to save face. However, Mr. Zaatari actually has resorted to building a straw man argument, exposing his gross ignorance of my paper, while ignoring the purpose for my response. Let me reiterate again why I chose to respond the way I did:

 

Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM. According to Mr. Zaatari, such actions are wrong and contrary to Islam, even though we find many instances of children being killed in bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan which are predominately Muslim countries. The perpetrators even find ways to justify these actions and show no sympathy at all.

 

Now compare this to Mr. Zaatari’s straw man argument:

 

Quennal fails to refute anything at all. in fact what is more amusing about this response is that it cant even be considered a response! The reason being is because Quennal hardly even addresses the main topic, which is the slaughter of women and children in the Bible in huge numbers, i.e. the Amakilites.

 

 

 

My Response


As we shall shortly see, you trying to get yourself out of a whole by making this claim severely backfires against you, because it seems it is you who doesn’t even understand what you write in your articles. I will shortly be showing you why you must pay attention to what you write next time, but first I will post the rest of what you say.

 

 

 

He Wrote


It is obvious that Mr. Zaatari has a glaring reading incomprehension that stems from his lack of carefully reviewing my article. My purpose wasn’t to address the killing of women and children in the Bible, but to review Mr. Zaatari’s response about the same issue in Islam. These are two totally different topics just in case he hasn’t figured this out yet. If he wants to build his response by claiming that I’m saving face, then he needs to go back and review my article carefully to see what my original purpose truly was. As a third party, I can choose what aspects I want to focus on, since the original debate is between Mr. Zaatari and Mr. Shamoun. If I was originally debating Zaatari on this issue, then I could see his point. However, I only chose to focus on one aspect of this broad debate, and because he doesn’t have a legitimate response, Zaatari seeks to introduce red herrings instead of addressing what I said and my particular points.

 

 

 

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 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!!!!!!!

 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

He Wrote

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran. Zaatari’s article can be found here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm
 

Before we begin we must start by saying that we, unlike others, don’t have a problem with God bringing judgment upon unbelieving civilizations that refuse to adhere to his commands and his servants. We understand the clear fact that the Lord God is the all-merciful God who loves all of his creation but we also understand that this same God of mercy is also a God of justice. Modern civilization tries to impose its current thinking upon God in trying to say that he is vicious to unbelievers without failing to take in the context and scope of the particular situation.

 

My Response

It is quite amusing that Quennal brings up the argument of how modern society tries to impose current issues with the way God did things in the past. It seems when what modern society thinks will hurt his cause, then he will simply brush their opinion aside, yet when modern society has an argument against Islam he will happily jump on board that train and argue along with them. Such as the issue of Aisha, which we know is something that is strange only in today’s society, and something that is not practiced anymore. However so, we do know in the prophet Muhammad’s time, and even before and after his time, marrying girls at a young age was seen as something normal. In fact the prophet Muhammad's enemies did not even attack him for marrying Aisha, and also around Europe and Asia young girls would be married off, this was nothing perverted or ub normal.

However so, Quennal Gale would have no problem in attacking the prophet Muhammad for something which was okay and normal for his time, so hence this is clear double standards on Quennals part. In fact, here is my little challenge to Quennal Gale, bring me one logical argument against the Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha, not from a modernist point of view, but from the point of view of how society was in the time before, and after the prophet Muhammad. He will completely fail to bring anything to the table, but it will be amusing to see what he will say.

Actually what I’m about to show you will be anything but amusing to Mr. Zaatari, dealing with his prophet and his marriage to Aisha. Before I do this I must state that the reason I brought up the issue of modern society attempting to impose its thinking on biblical events is to illustrate how fallacious an argument of this nature can be. In a way it is sort of an “Argumentum ad novitatem” fallacy which can be defined as thus:

 

Argumentum ad novitatem

This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.

"BeOS is a far better choice of operating system than OpenStep, as it has a much newer design." (Source)

 

 

 

My Response

 

Yes, you have no problem in arguing a modern approach to Aisha and the prophet Muhammad, yet in their time, and before their time, and just 100 years ago it was something normal and not bad.

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

Zaatari is arguing along this line of reasoning because he feels that many of the biblical wars are atrocious, which is obviously appealing to modern thinking, without failing to take into context of whether such was the case in ancient times. More on this later. The issue of “modern society and it’s relation to biblical wars” doesn’t hurt my cause whatsoever since ancient wars in the Bible must be judged in light of their historical context and regional practices. Whether Zaatari realizes this or not, he resorts to using this same thinking by judging Islam in light of its time and practice dealing with Muhammad’s beheading of young boys from various tribes. You will see this reasoning later on in this paper. So when it is beneficial to him Zaatari will claim that his religion must be judged in light of its historical climate and context, but the Bible which is even older than Islam must be judged according to how Zaatari thinks, which is obviously modern. Either way Zaatari is fighting a losing battle as well as contradicting himself.

 

 

 

My Response

 

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?

 

So Quennal really embarrasses himself here, even if I was living in those Biblical time, I would object to such atrocities, never in the history of mankind has it been something normal and okay to kill women and kids, unless you were some sick pagan, or in this case, a follower of Quenns God.

 

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?

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

Secondly, Mr. Zaatari has failed to show how my case was hurt by the issue of “modern thinking and the bible”, he just merely stated this and ran away with it like this was an established fact. Hence, he begs the question, assuming what he has yet to prove on this issue. After arguing from his fallacious point, Zaatari now seeks to shift the argument in his favor, claiming that I’d use this reasoning against Muhammad in relation to his marriage to Aisha. As for responding to his challenge, I’d say to Mr. Zaatari that it isn’t hard at all and that I’ve already discussed this on my site. Here is my response to this very issue, dealing with his master, Osama Abdallah:

 

What is even more embarrassing for him is that Muhammad can’t be judged based on cultural standards of the Arabs alone:

"he does not speak out of low desires. It is not but inspiration which is inspired" (Q. 53:3-4). The ONLY DIFFERENCE between the Qur'an and the Hadith is that whereas the former was revealed directly through Gabriel with the very letters that are embodied from Allah, the latter was revealed without letters and words."(Mishkat-ul-Masabih, the English translation, Book 1, the importance of the Qur'an and Hadith, P.2,3. )

"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. '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).'" (Sahih Muslim, Introduction to English translation, P. ii. ) The Hadith is to be FOLLOWED EXACTLY "for that which differs from the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up." (Mishkat-ul-Masabih, the English translation, Book 1, the importance of the Qur'an and Hadith, P.5, Quoted from Malabudda Minhu, P.8 )

"A Muslim therefore stands in absolute need of a copy of the Qur'an AND A COPY OF THE HADITH for the guidance of his life" (ibid, P. 2,3.)

And,

"If ye do love Allah, FOLLOW ME: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." S. 3:31

 

 

 

My Response

 

What Quennal is essentially saying here is that the prophet is the perfect role model, and that we should follow him in the exact way he lived his life. First of all, Quennal Gale doesn’t seem to understand his points.

 

When Muslims say we should follow the example of the prophet, we do not mean exactly literally the same. For one, that is not possible, because the prophet was allowed to marry more than 4 wives, we aren’t.

 

Secondly, times have changed, specifically in the issue of the age of marriages these days. So unlike the times of the prophet, in this area we to can’t follow him in the exact way, since in today’s society the age of marriage has changed and girls get married in an older age etc.

 

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. When Muslims say the prophet is our example, he is, we should live up to his moral standards and so on, and be a good man like him. 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.

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

According to the Quran and Hadith, Muhammad is the perfect role model for all mankind. These above quotes just give a hint into this. Now if we are to base his marriage to Aisha on cultural norms then he can’t be a role model for all since his action is particular to only one culture. What is even more detrimental to Islam is that science has shown that early sex with females is actually more detrimental to the girl:

"Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course perspective."

Browning, Christopher R; Laumann, Edward O  

Citation:  American Sociological Review,  v62n4,  pp.540-560,  Aug 1997

Number:  03374356  Features:  Table; Illustration; References

Copyright:  American Sociological Association 1997  

            "Research interest in the long-term effects of sexual contact between female children and adults has increased dramatically in the last two decades. Two sets of issues have driven this enhanced attention. The first concerns the nature and extent of the impact these experiences have on subsequent well-being in adulthood. Empirical research has offered evidence of the severe and wide ranging effects of adult-child sex by documenting its associations with a host of later "symptoms," such as low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and sexual dysfunction."

            "In each reduced model (Model 1), we see that adult-child sexual contact is significantly associated with the outcome considered.  Women who experienced adult-child sexual contact were 1.6 times as likely to report sexual desire dysfunction, 2.1 times as likely to report sexual response dysfunction, 2.4 times as likely to report high dysfunction, 1.6 times as likely to report low overall well being, 1.7 times as likely to report low relationship satisfaction, and had more sexual activities that they found appealing compared with those who had no coupled sexual experiences as children.  For every outcome except high dysfunction and number of sex acts found appealing, the introduction of the sexual trajectory variables (Models 2 and 3) renders the adult-child sexual contact coefficient insignificant, indicating that the effects of adult-child sex on adult outcomes are largely indirect, mediated through sexual trajectories."

Look what happens when you follow Muhammad’s example! Trying to hide behind cultural norm only shows that Osama can’t defend Muhammad’s vile actions. Since he loves science so much we wonder what will he say about this? Even the United Nations has shown that Muhammad’s perfect example is, well, not so perfect:

"HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES AFFECTION THE HEALTH OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN"

            "An appraisal of harmful traditional practices and their effects on women and the girl child.

            Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; EARLY MARRIAGE; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practicing them....

(NOTE:   most of these are practiced by the Islamic world).

...Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents' home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed....

...Health complications that result from early marriage in the Middle East and North Africa, for example, include the risk of operative delivery, low weight and malnutrition resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in the period of life when the young mothers are themselves still growing....

            The work of the Committee has also permitted the identification of certain areas where law reform should be undertaken, in both civil and penal areas, such as the minimum age for marriage and establishment of the age of criminal responsibility as being the attainment of puberty. Some States have argued that girls attain their physical maturity earlier, but it is the view of the Committee that maturity cannot simply be identified with physical development when social and mental development are lacking and that, on the basis of such criteria, girls are considered adults before the law upon marriage, thus being deprived of the comprehensive protection ensured by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The International Conference on Population and Development, held at Cairo in September 1994 (see p. 36 below), encouraged Governments to raise the minimum age for marriage. In her preliminary report to the Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, also recognized that the age of marriage was a factor contributing to the violation of women's rights ...

            Early pregnancy can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their babies. According to UNICEF, no girl should become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically ready to bear children.  Babies of mothers younger than 18 tend to be born premature and have low body weight; such babies are more likely to die in the first year of life.  The risk to the young mother's own health is also greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating women. ...

            An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby's head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby's head out unduly....

            Generally throughout the developing world, the average food intake of pregnant and lactating mothers is far below that of the average male. Cultural practices, including nutritional taboos, ensure that pregnant women are deprived of essential nutriments, and as a result they tend to suffer from iron and protein deficiencies...." - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs23.htm UNITED NATIONS

Even if Osama tries to claim that is wrong to judge by modern standards, scientific standards have proven that no matter what time period, this early marriage to a young girl, following Muhammad’s example is detrimental to her health. So Muhammad’s perfect example, whether back then or now is still wrong based on scientific findings!!! Remember this next time when you see Muslims try and appeal to science to verify Islam. The Quran claims about Muhammad:

Surely in the Messenger of God you have a good example.  33:21

This is echoed by this Muslim site on Muhammad’s perfect example:

A.       Prophet Muhammad r was an inspired man with an extraordinary   personality. He was gifted with mighty powers of imagination, elevation of mind, delicacy and refinement of feeling. His intellectual qualities were extra ordinary. He had a quick apprehension, a retentive memory, a vivid  imagination and an inventive genius.  Pure-hearted and beloved in his circle, he was of sweet and gentle disposition.   He set a shining example to his people.  His character was pure and stainless.  The real cause of his many marriages at an old age was charity, and in order to protect the widows of his persecuted followers…

 D.     The Prophet r was endowed with great words of wisdom and teachings.  The words that he uttered are not the words of an ordinary man.  The Hādīth , the body of transmitted actions and sayings of the Prophet r conveys precious information.  The practical character of his teachings gave birth to the scientific spirit.  His teachings are simple, comprehensive and original.  They remained in their original purity.  Everything in the teachings and postulates of Islām is in its proper place.  All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other; nothing is superfluous and nothing is lacking with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure.  The dicta of the Prophet in all matters of law and religion were inspired and suggested by Allāh I , though expressed in his own words.  Every word the Prophet r  uttered was inspired by Providence divulging some hidden truths of human life and laying down some rules for its guidance on earth.  The Prophet’s teaching of the oneness of God, His innumerable attributes, of His love and mercy to His creatures are unequaled by others.  Character training is achieved through the well-established teachings of Islām, the model behavior of the Prophet.  All the teachings of the Prophet are simple and intelligible.  The Prophet’s wisdom, being divinely inspired, is so important that the Muslims have been ordained not only to recite the Qur’ān  but to recite the wisdom also. The Sunnah of the Prophet r became a standard of living which every Muslim should aspire to reach.

E.       Prophet Muhammad r is the greatest educator of mankind. - http://www.wefound.org/texts/Muhammad_files/Muhammad1.htm

 

So Allah’s good example is following cultural norms that are detrimental to your health! So according to Osama’s explanation since we must judge Muhammad based on his culture and nobody really found anything wrong with his marriage to Aisha, even though medical science proves other wise then:

1.      Can we smoke cigarettes since it is a cultural norm and nobody says anything against it?

Did Muhammad's people and culture benefit from establishing this practice?  No.  Muhammad proclaimed himself as a guide and a light for his followers however millions of Muslim girls have been subjected to this harmful practice.  Where was the light, guidance or wisdom in this practice?  It was nothing more than a cultural practice, instituted by Muhammad as part of Islam then scientifically turns out to be destructive.  But because it was good enough for Muhammad, it is good enough for Muslims; many of their female children suffer as a result? (Source)

Based on the Islamic texts and interpretation, Muhammad can be judged in light of modern standards since he is considered a model for all mankind! If his acts could only be judged in light of his cultural norm, Muslims today wouldn’t still be practicing his sunna on these very same issues! 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, and did not make any claim that “this is only a cultural practice and later generations need not follow it, etc.”. I wonder if Mr. Zaatari amused now?

 

 

 

My Response

 

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. So again you have no point, secondly, I am glad you became a scientist. Now since you are showing all the harm of young marriages, why don’t we show the harm of alcohol, which you’re Bible does NOT prohibit:

 

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.

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

 

    * poor nutritional habits

    * smoking

    * other drug consumption

    * use of more than one drug

    * lack of sleep

    * a mother's general health prior to pregnancy

    * genetics

    * how much alcohol, tobacco or other drugs are consumed during pregnancy

    * at what stage in the pregnancy the substance is consumed

    * the length of time the substance is consumed

 

The effects of alcohol have been difficult to study because these other factors also have an impact on the pregnancy. Until more is known about the specific effects of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, it is safest to avoid using them while pregnant.

Any harm done to the fetus as a result of drinking during pregnancy cannot be reversed, but reducing or eliminating alcohol intake at any time during pregnancy is healthiest for the fetus. (10) It's never too late to quit or cut down on drinking.

Effects during birth

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)

Use of alcohol during pregnancy has been related to miscarriage or stillbirth. (6, 7)

Even one drink per day is associated with intrauterine growth restriction (the fetus not growing at a normal rate) and reduced birth weight. (7, 13)

Effects on breastfeeding

The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that mothers who consume alcoholic beverages infrequently should breasted their children. However, breastfeeding is not recommended for women who regularly consume more than a moderate amount of alcohol (more than two drinks per day). (15)

A nursing mother who consumes alcohol tends to produce less milk. (16)

The infant may feed more frequently, but ingests less milk. (4)

Infants who are regularly exposed to alcohol in their mother's breast milk may have more difficulty in learning to co-ordinate their movement, and in developing their mental abilities. (6, 16) In addition, infants tend to have less restful sleep and sleep for shorter periods of time after consuming breast milk containing alcohol. (16)

Effects on child development

Effects on early development

Short-term effects at birth may include withdrawal symptoms such as sleeplessness, irritability, diarrhea, vomiting, breathing problems, seizures and lack of sucking during breastfeeding. (1)

A growing fetus ingests alcohol when alcohol passes from the mother through the placenta. Because the liver of the fetus is underdeveloped, it cannot break down the alcohol as quickly as a fully developed liver can. As a result, the fetus is exposed to alcohol for longer periods of time, and developing organs may be harmed by this long-term exposure. (18)

Moderate alcohol use during pregnancy has been linked to developmental and behavioral difficulties in infants. (6)

Effects on long-term development

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), partial fetal alcohol syndrome (p-FAS), fetal alcohol effects (FAE), alcohol-related neurodevelopment disorder (ARND) and alcohol-related birth defects (ARBD) are all terms used to describe the physical and/or mental difficulties a child exposed to alcohol before being born may experience. These difficulties do not go away or change -- they last a lifetime.

Health Canada states that heavier drinking like binge drinking (consuming five drinks or more per occasion) or frequent drinking (consuming seven or more drinks per week) during pregnancy is linked to both FAS and FAE. (10)

Physically, alcohol-exposed children may exhibit problems with co-ordination, movement, vision and hearing, and/or have birth defects that may include

 

    * bone and muscle deformities

    * heart defects

    * other deformities of the face or head

    * kidney and organ problems (9)

 

Children exposed to alcohol before birth (even in light to moderate amounts) may have intellectual, behavioral, emotional or social problems that persist throughout their entire lives. These alcohol-exposed individuals may have

 

    * mental handicaps (9)

    * problems with learning, memory and problem solving (2, 17)

    * poor judgment or failure to consider consequences (12)

    * destructive, aggressive, inattentive, nervous or overactive behaviors (12)

    * trouble with the law (12)

    * a tendency to develop their own alcohol and other drug problems (3)

 

There is no known safe level of alcohol consumption for pregnant women.

 

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Alcohol

What are its short-term effects?

the effects of moderate alcohol intake include dizziness and talkativeness; the immediate effects of a larger amount of alcohol include slurred speech, disturbed sleep, nausea, and vomiting. Alcohol, even at low doses, significantly impairs the judgment and coordination required to drive a car safely. Low to moderate doses of alcohol can also increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse. Hangovers are another possible effect after large amounts of alcohol are consumed; a hangover consists of headache, nausea, thirst, dizziness, and fatigue.

 

What are its long-term effects?

Prolonged, heavy use of alcohol can lead to addiction (alcoholism). Sudden cessation of long term, extensive alcohol intake is likely to produce withdrawal symptoms, including severe anxiety, tremors, hallucinations and convulsions. Long-term effects of consuming large quantities of alcohol, especially when combined with poor nutrition, can lead to permanent damage to vital organs such as the brain and liver. In addition, mothers who drink alcohol during pregnancy may give birth to infants with fetal alcohol syndrome. These infants may suffer from mental retardation and other irreversible physical abnormalities. In addition, research indicates that children of alcoholic parents are at greater risk than other children of becoming alcoholics.

 

http://www.alcohol-addiction.org/

UNDERSTANDING ALCOHOL ADDICTION

Alcohol is known to man as one of the oldest addictions there is.

The University of Amsterdam and the Leiden University conducted a study in 2002 and concluded that a person’s ability to function normally is effected after even one drink.

Alcohol addiction is a road of destruction for an individual suffering through alcohol addiction.

TWO PROBLEMS, ONE ADDICTION.

This is not a mysterious brain disease.  People begin drinking to solve some perceived problem or problems in his or her life and before they realize it there’s a dependency and an addiction. Alcohol dependence and addiction originates from the continued use of alcohol to combat the perceived problems. Either a physical and/or an emotional dependence causes addiction.

By the time reality kicks in the alcohol addiction is a greater problem than the original problem or problems the alcohol was suppose to solve.

Now the result is there are two problems for the person to deal with:  Number one is the possibly forgotten original problem and number two is the new found alcoholism to contend with.

ONE SOLUTION SOLVES BOTH PROBLEMS WITH TREMENDOUS SUCCESS!

Getting someone to stop drinking is not a simple matter of someone having self-control or self-discipline as many people think.  Only one of the problems is a persons ability to quit drinking but the combination of the original problem that started the drinking and the added problem within the addiction to stop drinking makes the endeavor seem impossible.

Overcoming these real life problems with real life solutions is an essential component to a successful rehabilitation. The right tools and life skills to surpass common barriers encountered by people on a daily basis are necessary for beating the addiction long-term.  In order for those suffering through any type of addiction they must be able to apply these tools to their every day lives consistently.

For an alcoholic to become a happy, healthy, and productive member of society both the drinking problem and the underlying reasons for it have to be solved.

So if young girls get married which causes harm makes the prophet Muhammad a false prophet, then your Bible is also a false book since alcohol causes more damage, and your Bible doesn’t prohibit it. So Quenn, why doesn’t your Bible prohibit alcohol? Lest Quenn claims I am on a red-herring, he is the one who became a doctor with me, so I became a doctor with him.

 

Also none of his medical quotes proves anything neither, the practice of marrying at a young age was still something normal and widely practiced across the world, and in the middle-east as well. There was no sin, and no crime on the prophet for marrying Aisha, none of his enemies even attacked him for it.

 

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.

 

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!

 

Again, you show you have no case on the prophet and Aisha, all you can do is quote sources saying the prophet is an example to follow, and you think you have achieved nothing. Maybe you did not also know this, but ALL prophets are an example to follow, so are you going to now attack the other prophets Quennal? If you are consistent then you must do so, since we Muslims believe that all prophets should be followed by example etc. So are you going to judge all the prophets in today’s modern thinking just because we say they are example to follow? Remember, these prophets include Abraham, Jesus, Noah etc.

 

Also, Quennal and his Christians believe the prophet Muhammad is not a prophet just on the fact that he married Aisha at a young age, that is their main line of reasoning, ohhh how could he do it!!! That’s what they always say. As we see, Quennal has no real arguments against it, all he has is a modern approach to it. So again I ask Quennal, bring me ONE valid argument against the marriage of Muhammad to Aisha in his time. Just one, he cannot bring this, oh yes, he will say ohh it’s medically bad. If he does do that, then again, why doesn’t your Bible forbid marriage, and also why did Abraham marry his sister according to your Bible, which is medically very bad as well.

 

So Quenn, bring me one valid argument against the prophets marriage to Aisha. As we saw, you brought none. All you did was say ohh you say Muhammad should be followed by example; even this line of reasoning on your part didn’t cut it since you don’t even understand what it means.

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

He Wrote

Even in today’s modern society, many of those who accuse God of such vile actions, would themselves find certain actions justified. For example:

1. If a country is attacked by another country, retaliation is considered justified and usually necessary if possible.
2. One is usually not held accountable if they take someone’s life, out of the fear of being killed by that person.
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.

There are many more examples we can give but these will suffice for now. One issue we want to look at during this on going debate between both Mr. Shamoun and Mr. Zaatari is the issue of children being killed. We begin with Mr. Zaatari’s comments here:

 

My Response

Quennal Gale tries to play a trick on the readers here, and he also manages to prove his Bible is a vile and violent book. Notice what he says:

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

So 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. Here are the relevant passages:

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:

 

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

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

 

Zaatari also ignored my statements before my third point since I also mentioned at the beginning of my article that:

 

Before we begin we must start by saying that we, unlike others, don’t have a problem with God bringing judgment upon unbelieving civilizations that refuse to adhere to his commands and his servants. We understand the clear fact that the Lord God is the all-merciful God who loves all of his creation but we also understand that this same God of mercy is also a God of justice.

 

Didn’t I say that God brings justice upon people and nations (even though it may seem unacceptable to some, like Zaatari) and that this same God of mercy is also just? Yes. Zaatari’s obvious problem in his attempt to paint this as being “vile and violent” is that he is committing this same “Argumentum ad novitatem” fallacy mentioned at the beginning of this article.

 

 

My Response

 

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.

 

Also as for me not being able to read English, this is what I said in my last rebuttal, right after Quenns response, as we will see; this missionary is trying to deceive all his readers, and is doing a very bad job. Lest Quenn starts to claim that I am being rude, this will silence him:

 

 

Quenn 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.

 

Now maybe this missionary will be able to understand his words. Note he says killing of women is unacceptable, but it would be tolerated IF THE KILLING IF KEPT TO A MINIMUM. As we see, in his Bible the killing was NOT kept to a minimum, ALL the women and children were killed. Hence this action CANNOT be tolerated. So Quenn has to eat his own words.

 

So my initial comment stands, thanks to you, you called your Bible vile and violent book. So I say to you, I suggest you go learn English rather than telling me, since you are making a fool out of yourself. And if you get offended by this harsh tone on you, then so be it, you have been exposed as a liar, hence you deserve this. Again here it is for all to see:

 


while my point is strictly saying:

 

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

 

The 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


So keep making a fool out of yourself for everyone to see.

 

Also here is more proof of what a sad deception artist this man is, note what he says:

 

 

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

 

Note how this coward tries to trick his readers by saying inserting the word SOME, he is trying to trick his readers into thinking that SOME women and children were killed. Not only that, he is making a lie against me, my argument was never focused on SOME women and children being killed, my argument was focused on ALL women and children being killed, not a few here and there. So my question is, why did you just try to play a trick on everyone? Are you a coward to admit the fact that all women and children of several towns were slaughtered?

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

He Wrote


Zaatari’s
reasoning can clearly be illustrated like this:

 

“Killing women and children is vile because such atrocities are considered wrong and typically by today’s standards”

 

 

 

My Response


Wrong, my argument is that killing women and children is wrong in whatever century you live in; you are so brain dead to have invented up this theory that in some time in history it was okay to murder women and children.

 

Also let me elaborate, what I am mainly against is the massacre of women and children, being killed of by the sword, had God killed them by a natural disaster, I would have no arguments, however so the atrocities found in the Bible are no different than the atrocities we see being done around Africa, and many other parts of the world. Genocide is genocide, no other way to look around it.

 

Also, it is funny to see Quennal Gale building up a straw man, he earlier claimed that I was building a straw man, when in fact he is doing it. What makes this even funnier is that I NEVER brought up the way modern society view things, Quenn did!

 

This whole debate started on these 2 articles, which were rebuttals to Shamoun:

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm

 

No where in those two rebuttals do I bring the point of how would modern society would view those events.

 

Quennal Gale then later popped into this debate out of no where, and brought in the issue of what modern society would think off. So Quennal Gale really seems to be lost.

 

I will even quote it for him, here you go Quenn, it was you who brought up the issue of what modern society thinks, NOT ME. :

 

Before we begin we must start by saying that we, unlike others, don’t have a problem with God bringing judgment upon unbelieving civilizations that refuse to adhere to his commands and his servants. We understand the clear fact that the Lord God is the all-merciful God who loves all of his creation but we also understand that this same God of mercy is also a God of justice. Modern civilization tries to impose its current thinking upon God in trying to say that he is vicious to unbelievers without failing to take in the context and scope of the particular situation.

 

So my friend, it was you who started this argument on modern society. My argument is based upon the fact that women and children were slaughtered by barbarians.

Also finally, who said that those slaughtering of women and children cannot be followed by modern day Christians? Where is this law specifically forbidden and is sin? As far as I know, the NT tells me that the OT is useful and must be followed:

 

1-                 2 Timothy 3:16 states:

 

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

 

So hence someone in todays modern time could follow the very same example found in the OT.

 

 

He Wrote


Zaatari
is trying to impose his modern assessment and opinion on God Almighty. If he claims that he isn’t then he must show us in the ancient time period where this wasn’t acceptable or in wide practice. Also the problem for Zaatari is that neither Muhammad nor Allah specifically points to any biblical war as an example to avoid. Why the silence? Since Zaatari has argued on many occasions (including later on in his response) that if Allah didn’t give specific instructions or prohibitions etc., then it wasn’t considered binding for or against someone or something. In this case, since there was no prohibition by Allah this indicates that neither he nor Muhammad saw anything wrong. Instead, modern propagandists like Zaatari are trying to impose their will and thinking on issues not prohibited or spoken against by Muhammad and Allah.

 

 

 

My Response


This is simply hilarious, I NEVER brought up the issue of modern society, and how we today view things, through out the ages it was always wrong to kill women and kids!!!!! Are you insane to be telling all of us that killing women and kids were okay in one point in history? Are you that stupid my friend? I hope not.

So all your doing now is blabbering, you have build a straw man and now your on a blind rampage arguing with yourself, since I never brought this point up.

 

 

He Wrote


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)

 

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”.

 

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. There are many passages in the Bible that may seem awkward on the surface but it’s not “what to read, but knowing what you’re reading” to determine the proper conclusion. In relation to Christianity, Zaatari is suddenly trying to play pacifist pretending to be horrified at such killings but in Islam, it is justified because the party either was disobedient to Allah, etc. I am the first to say that God isn’t a pacifist but in no ways does it make his judgment vile!

 

 

 

My Response


So what you’re saying is that it was okay to kill women and kids in your Bible? How nice of you, no matter how much research you do, it will never be able to defend the vile actions of the OT where women and kids were killed off by the sword, like sheep. You trying to justify shows how sick and demented you are, and I would never leave any kids around you, since it’s obvious if you were given the right circumstance and reason, you would kill that kid. That is what you are saying at the end of the day.

In Islam the prophet forbade the killing of women and children, hence you have no point.

 

 

He Wrote


1.     
The Bible allows you to kill children and women so this is vile and violent.

 

But what is this conclusion based on?

 

2.      He doesn’t tell us specifically.

 

 

 

My Response


Quennal
wants to play dumb now, or maybe he isn’t playing? Note what he says again:

2.      The Bible allows you to kill children and women so this is vile and violent.

 

But what is this conclusion based on?

 

3.      He doesn’t tell us specifically.

 

I don’t tell you specifically? Maybe you are blind; my conclusion is based on your Bible! I have been quoting all these verses from your Bible which shows that women and children were killed and it was okay and even commanded! So hence my conclusion is on your Bible, if you claim that this is only the OT. Then show me where it is forbidden to follow these rules in the OT, show me where it’s specifically disallowed to kill women and children in war.

 

 

 

He Wrote


However, it can easily be shown, as we did above, that he is arguing from the above fallacies (appeal to pity, and ad novitatem) along with his opinion as some sort of establish criteria on ancient Biblical practices. If Zaatari wants to argue in this manner he either needs to validate his claim historically, in light of the context of Biblical practices or state that he is using his opinion. So far he has done neither. Arguing an opinion as a statement of fact only proves that it’s one opinion, no matter how intricate one tries to word their argument. Many Christians and non-Christians alike don’t view these actions as outright senseless violence because they are smart enough to know that each event needs to be judge in light of its historical context. In a nutshell, Zaatari has only exposed his emotions, that he feels angry at certain Biblical passages which disagree with how he expects God to run the world.

 

 

My Response


In a nut shell you have just exposed yourself, you are actually saying it is okay to kill women and children if the situation is just right, the fact you even try to claim that most Christians and non-Christians would agree to such sick acts is a lie. Most Christians object to this, and are shocked to find such filth in the Bible that they simply ignore it and say oh well that’s the OT, who cares. Non Christians use those passages to show what a violent book the Bible is, so hence you have no support really, only narrow minded people would actually stand and back up the killing of women in children. So you have shown you are an extremist, if the condition is right, then kill the women and the kids, that is what you are essentially saying.

Now tell me, in which historical context is it ever okay to slaughter women and children? I would love to know.

This will conclude section A. to continue to section B, 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.

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

Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.