Using Zaatari's own words against him!

Violent Passages of the Bible

Using Sami Zaatari’s own words against himself

By Quennel Gale

In this article we will provide a detailed response on the “violent” passages of the Bible in response to Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com. Mr. Zaatari has a hard time believing that God would allow such violence against innocent bystanders such as young women and children. Before elaborating on the particular passages used, we must first establish a criteria created by Mr. Zaatari himself to show you that he does excuse violence under certain circumstances, even if it relates to children.

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:

All young boys would be beheaded
Some women who fought would also be beheaded
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.

In reference to the Bible, Mr. Zaatari has this to say:

My Response

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

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

So note what Quenn is arguing, he is arguing in one point of history, it was okay to kill women and children, something completely normal and justifiable and not bad at all. Can this get any worse for him?

If you study his comments closely, Mr. Zaatari objects to the killing of women and children regardless of what time period. So let’s analyze the verses he used in his paper to see if they go along with the criteria Mr. Zaatari set up to justify Muhammad’s actions against the Jewish tribes of his time.

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 river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us. Deut 2:32-37

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:

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.

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:

Considered enemy combatants because they are now in a war.
Their punishment would be considered just because they were fighting against the prophets.
The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

Further research into this passage shows that the English translation doesn’t convey how serious the actions of Sihon and his nation were as they came out to fight. In reference to the part “came out”, the Hebrew word yatsa' shows this:

1) to go out, come out, exit, go forth

a) (Qal)

1) to go or come out or forth, depart

2) to go forth (to a place)

3) to go forward, proceed to (to or toward something)

4) to come or go forth (with purpose or for result)

5) to come out of

b) (Hiphil)

1) to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out

2) to bring out of

3) to lead out

4) to deliver

c) (Hophal) to be brought out or forth

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1069

AV - ....out 518, ....forth 411, bring 24, come 24, proceed 16,
go 13, depart 10, misc 53; 1069

(Source)

This word shows that Sihon proceeded to attack the Hebrews first. Hence, their offensive attack caused them to be defeated in the war they started!

And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us.

After “Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz” we find out that all of his people were smote, which included the men, women and the little ones. Based on Mr. Zaatari’s comments here:

Since “ALL” of Sihon’s people came out to fight the Hebrews, it left no room for innocent people since all of the people took on the role as enemy combatants. There is no way possible that there could have been innocent women and children because the passage clearly shows that “ALL” the people of Sihon were fighting against the Hebrews. Logically we can conclude there was no one under the age of “being an enemy combatant” since the passage clearly didn’t say “SOME” but “ALL” people fought in the war. To conclude this would mean, based on Zaatari’s criteria that:

It is okay to kill enemy combatant who breaks a treaty resulting in their punishment being just and fair. In this case there was a war, in which every person from the tribe of Sihon fighting against the Hebrews.

Zaatari’s words clearly say that this is okay and therefore not a crime under any circumstance. For this to be considered a crime under Zaatari’s criteria, we would have to see only “SOME” of the people of Sihon fighting, which would leave the door open for innocents to be killed.

Deuteronomy 3:1-7

Zaatari believes this passage shows the killing of innocent women and children:

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. 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. 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. 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. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

This passage mentions that:

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.

Notice that the Hebrews were traveling up to the area of Bashan, on their journey. The King of Bashan decided to come out WITH ALL HIS PEOPLE to do battle in order to stop the wandering Hebrews. If you look at the second point of this passage it says:

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.

Apparently the sight of these people struck fear into the heart of Hebrew prophet and the people. If there was intent to go on the offensive and attack the people of Bashan, there would be no need to fear them. Now that we know that the people of Bashan were heading for war, according to Zaatari’s criteria, anybody fighting would be considered an enemy combatant. This would apply to any man, woman or child. In the case of the Banu Quraysh it was okay to attack and kill any person who was considered an enemy combatant WITHOUT WAITING FOR A WAR TO BEGIN. The only thing that needed to happen was a treaty to be broken. In the case of the ancient Hebrews, war was immanent and they were facing the entire nation of the King of Bashan.

Again we reiterate Zaatari’s comments on these passages:

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

Zaatari is expressively clear that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone” and not “some” which would leave room for others to be left over. Therefore looking at Deuteronomy 3:1-7 we find that:

the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei.

Based on Mr. Zaatari’s criteria, Bashan’s people would be:

Considered enemy combatants because they are now in a war.
Their punishment would be considered just because they were fighting against the prophets.
The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

Since “ALL” of Bashan’s people came out the fight the Hebrews, it left no room for innocent people because all of the people took on the role of enemy combatants. There is no way possible that there could have been innocent women and children since the passage clearly shows that “ALL” the people of Bashan were fighting against the Hebrews. Logically we can conclude that there was no one under the age of “being an enemy combatant” since the passage clearly didn’t say “SOME” but “ALL” people fought in the war. To conclude this would mean, based on Zaatari’s criteria, that:

It is okay to kill enemy combatant who breaks a treaty resulting in their punishment being just and fair. In this case there was a war, in which every person from the tribe of Bashan fighting against the Hebrews.

Zaatari’s words clearly say that this is okay and therefore not a crime under any circumstance. For this to be considered a crime under Zaatari’s criteria, we would have to see only “SOME” of the people of Bashan fighting, which would leave the door open for innocents to be killed. The word “ALL” used in these verses is the Hebrew word “am” which means

1) nation, people

a) people, nation

b) persons, members of one's people, compatriots, country-men

2) kinsman, kindred

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1862

AV - people 1836, nation 17, people + 01121 4, folk 2, Ammi 1,
men 1, each 1; 1862

(Source)

The Hebrews faced the entire nation of Bashan’s people, there was no room for any innocent bystander to be left behind. Zaatari was very clear that “ALL” was totally inclusive and left no room for anyone to be left out. If the Bible mentioned that “SOME” came out and fought the Hebrews, there would be a door open for Zaatari to claim that there was a crime committed here (at least according to his own warped theology and logic). Logically we can conclude there was no one under the age of “being an enemy combatant” since the passage clearly didn’t say “SOME” but “ALL” the people fought in the war. Even if we assume that “some” came out to fight the Hebrews using the example of Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza we can logically deduce that:

1. Not all of the tribe fought against Muhammad, and those captured past puberty were beheaded whether they fought or not because they would be considered an enemy combatant.

Islamic sources don’t say that every person past puberty fought against Muhammad, even though the Hadith is specific that all of them were beheaded. In the Biblical case, we find that ALL THE PEOPLE OF EACH PARTICULAR ENCOUNTER DID FIGHT THE ANCIENT HEBREWS. This is explicit and clearly stated, with no room left for interpretation or assumptions like we find in the case of the Banu Qurayza.

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 Israel a curse, and trouble it. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country. Deut. 6:17-27

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 Holy Land detail the stories associated with Joshua b. Nun. Ibn Kathir reports that Joshua was a great warrior and lived for 127 years. (Source)

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 Jericho. According to him, if they were truthful and important they would have been at least found in the Hadiths but aren’t. Apparently Zaatari is ignorant of this verse:

Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd. S. 17:102-104

The problem for Zaatari is that Allah does mention how he gave the Children of Israel THE PROMISE LAND. Surah 17 is named “The Children of Israel”! Here is more from the Quran:

O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our apostles, lest ye should say: "There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)": But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things. Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. "O my people! ENTER THE HOLY LANDE which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." They said: "O Moses! In this land are a people of exceeding strength: Never shall we enter it until they leave it: if (once) they leave, then shall we enter." (But) among (their) Allah fearing men were two on whom Allah had bestowed His grace: They said: "ASSAULT THEM at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on Allah put your trust if ye have faith." S. 5:21-24

If you read this Quranic passage, Allah himself is saying that he is for the Children of Israel “assaulting” the people of the Promised Land! This would include Sihon, Bashan and all the others the Hebrews fought! These same wars were considered atrocities by Zaatari. According to the God-fearing men, whom the Quran mentions, the way to enter the Holy Land was to fight for it in offensively! Just because the Quran isn’t as detailed as the Bible regarding the wars doesn’t mean IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE QURAN! If Zaatari tries to argue that this didn’t refer to all the Hebrew battles with the specific inhabitants of the Holy Land then by his own words he must show us where this specific information is given in the Quran and the Hadiths! Logically we can conclude that:

Zaatari believes the Quran is totally true
The Quran mentions that the Israelites must assault the people of the Holy Land to get the land
Allah promised the Holy Land to the Israelites
Because the “assault and issue of the Holy Land is mentioned in the Quran” it is therefore true.

This would mean that there is no atrocity in the Hebrews fighting for the land that Allah promised to them! Notice it was the God-fearing men who said “Assault them” and take the land! Also let us again use Zaatari’s comments in this case. Remember he said:

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.

Zaatari clearly doesn’t believe the Biblical stories because THESE EVENTS WEREN’T MENTIONED IN THE QURAN (even though we’ve shown they were). So we have a series of questions to ask him.

If the passages of the Bible you cite are vile and violent, how come they 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.

If Allah and Muhammad believed that it was wrong for the Hebrews to kill the way they did then why is it 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.

Zaatari explicitly argues that it is wrong and corrupted to believe something not found in both the Quran and the Hadith. Hence, his rejection of the Biblical wars and actions clearly stem from this line of reasoning among others. The problem for him is that he can’t find anything from the Quran or Hadith rejecting the actions of the Hebrews. Hence, because the “giving of the land to the Hebrews through ASSAULTING THE PEOPLE DWELLING IN THE PROMISE LAND”, is clearly stated in the Quran:

Anything trying to limit it to a group of just one people is considered untruthful and unimportant because the Quran doesn’t mention it.
That it isn’t considered violent and vile because Allah inspired God-fearing people to lead the assault for the promise land!

Hence, the atrocities that Zaatari describes as vile and violent were authorized by God-fearing people according the Zaatari’s very own Quran! There is no way around this whatsoever. The Quran is referring to the events surrounding the Exodus, for this was the only time in history that Moses was alive and with the Hebrew people!

More importantly, the hadiths even mention an event in the life of Joshua which satisfies Zatari's criteria of authenticity:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "A prophet amongst the prophets carried out A HOLY MILITARY EXPEDITION, so he said to his followers, 'Anyone who has married a woman and wants to consummate the marriage, and has not done so yet, should not accompany me; nor should a man who has built a house but has not completed its roof; nor a man who has sheep or shecamels and is waiting for the birth of their young ones.' So, the prophet carried out the expedition and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the 'Asr prayer, he said to the sun, 'O sun! You are under Allah's Order and I am under Allah's Order O Allah! Stop it (i.e. the sun) from setting.' It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it. He said (to his men), 'Some of you have stolen something from the booty. So one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' (They did so and) the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their prophet. Then that prophet said (to the man), 'The theft has been committed by your people. So all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of their prophet and he said, "You have committed the theft.' Then they brought a head of gold like the head of a cow and put it there, and the fire came and consumed the booty. The Prophet added: Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 353: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.353)

The story of the sun standing still is found in Joshua 10:12-13 in the context of Joshua and the Israelites fighting against the five Amorite kings (cf. 10:1-15). Muhammad even called what Joshua did A HOLY MILITARY EXPEDITION! What more proof could we provide that Muhammad and his god had no problem with the wars carried out in the OT?

Things not mentioned in neither the Quran or Hadith, which Zaatari believes in:

Going back to Zaatari’s statements:

Zaatari claims that a story must be mentioned in the Quran or Hadith for it to be truthful and important so let me point out something to you that Zaatari believes as a Muslim:

"They are blasphemers who say that Allah is the third of three (innallaha thaalithu thalaathah)"

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. S. 5:73

Zaatari will obviously believe that this is a reference to the Trinity. In this article he mentions:

My response:

Let us first start with his opening statements, which basically is the dogma of trinity. I hope Shamoun didn’t confuse the reader with what he said, that there are three distinct yet inseparable persons who exist as the one true God. Now these three persons are the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit, and all these 3 beings make up the one and true God. That is the concept of the trinity, three in one, no wonder why many are leaving Christianity and saying they left because it made no sense!

Let us just take a close look at it, just imagine it, up there in heaven, you have the father, then you have the son Jesus, and then you have the holy spirit. All these three beings up there in heaven together, all these three persons are separate from each other. The father sits on his throne, the son Jesus sits on his throne, and the holy spirit is hovering around, and all these three beings discuss issues with each other, they talk with each other, create things with each other, but as Trinitarians such as Shamoun state that at the end of the day, all these three beings equal one God, nice.

Lets look at it again, a meeting table, in an office, the father and the son Jesus and the holy spirit all there sitting together, having a meeting discussing world affairs and what’s going to be next for mankind, now there are THREE beings there all together, but no wait a minute at the end of the day Trinitarians still maintain they worship one God, nice. Just from those examples we can see how illogical the concept of trinity is, no matter how people like Shamoun try to make sense of it, it will always fail because common sense always prevails. That’s not the end of it though, it gets even worse, as Shamoun himself stated they have discussions with each other, which I gave an illustration for, such as them all together up there in heaven or in an office meeting, but not only that, they also pray to each other! It doesn’t end there either; they even have higher ranks than each other! The father is higher in rank than the son, the son also prays to the father! Yet all these beings still equal one being and the one true eternal living God, nice.

I bet your confused, well my friends that’s the trinity for you, that’s trinity without the arguments that Christians feed you by using verses from their Bible to make sense of it. That’s basically what Shamoun said in his opening statements. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_2.htm

What Zaatari has failed to inform the reader is that the word "Trinity" does not even appear in the Arabic text of the Quran. Remember Zaatari believes that the Bible is corrupted and can’t be trusted, and clearly states that for something to be true it should be mentioned in the Quran or the Hadith! Since he believes that the Trinity is refuted in the Quran THEN BY HIS OWN CRITERIA HE MUST SHOW WHERE THE WORD IS PRESENT IN THE QURAN OTHERWISE THE REFUTATION AGAINST IT WOULD BE FALSE AND UNIMPORTANT! If Allah or Muhammad wanted to refute Trinitarinism they could have clearly mentioned it in the Quran! The word Trinity was present since at least the second century and a doctrine which is supposed to have inspired error isn't even mentioned in the Quran!!! Zaatari may try to claim that the Quran says to believe in “ONE” God but the Quran never states that God is ONE PERSON!

One question to Muslims is if the Quran denied the Trinity then why is that it didn't just simply mention the word Trinity? This word was present long before Muhammad and we have to believe that he and Allah knew about this word. This is one question that begs to be answered and it greatly Muslim apologetics for being inconsistent and deceptive in the way it seeks to propagate Islam. So here is our challenge to Zaatari:

TELL US EXPLICTEDLY WHERE QURAN MENTIONS THE WORD TRINITY

The Arabic word for the "Holy Trinity" is "al-thaaluuth al-aqdas", pronounced ath-thaaluuth al-aqdas. This isn't found in the Quran at all even though it was known in Arabia long before the time of Muhammad and Islam!! The above passage of S. 4:171 in Arabic is:

"wa-laa taqooloo thalaathatun" (Surah an-Nisa' 4:171)

And this certainly has to be translated as:

"And don't say three!"

The word "thalaathatun" is the usual cardinal number "three" referring to three things at least one of which is of the masculine gender. Hence, to say that Trinity really means three implies that Allah couldn't be a Trinity if he is just one of the three. In other words, Muslims are saying that when the Quram says three refers it means the Trinity, and yet the Quran also says that Christians supposedly believe that Allah is one of the three. Yet Christians believe that Allah (or more precisely God)is not one of the three but that he himself is one IN three, that God is one eternal Being who eternally exists as three Persons. So to say that Allah is one of the three implies that the Trinity itself is suppose to be one of the three!!! Look at this example:

TRINITY IS THIRD OF THREE AND SAY NOT THREE
Allah= Third of three 3/3
Muslim Trinity= Three 3
Allah & Muslim Trinity would equal 6/3!!!

TRINITY IS ONE OF THREE AND SAY NOT THREE
Allah= One of three 1/3
Muslim Trinity= Three 3
Allah & Muslim Trinity would equal 4/3!!!

This would expose Allah as not even being able to add or do simple mathematics!!! Amazing!!! Lets look at some verses in which the form of three (thalaathatun) is mentioned as. Note: THREE is capitalized while it's Arabic equivalent is also capitalized in the bold.

Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for THREE (Waalmutallaqatu yatarabbasna bi-anfusihinna THALATHATA) monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. S. 2:228

He said: "O my Lord! Give me a Sign!" "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for THREE (Qala rabbi ijAAal lee ayatan qala ayatuka alla tukallima alnnasa THALATHATA) days but with signals. Then celebrate the praises of thy Lord again and again, and glorify Him in the evening and in the morning." S. 3:41

Remember thou saidst to the faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with THREE (Ith taqoolu lilmu/mineena alan yakfiyakum an yumiddakum rabbukum BITHALATHATI) thousand angels (Specially) sent down?" S. 3:124.

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or THREE (Wa-in khiftum alla tuqsitoo fee alyatama fainkihoo ma taba lakum mina alnnisa-i mathna WATHULATHA) 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.

Allah will not call you to account for what is void in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for THREE (La yu-akhithukumu Allahu biallaghwi fee aymanikum walakin yu-akhithukum bima AAaqqadtumu al-aymana fakaffaratuhu itAAamu AAasharati masakeena min awsati ma tutAAimoona ahleekum aw kiswatuhum aw tahreeru raqabatin faman lam yajid fasiyamu THALATHATI) days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful. S. 5:89

If you look at these verses above, we see that the form of three in Arabic (thalaathatun) doesn't mean Trinity at all. The Quran says no such thing so why are Muslims claming that it does? Here are the verses if we translate them using the Muslim arguments about three being trinity. Read:

Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for TRINITY monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. S. 2:228

He said: "O my Lord! Give me a Sign!" "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for TRINITY days but with signals. Then celebrate the praises of thy Lord again and again, and glorify Him in the evening and in the morning." S. 3:41

Remember thou saidst to the faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with TRINITY thousand angels (Specially) sent down?" S. 3:124.

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or TRINITY 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.

Putting it simply, based on modern Islamic thinking that the word THREE in the Quran actually refers to the Trinity this therefore implies that every time “Three” appears in the Quran this must be a reference to the Trinity. So if your kid turns three years old he is Trinity years old or if you have three kids or three of something it is a trinity according to Modern Muslim apologists! If Muhammad or Allah wanted to deny the Trinity, they would've easily mentioned it in the Quran. Neither Muhammad nor Allah denied the Trinity, they simply denied that God has partners. Yet in the doctrine of Trinity each member would be God and not a partner of God's, for a partner is something outside of oneself.

The purpose of this example is to show you the hypocrisy of Zaatari who claims that something must be present explicitly in the Quran or Hadith for him to believe it. Because the word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Quran would Zaatari consider disbelieving in it wrong? Hardly! Even if he claims that the word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Bible he is still caught in his own trap, since even though the Quran doesn't specifically refer to the Trinity or even define it correctly Zaatari still believes that the Quran does deny it nonetheless. If Zaatari says that “it doesn’t have to be present to be disbelieved in the Quran” then the precise word or formulation doesn’t have to be present in the Holy Bible in order for the Bible to teach it either. Not to mention that by making this concession Zaatari would be essentially contradicting his statements above.

As you can clearly see, the Bible is considered justified in its wars by Zaatari’s own criteria. The Quran and Hadith helped substantiate this fact as well.

Home Back Home
New Articles Back to New Section