Analyzing
Quennal Gale’s third response
Part 3
By Sami Zaatari
Before
venturing off into this rebuttal, I would like the readers to know that this rebuttal is
rather lengthy. For reading tips, take some 2 minute breaks here and there as it will
comfort the eyes and relax you a bit. You will all hopefully enjoy this rebuttal, as
usual, I am thankful to Allah for this.
Quennal Gale has come out with yet another response to me. To keep everything neat and
tidy, I will keep everyone up to date with what has been happening so far.
As you may
have all known, there has recently been quite a few online debates taking place between
myself and Quenn. Here is a chain of events that have happened throughout the debate:
Sam Shamoun
wrote:
I responded back: http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm
Shamoun’s response: http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm
My counter response: http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm
Then Quenn entered the debate:
My response: http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.htm
Quenn released another counter response: http://answer-islam.org/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.html
1. http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.htm
2. http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/continuation_to_quennals_response.htm
That is the
complete chain of events, in the exact order in which all dialogs/debates occurred.
Readers who
have not read those articles should go read them before reading this, since it will be
easier, and will allow the reader to fully understand what has been going on. Also the
reader will be able to see how bad missionary Quennal Gale is doing. It seems his Jesus
cannot save him.
We now
proceed to Quennal’s response, however so I will not be posting his article in the
order he wrote it. Although all points will be addressed.
I will also
be leaving out all his pasting of what I and he said in earlier debates, since this just
takes up a lot of space, and un-necessary reading for the readers who have already read
those debates.
We now
proceed to yet another failing attempt by Quenn.
He
Wrote
Here is our response to Sami
Zaatari’s second laughable article:
My
Response
Indeed, the
only reason my responses were laughable was because I had to paste your pathetic
responses, which were very laughable and made us all laugh. I mean anyone who read the
previous responses would see how you had managed to build an army of straw man against me
which was pathetic. So yes, I am with you on this, my responses were laughable thanks to
your rubbish material. So please keep it up, hopefully me and my readers, and fellow
authors on this site will be able to laugh some more.
He
Wrote
I do not find it strange where I
failed to address anything, especially since Zaatari hasn’t given us a list of what
I’ve missed nor has he shown why “I’m required to address him on
“violence in the bible” in which the original debate is between him and Sam
Shamoun Apparently Mr. Zaatari has a hard time realizing that “as a third party I can
choose what I want to respond to on a pre-existing issue”. If Zaatari is so intent on
worrying about me addressing a certain issue, then the above link should satisfy him
sufficiently since he left it totally unanswered. But I’m not going to parade around
like a child saying “you didn’t answer this link, you totally missed this and
that”, like Zaatari.
My
Response
It seems I
have to remind you of what you wrote, so here it is again:
Here we will focus on an
ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of http://www.answering-christianity.com/
Oh wait, did you forget saying that? You clearly said you will be focusing on the issue of
violence in both the noble Quran and the Bible. You did not even touch your un-holy Bible
and simply ran like a coward.
Secondly, as
for you claim that I didn’t respond to one of your responses to me:
http://answer-islam.org/god_has_god.html
The reason I did not
address it is not because I couldn’t, or had no answer. No, not at all, that is your
wishful thinking. The only reason I did not bother with it is because you are simply
giving me your own view! There are other Christians who disagree with you on this issue,
and they believe that once Jesus died and rose and went back to the Father, he no longer
had the man nature, but just the divine nature. So hence you should go debate your own
brethren on this issue.
Secondly, in your own response
you refute yourself and prove my point, just by your title which says:
Yes, God does have a God!
Quennel Gale
So why should
I write a response!!!!! My article asked, does God have a God? You say yes God has a God,
which proves my point, that your God cannot be God, because as we all know God does NOT
have a God. So thank you for refuting yourself, and answering me in the way I wanted a
Christian to answer, which was in the affirmative. So tell me why should I respond to an
article which agrees with mine?
So you see
how easy you are? It just took me 2 paragraphs to refute this supposed response of yours
that I ignored or intentionally left out. So next time do not be so quick to scream
victory, I only did not respond because your response was too pathetic to actually be
dealt with. Anyhow, thanks for bringing it up, since I have now easily dealt with it. So
thank you.
He Wrote
Response:
First off, Zaatari, please learn
how to spell. I think you mean, “you trying to get yourself out of a hole”
instead of “whole”? Secondly Zaatari can hardly teach anyone to pay attention to
an argument, since IF THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT ISN’T BETWEEN THE PERSON IN QUESTION THEY
AREN’T NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO THAT ARGUMENT.
My Response
Yes,
hopefully I will not make those typos, sometimes it naturally comes up like that, when I
say hole, I put the ‘w’ by mistake. However so, I want to thank you for pointing
this out, since you aren’t pointing this typo error of mine to be friendly or out of
good will. You are only doing this to score a cheap shot in me. I guess that is all you
have now, you cannot refute my arguments, so instead you want to try and take cheap shots.
However so,
thanks to God, he exposed you as an idiot. Note Quenn tells me to learn how to spell,
however in this same article of his he makes a typo error himself!
He Wrote
Wow it seems like Saami Zaatari
is very desperate; he couldn’t even wait until I finished my second part of my
response this weekend before he responded
<http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.htm>.
Okay, with this being said, let’s expose him for all to see. First off, I find it
amusing that Mr. Zaatari wants others to “grasp the arguments” when I showed in
my response that he failed to do the very same thing. I don’t see how you can
annihilate someone when you don’t even read what they write.
My Response
So me responding before you
spread more lies is being desperate? How is it desperate of me to respond to a supposed
response of yours when I see one? No my friend, when I see lies I will immediately expose
it, you are just mad that I responded to your articles in about 2 days, which was a blow
to you since you thought you had silenced me with your long response.
I did grasp your arguments, your
arguments were:
1- Islam allows killing of women
and children
2- The prophet Muhammad allowed
killing of women and children
3- So why is Mr.Zaatari
complaining if the Bible does to
Those were your arguments, and
people who read my responses to you will see how I completely crushed your supposed
arguments on the prophet Muhammad ordering the killing of women and children, and your
arguments of Islam allows it. So hence yes, I did crush your arguments very badly.
For instance, here is one
example:
Her story is as follows. According to Ibn Humayd - Salamah - Ibn Ishaq - ‘Abdallah b.
Abi Bakr, who said: The Messenger of God sent Zayd b. Harithah to Wadi al-Qura, where he
encountered the Banu Fazarah. Some of his companions were killed there, and Zayd was
carried away wounded from among the slain. One of those killed was Ward b. ‘Amr, one
of the Banu Sa‘d b. Hudhaym: he was killed by one of the Banu Badr [b. Fazarah]. When
Zayd returned, he vowed that no washing [to cleanse him] from impurity should touch his
head until he had raided the Fazarah. After he recovered from his wounds, the Messenger of
God sent him with an army against the Banu Fazarah. He met them in Wadi al-Qura and
inflicted causalities on them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Ya‘muri killed Mas‘adah b.
Hakamah b. Malik b. Badr and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. (Her name was Fatimah bt.
Rabi‘ah b. Badr. She was married to Malik b. Hudhayfah b. Badr. She was a very old
woman.) He also took one of Umm Qirfah’ daughters and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah
prisoner. Zayd b. Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed her cruelly. He
tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in
two. Then they brought Umm Qirfah’s daughter and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah to
the Messenger of God. Umm Qirfah’s daughter belonged to Salamah b. ‘Amr b.
al-Akwa‘, who had taken her - she was a member of a distinguished family among her
people: the Arabs used to say, "Had you been more powerful than Umm Qirfah, you could
have done no more." The Messenger of God asked Salamah for her, and Salamah gave her
to him. He then gave her to his maternal uncle, Hazn b. Abi Wahb and she bore him
‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hazn. (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated b
Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII,
pp. 95-97)
My
Response
This gets
better and better. I would like to ask Quenn what is the point of this? Let us look closer
to what this account says:
He also took one of Umm Qirfah’ daughters and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah
prisoner. Zayd b. Harithah ordered Qays
to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and
tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two
There are two problems for Quenn.
1- The prophet Muhammad did not order this killing it was Zayd
2- From the text we read, we also don’t specifically see Zayd ordering Qays to kill
Umm Qifrah the way he did. All Zayd did was order her death. No where does the text show
he ordered Qays to kill her like that.
So Quenn proves absolutely nothing by this. All he shows is that one Muslim cruelly killed
a lady. He doesn’t show the prophet giving the order for the kill, nor does he show
the prophet commanding the lady to be killed in that specific way. Nor does he show Zayd
ordering Qays to kill the lady in that specific way. So hence Quenn really has nothing.
So note how
easily I refuted Quenn on that point. This is just one example.
He Wrote
Response:
Okay, so I made this statement
after “focusing on the issue of violence in the Quran and the Bible”. But
let’s show you how Zaatari doesn’t understand English real well. Notice this:
Here WE WILL FOCUS ON THE ONGOING DEBATE between
Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com
<http://www.answering-christianity.com/>
dealing with the issue of violence in
both the Bible in the Quran.
As you can see that my focus is on THE ONGOING DEBATE, WHICH CONSISTS OF ISSUES RELATING
TO VIOLENCE IN BOTH THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE. Let’s state some of these issues again:
1.
Violence in
the Bible.
2.
Violence in
the Quran.
3.
Violence
outside the Bible.
4.
Violence
outside the Quran.
As you can clearly see the entire debate encompasses a number of issues (note that I only
stated 4). Hence, since the debate is such a broad topic I must choose which specific
issue I want to focus on first, which is what I expressly stated to the reader:
Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER
KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM
My Response
This is very
amusing of you trying to get yourself out of a HOLE again. To expose you once again, here
is what you said in context, now everyone will see how you EVADED the original topic when
I smashed your Bible:
My
Response
Yes, you
trying to save face now isn’t going to help you, because as we will see right now,
you have the problem in reading not me. Here is what you said in your initial article:
Here we will
focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari
of http://www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the
issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.
Note, you claim you are focusing on a debate between me and Shamoun, on the topic
involving BOTH the Quran, AND the Bible. However so, you hardly ever touched on the Bible.
So next time I suggest you comprehend what you say, you started your article by saying you
will be focusing on the violence in the Quran AND the Bible. So thank you for shooting
yourself in the foot. I suggest you don’t try and play a trick on your readers next
time, but just admit you were trying to save face, since it will lesson the embarrassment
on your part.
Also Quennal
Gale makes this statement:
Our focus is to
deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM.
Quenn makes
this statement AFTER he first says he will be focusing on the issue of violence in the
Quran and the Bible. He says immediately after I quote the killing of women and children
in the Bible, go figure!
Note how
hilarious this looks:
Here is a
slight example of why we cannot compare the OT with the Quran when it comes down to wars:
Deuteronomy
Chapter 2
32-37
And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon
and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then
Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our
God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we
took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the
little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink
of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was
not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us
Now let us see what the Quran says:
004.075
YUSUFALI: And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah
and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children,
whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and
raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will
help!"
So does anyone else see the difference? The Bible commanded people to kill women
and children, the Quran commands people to fight for women and children. Big difference
between the two.
Also from my standpoint, I never feel that I have to justify the Islamic wars fought
during the time of Muhammad by bringing up the OT; the reason to this is because I do not
feel there is anything slightly wrong with what Muhammad did during the wars. The same
cannot be said for the OT, the Christians must have to justify every war in the Bible as
it allowed the killing of women and children.
As I said, the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children:
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of
the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and
children.
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of
Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women
and children.
From reading these hadiths, what exactly do I have to justify or defend? The
prophet Muhammad said DO NOT KILL women and kids. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm
Again, please see our position above at the beginning of this paper. Our focus is to deal
with the fact of whether killing children is allowed in Islam.
So note, right after I quote the terror verses from the Bible, Quennal immediately evades
the real topic at hand, and switches it solely on the Quran! This does show he was trying
to save face big time, because rather than address those terror verses I showed, he simply
evades them and then changes the topic to deal with the issue of women and children being
killed in Islam. How convenient on his part, and how funny to see him shift his position,
at the beginning of his article he said the focus is on the violence in BOTH the Quran and
the Bible. When I quote the irrefutable terror verses in the Bible, he then says the focus
will now be on Islam. Hilarious!!!!!!!
So keep
making a clown out of yourself Quenn. Everyone sees how you ran like a coward the second I
smashed your Bible, I do not blame you though.
Quenn then
goes on to red-herrings to make his article look long. I will not be posting his
red-herrings. Although here are links which deal with his red-herrings:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Internal/qi010.html
http://answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_disobey.htm
http://answering-christianity.com/quran/1601.htm
He Wrote
Notice that Zaatari calls these
terror verses. What is this conclusion based off of? His own opinion! Didn’t I state
that Zaatari has a bad habit of stating his opinion as fact and then arguing from this
assumed stated fact as truth! Apparently Zaatari failed to realize that these terror
verses, especially those from Deuteronomy, were inspired by Allah.
My Response
Actually correction, the lies in
your Bible were not inspired by Allah but by your monks and rabbis who distorted the book.
So do not twist it. Secondly, I will quote the Bible passages again, and we will let the
reader decide whether he feels these Bible verses are terrorism or not:
Deuteronomy
Chapter 2
32-37
And
the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin
to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and
all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we
smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time,
and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left
none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the
city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the
LORD our God delivered all unto us
Joshua
Chapter 6
17-27
17 And
the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the
harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the
messengers that we sent. 18 And
ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed,
when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it. 19
But all the
silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall
come into the treasury of the LORD. 20 So
the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the
people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the
wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before
him, and they took the city. 21 And
they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and
ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. 22 But
Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's
house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. 23 And
the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her
mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and
left them without the camp of Israel. 24 And
they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold,
and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
25 And
Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and
she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua
sent to spy out Jericho. 26 And
Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth
up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn,
and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. 27 So
the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
Zephaniah
2:12-15
"You
Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will
strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great
capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert. The city that once was so
proud will become a pasture for sheep and cattle. All sorts of wild animals will settle
there. Owls of many kinds will live among the ruins of its palaces, hooting from the
gaping windows. Rubble will block all the doorways, and the cedar paneling will lie open
to the wind and weather. This is the fate of that boisterous city, once so secure.
"In all the world there is no city as great as I," it boasted. But now, look how
it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will
laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist
Ezekiel 9:5-7
"Then I
heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone
whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young,
girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your
task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders.
"Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the
bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were
told."
Jeremiah 51:20-26
"You are
my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and
destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the
chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children,
young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen,
captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia
for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD.
"Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the
LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am
finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even
your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out,"
says the LORD.
Isaiah
13:15-18
Anyone who is
captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death
right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking
hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will
buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will
have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children
Numbers
Chapter 31
7-12
7 And
they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the
males. 8 And
they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and
Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they
slew with the sword. 9 And
the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and
took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10
And they
burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And
they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12
And they
brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and
unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab,
which are by Jordan near Jericho.
I wonder what Christians have to say about this? Using their own criteria against them
this makes their God a false violent God. So once again Christians should not throw stones
if they live in a glass house.
17-18
17 Now therefore
kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying
with him. 18
But all the
women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves
So we will
let the reader decide whether those passages are terror passages, or peaceful loving
Gospel passages.
He Wrote
Let me repost this from my
previous paper with slight modifications:
So my
book tells me to fight for oppressed women and children, Quenn's book tells him to kill the women and
children:
Zaatari needs to be
careful here because he is now stabbing himself with a double-edged sword. Claiming that
the Bible is my book, while the Quran is his book goes against the very tenants OF HIS
BOOK! Secondly, Zaatari is so desperate to prove that the books of Moses, the Torah (in
which he has posted most of his verses from) is vile that he would dare slander a prophet
of God by placing him on the level of uninspired Christians of today who often do
misunderstand what they read from the Holy Bible. By so doing he has only managed to
slander his false prophet and his false book which command him to say the following:
And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O
Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of
the idolaters. SAY (O Muslims): We
believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto
Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus
received, and that which THE PROPHETS received
from their Lord. WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANY OF THEM, and unto Him we have
surrendered. S. 2:135-136 Pickthall
The apostle believes in
what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and
(so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books AND HIS APOSTLES; WE MAKE NO
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF HIS APOSTLES; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord!
Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course. S. 2:285 Shakir
Zaatari has
committed unbelief (kufr) by making a
distinction between the prophets, Moses, Joshua and others, claiming that their teachings
are vile, breaking the command of his god and prophet! If Zaatari’s belief were
correct about the Bible, this would mean his god and his messenger were liars since they
commanded Muslims to believe all messengers and prophets! Either that or both Muhammad and
Allah were ignorant since they weren’t aware that the Hebrew prophets were false
prophets or were mistaken. So I challenge Zaatari and his big mouth to:
1.
Show me explicitly from the Quran where Allah specifically spoke against the
killing of women and children in the OT.
2.
Show me where the Quran says “THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG FOR TEACHING
THAT WOMEN AND CHILDREN CAN BE KILLED”. -Previous article.
As you can
clearly see Zaatari is in very hot water since
1.
He obviously doesn’t have any proof that Allah had a problem with these
specific verses of the Bible.
2.
Allah never told Muhammad or his followers that the “people of the book”
were wrong for killing women and children.
3.
He can’t give you one example of Muhammad rebuking Moses for his actions.
What more
can I say on this? Why argue with someone who can’t even produce proof from his own
religion to specifically reply to this very issue, which he so much cares about?
My Response
I know what
you can say, you can first start off by calling yourself an idiot, then a clown. In case
people think I am being rude, I am not. The reason I call Quenn an idiot ( and rightfully
so) is because all these points he just brought up I addressed in my previous rebuttal to
him!!!!!!!!!! So all Quenn did, was repeat himself!!!
It seems
Quenn suffers from a defect which his colleague Shamoun often likes to mention as the
mantra syndrome, which is repeating yourself over and over again, which still does not
make your argument true. So perhaps Shamoun should teach his little friend Queball on
this.
So maybe next
time Quenn should read my rebuttals a little more carefully.
He Wrote
What more evidence do we need to
show you that Zaatari doesn’t read carefully! Why do I have to be more specific when
these were the only links Zaatari posted in his paper? In fact Zaatari will later on
address my response to these very links, while here he apparently seems to WONDER WHICH
LINKS I’M TALKING ABOUT! Talk about confusion (or is it really deception masking
itself as confusion?)!! As for giving no response, apparently Zaatari failed to highlight
what I missed, so this wonderful revelation (no pun intended) has somewhat eluded him.
My Response
Actually, let
me prove you do not understand properly. Here is all of what Quenn said in context with
what I said:
He Wrote
As for his links he gave as a response, Zaatari failed to mention to his readers that the
points dealing with “the killing of women and children in Islam” were the very
same points I addressed and refuted in my original paper. Instead of addressing them, he
deemed it much easier to repost them without offering a counter response. From reviewing
his response, Zaatari could only offer up general responses and avoid the fact that his
own Islamic sources showed that “killing of children and women” was allowed by
Muhammad under certain circumstances.
My Response
Now would you
please be specific? Which links? Are you talking about these links:
http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm
http://answering-christianity.com/karim/no_killing_of_civilians.htm
If you are
talking about these links, then I must correct you, you gave NO response to them
whatsoever, and I even told you, you are free to contact both those writers, brother
Karim, and brother Bassam responding back to them, in which they will be glad to refute
you. Also, if you did supposedly respond to them in your initial response, then this shows
what a bad response you gave since I missed them and didn’t realize you gave one!
Response:
What more evidence do we need to
show you that Zaatari doesn’t read carefully! Why do I have to be more specific when
these were the only links Zaatari posted in his paper? In fact Zaatari will later on
address my response to these very links, while here he apparently seems to WONDER WHICH
LINKS I’M TALKING ABOUT! Talk about confusion (or is it really deception masking
itself as confusion?)!! As for giving no response, apparently Zaatari failed to highlight
what I missed, so this wonderful revelation (no pun intended) has somewhat eluded him.
The reason I
asked you which links you were talking about, is because you said you specifically
addressed them, however so I saw no response to them! So I asked, are you talking about
these 2 links I posted? Now do you understand?
Your response was so bad, that I did not even realize you gave one to those 2 links! In
fact I even said this in my previous rebuttal!!!!!!!!!!!!
So maybe you
should follow along next time. I posted two links for you to read, you later on said you
specifically addressed the points in them, however so I did not see this, so I asked are
you talking about the links I posted, because I see no response to them so what links you
talking about!
Now get it?
Its like if I
post a link on women, and you respond back by making arguments for men, I will rightfully
ask you hey are you talking about the link I gave you or what?
He Wrote
First off, instead of worrying
about whether I’m silly or not Zaatari needs to provide some type of historical
evidence to support his case, which he has failed to do thus far. All he did was quote
Bible verses without doing any extensive research on those verses. Again it is obvious
that Zaatari is arguing along the line of the fallacy known as:
Argumentum
ad misericordiam
This is the Appeal to
Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to
pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:
"I did not murder my
mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through
being an orphan." (Source
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html>)
In this
instance Zaatari’s reasoning can clearly be illustrated like this:
“It is very sick to see the
killing of women and children in the Bible, since such action is horrible”.
Don’t
you see why this argument is fallacious? Zaatari proves what I’ve been saying all
along when he claims:
Actually, in which
century, and in which time period was it ever
deemed acceptable to kill women and children? You trying to even argue along such a
line as saying: ‘oh yah in the past, such as Biblical times, it was okay to kill women and children’.
Are you that silly?
My Response
But you are
silly my freind.
Anyway, what
Quenn is arguing again, is that back then it was OKAY to kill children, how sick is that?
It was NEVER okay to kill children, the people who did so were WRONG. However so, the
Christian morals are pretty sick as we see, maybe to them it is okay to kill women and
children, but not to my God and prophet. In fact the prophet Muhammad has higher moral
standards than the fake god of the Bible. The prophet Muhammad says do not kill women and
children, the fake god of the Bible says kill women and kids. It is apparent that
Quenn’s God is really satan, not the true God Allah, Allah did not reveal this
corrupted version of the Bible you have today, o do NOT twist it again and turn around
saying ohhh you just insulted your own book and God.
I mean I
could just end this debate here, all I am doing is repeating myself over and over again,
Quenn cannot refute the arguments, women and children were killed in the Bible, this is
FACT, nothing will change this, so hence what are we really arguing about? Oh I see, Quenn
wants to try and justify the barbaric murders. It is obvious that Quenn is an extremist.
Also since
Quenn is arguing that I have to take in the context, historical back round of the
situation, this means that according to Quenn, if the situation is just right, then it is
okay to kill women and children. This means that one day if Quenn was in a situation,
which was just right to kill women and kids, he would do it. I am debating an extremist
lunatic!!!!!!
He Wrote
How can I be called silly for a
practice Zaatari has yet to prove wrong according to standard practices and views held
during the biblical period? Let’s show you a list of missing items in Zaatari’s
argument:
1.
He hasn’t shown anywhere in ancient history where such practices were deemed
out of the ordinary.
2.
He hasn’t provided a single document or statement showing that the ancients
viewed these as atrocities!
3.
He hasn’t even shown us where Muhammad and Allah viewed these wars as
atrocities!
My Response
This is getting hilariously funny
now, Quenn is actually trying to show that in one point of time it was okay to kill women
and children! No, correction, MASSACRE women and children! That is hilarious!
If you think it was not out of
the ordinary to kill women and children in the Bible, then you have a very very sick mind
and need immediate help. As I said, what are we debating for?! All Quenn is doing is
further strengthening my arguments.
I have shown that the prophet
Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children, that is good enough for me. Secondly,
again, the Quran does NOT have to condemn every single atrocity committed now does it? NO.
so hence such an argument is silly, and I already addressed this in my previous rebuttal.
So Quenn is just repeating himself over and over again. I guess my responses are to much
for him.
He Wrote
For all prractical purposes
Zaatari has argued in the following manner:
Killing women and children is
wrong because……. HE THINKS IT’S WRONG BASED ON HIS MODERN ASSESMENTS!
My Response
Actually, correction, I believe
that killing of women and children is wrong because the prophet Muhammad forbade it! Not
because of what today’s world tells us, but because the prophet Muhammad who was
inspired by God told us it is wrong 1400 years ago!!!! So you keep on saying this is a
modern approach is silly, since the Quran forbade it 1400 years ago. Or was 1400 years ago
a modern way of thinking that can be fully applied to today’s society.
He Wrote
1.
WHY DIDN’T ALLAH PUNISH THE JEWS FOR THESE ACTIONS AND WHY DIDN’T ALLAH
EXPRESSLY TELL MUHAMMAD THAT THESE ACTS WERE WRONG?
My Response
Fallacy number 2, Quenn expects
Allah to condemn EVERY SINGLE sin committed by mankind, which is ludicrous and silly to
say the least.
He Wrote
The answer is rather simple,
neither Muhammad nor Allah viewed these actions as atrocities which would explain why such
sensitive issues weren’t dealt with. Zaatari's "response" shows that he
himself knows that he doesn’t have anything to concretely show that these biblical
actions are atrocities other than “his own opinion”.
My Response
My own opinion? It
seems you cannot stop lying, so let me post the hadiths for you where the prophet Muhammad
forbade the killing of women and children, so no it is not my opinion:
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated
By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed.
Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.
Volume
004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated
By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so
Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.
So
no this is not my opinion. I state it is wrong because God’s prophet said it was
wrong! And the Quran tells me to follow and obey the prophet Muhammad, which to do so,
with be obeying Allah. So hence stop saying it is my own opinion, and a modern approach.
Stop being a coward, and state this for what it is, my opinion is based solely on what the
prophet Muhammad said about this issue, you are too embarrassed to say that because the
prophet has higher moral standards than your fake god.
Quenn later comes up with red-herrings which have nothing to do with the topic, he does
this just to make his article look long. I will not be posting his red-herrings.
He
Wrote
I find it very amusing that
Zaatari is claiming that I don’t understand my points. This is false for the Mishkat
explicit claims that:
1.
"Thus, next
to the Holy Qur'an the Hadith is the second source of the Islamic Law of social and
personal behaviour, because THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE HOLY PROPHET ARE AS BINDING ON THE
BELIEVERS AS THE COMMANDMENTS OF ALLAH.
2.
'Whenever Allah
and the Apostle have decided a matter, it is not
for a faithful man or woman to follow a course of their own choice (Q.33:36).
Notice that
a believer in Islam can’t follow his or her own choice when a matter is practiced or
decided by Muhammad. That is why the Mishkat says:
The Hadith is to be FOLLOWED EXACTLY "for that which differs from
the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up."
Now
according to Zaatari, I don’t understand what I’m talking about since I
mentioned that:
1.
Muhammad’s command and practices must be followed exactly unless the Quran
says something different.
2.
That a Muslim can’t follow his or her own manner of thinking when an issue or
matter was practiced or decided by Muhammad.
Secondly
Zaatari’s weak excuse for using “Muhammad’s wives” as a defense
doesn’t help him either since the Quran explicitly claims that his privilege to marry
more than 4 women was for him alone. As you can see the Quran limits the number of wives
that a Muslim can have to four:
If ye fear that ye shall
not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry
women of your choice, two or three or four;
but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a
captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from
doing injustice. S. 4:3
My
Response
Technology
has also dramatically changed since then, so this also means we cant follow the prophet in
every way possible, we can drive cars now, fly planes, call people by phone, make athan by
microphones etc. To follow the hadiths word for word would mean we cant do any of this,
however so I do not see any sheikhs who say its haram to drive a car, or call someone by
phone, or use a plane, or at least I haven’t seen any major sheikh forbid these acts.
Hence my point still stands.
He
Wrote
On at least two occasions
Muhammad forced certain men who had more than four wives to divorce some of them:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar
Ghaylan ibn Salamah ath-Thaqafi accepted Islam and that he had ten wives in the
pre-Islamic period who accepted Islam along with him; so the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him to keep
four and separate from the rest of them.
Ahmad, Tirmidhi and
Ibn Majah transmitted it. (Al-Tirmidhi, Number
945 taken from the Alim CD-ROM Version)
Narrated Al-Harith
ibn Qays al-Asadi
I embraced Islam while I had eight wives. So I mentioned it to the Prophet (peace be upon
him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Select
four of them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 12, Number 2233 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/012.sat.html)
My
Response
Yes,
this further proves my point, that we CANNOT follow the prophets actions word for word,
for this to happen would mean to contradict the Quran.
He
then makes a small red-herring which will not be posted.
He
Wrote
Zaatari’s defense is going
to backfire on him again since Muhammad was explicitly given this special command, but no
where does Allah or Muhammad claim that only he could marry a 6 year old girl. To
illustrate the fallacious nature of Zaatari’s argument note the following:
HE CLAIMS: Muhammad was given special command to
marry more than 4 wives.
Evidence given: The Quran, Hadith other Islamic
sources.
However,
HE CLAIMS: In light of the above, a Muslim
doesn’t have to follow Muhammad's perfect example of marrying a girl 6 years of age
(implying that this only applied to Muhammad).
Evidence given: None whatsoever since there is
no support from the Quran, Hadith or other Islamic sources for this position.
Conclusion: Zaatari has committed the fallacy of
“begging the question” for assuming what he has yet to prove while also
committing the fallacy of false analogy.
My Response
I
would like to thank Quenn for exposing himself as an idiot, and a liar. He once again
completely makes up bogus claims on me and says THIS IS WHAT ZAATARI IS SAYING.
Let
me expose his first shallow lie:
HE CLAIMS: In light of the above, a Muslim doesn’t have to follow Muhammad's
perfect example of marrying a girl 6 years of age (implying that this only applied to
Muhammad).
Where did I ever say that marrying a 9 year old girl only applied to the prophet Muhammad.
SHOW ME THIS, I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME THIS. Everyone will now see what a liar you are,
I NEVER once said that this marriage only applied to the prophet, NOT ONCE.
It
seems you do not follow my arguments, so let me repeat it for you again in summary form:
1-
People say Hadiths should be followed exactly word for word
2-
However so, this cannot be.
3-
The prophet had more than 4 wives.
4-
The Quran gives this rule only to the prophet
Muhammad.
5-
Us Muslims are not allowed to have more than 4 wives.
6-
Hence we CANNOT follow the hadiths word for word, to do so would be to contradict the
Quran on this command.
Now
do you get it? So my whole point is that you CANT follow ALL hadiths word for word, it is
impossible, and it would contradict the Quran. So stop attacking straw man, stop being a
liar, stop being a typical missionary. You made up your own point and said that was my
point. Stay consistent.
He Wrote
Zaatari has not given any
evidence whatsoever for his desperate explanations. It is nothing more than the figment of
his imagination. Even in today’s modern times, Muslims across the world still
practice Muhammad’s perfect example as we illustrate here:
By Stephen Buckley
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, December 13, 1997; Page A01
KORHOGO, Ivory
Coast-The griots are wailing.
They howl into a
squealing microphone as fellow storytellers, in a storm of sunflower golds and indigos and
teals and cornflower blues, dip, leap, shake, stomp, twirl and shudder in fierce ecstatic
dancing.
It is just after
noon, and inside, in a steamy square room no larger than a prison cell, Aisha Camara is covered in a pink-and-white
striped blanket. She briefly lifts a veil that hides her angular features. The griots and
her neighbors are celebrating her wedding day, but she is not smiling.
She is 14 years old, and in this town in
northern Ivory Coast, and throughout sub-Saharan Africa, such ceremonies are common. It
does not matter that in numerous countries on this continent, such early marriages have
been illegal for years.
Aisha's family will
not publicly discuss this tradition, but people in her community eagerly defend it. People
such as Boubacar Maiga, a neighbor who did not attend Aisha's wedding, say forcing girls to marry at such ages protects them
from immorality, strengthens clan relationships AND HONORS ISLAM.
"If a girl doesn't marry at an early age, she'll sleep with many men. Nobody would
want to marry her later," said Maiga, 55. Such marriages, he said, keep girls from
"adventures."
He married his first wife
when she was 11. He forced his oldest daughter to marry last year when she was 12. His
next daughter, age 7, is scheduled to wed next year. Constance Yai, a
prominent women's rights activist in this West African country, sees only tyranny in the
tradition. Her battle to eradicate childhood marriage is for her a struggle between an
oppressive Africa tied blindly to traditions versus one urgently seeking to embrace the
modern world.
"Pedophilia is a phrase that's only
recently become popular in the developed world," she said in her office in Abidjan,
Ivory Coast's capital. "But in Africa, it's been around a long time."
The practice of forcing
girls into marriage took hold decades ago throughout sub-Saharan Africa and is especially
widespread in countries there WITH LARGE MUSLIM POPULATIONS.
The marriages
typically occur within clans, the girl compelled to wed a distant relative-often two or
three times her age-who sometimes has chosen her long before puberty.
Experts on Islamic law say
the Koran
does teach that a girl can be married as soon as
she can conceive, but they say the religion does not condone forcing girls into
wedlock.
Sociologists and teachers
of Islamic law say that West African Muslims have accepted the tradition because it
ostensibly promotes social stability, cementing ties between clans and preventing
promiscuity.
Activists and
medical professionals say pre-adolescent marriage is partly responsible for Africa's
maternal mortality rates, among the highest in the world. Yai says it is not unusual for
both mother and child to die during birth.
Yai said that
"often the girls are pulled from school and forced to drop their education and become
a wife overnight. These young women cannot turn to anyone to say no or to seek help."
The real reason the practice has prevailed, she said, is that families often receive
hundreds, even thousands of dollars as dowry. "It is what keeps this practice
alive," she said.
But the practice
has come under increasing assault since last year, when a then-12-year-old named Fanta
Keita killed her 30-year-old husband. (Washington Post.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/africanlives/ivory/ivory.htm emphasis ours)
My
Response
So
what? Some Muslims practice it still, but most Muslims don’t, and neither do I.
However so, since you like to bring up the actions of people, I will be more than glad to
return the favour.
However
warning to reader, what I post is adult-content and A-rated.
From
a Christian website http://www.sexinchrist.com
:
Threesomes
Within a Christian Marriage
When a man and woman have joined together in a loving and holy marriage union, they may
sometimes find that their love for one another and for God spills over outside of their
relationship. Or they may find that other people are drawn to the joy, bliss, and passion
that they radiate. In such situations, the desire or opportunity may arise to involve a
third individual in their relationship - to form a threesome. Is this a temptation into
sin, or a calling to a higher spiritual love? The answer is not clear in all situations,
so we must turn to the Scriptures for guidance.
Is a Christian Threesome Possible?
The
possibility of a threesome, or ménage a trois, brings up two main issues of concern to
Christians, those of homosexuality and adultery. Much has been said about Biblical
prohibitions against both of these behaviors, but we must look at this situation carefully
in context to see how and whether these rules apply. Let’s first consider the problem
of homosexuality as it relates to a threesome. It’s common knowledge that in several
passages in both the Old and New Testament the Bible prohibits homosexual acts between
men. Although two men having simultaneous sexual relations with one woman may not have any
overt homosexual contact between them, the act of sharing a woman and being together in a
sexual situation is nevertheless homoerotic and suggests implied homosexuality, as well as
presenting a temptation to experiment where one may ordinarily not. For this reason, we
feel it is best for a couple to avoid bringing another man into the picture.
Most
people assume the Biblical prohibition against male homosexuality also includes sex
between women - lesbianism or female bisexuality. However, this is a questionable
conclusion, since the Bible makes little or no mention of women with regard to this
subject, and because the Bible, for better or worse, often holds men and women to
different standards regarding sex and sexual roles. Therefore, we believe that lesbianism
cannot be seen in the same light as male homosexuality through the Scriptures.
The
one passage that is frequently cited as condemning female homosexuality is found in Romans
1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to
degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against
nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned
in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts…”
The idea of women going “against nature” is typically interpreted to mean women
lusting after women. However, we believe that what Paul is referring to when he speaks of
women “going against nature” is not female homosexuality per se, but rather the
reversal of sexual roles that goes against the natural order established by God.
Of
course, this does have relevance to the issue of female homosexuality, as many lesbians do
assume masculine roles and attitudes, adopt male clothing and mannerisms, and play the
part of a male in their relationships with women. Women who fall into this category
(“butch” lesbians, or “bulldykes”) are indeed going against nature
with regards to their sexuality. At the same time, however, there are many women who
engage in lesbian or bisexual activity who nevertheless maintain a traditional feminine
role and demeanor (i.e., “lipstick” lesbians). Since there is no specific
prohibition against lesbian sex, as long as these women remain within the boundaries of
the female role prescribed by Scripture, and submit to the authority of the men in their
lives, we assume it is permissible. Of course, if their husband or father objected, that
would be another story.
Isn’t
a Threesome Adultery?
This
leads directly to the subject of adultery, and whether female bisexual relations would be
considered adultery in this context. This is another Biblical gray area, because within
the Scripture and within the codes of Biblical law, adultery is always represented as
intercourse between a man and a woman, specifically between a man and another man’s
wife. Numbers 5 describes in detail the procedure for trying and punishing a woman for
adultery, a process that can be initiated by the woman’s husband if his “wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, and a
man has intercourse with her.” or “(I)f
a spirit of jealousy comes over (the husband) and he is jealous of his wife when she has
defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife
when she has not defiled herself.” (Numbers 5:12-14) Since a husband’s
jealousy can be aroused whether or not his wife has actually had sex with another man,
what is pertinent here is not the act of extramarital intercourse, but the husband’s
feeling of being wronged. So a wife’s lesbian activities, even though not in the
parameters of what the Bible defines as adulterous behavior, could nevertheless be
considered adultery if it makes the wife’s husband jealous.
Of
course, many heterosexual men, rather than feeling threatened by lesbian sex, are
fascinated by it, and in this case, the exploration of the wife’s sexuality with
another woman could actually serve to draw the husband and wife closer together. However,
in this situation we must ask what degree of participation is appropriate for the male,
and how should he conduct himself so as not to commit adultery against his wife. This is a
slippery slope, but if we look to the Scriptures, we can establish some guidelines for
what is permissible.
The
Old Testament is full of references to Biblical men, such as Solomon, David, and others,
who had not only multiple wives, but also harems of concubines at their disposal. Today
the practice of polygyny (one man having multiple wives) is illegal in most places.
Although we can acknowledge polygyny in principal, we must recognize and honor the primacy
and priority of the marriage bond between one husband and one wife. Whenever a third party
is introduced into this equation, it must only be to support and strengthen the existing
marriage bond between those two individuals. So, if bringing in another woman would in any
way undermine the relationship between husband and wife, it should not be pursued.
Playing
by God’s Rules
If,
on the other hand, a married couple feels their relationship would benefit from them
establishing a loving involvement another woman, out of respect for the couple’s
marriage, and out of respect for any marital
attachments of the other woman, they must abide by certain limits and conditions:
(1)
To avoid the impropriety of male homosexuality, a heterosexual couple should not under any
circumstances form a threesome with another man.
(2) Both women involved in the threesome must be willing to keep within traditional female
roles (i.e., not taking on masculine appearance or behavior in or out of the bedroom) and
recognize the male as the leader in the relationship.
(3) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is unmarried, it may be permissible for the husband to have
relations with her only with his wife’s
consent.
(4) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is unmarried, but the wife does not wish her to
have relations with the other woman, the husband should respect this.
(5) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is married, her husband must not have objections to the
relationship.
(6) If the wife’s lesbian sex partner is married, the husband should refrain from
having any sexual relations with her, and should make every effort to control his
fantasies about her. He should concentrate his attention on his own wife.
The
latter case is the most difficult for the husband, since he must not only refrain from
having relations with the other married woman, in order to avoid making them both
adulterers, but he must also refrain from having lustful thoughts about her, because of
what Matthew 5:28 tells us: “But I say,
anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with
her in his heart.” In this situation it is recommended that in order to avoid
temptation, both the husband and his wife’s female partner focus their attentions and
affection on the wife. If the husband finds it difficult to control his thoughts and
fantasies about the other woman, it may be helpful to realize the meaning of this passage,
which is that if you commit an act in your thoughts, it’s the same as committing it
in real life. If a man imagines having intercourse with a married wom