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 a Christian's defense of the slaughter of women and children in the Bible

Another one bites the dust

By Sami Zaatari

 

 

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.



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.

 

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.

Secondly, the reason I said Quenn tried to trick his readers is because he was actually trying to infer that in his Bible, when women and children are killed, only a small amount are killed, and they are collateral damage. As we see, this is not the case.

So those certain justified acts that Quenn bring up are not found in the Bible, since the Bible simply tells you to kill everyone, women and children included. If Quenn tries to back track and say thats not his position, here is what he said again:

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

Anyone reading that will see that Quenn was trying to show that his Bible's wars are justified in certain events, in which even modern societies would agree with the Bible.



He Wrote

My Response

To begin with, we cannot even compare the OT and the Quran when it comes down to wars. The OT commands you to go kill women and children, and also to show no mercy on them whatsoever. The Quran however never commands us to go kill women and children in war, in fact it tells us to fight for the oppressed women and children, the prophet Muhammad also forbade the killing of women and children.

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

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

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

Now let us see what the Quran says:

004.075

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

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

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

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

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

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

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

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

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



Again, please see our position above at the beginning of this paper. Our focus is to deal with the fact of whether killing children is allowed in Islam. According to Mr. Zaatari, such actions are wrong and contrary to Islam, even though we find many instances of children being killed in bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan which are predominately Muslim countries. The perpetrators even find ways to justify these actions and show no sympathy at all. Mr. Zaatari resorts to using these hadiths, which he feels is enough to prove his case:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257)

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258)


However he seems to be ignorant of the fact that Sam Shamoun already discussed this very same issue and refutes these hadith:


As a side note, this statement is a third party report. We do not have the exact words of Muhammad to evaluate them at this point. Yet there is a narration in Sunan Abu Dawud where Muhammad is directly quoted:

Narrated Rabah ibn Rabi':

When we were with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2663) - http://wwww.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism2.htm


Mr. Shamoun is correct in claiming that there is no exact word of Muhammad prohibiting killing of women and children, so the issue isn’t as clear-cut as Mr. Zaatari would have you to believe. Shamoun proves this case from the very same Islamic sources, added emphasis ours:

 

My Response

The fact that Quenn tries to brush aside an authentic hadith from Bukhari just like that is pathetic to say the least. Quenn seeing that he has no way out from the truth, which is that the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children, so he goes to the most lame argument possible, oh the hadith isn’t true! Its not fully trust worthy. Also, anyone reading what Shamoun said will actually see that Shamoun was really not refuting the hadith or saying the hadiths I showed were false, here is what Shamoun said:

As a side note, this statement is a third party report. We do not have the exact words of Muhammad to evaluate them at this point. Yet there is a narration in Sunan Abu Dawud where Muhammad is directly quoted:

All Shamoun is saying that this is a third party report, that doesn’t at all refute the hadith as being un-true. So no, Shamoun does not refute the hadiths what so ever.

Quenn is going to have to do much better than that if he wants to deny the authenticity of the hadiths.

So yes, the issue is clear cut as I would have people believe, your pathetic attempt in trying to question these hadiths just shows how you have lost this debate and have nothing meaningful to say. In fact I want to thank you for bringing that point up on the hadiths, since it just shows that missionaries in general really cannot refute solid facts about Islam, as I have been saying all along.

 

He Wrote

HOWEVER, there are certain other narrations that permit the killing of women and children, specifically during Muslim raids where they attack unsuspecting victims at night:

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

I.e., they are all the same—both the women and children are nothing more than pagans! The above narration is repeated in several, different hadith collections:

Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321)

Keep in mind that the subheading is not part of the narration, it is added by the collector of the hadiths. In other words, the statement regarding the killing of women and children being permissible as long as it isn’t deliberate is not part of the narration. The hadiths do not explicitly say this, and yet the compiler assumed that this was the clear implication and meaning of these narrations.

It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4322)

Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4323)

Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664) (Ibid)


As you can clearly see, killing children and women is permissible in Islam. Mr. Zaatari is wrong because he is arguing from the belief that this prohibition is absolute when Islamic sources clearly show that there were certain cases in which it can be done and is actually encouraged. If you look at Muhammad’s response, he wasn’t overly concerned that women and children died among the pagan population, he only claimed, “oh well, they are apart of them”, in other words, guilty by association. Taking the hadiths Mr. Zaatari used in his defense along with these hadiths, logically we must conclude that killing of children is permissible in special circumstances.

My Response

Quennals points have already been dealt with on these links:

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

So nothing new is brought to the table by Quennal. if he would like to respond to those links, he is free to do so and then engage in a dialog with brother Bassam and Karim.

 

From me, Osama Abdallah:

As further proven beyond the shadow of the a doubt in the two links, the Prophet peace be upon him was confronted with a situation where right in the middle of the raid/battle, the Muslims brought to his attention the problem of women and children being accidentally killed, and asked for the Prophet's opinion on what to do with the situation.  The Prophet, peace be upon him, commanded the Muslims to continue the battle because it was in the Muslims' best interest at that time to win these wars.

The polytheist trinitarian pagan is trying to draw the false picture that Islam promotes the killing of innocent people at any time and any place.  This is absolutely false, and he himself knows that.  The proof for him knowing it is clearly seen in his lame and ridiculous response to brother Sami's Hadiths above.  Instead of answering them, he rather attacked their authenticity because he knows that they clearly blow away his points.

It is clear that because he is a desperate liar, we can't expect much truth to be uttered by him.

 

He Wrote

Apparently Mr. Zaatari has never seen this article or purposely overlooked it. Whatever the case, by virtue of his own words, he has condemned Islam and Muhammad. Notice how he argued against Mr. Shamoun about this same issue in the OT:

 

My Response

Apparently you are not the one who has seen the responses from the Muslims, or you are the one who purposely over-looked it since our website specifically dealt with those hadiths you just brought up! So I suggest you visit those 2 links I sent you which silence your argument.

I would also like to say that Quenn has so far brought nothing to the table to defend the massacres of women and children in his Bible. It seems he is trying to evade the topic at hand, but this just exposes his in-ability to deal with the arguments set before him, therefore he feels he has to lash out against Islam.

 

He Wrote

My Response

First two responses are in order. Firstly, whether these commands that God gave to the Israelites, to go kill women and children, whether these commands are allowed or not allowed today is irrelevant. The fact that your God did at one time allow the killing of women and children is itself bad enough, it seems Shamoun wants us to forget about the dark history that his Bible contains. The fact is Shamoun’s God did at one time allow the killing of women and kids, how can we just forget about this?

Secondly, how do you know these commands are no longer to be followed? Your NT doesn’t even agree with you:

1- 1- 2 Timothy 3:16 states:

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

So the NT says ALL scripture is God breathed, and this includes the OT. The NT tells us that we should look to the whole Bible for instruction, doctrine, correction and reproof. So hence these commands of killing women and kids can still be applied by Christians today, they could be followed under the category of instruction.

As for the rules of warfare being binding upon all Muslims in all times, there is nothing wrong with that, because to start off there is nothing wrong with the rules of war in the Quran. - http://www..answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm


From reading his response we clearly find that he considers this a dark side of God’s character, which is bad enough. Next he argues that there is nothing wrong with the rules of war in the Quran and Islam in general. Again, it is very apparent that Mr. Zaatari isn’t as knowledgeable about his own Islamic history for if he considers what the OT teaches to be wrong, then Muhammad and Allah would also be condemned as being bad as well! The hadiths that deal with the night raids and the pagans are a death blow to Mr. Zaatari’s argument. So if he is worried about Christians killing kids today, then why doesn’t he have a problem with Muslims doing the same thing also! What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander! Mr. Shamoun elaborates on this further:

 

My Response

The night raids have not dealt any blow to my argument since they have already been adressed. Now secondly, even if we do compare the night raids with your Bible, they still do not even compare!

In non of those night raids did the prophet actually command his fighters to kill women and children! He was just responding to the question of what about the women and children? He was just giving an answer, he never commanded the fighters to kill the women and children. Unlike Quenn's own Bible, which deliberately tells Moses and his army to go kill women and kids. So even Quenn's best argument, which is the night raids fall flat on his face since they don’t even compare with his own book.

Read those 2 links I posted since they will deal with the issue of the night raids and will show no evil was meant by the prophet.

Also my problem is with the fact your Bible ordered women and kids to be killed. That’s my problem, I also do have a problem with supposed Muslims who kill women and kids, when did I ever say I didn’t? However so, unlike the Christian, my book doesn’t command us Muslims to kill women and children, nor did our prophet Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad specifically said DO NOT KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN; your Bible specifically commanded his followers TO KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Secondly, if the hadiths are not good enough for you, here is a verse which you did not even touch upon:


004.075

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


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

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

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

He Wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

From me, Osama Abdallah:

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

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

 

My Response

Actually, I would like to thank Quenn for shooting himself in the foot, he says:

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

So note, all of a sudden Quenn has a problem with unnecessary killing of women and children, and claims a true prophet would be more cautious. What makes this all so amusing is that Quenn's book just tells him to go kill women and kids! Throw all caution out the window!!!! Just kill the women and children!!! So for him to be coming up with such a pathetic argument is hilarious. In fact Quenn manages to show that both Moses and Joshua are not prophets, since they just killed women and kids, therefore they cannot be prophets, because as Quenn said, a true God-inspired prophet would be more cautious and wouldn’t allow the killing of women and kids. Since those prophets did allow the killing of women and kids, and also ordered the killing of women and kids, then this means both Joshua and Moses were not prophets. Once again, visit these two links as they deal with the issue of the night raids:

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

 

He Wrote

Furthermore, Islamic sources provide many examples where Muslims deliberately and brutally killed women and children. Noted Islamic commentator and historian Al-Tabari mentioned one:

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.

 

He Wrote

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

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

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

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

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

 

My Response

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

Also boys who had passed puberty back then were considered as men, so those boys who had passed puberty were technically considered enemy combatants since their tribe had broken the treaty with the Muslims. So hence Quenn has nothing again. The people who were killed were not innocent, so hence there is no crime.



He Wrote

Not only were the young boys of the tribe beheaded, but the Muslims also beheaded one of their women:

According to Ibn Ishaq, the conquest of the Banu Qurayzah took place in the month of Dhu al-Qa‘dah or in the beginning of Dhu al-Hijjah. Al-Waqidi, however, said that the Messenger of God attacked them a few days before the end of Dhu al-Qa‘dah. He asserted that the Messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Banu Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and ‘Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence. He asserts that the woman whom the Prophet killed that day was named Bunanah, the wife of al-Hakam al-Qurazi- it was she who had killed Khallad b. Suwayd by throwing a milestone on him. The Messenger of God called for her and beheaded her in retaliation for Khallad b. Suwayd. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, pp. 40-41)

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I. I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2665) (Ibid)

My Response

It seems Quenn should read his sources a bit more carefully, I will help him out:

According to Ibn Ishaq, the conquest of the Banu Qurayzah took place in the month of Dhu al-Qa‘dah or in the beginning of Dhu al-Hijjah. Al-Waqidi, however, said that the Messenger of God attacked them a few days before the end of Dhu al-Qa‘dah. He asserted that the Messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Banu Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and ‘Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence. He asserts that the woman whom the Prophet killed that day was named Bunanah, the wife of al-Hakam al-Qurazi- it was she who had killed Khallad b. Suwayd by throwing a milestone on him. The Messenger of God called for her and beheaded her in retaliation for Khallad b. Suwayd. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, pp. 40-41)

So the reason this lady was killed was because she was guilty of killing a Muslim! So hence Quenn really should be a bit more careful when he seeks to attack Islam, since his sources only expose him more and shows how he cannot even compare the OT with the Quran or the hadiths.

 

He Wrote

As you can see here, Muhammad beheaded women, children and whoever he could get his hands on. And Mr. Zaatari has the audacity to be angry with the OT! This information comes from the Hadith and authentic Sirah literature in Islam and is known by scholars of Islam worldwide. Even if Mr. Zaatari tries to find a way to wiggle out of it by saying it isn’t necessarily true then the onus is on him to show us different traditions of the same event that have been proven to be correct and not just give us the same old, “I don’t believe this hadith or narration” jive. This amuses us when Muslims try to criticize other religions when they don’t even believe the authentic sources of their very own religion! How laughable!

 

My Response

It amuses me that you have to go into fantasy land by trying to put words in my mouth. No, I dont need to run away from these hadiths or sira literature, because they are very easy to explain as I have been showing. Whats wrong? Where these your best arguments you had? Did you think that I was going to be silenced by this material of yours? It seems that Quenn's best arguments have been destroyed by me, as you can all see he had assumed I would not be able to respond to his sources and simply evade them, much to his disappointment I explained each one he brought up!

Secondly, Quenn shoots himself in the foot again, he tried to be funny, and play a joke on Muslims, but it severely backfires against him and shows that he is the joke:

This amuses us when Muslims try to criticize other religions when they don’t even believe the authentic sources of their very own religion! How laughable!

Quenn claims he finds it amusing that Muslims don’t believe their own sources, yet when I qoute the authentic hadiths of the prophet Muhammad which forbade the killing of women and children, Quenn claims I am ignorant and those hadiths are not trustworthy!!!! Talk about being dumb! (NO OFFENSE)

However I find it amusing that Quenn has to intentionally distort the Sira, Quenn doesn’t mention the fact that the reason the prophet had those Jews killed was because they broke the treaty. Also back then they weren’t considered kids, once you passed puberty you were no longer a kid, but a man.

 

He Wrote

Mr. Zaatari is dead wrong, emphasis on dead, about Islam and the killing of women and children. Apparently he hasn’t studied his religion real well. Even outside of night raids, we find this about killing children in Islam:

This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457)

This is simply amazing! In Islam you are allowed to kill children if you believe that they will grow up and become unbelievers! This leaves the entire discretion to the person who is deciding to kill the child in question! An unbeliever is one who doesn't want to follow Islam! What if the Muslim made a mistake killing a child who may look like a disbeliever but may actually grow up to be a believer in Muhammad? It would be too late to try to then bring the child back from the dead.

 

My Response

Actually, it seems Quenn cannot read his own sources say anymore. Note what it says:

This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457)

So note, the hadith first states that the prophet Muhammad did not kill children, which refutes everything Quenn has to say, unlike Moses who did kill kids. Secondly the hadith also tells you not to kill children. THEN it says you could kill your kids if you knew what Al-Khidr knew, in other words, this hadith means you can never kill your kids because there isn’t any man out there who knew or knows how their kids will turn out to be when their older, this knowledge was bestowed on Al-Khidr. This also further proves my point in which I stated on the story of Al-Khidr, Al-Khidr was one unique case, and it was a spiritual lesson to Moses. I suggest Quennal Gale goes and does his research on Al-Khidr. Al-Khidr was a very smart man, and God had blessed him with such knowledge, Al-Khidr was so smart he was able to tell whether a child would grow up to be bad or good. As far as I know, no other man has been bestowed with such knowledge to be able to fortell the future like Al-Khidr did. Also, Al-Khidr didn’t just guess when he knew a child with be bad or good when they grow up, he knew it 100%, this is how much knowledge he had, God had greatly blessed him.

Hence it would be impossible for Muslims to kill their children by this criteria, since no Muslim has such knowledge like Al-Khidr did, therefore they won’t be able to tell whether their kids will be bad or good, and this all means that Muslims cant kill children.
So Quenn actually proves how great Islam is, and what a great prophet Muhammad is, since he forbids you to kill your children, and gives you a stipulation which is IMPOSSIBLE to follow, since there isn’t any man out there with the knowledge of Al-Khidr.

Basically, what Muhammad did is the same thing as someone telling you:

‘Don’t go into space without a space helmet and suit unless you can breathe freely in space’

This is another way of telling you to not do something. It’s a figure of speech, another way of forbidding something to you. As we all know, we always need to wear a space helmet and suite to go into space, since we can’t breath freely. So hence me telling you don’t go up there unless you can breathe freely is something impossible, so I am giving you an impossible stipulation, something you will never be able to follow. So hence you will always go to space with a space helmet on. J

The same with the prophet Muhammad, when he told people do not kill your kids, unless you know what Al-Kidr knew. This is the same thing, since no one knows what Al-Khidr knew, he was blessed by God with great knowledge. Hence you will never really be able to kill your kids, because you will never have the knowledge Al-Khidr had. So in other words, the prophet Muhammad completely made it impossible for you to kill your kids!

So thank you Quenn for posting that hadith, you just make the prophet Muhammad look good. Thank you.

 

He Wrote

Hence, in orthodox Islam, not the so-called radical or fanatical Islam, a Muslim can kill an innocent child if it is deemed as being necessary for the betterment of Allah's society! Now we know why the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had no ill feelings about the acts they committed, which in turn took the lives of innocent children. They were just being obedient to the laws and regulations of Islam! Here is an example from a loving Muslim family and their child:

In Nov., 1989, a Palestinian Muslim and his wife, murdered their own 14 daughter. Their daughter HAD NOT LIVED ACCORDING TO THEIR VIEW OF ISLAM. Finally, the father and mother assaulted the girl. The mother held the girl down while the father stabbed her to death. Unknown to this Muslim family, this man was under investigation by the FBI, and a bug had legally been planted in the house. The entire murder was called on tape. As the girl struggled and begged her mother to help her, the father said in Arabic, "DIE, DIE QUICKLY, DIE QUICKLY”. (People magazine, 1/20/92)

What is even more disturbing about this is the fact that this family murdered this girl not in a war but in regular civil life. Hence, according to Islam killing children who are deemed as prospective disbelievers can be done anywhere! Isn’t this great? Not if you are the child who suffered cruelly at the hands of his/her parents.

 

My Response

This is simply a red-herring from Quennal Gale. As I clearly showed, the hadith he quoted, does not say what he believes it does. Its just that he doesn’t know anything about Islam or Al-Khidr so now he is spewing all this rubbish nonsense.

What those parents did was wrong, without a doubt. Allah will punish them for such an act. So hence Quenn doesn’t really prove anything. Since he cant really bring anything bad from the Quran, or the hadiths or sira material, he has to jump to the actions of people.
Since Quenn wants to play that game, I can play to. Mr. Quenn, what do you say about your gay priests having sex with little boys in church? (Sorry for the language)

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week613/cover.html

PRIEST "X": We're certainly aware that there are lots of priests who are gay.

VALENTE: The Catholic Church teaches that it is not a sin to have a homosexual orientation, but the church also says that the proper role of sexuality is between a man and a woman and calls homosexuality quote, "intrinsically disordered." This has alienated many gay Catholics.

PRIEST "X": It's a very charged subject in the Church right now.

VALENTE: And as for homosexual acts, the Church calls them "gravely sinful." Although this gay priest is celibate -- as all priests are required to be -- he does not want to be identified.

PRIEST "X": I don't want to stand before a congregation and them think of me as a gay person precluding what I'm trying to do there, precluding what I'm trying to do ministerially there.

VALENTE: No one has precise figures on the numbers or percentage of priests who are homosexual. There are only estimates. Sexuality or sexual preference are not subjects easily studied in a scientific survey but there are many anecdotes and impressions.

Rich Rasi is a gay man who once served as a priest in the Boston area. He is no longer an active priest but recently officiated at a worship service for gay and lesbian Catholics.

RICH RASI (Former priest): A lot of the recent literature has said that, you know, straight priests are leaving the priesthood because there's so many gay people there, there's not a place for them.

VALENTE: Chris Pett, who is also gay, was an active priest in Illinois for 12 years.

Also I am now going to quote from a Christian Adult website:

www.sexinchrist.com 

Are you saving yourself for your wedding night? The Devil wants you to fail, that’s why he puts stumbling blocks in your way. But God wants you to succeed, and that’s why he has given us an alternative to intercourse before marriage: anal sex. Through anal sex, you can satisfy your body’s needs, while you avoid the risk of unwanted pregnancy and still keep yourself pure for marriage.

You may be shocked at first by this idea. Isn’t anal sex (sodomy) forbidden by the Bible? Isn’t anal sex dirty? What’s the difference between having anal sex before marriage and having regular intercourse? Let’s address these issues by debunking some myths about anal sex and God's will.

“I thought the Bible said anal sex was a sin.”
This is a common misconception. Anal sex is confusing to many Christians because of the attention paid to the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual acts. However, it’s important to realize that these often quoted scriptures refer only to sexual acts between two men. Nowhere does the Bible forbid anal sex between a male and female.

In fact, many Biblical passages allude to the act of anal sex between men and women. Lamentations 2:10 describes how “The virgins of Jerusalem have bowed their heads to the ground,” indicating how a virginal maidens should position themselves to receive anal sex. Another suggestive scripture tells of a woman’s pride in her “valley” (referring to her buttocks and the cleft between them) and entices her lover to ejaculate against her backside: "How boastful you are about the valleys! O backsliding daughter who trusts in her treasures, {saying,} ' Who will come against me?' (Jeremiah 49:4) And in the Song of Songs, the lover urges his mate to allow him to enter her from behind: “Draw me after you, let us make haste.” (Song of Solomon, 1:4)

“Isn’t anal sex dirty?”
The Bible says, “To the pure, all things are pure.” (Titus 1:15) The Lord created your body, and no part of it is imperfect or unclean. God also created our bodies for pleasure, and anal sex is just one of the many ways, including standard sexual intercourse, that we can enjoy this pleasure and share it with a partner.

Although the anus is used for elimination, in reality it is not as dirty as you think, especially after a shower or bath. Elimination is also a natural process of our God-given bodies, so our conception of the anal area as dirty has more to do with our own psychological hang-ups. If the idea of direct contact with this area is still distasteful to you, the male can wear a condom as a barrier

So note, if Quenn wants to play the game of judging a religion because of the actions of people then we can see he’s not in a good position what so ever.
So please, Quennal Gale, don’t bring arguments which hurt your cause.

 

He Wrote

Now Zaatari may call into question the above narration regarding killing children on the assumption that they may turn out to be unbelievers. In case he does we only need to remind him of what Mr. Shamoun had quoted from the Quran:

"So they journeyed on till when they met a young boy; he slew him. Moses said, ‘What! hast thou slain an innocent person without his having slain anyone! Surely, thou hast done a hideous thing’ ... ‘And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and we feared lest on growing up he should involve them into trouble through rebellion and disbelief;’" S. 18:74, 80 Sher Ali

As Mr. Shamoun stated regarding this text:

Moses' companion justifies the killing of a young innocent boy on the grounds that the boy may have grown up to be a rebellious unbeliever. Hence, if Zaatri has issues with the Holy Bible he needs to take issue with his own book which condones the killing of a young boy who may have, or may have not, grown up to be a disbeliever. Since Allah had a man kill a boy, which obviously included some kind of violence and pain, would Zaatri now say that his god is cruel and a bloody murderer?

Thus, these Quranic texts substantiate the hadith that Muslims can kill children on the mere suspicion that such children may grow up to be unbelievers! In fact, this very hadith mentions the name Khadir which is the name given to this very same person in Surah 18 who killed the innocent child!
My Response
I never denied the hadith, in fact I also had to teach Shamoun about Al-Khidr and what happened in my first rebuttal! So why would I brush it aside when you and him don’t even know the story?
Secondly, Khidr didn’t guess, he knew for sure. The hadith you quoted also proved that! Do you have memory loss or what? Secondly, I suggest you go learn about the story and what happened. There will be no need for me to go over this again. Go to the top of the page and click on my second rebuttal where I deal with this issue. So you repeating the same argument doesn’t make it become fact. ;)

 

He Wrote

Finally, Mr. Zaatari complained about the doctrine of original sin, saying that it is not fair that others are blamed for the sins of Adam and Eve in the garden. It is beyond the scope of this paper to defend such a doctrine, but what we would like to do instead is to further expose Mr. Zaatari’s complete ignorance of what even his own false prophet and false religion teach about this issue.

But the Satan made them both fall from it, and caused them to depart from that (state) in which they were; and We said: Get forth, some of YOU being the enemies of others, and there is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful. We said: Go down, ALL OF YOU, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. S. 2:36-38

 

My Response

Firstly, anyone who read my rebuttals would see I had a problem with original regarding kids. Since according to original sin kids are going to hell, since they had no time to repent, so logically they end up in hell, you can’t escape that.
Secondly, the verse you even bring up does not mention any original sin! This is your own ignorance.
The verse is telling you, whenever guidance comes from God, you should follow it and no fear shall upon you etc. Where is original sin in any of that verse?

 

He Wrote

We see from the above text that Adam’s sin clearly impacted all future generations of mankind since in Arabic the YOU in both 2:36 and 38 is plural (more than two), as opposed to the dual. We know that at least in Sura 2:38 the plural cannot be a reference to Satan since he stands condemned to hell and will not follow the guidance which will come from Allah. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the plural is addressed to all of mankind, that humanity suffered expulsion due to their federal head, Adam, a point reiterated elsewhere:

 

My Response

Quennal Gale proves why you can never trust a missionary. He just exposes himself more and more, and just gives a bad picture on missionaries in general. Quenn seems to forget that us Muslims are NOT BORN WITH SIN. So Quenn is basically showing nothing here. All he is showing is because of Adam and Eve, we now are born on earth and are tested, where as the first man was living in heaven etc. Now man has to earn his right to heaven, that’s all.
Quenn seems to be confused with his doctrine, us Muslims don’t believe we are born with sin, or original sin, or any of that. We are born innocent etc. Unlike Quenn, who was born a criminal according to his religion!

 

He Wrote

Ibn Kathir stated regarding 2:38-39:

Allah informs of His warning to Adam, his wife and Satan, THEIR OFFSPRING, when he ordered THEM to descend from Paradise. He says he will send messengers with Scriptures, signs and proofs… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 1, Surah Al-Fatiah Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 1 to 141, Abridged by Sheikh Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London: Second Edition 1998], pp. 109-110; capital emphasis ours)

Here also are the late Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s comments on Sura 2:36:

… Note the transition in Arabic from the singular number in ii. 33, to the dual in ii. 35, and the plural here [2:36], which I have indicated in English by "All ye people." Evidently Adam is the type of all mankind, and the sexes go together in all spiritual matters. Moreover, the expulsion applied to Adam, Eve, and Satan, and the Arabic plural is appropriate for any number greater than two. (Bold and underline emphasis ours)

 

My Response

Yes, and none of this shows original sin. This shows that now God will test you, and you will have to earn heaven, God will send your scriptures and you must believe in them etc. So Quenn is really doing nothing here.

 

He Wrote

Here also are the late Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s comments on Sura 2:36:

… Note the transition in Arabic from the singular number in ii. 33, to the dual in ii. 35, and the plural here [2:36], which I have indicated in English by "All ye people." Evidently Adam is the type of all mankind, and the sexes go together in all spiritual matters. Moreover, the expulsion applied to Adam, Eve, and Satan, and the Arabic plural is appropriate for any number greater than two. (Bold and underline emphasis ours)

The Quran is essentially agreeing with the Holy Bible that Adam caused all his offspring to be expelled from the Garden, a fact that is further confirmed by the following narrations:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. 'O Adam! You are our father WHO DISAPPOINTED US AND TURNED US OUT OF PARADISE.' Then Adam said to him, 'O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses," the Prophet added, repeating the Statement three times. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 611: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/077.sbt.html#008.077.611)

Abu Huraira reported that God’s messenger told of Adam and Moses holding a disputation in their Lord’s presence and of Adam getting the better of Moses in argument. Moses said, "You are Adam whom God created with His hand, into whom He breathed of His spirit, to whom He made the angels do obeisance, and whom He caused to dwell in his garden; then BECAUSE OF YOUR SIN caused MANKIND to come down to the earth." Adam replied, "And you are Moses whom God chose to deliver His messages and to address, to whom He gave the tablets on which everything was explained, and whom He brought near as a confidant. How long before I was created did you find that God has written the Torah? Moses said, "Forty years." Adam asked, "Did you find in it, ‘And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred’?" On being told that he did, he said, "Do you then blame me for doing a deed which God had decreed that I should do forty years before He created me?" God’s messenger said, "So Adam got the better of Moses n the argument." Muslim transmitted it. (Mishkat Al-Masabih English Translation With Explanatory Notes by Dr. James Robson, Volume I [Sh. Muhammad Ahsraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprint 1990], p. 23; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Adam and Musa argued and Adam got the better of Musa. Musa rebuked Adam, 'You are Adam WHO LED PEOPLE ASTRAY and brought them out of the Garden.' Adam said to him, 'You are Musa to whom Allah gave knowledge of everything and whom he chose above people with His message.' He said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Do you then censure me for a matter which was decreed for me before I was created?'" (Malik's Muwatta, Book 46, Number 46.1.1: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/046.mmt.html#046.46.1.1)

This Ayah mentions the great honor that Allah granted Adam, and Allah reminded Adam's offspring of this fact. Allah commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam, as this Ayah and many Hadiths testify, such as the Hadith about the intercession that we discussed. There is a Hadith about the supplication of Musa, "O my Lord! Show me Adam who caused us and himself to be thrown out of Paradise.'' When Musa met Adam, he said to him, "Are you Adam whom Allah created with His Own Hands, blew life into and commanded the angels to prostrate before?'' Iblis was among those ordered to prostrate before Adam, although He was not an Angel. (Ibn Kathir on surah 2:34; http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=1629; bold and italic emphasis ours)

 

My Response

The Bible and the Quran are not in agreement. We do not believe we are born with sin, as you are. So don’t lie so freely like your doing now. All Quenn is shows is that we are all on earth as a result of our parents disobedience, that’s all he has shown. He hasn’t shown that were born as sinners. These are two different topics.
This is also an evasion on his part, an evasion from the sad truth that according to original sin, babies go to hell. That’s how it is; there is no other way around it. That’s what happens when you believe in such a cult.

 

He Wrote

These narrations further complicate matters. It blames Adam’s sin and subsequent expulsion on Allah’s predetermined decree, that Allah had already predestined that Adam would fall from favor. Here again is Ibn Kathir’s commentary, this time regarding 2:37:

… Narrated Sufyan At-Thawri quoting ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Ibn Rafi‘ that someone heard Mujahid quoting ‘Ubayd Ibn ‘Umayr as saying that Adam said: "My Lord, is the sin I committed one that was destined for me before You created me or is it something I brought upon myself?" Allah replied: "I preordained it upon you before I created you." Adam said: "Lord forgive me it as You have preordained it upon me". The narrator said, hence the verse <Then Adam received words from his Lord, and his Lord relented towards him.>. Narrated al-‘Awfi, Sa’id Ibn Jubayr, Sa’id Ibn Ma‘bad and al-Hakim quoting Ibn ‘Abbas: Adam said to Allah: "Have You not created me with Your own hands?" The answer was yes. Then he asked: "And You have breathed into me of Your spirit?" The answer again was yes. He added: "And You decreed for me to do this?" Yes was the answer he received. He said: "If I repent, will You send me back to Paradise?" Allah said: "Yes." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa’i, p. 106; underline emphasis ours)

Thus, if Zaatari has a problem with the Bible’s teaching on original sin then he must surely have problems with the Quran and the hadiths of his false prophet since they both taught something similar!

 

My Response

No, I do not have a problem with the Quran or hadiths. What I do have a problem with are silly missionaries as yourself who like to twist things, then go into your fantasy land and start acting like you proved something. You have shown nothing that I didn’t already know. However so, none of what you showed shows original sin, so what are you arguing about? I have no idea.

Also, the prophet Muhammad is not a false prophet, and you shall come to know this in the after-life, however so that is your loss. You can continue to follow you cult, and follow your leader Paul who is doomed as you are.
Also if Muhammad is a false prophet, why have you been caught distorting and twisting things about him in this article? If you have the truth why become a liar? Also if you have the truth, why haven’t you even bothered to defend the filth in your Bible? If I were you I would be worried, the fact you have evaded the main topic shows how scared you are, and how ashamed you are of your Bible. Unlike me, I have answered all you silly claims and your best arguments with ease. Truth stands clear from falsehood, that’s all I can tell you.

 

He Wrote

In light of the above, we have sufficiently shown that Mr. Zaatari is entirely wrong on Islam and the killing of children and, in particular, women. We will continue to watch closely the ongoing debate between Mr. Zaatari and Mr. Shamoun. Mr. Zaatari stated:

 

My Response

As we saw, I took care of each of your arguments, and you did not refute or answer anything. You just exposed yourself for all of us, and you gave me a good opportunity to really smash a missionary argument, so thank you. You have also not touched on the subject of your Bible’s massacres, however I don’t blame you, if I had to defend such filth I don’t know what I would do.

 

He Wrote

So Shamoun has clearly failed to answer anything. He only further strengthens our arguments!

In turn we can state:

So Zaatari has clearly failed to answer anything on child and women killing. He only further weakened his argument!

 

My Response

Yes, Shamoun has failed to answer anything, and thanks to you you also have strengthened my arguments! So thank you.

As for me not being able to answer anything on women and children, to begin with, the topic was NEVER FOR ME TO DEFEND THE KILLING OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN. So this shows you’re confused on what the topic is, the topic is the killing of women and children in the bible, you’re the one who is supposed to be defending that! So you saying what you just said makes no sense!

The topic was not on the killing of women and children in Islam. So I suggest you pay attention. However so, you did make that the topic of this article, and I clearly refuted all you had against Islam.

Praise Allah, and may Allah continue to send his blessings and peace upon the prophet Muhammad.








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.