Saami Zaatari has finally finished his response to my articles in which I refuted his gross ignorance on both the Biblical verses which he claims promote terror along with other related issues. Mr. Zaatari obviously had to really take the time and think over his material since it literally took him over a month to formulate a response. He exchanged emails with me weeks ago saying how his material would be out in a couple of days but for some strange reason these days turn into weeks and finally over a month. As usual Mr. Zaatari has managed to corner himself and contradict his own statements that he made in his previous articles, as we shall illustrate here in great detail.
He begins by saying:
Responding
to Quennal Gale's analysis of the terrorist Biblical verses
By Sami Zaatari
In his second part response to me, Quennal Gale now tries to
attempt to respond to a few of the Terrorist Biblical verses I posted in my
initial rebuttal.
All red-herrings will be left out.
Response:
Actually I did more than respond to what Zaatari posted; I used his very own criteria to refute his very claims. Notice that Zaatari calls all of his own words and my analysis of them “red-herrings”. Of course, Mr. Zaatari fails to show how these are red-herrings other than just stating this as some “established fact”. We will repost it to show you just why he didn’t want his readers to view it:
I first wrote how Muhammad beheaded the boys of the Banu Qurayzah tribe:
Al-Tabari
also mentioned that Muhammad had the young boys of the Jewish tribe of Banu
Qurayzah beheaded:
The
Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should
be killed. (The History of Al-Tabari,
Volume VIII, p. 38)
Another
source tells us how they determined whether a person had reached puberty:
Narrated
Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I
was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and
those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not
were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390)
From (Source)
Mr. Zaatari responded by saying:
My Response
The reason this was done was because the tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with
the Muslims. So THEY WERE RIGHTFULLY
PUNISHED, also even this episode doesn’t compare with the Bible. Unlike the
Bible, the prophet Muhammad spared the women and kids, whereas the Bible just
killed the women and the children.
Also boys who had passed puberty back
then were considered as men, so those boys who had passed puberty WERE
TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS since their tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY
with the Muslims. So hence Quenn has nothing again. The people who were
killed were not innocent, so hence there is no crime. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.htm (Emphasis ours)
If you break down Zaatari’s response he is clearly saying that:
1. It is okay
for Muhammad to behead young boys because they broke the treaty with the
Muslims.
2. This was rightful punishment to be beheaded because of the broken treaty with the Muslims.
3. Any boy
who passed puberty was considered an enemy combatant because of the broken
treaty with the Muslims.
4. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.
A treaty is defined as:
TREATY
1 : the action of treating and
especially of negotiating
2 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : PRIVATE TREATY
(2) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities
(as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized
and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state b :
a document in which such a contract is set down (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
A treaty is defined as the negotiation or result of a negation between two parties with agreements to hold to certain terms and conditions. In the case of Muhammad, it was a treaty among various tribes. To break a treaty basically means to annul the previous agreements among the binding parties. Hence, Mr. Zaatari has clearly stated that Muslims can attack others just for breaking the treaty and that the punishment they incur is therefore justified.
In the case of the Banu Qurayzah:
1. All young boys would be
beheaded
2. Some women who fought would also be beheaded
3. Because the treaty was broken all who passed puberty were considered enemy combatants.
With Zaatari’s criteria being laid out, we can conclude that:
It is okay to kill enemy combatants who break a treaty, since violating such an agreement results in their just and fair punishment. (Source)
Mr. Zaatari obviously has a dilemma because in trying to defend the beheading of the “young boys” of the Banu Qurayzah he claimed that if they passed puberty “they were considered enemy combatants” and deserved to be beheaded! Notice that Zaatari hasn’t presented corroborating data from Islamic history to show that the entire tribe fought against the Muslims and has therefore not proven that “all of these enemy combatants” actually fought Muhammad. Hence, we can conclude that boys who were considered “enemy combatants” who necessarily didn’t fight in a war WERE BEHEADED just because they fit in this group. To show you how this is further substantiated we turn to Zaatari’s very own comments further down in this article in reference to Surah 17:
Where in any of those verses does it mention children and women
being killed to the full? WHERE? It seems that Quenn has read something that is
not even in the text! Note non of the passages he
posts state anything about women and children being killed, all Quenn does is
invent this lie on his own!
All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and
his people, and to the children of
Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.
Notice that according to Zaatari’s very own words:
So using this logic we must ask Zaatari this:
1. Where exactly did the Hadith’s or Islamic history OR THE QURAN (since you only believe things found in it) mention that the “young boys” fought against Muhammad and that “they were considered enemy combatants”?
It is obvious that when trying to defend Islam Zaatari will read things into the Islamic texts THAT ARE NOT EVEN IN THE TEXT! In his words and logic:
Note non of the passages he posts state anything about young boys
being “enemy combatants along with fighting Muhammad”, all Zaatari does is
invent this lie on his own!
As a side note, Zaatari it is “none” not “non”. Learn how to spell before trying to do rebuttals.
In light of the above, I want to ask Zaatari by using the logic he employed to defend Muhammad’s beheading of the “young boys”
Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE TEXTS DOES IT SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT YOUNG BOYS BEING ENEMY COMBATANTS ALONG WITH FIGHTING MUHAMMAD
IN THE WAR.
As the wise saying goes, “What is good for goose is also good for the gander”! Since it is obvious that Zaatari won’t be able to find this we wonder why he would leave himself to open ridicule in trying to address my material. It took him over a month to come up with a response and this is the best he can do. The Answering Christianity website must really be desperate because they will publish just about anything on their page. Zaatari sums it up best by saying:
What a nice missionary deception tactic by Quenn, Quenn believes
that saying assault them means kill their women and kids! HILLARIOUS! This is what
you call the Christian tafsir, which is making an interpretation of something
that is not there. Christian tafsir at its best.
According to him, it is deceptive to add something to the text that isn’t there and it is a Christian method of Tafsir. So we need to ask Zaatari these questions:
Because we are quite certain that Zaatari’s statements in reference to “enemy combatants” and “rightful punishment” are not supported by his own sources we therefore conclude with his very own words:
What a nice Muhammadan deception tactic by Zaatari, Zaatari believes that “rightful punishment and enemy combatant along with assuming all young boys passed puberty should have been killed” is considered justifiable! HILLARIOUS! This is what you call the Muhammadan tafsir, which is making an interpretation of something that is not there. Muhammadan tafsir at its best.
I’m sure our readers would agree that Mr. Zaatari is actually the one guilty of doing what he accuses Christians of. Now you know why he wanted to sweep this information under the rug by claiming that it was a mere “red-herring”. He expects his Muslim audience to blindly accept his statements without giving them the opportunity to actually see the other side of the debate.
And now with this point of Zaatari serving as a foundation you’re going to see just how Zaatari’s paper offers nothing more than mere general statements and intellectual hogwash fit for preschoolers who overdose on sugar treats such as cookies and candy.
He Wrote
Deuteronomy
2:32-37
Zaatari
believes this passage shows the killing of innocent women and children:
And
the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before
thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out
against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God
delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE.
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the
women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer,
which is by the brink of the
Now
let’s show you more of Mr. Zaatari’s comments dealing with these related
passages:
Also
Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up is down, how hilariously
not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did
ALL become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down,
and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.
This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.
Zaatari is expressively clear to holding that the meaning “ALL” means
“everyone” and not “some” which would leave room for others to be left over.
Therefore looking at Deuteronomy 2:32-37 we find that:
1. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his
land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. (God
spoke to Moses and told him he will begin to give Sihon’s land for the Hebrews’
possession)
So
far no aggressive action has taken place on the part of Moses and the Hebrews,
they were only given a word from God and nothing more.
2. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND
ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. (After getting the word from God, Sihon
decided to attack the Hebrews)
Based
on Mr. Zaatari’s criteria, Sihon’s people would be:
1. Considered enemy combatants because they
are now in a war.
2. Their punishment would be considered just
because they were fighting against the prophets.
3. The people killed were not innocent so
there is no crime here.
My Response
Basically what Quenn is arguing is that since the people of Sihon
came to fight Moses and his army, it was therefore justifiable for Moses and
his men to kill all the women and children.
In thinking he is refuting me Quenn further exposes his own book
and cult.
Response:
And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his
land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon
came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our
God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. And we took
all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and
the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer, which is by
the brink of the
Actually Zaatri doesn’t show how I’ve exposed the Bible or Christianity. This is common Muhammadan rhetoric which is basically saying, “I can’t answer what you claim so I will just brush it aside.” In his comments, which we documented earlier, Zaatari clearly says:
Also Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up
is down, how hilariously not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL
become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down,
and down is up since you believe ALL is
SOME.
This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.
Zaatari is expressively clear in holding that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone” and not “some” which would leave room for others to be left over. Also if Zaatari claims that it’s okay to go to war against people who “break treaties’, how much more justifiable is it when someone goes to war in response to an attack by someone else? Also Zaatari is doing the very same thing he claims I did earlier assuming that
ALL is SOME
That is why he questioned the justification of Moses killing “the women and children,” since these groups weren’t fighting in battle even though Deuteronomy 2 clearly says:
Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.
If Zaatari clearly says that ALL CAN’T BE SOME then the conclusion is inescapable that Moses fought EVERYBODY INCLUDING THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHO WERE FIGHTING in the war. This would leave no room for innocent bystanders because the Bible clearly mentions that “ALL” not “SOME” came to fight. So I would have to conclude in Zaatari’s words:
So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and
down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.
This is why I say, you can never trust a muhammadean. NEVER.
Now if Zaatari is trying to defend Muhammad’s atrocities along the lines that this was “justifiable” we must only remind him of his very own classification of “enemy combatants”. Anyone who fights against someone is an enemy combatant and the Bible clearly says “ALL FOUGHT MOSES”. This clearly means that the Israelites didn’t kill innocent women and children since they apparently were all fighting in this instance. It is very easy for Zaatari to chide me for saying, “how can all be some,” when speaking of Muhammad murdering young boys who were not combatants. But when I show that the texts in the Bible clearly states that ALL the people engaged the Israelites in battle, Zaatari abandons his own criteria regarding all meaning all in order to slander the Bible.
1. Since “ALL” is not “SOME”
Then
2. There is no way “innocent” women and children were killed because the Bible would have clearly mentioned that “SOME” fought.
Zaatari continues by saying:
Why do I say that? The reason I say that is because when you
compare this with the prophet Muhammad they do not even come close, unlike the
Bible, the prophet Muhammad has a far higher moral standard of warfare and how
to conduct it.
We must ask ourselves, when the prophet went to war with the
people WHO HAD FIRST ATTACKED HIM, did he kill them all? Did he slaughter each
single one of them till he left non alive? The answer is a simple NO.
The prophet ALWAYS captured his enemies when they had won a
battle, not kill them all, the prophet would also spare the women and children!
As we see, in the Bible there is no mercy, the so called men of
God just fought till they killed everyone including the little helpless kids
and babies.
Quenn also further digs a hole for himself, because note what the
verses say:
Response:
Actually Muhammad never said that he adhered to a higher standard of warfare then the Biblical prophets. This is nothing more than the figment of Zaatari’s imagination. In fact Muhammad claimed to adhere to the very same Bible Zaatari attacks:
This
Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; but it is a
verification of that (the Torah and Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands,
and the explanation of the Book, WHEREIN THERE IS NO DOUBT, from the Lord
of the worlds." S. 10:37
"And BEFORE THIS WAS THE BOOK
OF MOSES as a guide and a mercy: and THIS BOOK IS A VERIFICATION (OF IT) IN
ARABIC TONGUE to warn those who transgress and as glad tidings to the
righteous." S. 46:12
"And lo! It is a revelation of
the Lord of the Worlds, which the True Spirit hath brought down upon thy heart,
that thou mayest be (one) of the warners, In Plain Arabic Speech. And lo! IT
IS IN THE SCRIPTURES OF THE MEN OF OLD. Is it not a token for them THAT THE
DOCTORS OF THE CHILDREN OF
Say: "I AM NO BRINGER OF
NEW-FANGLED DOCTRINE AMONG THE MESSENGERS, nor do I know what will be done
with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by
inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear." S. 46:9
According to the Quran we see that Muhammad's message is:
1. A VERIFICATION of the
Torah and Gospel
2. A VERIFICATION of the book of Moses in Arabic tongue
3. The SCRIPTURES OF MEN OF OLD in Plain Arabic Speech.
In other words if there is no mercy in the Bible and Muhammad is a follower of it, bringing no new doctrine to the people of Arabia, we must then conclude that Muhammad offered no mercy! Notice Zaatari’s comments later in his article:
Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will
believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which
CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths,
then I will surely not believe in it. Do I make myself clear Mr.Quenn? It
doesn’t mean that I wont believe anything not mentioned in the Quran, what I
don’t believe is things that CONTRADICT the Quran found in a supposed holy book
which ascribes things to men of God which contradict God's true word.
So with Zaatari’s comments in mind, let’s ask him these questions:
1. What verses of the Quran do these Bible passages contradict?
2. Since you don’t believe something not mentioned in the Quran, where exactly does the Quran chastise the method of warfare observed in the Holy Bible?
Zaatari clearly stated that he will disbelieve in specific Biblical practices if they are not mentioned in the Quran and/or contradict it. Where are these practices condemned in the Quran? Where does Allah specifically say, “Biblical practices of warfare are wrong”?
Also we want to point out that Zaatari’s comment is again self-refuting and contradictory. He says:
Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.
Notice
that he says something must be mentioned in the Quran for him to believe it.
But he contradicts himself in this same paragraph:
It doesn’t mean that I wont
believe anything not mentioned in the Quran, what I don’t believe is things
that CONTRADICT the Quran found in a supposed holy book which ascribes things
to men of God which contradict God's true word.
So after saying that he won’t believe anything “not mentioned in the Quran” Zaatari contradicts this very stance by saying “it doesn’t mean he won’t believe anything not mentioned in the Quran” but only that which contradicts it! So which one is it Zaatari? If you don’t believe things not found in the Quran and then later claim you would believe something not necessarily found in the Quran, why would you disbelieve material not found in the Quran? Dear reader do you see how intellectually confused and bankrupt this so-called polemicist’s points truly are! He doesn’t know what to believe. He changes positions and stances like the weather!
Mr.
Zaatari has committed an obvious logical fallacy in his stance. In each type of anti-Christian argument, Muhammadan
propagandists like Zaatari usually employ assumptions and misinterpretations
which are commonly called “fallacies.” Read the definition of fallacy and then
continue on to get a better understanding of Islamic deceitful conversion
tactics:
FALLACY- An idea OR OPINION FOUNDED ON MISTAKEN LOGIC OR
PERCEPTION; a false notion. 2. A statment or thesis that is INCONSISTENT
with logic or fact and thus renders the conclusion invalid. 3. The
quality of being in error; incorrectness of reasoning or belief. 4. The
quality of BEING DECEPTIVE. [Latin fallacia, deceit, trick,
from fallax (stem fallac-), decietful, from fallere, to
decieve]
Fallacy refers to something that is based on incorrect logic, whether presumptuous or intentional. This word originally comes from a Latin word which means deceit or trick!! In the Bible people who deceive others are those who clearly follow the leading of Satan, the master of deceit and craftiness. Zaatari is arguing along this line:
THE TRUE BIBLE VERSES ARE THOSE
WHICH AGREE WITH THE QURAN
Zaatari and Muhammadan propagandists
who use this argument are intentionally twisting what their Quran says,
assuming that the Quran says something which it does not say and proceed to use
this mistaken assumption in their debate and argumentation. They are also
committing the fallacy of false dilemma in which they intentionally limit the
number of options one has to choose from, such as believing that only biblical
verses which agree with the Quran are correct and those that do not are
therefore false. Hence, the Muslim is claiming that the only uncorrupted verses
in the Bible are those that agree with the Quran!
This fallacy is easily refuted since
these propagandists by the fact that the Quran nowhere claims that the Bible is
only true in so far if it agrees with Muhammad’s revelations. Rather, the Quran
quite expressly teaches that the Bible is entirely true and inspired.
If you look at these passages you will see that the Quran
instructs Muhammad to enquire from the People of the Book (Jews, Christians) to
verify the Quran itself, not the other way around. Read:
"The (Qur'an) is indeed a
message for you (Muhammad) and your
people, (all of) you shall be brought to account, and ASK those of our
apostles whom WE SENT BEFORE THEE, `Did We appoint any deities other than
the Most Merciful whom they should worship?'" S. 43:44-45
"If you (Muhammad) are in
doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ
the book from before you..." S. 10:94
"And We have not sent before you
(Muhammad) other than men to whom we granted revelation. And (all of you) ASK
the people of the (Scripture) Message if you don't know." S. 16:43-44
"To Moses We gave nine clear
signs. ASK (O Muhammad) the Children of
The Quran is very clear: it is for Muhammad and his followers to turn and ask Jews and Christians dealing with matters of doubt or issues in which they have questions and consult the Bible.
Most of the unbelievers follow only conjecture which certainly cannot serve as a substitute for the Truth. God knows well what they do. No one could have composed this Quran besides God. THIS CONFIRMS THE EXISTING BOOK (THE BIBLE) and explains itself. There is no doubt that it is from the Lord of the Universe. Do they say that Muhammad has invented it? (Muhammad), tell them, "If your claim is true, compose only one chapter like it and call on anyone besides God for help. S. 10:36-38 Sarwar (http://al-shia.com/html/eng/books/quran/quran-and-hadith/10.htm)
Zaatari is trying to force the Quran to say something that was never was intended. Nowhere would we find the Quran asking Jews and Christians to verify their scripture through the Quran. Also Zaatari’s stance of believing something that is only mentioned in the Quran disagrees with Muhammad even further:
Now then,
for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art
commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in
WHATEVER BOOK Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge
justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the
responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no
contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is
(our) final goal. S. 42:15
Here Muhammad clearly says that he
believes whatever God sends down, whether the Torah, Gospel, Quran or any other
book that has God's words in it, i.e. this can refer to the NT Epistles or even
the Hindu Vedas since Islam claims that Allah sent messengers to all nations!!
To put it simply, Muslims must
believe what the Quran says regarding this issue, otherwise they will be viewed
as heretics, unbelievers and/or just plain liars for having rejected and/or
distorted what their own religious scripture teaches about the Bible.
Moreover, since Zaatari believes
that these particular biblical passages on warfare are not God’s words,
implying that the Bible has been corrupted, he must present some kind of
manuscript evidence in order to show us what the original Bible actually looked
like and said. He must provide some hard data telling us what God’s prophets
really taught about warfare and the rules of engagement.
More importantly, let us remind the
readers once again what said about the use of the word “ALL”:
…but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME? So it seems
you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.
Zaatari abandons his own position by arguing that ALL really does mean “SOME”:
Note it says ALL HIS PEOPLE, what does that mean? That means that
even 3 month old babies were included in it!!!! And 1 month old babies! And 1
year old kids!!!!
Is Quenn that silly to actually believe it was okay and
justifiable to not try and spare those kids once the battle had dwindled down?
What makes it more hilarious is that Quenn is calling them enemy
combatants! Yes, little babies are enemy combatants indeed.
And once again, how did those babies fight? HOW.
Note how twisted Zaatari’s arguments are. He first claimed I was being silly for believing that all could be some, but now accuses me of being silly for not believing that all can be referring to some!
Moreover, Zaatari has assumed without any evidence from either the Bible OR THE QURAN that young infants were included in these battles which the Israelites fought. Zaatari has committed the fallacy of “begging the question”, assuming something he hasn’t proven and then tries to argue this unproven assumption as a means of refuting me.
The fact that the texts specifically say ALL the inhabitants of Sihon came to fight the Hebrews actually proves that there were no infants which were involved or killed. In other words, the text presuppose that everyone which went out to fight the Israelites were of a mature age, at least old enough to be able to fight in a warfare.
Note he states:
3. The people killed were
not innocent so there is no crime here.
Yes, in your dreams pal. Those people who were killed included
little helpless babies, the least God's chosen people could have done was spare
them and take them as prisoners, or even adopt them as their own. Instead they
kill those babies who did not even have a say in the fight, they just got
dragged into the battle. Secondly, the whole episode of babies going into such
a battle is very hard to believe anyway, which does throw some doubts into this
whole event.
We must reiterate this portion of the biblical text again:
Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.
All of Sihon came to fight the Hebrews, which means that there were no innocent babies in this battle. If Zaatari believes otherwise then he has to:
Zaatari’s own words say it best for us:
Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.
Because we obviously know that the Quran mentions nothing about innocent children being killed in these battles Zaatari is not applying his own criteria consistently or honestly! After all, Zaatari later says in reference to Surah 17:
Where in any of those verses does
it mention children and women being killed to the full? WHERE? It seems that Quenn
has read something that is not even in the text! Note non of the passages
he posts state anything about women and children being killed, all Quenn does
is invent this lie on his own!
All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his
people, and to the children of
Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.
A better question is where do the biblical passages say that INNOCENT women and children were killed? The only persons killed in this battle were
Sihon , HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE,
Who
came out to fight the Hebrews at the battle of Jahaz.
These people weren’t innocent.
Since Zaatari is against reading something into a text, I’m sure he would be consistent and not read “innocent women and children” into the Biblical text when it plainly says that “ALL OF THEM WERE FIGHTING THE HEBREWS”. I could care less about Zaatari’s rants and raves and his failed attempts of trying to be logical in explaining Islam, when in reality he has simply shown that he can only posit illogical explanations and commit gross fallacies when dealing with the Biblical text. To show you just how stupid the authors of “Answering Christianity” are and how illogical their method of argumentation is, we recommend the following article by Sam Shamoun:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/abraham_sarah.htm
This great article shows how Osama Abdallah had a problem about Abraham marrying his sister Sarah but fails to seriously consider how his argument greatly affects Islam. This is a great example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the authors of Osama’s site that we are constantly having to deal with.
Quenn also basically gives the same response for:
Deuteronomy 3:1-7
Then we turned, and went up the way to
He once again uses the same weak response which further hurts him
and which further shows how superior Allah, Islam, and the prophet Muhammad is
compared to his fake god.
Response:
My response was hardly weak, as Zaatari would have you believe. If Zaatari truly believed in his argument he would have never deleted the first half of my article that dealt with these passages. My article wasn’t long since it was the shortest response out of all of my articles addressing him. Here is what Zaatari tries to call weak:
Then we turned, and went up the
way to Bashan: and Og the king of
Not to sound like a broken record, but here again is what Zaatari said regarding the use of “ALL”:
Also Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up
is down, how hilariously not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL
become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down,
and down is up since you believe ALL is
SOME.
This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.
Zaatari is expressly saying that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone.” It does not mean “some” which would imply that there were non-combatants which the Israelites killed. Looking again at Deuteronomy 3:1-7, the references say:
the king of
Based on Mr.
Zaatari’s criteria,
Since “ALL” of
Surely those who believe, and those
who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah
and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord,
and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. S. 2:62 Shakir
And argue not with the People of
the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as
do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and
revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender.
S. 29:46 Pickthall
According to the Quran, Allah is the same God of the Jews and Christians! Maybe Zaatari thinks that he worships a different god:
Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. S. 109:1-6 Pickthall
For more on the contradictory nature of what Muslims worship see here:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/what_i_worship.html
If Zaatari claims that he doesn’t worship the same God as we do, this is fine since we’ve always said this about Islam in the first place. However this would contradict the Quran which says that the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the very same God. “Answering Christianity” has always propagated this belief. If Zaatari does believe what mainstream Islam believes, then he just called his very own God a “fake”. What more can we say besides laughing at such argumentation! What stupid religion inspires its followers to call their god a fake? Only Islam!
He Wrote
Deuteronomy
6:17-27
Zaatari believes this passage shows the killing of innocent women and children:
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. 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
Here Zaatari posted a passage which obviously doesn’t fit under his established
criteria for being considered justified. In this offensive war, Joshua, in the
celebrated story of “fighting the battle of Jericho”, is instructed by God to
march around the city for seven days before the wall “come tumbling down,”
allowing the Hebrews to take the city and its inhabitants. Even though this
passage is outside the realm of what Zaatari considers just we actually have
more of Zaatari’s words that we present:
He
Wrote
Muhammad
judged according to the Torah and professed complete belief in it. Unlike
Zaatari, he didn’t believe that its instructions to kill women and children
were vile and violent. Zaatari must obviously know more than his own prophet on
this issue, and Muslims should therefore trust him rather than what their own
prophet and Islamic sources say! As for Zaatari’s anger about Joshua and his
conquests (which included the killing of women and children) this source says:
Joshua
Joshua
is not mentioned by name in the Quran but Muslim exegetes claim that he is the
"companion" [Ar. fata] of Moses mentioned in Q 18:60-65 and inherited
prophethood after Moses. Exegesis on the narratives in the Quran referring to
the Israelites' conquest of the
My
Response
I
never denied the prophet of Joshua did I? It seems all Quenn can do is attack
straw man. I don’t BELIEVE what your corrupted Bible says, now do you get it?
These stories are not mentioned in Quran or hadith, if they were important
enough and truthful enough, they would at least be found in the hadiths, but
they are not neither.
Secondly,
the prophet Muhammad simply judged with the Torah on one simple law, the law of
stoning. Even that event didn’t help Quenn as we saw it severely backfired
against him, because it showed how corrupt the Torah really was that they
needed a MUSLIM to come and judge them with the Torah. (Source)
Even
though Zaatari claims to not deny the prophethood of Joshua, his defense is
that “he doesn’t believe what the Bible” says about the story of