Lying about Lying
The Wrath of a Toothless Tiger
Jochen Katz
On 25 October 2004, I published the article, The Lies and Misrepresentations
of Osama Abdallah, in which I pointed out some really bad cases of twisting and abusing
Bible passages. Instead of being a good sportsman and admitting to these obvious errors, he
started screaming at me in huge bold letters and with plenty of insults. The following is my
rebuttal to his additional lies and misrepresentations, both against the Bible and against
my person, found in his so-called refutation which he published on 27 October 2004.
10/27/2004- I added a new article Refutation to
the preposterous LIES of Jochen Katz
about his Bible not containing inhumane murders from its Prophets!
I further exposed the Bible and showed how King David carelessly
killed an innocent man for only telling him news. ... (Source:
www.answering-christianity.com/whatsnew.htm,
1 November 2004)
However, as everyone will see shortly, with this article Abdallah only further exposed his
ignorance of the Bible and his ruthlessness in twisting the truth. Before I will take on his
claims point for point, we need to summarize what my first article was about. It consisted
of a discussion of three Bible passages which Abdallah had abused and twisted in an atrocious
manner. I exposed that Abdallah lied about the Bible by claiming that
- 2 Samuel 4:10-12 speaks of David brutally torturing his enemies
- Exodus 2:13-15 is one example of "The murders of the Bible's Prophets"
- Exodus 13:13-15 is another example of "The murders of the Bible's Prophets",
and particularly of their "Killing Innocent Children"
To better understand the background and dynamics of what will be discussed in the following,
it would help to carefully read the involved articles in their chronological sequence:
(1) Abdallah's original polemic, WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S PROPHETS'
MURDERS that were blessed by GOD?, (2) my response article, The
lies and misrepresentations of Osama Abdallah, exposing the three above-mentioned
cases of clear deliberate lies, (3) Abdallah's reaction to it,
Refutation to
the preposterous LIES of Jochen Katz about his Bible not containing inhumane murders from
its Prophets! It is always advisable to first read an article and then its
alleged refutation. That way one has a better chance to judge whether the response
correctly represents the original article. In any case, in my final rebuttal below,
I will assume that the reader is familiar with the entirety of Abdallah's reaction to
my article. Before you see my answer, by comparing these three articles, determine for
yourself whether or not Abdallah has actually refuted anything that I had written, and
to be fair, ask just as carefully whether or not I had addressed his claims properly
and successfully. Then continue here with my response to Abdallah's latest article.
In particular, the attentive reader will see that my first article on the lies
and misrepresentations of Osama Abdallah never claimed to be a complete and comprehensive
refutation of any of Abdallah's articles in its entirety nor of his entire website. I clearly
stated that I was simply going to examine SOME of his arguments. It was mere coincidence, or
maybe convenience, that the three claims examined in this first installment were all found in
only one of Abdallah's articles (though the second quotation on the David story was taken from
another one of his articles). There will be further installments in this series, looking at
selected claims found in other articles, and it is my right to do so in any order or selectivity
that suits me, just as Abdallah is free to choose which arguments on our website he wants to
respond to. I will do my best not to misrepresent any of Abdallah's arguments — that is
a matter of intellectual integrity — but otherwise it is my free choice which claims
and arguments I take up in order to rebut them.
The question is not who screams the loudest, or who is able to hurl the most insults at his
opponent. The issue is simply whether or not an author is able to present solid, convincing
proof for the claims he makes in his papers.
After these preliminary comments, let's get down to business and examine the dirty details.
Warning: Since Abdallah has wasted many hours of my precious time with his ridiculous article,
I am at least going to have some fun in my response. Moreover, anyone who has spent some time
on the Answering Christianity website will have realized that, in Abdallah's mind, a good
rebuttal must be endlessly long and highly repetitive. I will do my best to satisfy his established
criteria and expect that he will acknowledge and appreciate this.
Abdallah begins his article with an immensely
Important Note:
Below in this article, we
will see how David so carelessly killed an innocent
man for only telling him news!!
This earth-shattering revelation is so important to Abdallah that he cannot contain his
excitement. This must be placed even above the title of the article, and then repeated
as his new mantra several times throughout the article,
and in other locations on his website as well. So be it. Nothing has ever been proven
by merely repeating a claim ad nauseam. I will deal with it at the place in this
article where Abdallah brings his ‘evidence’ for this claim.
Abdallah then starts his article proper with a flood of accusations and insults:
Refutation to the preposterous LIES of Jochen
Katz about his Bible not containing inhumane murders from its
Prophets!
This article is a rebuttal to "Answering Islam's" Jochen Katz' preposterous
lies in http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/lies1.htm.
Jochen Katz is not only a big liar for covering up for his horny and pornful
bible; the book
of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can lick and suck
their sisters' and lovers' vaginas and breasts, but he is also stupid
for thinking that he can deceive his reader by
partially quoting me and hiding the
IRREFUTABLE verses in his Bible that show clear and irrefutable:
| 1- Pedophilia against 3-year old slave
girls. These girls were
literally forced into sex during Moses'
Law!!
2- Terrorism: "kill all the boys and all non-virgin
women". Innocent captive children were slain in
Jochen Katz' pornful bible, and yet, he and his team of
hypocrites have the guts and the nerve to defend that, while in the same
time attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him for killing ADULT
enemies and not innocent children.
This article will
shut Jochen Katz' loud mouth and clearly expose his hypocrisy and bias
toward his horny and pornful bible.
Also below, we will
see how David so carelessly killed an innocent
man for only telling him
news. |
Quite a mouthful from Abdallah: "the preposterous LIES of Jochen Katz", and "Jochen Katz'
preposterous lies", "is not only a big liar", "but he is also stupid", etc. Wow, I am impressed;
actually, I am terrified! Osama Abdallah has just completely destroyed my reputation. Woe to me,
I am finished!
Oh, wait a second, ... well, ... I don't know, but somehow ... isn't there something missing?
Let's pause and think before we rush to conclusions and close the case prematurely ... Aaaaaah, ...
that is the problem! Where is the proof?! Every nobody can scream out insults
and accusations. Okay, fine, Abdallah had another one of his public temper tantrums, but at
some time this should stop, he should calm down, and give us some hard evidence.
Let's look at Abdallah's impressive statements line by line, beginning with the first two lines.
He speaks twice about "preposterous lies", but forgot to mention which of my statements exactly
he is referring to. Is it really asking too much to state (a) WHAT are those alleged lies (i.e.
quote those of my statements which he thinks are lies), and tell us (b) WHY they are lies (i.e.
give us the evidence why my statements were wrong)? Although I am absolutely convinced that
Abdallah has all that evidence at his fingertips — he only forgot to write it down
because he was a bit emotional at the time of writing his ‘refutation’ —
he will certainly prove me wrong, just as he has always refuted every statement I ever made.
Although Abdallah did not make clear what exactly that I said are lies in his eyes, his title,
"... the preposterous LIES of Jochen Katz about his Bible not containing inhumane murders from
its Prophets!", suggests that he had the following in mind:
- Jochen Katz claimed that none of the Biblical prophets murdered his enemies
in an inhumane way (i.e. torturing them to death). However, since there is only one
place in my article where I make a general statement about all prophets of God in
the Bible, it must refer to this paragraph:
Second, Osama speaks in the plural, "the Bible's Prophets", as if this
was the usual behavior of ALL the prophets in the Bible. This is another serious lie.
There is not even one prophet in the Bible who did to his enemies what Muhammad
did to the Uraynian shepherds.
- Osama Abdallah responds that this is/are preposterous lies and claims that
there indeed are multiple such inhumane murders (plural) committed by God's
prophets (plural) in the Bible.
How can we resolve this very difficult problem that there now stands word against word,
claim against claim? Why would anyone believe any one of the above gentlemen? I could
certainly quote every single one of the several thousand verses in the Bible, and after
each one of them I could state the verdict that "this verse does obviously not contain
anything about a prophet torturing his enemies, so let us consider the next verse".
That kind of procedure may actually be the only proof that is acceptable to Abdallah.
Nevertheless, though I may be very simple minded (Abdallah just gave his expert testimony
that I am actually stupid), but would it not be much easier, and more merciful to the readers,
if Abdallah would just quote those passages which contain those "inhumane murders committed
by the Biblical prophets"?
Far be it from me to demand that Abdallah has to actually bring evidence for
his claim. Certainly his word is worth more than all the evidence in the world.
I am fully aware that it is only the barbaric western world in which the accuser
has to bring proof for his accusations. In the vastly superior Islamic world, so
advanced in every aspect of civilization and particularly in its legal system,
it is the accused who has to prove that he is not guilty; and unless he can remove
the last shred of doubt about his guilt, he will certainly be punished and will
have to bear the shame of having been accused for the rest of his life.
On the other hand, maybe I should not extrapolate from the methods of Imam Abdallah
to the principles of Islam? Could it really be that Abdallah is not following
the established principles of Islam, and not all Muslims agree with his approach?
In any case, Abdallah has chosen to live in the West, and in this part of the world
both the rules of logic as well as of law state clearly that the person who makes
the accusation has to bring the proof for the charge. The only valid proof that
the Bible is indeed "containing inhumane murders from its Prophets" is to quote
the passages in which they are found. Abdallah has not provided even one such passage
in all of his article. Therefore, he has not established that I had lied on this issue,
and thus his article cannot be a refutation of those alleged lies whose existence has
not even been established.
Let's continue and examine Abdallah's next paragraph. As Abdallah teaches his readership
in most of his articles that it can't hurt to repeat his eloquent statements of deep insight
many times throughout the same article, I am going to quote this paragraph again, and I hope
he can appreciate that I am a fast learner, and that I am exhibiting a genuine willingness
to apply his superior style of writing also in my response article. He writes:
Jochen Katz is not only a big liar for covering up for his horny and pornful
bible; the book
of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can lick and suck
their sisters' and lovers' vaginas and breasts, but he is also stupid
for thinking that he can deceive his reader by
partially quoting me and hiding the
IRREFUTABLE verses in his Bible that show clear and irrefutable:
We are definitely making some progress. Now Jochen Katz isn't only ascribed some
"preposterous lies", but it is now an established fact that he is a big liar (an
existential attribute of his person). This Jochen Katz must really be one ugly
and evil guy! One can hardly imagine anyone worse than him.
Abdallah claims that I am "covering up" something. However, in order "to cover up",
one must be actively doing something. Since I did not talk about sex, not even about
any kind of gender issues, and since I did not use any of the words woman, vagina, brother,
sister, lick, suck, etc., I am wondering in what way was I performing a cover up on
this topic. The topic of my article was a number of false claims by Abdallah in which
he accused the Biblical prophets of murdering enemies in extremely brutal ways or
killing innocent children. Since sex was not the topic of my article, neither explicitly
nor implicitly, how can I legitimately be accused to have committed the crime of trying
to cover up something on this issue? Does Abdallah have nothing but sex on his mind?
And whenever anyone talks about something else, he is committing the crime of "cover up"?
Is the mere fact that I did not mention a certain issue enough to accuse me
of a cover up? Is that the way he looks at the world? Well, let's have some more fun
with Abdallah's strange logic. If President Bush gives a speech on terrorism and
security issues, then he is only covering up for the serious problem of the American
health care system, right? And if he gives a speech about health care issues, he is
is merely covering up the problem of trade deficits? And if he talks about the world
market and trade with foreign countries he is covering up the problem of the American
prison system, and if he talks about environmental issues, he is covering up
the problem caused by terrorism. In fact, whenever somebody talks about ONE issue,
and not about every imaginable topic in the same speech or article, then it is
merely an attempt to cover up ALL OTHER problems that exist in this world.
Is that what Abdallah wants to tell us? Can it become more ridiculous than that?
(It sure can, just wait!) If that is the concept of cover up in Abdallah's mind,
then every single article on his site is a cover up, since not one of them is
discussing all the problems in this world. Or more focused, in none of them does
he respond to all issues on our website, i.e. he is obviously trying to cover
them up.
The next observation is even funnier (or sadder, depending on the perspective).
Abdallah's original article had this title and table of contents:
Prophet Muhammad is a murderer for killing the
enemies? WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S PROPHETS' MURDERS that were blessed by GOD
Almighty?
The sections of this article are:
1- The murders of the Bible's
Prophets.
2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an extremely brutal
way in the Bible.
Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies
in the Bible, and hanging their alive bodies on trees until they
DIE.
(Source:
www.answering-christianity.com/prophet_muhammad_not_murderer.htm,
25 October 2004)
Abdallah's stated topic of the article under discussion was alleged murders committed
by prophets in the Bible and their alleged torture of enemies. Sex was not the topic.
So, if it was not the topic of his article, why should it be the topic of my
article written in response to his article?
Now, the fact that it was not the topic would not prevent Abdallah from including it into
his article. Most of his articles are an amalgamation of disconnected thoughts and contain
lots of red herrings. However, why would it be my duty to pick up his red herring and
talk about sex in an article that has the clearly defined topic of alleged murders committed
by prophets in the Bible? No, usually I will simply ignore the irrelevant parts of his lengthy
papers and stick to the topic, and will refuse to chase his red herring arguments. This present
paper is one of a few exceptions in which I am quoting every single piece of it for
the sole reason to expose how ridiculous it is in every part as well as in its entirety.
In any case, I think this is the right place to repeat Abdallah's magnificent statement
once again:
Jochen Katz is not only a big liar for covering up for his horny and pornful
bible; the book
of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can lick and suck
their sisters' and lovers' vaginas and breasts, but he is also stupid
for thinking that he can deceive his reader by
partially quoting me and hiding the
IRREFUTABLE verses in his Bible that show clear and irrefutable:
As the esteemed reader may remember, I promised a funny part. By that I didn't mean the last
couple of paragraphs. They were only the intro to it, setting the stage, so to speak, i.e.
the background that will enable all of us to understand the joke. The clincher comes here:
Apart from the fact of sex not being the topic, his paper, "WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S
PROPHETS' MURDERS that were blessed by GOD Almighty?", was one of the rare articles
on Abdallah's website in which he himself did NOT talk about the allegedly "horny
and pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste
like "wine", and brothers can lick and suck their sisters' and lovers' vaginas and
breasts". Therefore, if Abdallah did not talk about it, and in consequence
I did not talk about it either in my response, in what way is my omission to talk
about it an attempt to cover up this issue? Does anyone out there actually understand
his logic? Would the charge of cover up not apply just as well to Abdallah's original
article since he didn't talk about it just as much as I didn't talk about it?
Excursus on semantics: The expression "horny and pornful Bible" appears dozens of
times on Abdallah's site. What on earth does he mean by that? Here is a dictionary entry
giving the possible meanings of the word "horny":
1. Having horns or hornlike projections. 2. Made of horn or a similar substance.
3. Tough and calloused: horny skin. 4. Vulgar Slang a. Desirous
of sexual activity. b. Sexually aroused. (The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company;
online source)
Since texts or books do not have feelings, nor do they have sexual hormones, they cannot
be aroused or have desires to copulate. This excludes the fourth meaning of the term,
apart from the fact that Abdallah would certainly never use vulgar slang words. Thus my humble
request: Would Abdallah please be so kind and explain to me (after all, I am pretty stupid and
need a little more time to understand his deep thoughts) in what sense the Bible has horns,
and even if it had, why he would so vigorously object to that?
Let's try for the other ingredient, "pornful". That is even worse. The word does not
exist, neither in the above consulted The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language nor in the Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary. Conclusion, Abdallah's expression "horny and pornful Bible",
though intended as an insult, is utter nonsense and exposes nothing but his lack of
command of the English language. Also, in correct English his paragraph would have
to end in "... that show clearly and irrefutably:", but that is a minor issue.
Since it takes some repetition to discover and digest all the deep mysteries that
Abdallah was able to compress in this wonderful little paragraph, let me quote it again
so that we can meditate on it further:
Jochen Katz is not only a big liar for covering up for his horny and pornful
bible; the book
of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can lick and suck
their sisters' and lovers' vaginas and breasts, but he is also stupid
for thinking that he can deceive his reader by
partially quoting me and hiding the
IRREFUTABLE verses in his Bible that show clear and irrefutable:
I can say with a clear conscience that I never intended to deceive any reader of
our site, and since I never had that intention, I certainly never thought about
the question of whether or not I would be able to if I wanted to do so. Furthermore,
since I know for sure that Abdallah reads my articles, although this does not imply
that he understands them, I need to correct and inform him that there are others
which read them too, i.e. there is not only ONE reader, but many readers. Still,
whether one or many, there cannot be any issue of deceiving them.
It is merely another accusation and insult coming from Abdallah, the self-acclaimed
mind-reader, but without giving any evidence that this was my thinking. Moreover,
the only way that I can imagine that people could be deceived when I am quoting
Abdallah (whether in part or in full) is that the text that I am quoting is a deception.
But usually I do not simply quote Abdallah's text and leave it at that, but explain
why Abdallah is wrong. So, the danger that my quotations of Abdallah would deceive
anyone is rather small and I am willing to take this small risk. It is absolutely
minor in comparison to all those people who may have been deceived by Abdallah's
texts if they had not found our rebuttals that expose the falsehood in
Abdallah's claims.
Finally, I whole-heartedly recommend to everyone to read the Bible carefully and
attentively and completely. I never tried to hide ANY verse in the Bible, and we
certainly never tried to refute any verse in the Bible. Actually, I am so
glad to see that Abdallah recognizes that there are irrefutable verses in the Bible.
That is a good start since elsewhere he is constantly trying to refute them.
Okay, after we have now thoroughly squeezed Abdallah's paragraph, a clear candidate
for the Nobel-Prize in literature due to its richness in meaning, its conciseness,
eloquence, and its creative use of words, and have savoured most of the sweet juice
that was hidden in it, we are now ready to continue with the other goodies that
Abdallah has in store for us.
Oh, before I forget, Abdallah's talk about women's vaginas etc. is merely another
hoax. The word means navel, not vagina, and this has been discussed sufficiently
here. What the meaning of "brother" and "sister"
is in this context, I will leave — for the time being — to the reader
to figure out. It is not difficult.
For a good introduction on the meaning of the whole biblical book of Song of Songs,
see this commentary.
Abdallah continues thus:
| 1- Pedophilia against 3-year old slave
girls. These girls were
literally forced into sex during Moses'
Law!!
2- Terrorism: "kill all the boys and all non-virgin
women". Innocent captive children were slain in
Jochen Katz' pornful bible, and yet, he and his team of
hypocrites have the guts and the nerve to defend that, while in the same
time attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him for killing ADULT
enemies and not innocent children.
This article will
shut Jochen Katz' loud mouth and clearly expose his hypocrisy and bias
toward his horny and pornful bible.
Also below, we will
see how David so carelessly killed an innocent
man for only telling him news. |
Regarding his number 1-, it is true that Abdallah had a short entry in his pamphlet,
but as mentioned before, it was and is a red herring and had nothing to do with
the topic of the article. Furthermore, as mentioned before as well, I never claimed
that I would be responding to every detail of his article. Finally, it is a point
that was already sufficiently answered in an earlier rebuttal (see
Osama Abdallah’s Obsession with Pedophilia).
Even though this is yet another one of Abdallah's atrocious lies, there was
absolutely no need to go over this territory again at that time.
Since he speaks of many such girls, I have just one question to Osama Abdallah
regarding his claim: Can you give me the name of just one of these girls who
were allegedly forced into sex at age three? Can you name just one of the men
which did this at the time of Moses? If you cannot name even one of them, or if you
cannot point to even one specific instance, how do you know that such sexual acts
even happened? The issue is very simple. Abdallah has built up a huge smokescreen,
but the evidence for it is again absolutely zero. This is very different in the case
of Islam. In regard to Islam we are talking about a clear historical record, and
even Abdallah admits that Muhammad, at age 53, had sex with Aisha who was at that
time merely 9 years old. However, it is not me who raised this issue, it is Abdallah
who constantly forces it into every discussion.
Abdallah's point number 2- links to the same page as number 1-, so my recommendation
is also the same page given in answer to number 1-.
Regarding the sentence in big blue font, I admit to being guilty as charged: In comparison
to the shy and always gentle and polite Osama Abdallah I certainly deserve the title
"loud mouth"; and my hypocrisy and bias is so obvious, it doesn't even need commenting
on. Nevertheless, this statement reminds me of something I read about a year ago, and
which can still be found on Abdallah's "What's New On Answering Christianity" page,
though it may not stay there much longer, now that he sees he forgot to cover up the
issue by removing the traces of his past failures:
12/25/2003- A message for the answering Islam web site.
I have not ignored nor forgotten about your latest so-called "rebuttal"
to my "360 joints in the human body"
article. Once my computer science graduate school (Ph.D.) starts again on January
20th insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing), I will do extensive research in
the human anatomy research section in the university's library (in the Ph.D. research section)
and shut your lousy mouths and site once and for all insha'Allah. You said that you
have given me the "worst Muslim argument"
award. My response to you is: An insult from the disgraced is a
compliment by itself. I will once again insha'Allah debunk your mantras
and prove you to be clearly in the wrong. (Source,
accessed 1 November 2004; underline emphasis mine)
It was a six month struggle, but it finally ended in Abdallah giving up on his promised research
and deleting this hoax from his site at the end of May 2004 (for details, see here
and here). His response is nearly the same every time I write a rebuttal
to some of his claims. First he screams and hollers and declares that he will shut my mouth,
and then becomes quieter after a while ... until the next time. I can assure you, we are well
and my mouth is doing just fine.
A mere couple of days ago, another one of his many triumphalist messages arrived in my mailbox:
From: Muslim2099@aol.com
To: < a longish list of email addresses of Abdallah's special friends (which includes me) >
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:41 PM
Subject: D-Day is coming up for "Answering islam", insha'Allah.....
Peace be upon you,
I can't tell you how happy my Muslim brothers and sisters are from my latest additions!
Let me assure the "Answering Islam" weasels, along with Craig Winn, their other satanic ally,
that your D-Day is coming up. My martch to Berlin is on the way, insha'Allah. LOL :).
I will continue to annhialate you and your sluty bible and put you and it in the dumpster
that you all belong in. I will continue to convert christians to Islam by the mass, insha'Allah.
Osama
Note: The email is displayed exactly as it was received apart from the removal of
the list of addresses it was sent to. All typos and grammar errors are his. These
"latest additions" include the article that is discussed currently. I think this
message speaks for itself. No further comment is necessary.
Regarding the last sentence in the above quoted box, the one in big red letters, it is
basically identical to the one that he had placed at the top of his page, so nothing
new needs to be said about that.
After these preliminaries, Abdallah finally arrives at the part where he directly
quotes me and responds to my statements. The reader may take heart, my responses
will be much shorter from here onwards.
Abdallah first quotes me, and then responds:
He wrote:
Some of the many Lies and Misrepresentations spread by Osama
Abdallah
Jochen Katz
I am usually not fast in calling anyone a liar. However, I am finally so sick
of Osama Abdallah's never ending twisting of the Bible that I have decided to
start this file, which will document how Osama lies about the Bible. In this
article, I will neither attempt to present detailed discussions of the passages
that Abdallah abuses — careful interpretation of these passages are available in
other places, whether on this site or on other Christian sites — nor will I
discuss every issue found in the articles that I raise an objection about. I
will quote excerpts of these articles and only point out how Abdallah makes
obviously wrong claims for the sole purpose of slandering the Bible, and does
this in such a shameless way, and so regularly, that these cases cannot be
innocent oversights, but are definitely deliberate misrepresentations.
My response:
Really? Well I am glad that you're finally sick and tired of my
site. Let's see what your best shot is going to be like. This
article has already right from the very start exposed your hypocrisy and lies to
your readers. Ladies and gentlemen, notice his quote "In this article, I will neither attempt to present detailed
discussions of the passages that Abdallah abuses...." The parts
that he will not discuss are the majority! Not only they're the majority,
but they're also the most DEVASTATING verses against his
bible.
This liar obviously wants to minimize your chances of seeing them, while in
the same time maximizing his deception and lies in a hope to
fool you and make you think that his X-Rated Pornographic Bible doesn't contain any sort of
murders, rapes and pedophilia in it what so ever.
While leaving Jochen Katz in his fantasy land, let's get down to real
business....
Good grief. Abdallah uses the word "lie" and "liar" in every other sentence,
but he seems to not even know what a lie is. I said that in this article I will
discuss only some parts of Abdallah's polemic, and I did exactly what I said.
So, in what sense is that establishing that I lied? And in what sense is it
proof of my hypocrisy? Abdallah certainly may not have liked what I wrote about
him, and the method that I employed, but his dislike of it is not sufficient
evidence that I lied. From direct comparison of my statement with Abdallah's
response, it is obvious that his accusation is a false charge.
Abdallah objects: "The parts that he will not discuss are the majority!" Answer:
So what? We have more than 7000 articles on our website. Every time Abdallah writes
another piece against us, the parts that he does NOT write about in that particular
article are the vast majority. Does that make him a liar and hypocrite? Well, if that
is not the implication for him, why would it be the implication for me when I discuss
only some parts of what he has written?
Abdallah screams: "Not only they're the majority, but they're also the most
DEVASTATING verses against his bible." Well, Abdallah
is entitled to his opinion. However, even if that were the case, is that a justification
of the fact that Abdallah lied about those passages that I DID discuss? Let's assume
that one of Abdallah's articles has five correct statements and three false statements.
Are the five correct statements any kind of justification for his false statements?
If he produced three really atrocious lies and published them many times over on his
website, and I expose those lies, why is it then me who is guilty — guilty because
I did not quote everything else that he also wrote, even though it had no bearing
on the issue that I chose to discuss? That is some kind of twisted logic.
Actually, the situation can be illustrated like this: Abdallah got caught with his
pants down. He screams at the top of his lungs that he still has a hat on, and also
a pair of gloves, as if this changes anything in regard to the fact that his pants
are down, and he is basically naked. In addition, he claims that his hat is so powerful
and so special, it will dwarf my whole wardrobe. Well, the fact remains, he still
has his pants down. Moreover, whether or not this bag that he put over his head even
qualifies as a hat is a completely different discussion, and we may pick that one up
at some other time. The only effect that his "bag-hat" has is that it covers his eyes
so that he can't see what everyone else sees so clearly, i.e. how naked he really is
down there. — Within hours, Abdallah comes back with yet another ‘rebuttal’
article and challenges the world: "What about my gloves! What about my gloves! Ay man,
they are the best boxing gloves out there. You cannot ignore my gloves!" Really? You
merely stuck your hands into two empty tin cans. I have to admit, however, they may
be just perfect for Abdallah since they have the distinct advantage that they produce
a loud rattling noise every time he puts his hands together in order to applaud himself.
Back to Abdallah's above accusations, I am under no obligation to advertise any of Abdallah's
articles. In what way does NOT quoting him establish any guilt on my part? Actually, it
is the other way around. The fact that I have responded to his article, and linked to his
article three times within my response, there will be some additional readers that I pointed
to his site, who would otherwise not have read what he had written. This means, by discussing
some of his arguments, and linking to the source of the argument, I have not minimized
but increased his readership, and every reader who would follow my links to Abdallah's
pages would then see every bit of it; Abdallah Unabridged, so to speak. I did not
attempt to cut out anything from the article on his site, it is still there in its entirety.
The only thing I did was that, by quoting from them, I made some parts of his articles also
available on our site. Really, thinking of it, I should begin to charge a fee for advertising
Abdallah's arguments in my articles.
No, I did not try to fool anyone. Since I did not even mention pedophilia in my article
at all (remember, it was not the topic), I also did not deny that the Bible contains
pedophilia. [However, not denying it in every article is not the same as agreeing to
Abdallah's hypothesis that the Bible promotes it, or that it even mentions it!] How then
did I try to fool anyone in this regard? It is the same ridiculous charge again that we
discussed above regarding Abdallah's theory of deceiving the readers by an alleged
"cover up" operation.
Let's continue:
He wrote:
Last year, when I exposed Abdallah's article, Islam's claim about the 360 joints in the human body was proven to
be true!, not only to be wrong, but to be a hoax, he concluded that "This
proves that I am doing a great job" because I was only objecting to one of the
articles in his "Science" section (see this article). Before he comes back with a similarly
ridiculous conclusion in response to this article, I need to state explicitly
that my selection of the parts I am discussing does not mean that the
remaining claims in his article(s) are correct. Partly they are already refuted
elsewhere since Abdallah constantly recycles the same arguments, partly they may
be errors of interpretation that are possibly misunderstandings, but still
wrong. In this article I am only concerned about some obvious and
deliberate lies.
My response:
First of all, let me correct this lie of yours for you, since
you seem to like to glorify yourself and your victory over people; me in this
case. You never exposed any "hoax" on my site. What happened was
while I was developing my site throughout past years, I got into the habit of
introducing articles and topics on my site and opened the door for brothers and
sisters and others to contribute with quotes and information.
While I openly admitted and still admit (because I have
nothing to fear) that I was wrong in not posting a WARNING MESSAGE on
the top of the "360-joints" article, telling the
reader that this article requires further investigation, but I assumed that it
was pretty much self-explanatory and that my readers did understand my
intentions because I got used to so many contributions to my site's
articles.
The reason why I removed this article was not because Jochen
Katz exposed me as he so hopelessly convinced himself to have accomplished, but
rather because I finally came to the conclusion after so many debates on my
previous message board right in front of Jochen Katz' eyes (since he was a
participant on my board) that the Hadiths (the collections of Prophet Muhammad's
Sayings) are like the Bible; they are filled with man's corruption.
I decided
then to never rely solely on them to prove anything scientific, because their
sources and authenticity are doubtful (just like the Bible). I decided to
only rely on the Noble Quran, and use any Hadith that directly agrees with our
Holy Book.
To the reader, please visit: What
parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth, and
Why?
Also: The NIV Bible's theologians and historians admit that most of the
Bible's "Books" and "Gospels" are doubtful! Their authors, dates and
places of documentation are UNKNOWN.
I don't know about Jochen Katz, but I know that his readers and
mine are both intelligent people. No one comes to our sites without having
the desire to do some serious research. Our sites' topics are 100% into
theology. Theology researchers on the internet are in general not "stupid"
people. They are very smart and many of them are open-minded too.
I have the suspicion that Abdallah uses the term "open-minded" somewhat differently
than in the usual dictionary definitions. It seems to be for him a synonym for those
people who are uncritically swallowing his articles. Frankly, some people can be so
open-minded that there is a real danger that their brains may fall out.
Anyway, the 360 joints hoax was not the topic of that last article, nor is it
the topic of this present article. Therefore I will not enter into a discussion
of it here. The interested readers can find all the necessary details in the articles
dedicated to it. I only referred to it because I wanted to illustrate one of Abdallah's
diversion tactics and ways of evading the issues.
As we see, Abdallah did not fail to prove me right in what I said with the above paragraph.
He did exactly what I had warned about. Instead of dealing with the arguments that I had
discussed, he congratulates himself for the arguments that I had not discussed. Even more,
he throws insults at me and charges me with all kinds of evil plots, lies, deception,
cover up, hypocrisy, etc. because I did not quote and discuss his OTHER arguments which
are supposedly the real ones and the absolutely devastating ones against the Bible.
Abdallah's desperate attempt of diverting the discussion to something else is obvious
to everyone except, perhaps, himself.
There is only one difference between last year and this time. Last year Abdallah concluded
that not discussing some articles/arguments meant that they were so good, I could not find
any kind of response. This time he concludes that not only were they good, even devastating,
but he charges me with being a liar, deceiver, hypocrite etc. simply because I did not discuss
them. Although it was bad before, one can observe clearly that Abdallah's logic and behavior
has deteriorated considerably in these ten months.
He wrote:
I will start this compilation with Abdallah's latest addition to his site:
10/24/2004- I added a new article Prophet Muhammad is a Murderer for KILLING the enemies?
WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S PROPHETS' MURDERS that were blessed by GOD?
Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies in
the Bible, and hanging their alive bodies on trees until they
DIE. I also added Biblical verses showing the cutting of the
hands and feet of the enemies by some of the Prophets of GOD Almighty in the
Bible to the article Did Prophet Muhammad prescribe camel urine as medicine for
headaches?
The first instance is Abdallah's attempt to "counter-balance" the reports
about a rather cruel act of Muhammad:
Narrated Abu Qilaba:
Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe
came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them
to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a
medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed
the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached
the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they
were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and
feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of
iron. They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was
given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder,
became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His
Apostle." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, No. 234)
Narrated Anas:
Some people from 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its
climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle allowed them to go to the herd
of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine)
but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle
sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he
had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces
of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the
stones. (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2, No. 577; similar references are
found in 5.505, 7.623, and 8.797)
There is no question that Muhammad was recognized as the legal authority by
his community, and as such he had the right to punish these thieves and
murderers, even ordering capital punishment and having them put to death. The
issue is Muhammad's excessive cruelty of cutting off their hands, feet,
destroying their eyes, and letting them die of thirst in the scorching sun of
Arabia. [A detailed discussion of this incident can be found in Silas' article,
Muhammad and the Death of the Uraynians.] The following is
Abdallah's response that is found in the above-mentioned papers:
2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an
extremely brutal way in the Bible:
Cutting the hands and feet and hanging the
alive bodies until they DIE:
2 Samuel 4
10 when a man
told me, 'Saul is dead,' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him
and put him to death in Ziklag. That was the reward I gave him for his news!
11 How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own
house and on his own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and
rid the earth of you!"
12 So David gave an order to his men, and they
killed them. They cut off their hands and feet and hung the bodies
by the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and
buried it in Abner's tomb at Hebron.
Note to the
reader: Prophet Muhammad peace
be upon him also ordered
the cutting of hands and feet of enemies in one
incident, because they pretended to
have embraced Islam and then betrayed and killed Muslims. The Prophet
sent his men to chase them down, while they were running back to their tribe,
and finally captured them and brought them back for punishment. But the
point is that you can't disprove Islam or any religion through incidents like
this, especially when worse scenarios exist in your own Book!
Using this weasel's (Silas) logic and lies, we can ONLY and ONLY conclude
that the Bible too is a false book and the GOD of the Bible does not exist,
and the Biblical Prophets are liars. Of course none of this
is true as none of his false claims and charges against Islam are also
true. (Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophet_muhammad_not_murderer.htm)
RESPONSE:
O. Abdallah claims that the story in the Bible is WORSE than what Muhammad
did, but he fails to explain in what way it is worse. However, the real problem
with his comparison is that Abdallah lied about what really happened. He
claims that this story reports an "extremely brutal" incident of
"cutting the hands and feet and hanging the ALIVE bodies UNTIL THEY DIE".
This is false. The sequence of events reported in 2 Samuel 4:12 (quoted
above) is clear: (1) these men were killed, (2) their hands and feet were cut
off, and (3) their DEAD bodies were hung in a public place for display so that
it will be clear to everyone in the country that David, the new king, will not
let anyone get away with unlawfully killing anyone, not even David's enemies.
[Note that Abdallah has removed essential parts from this story. For a fuller
understanding of this incident, one needs to read at least 2
Samuel 4:1-12, or even better, the complete story of Saul and David
beginning in 1 Samuel 8.] These opportunists expected to be rewarded by
David for "helping the king", but they received instead the just punishment for
murdering an innocent man. One may debate the meaning or necessity of cutting
off their hands and feet and for making a public display of their dead bodies,
but it is clear that there was no "extremely brutal" act of torture as in
the example of Muhammad, and there was no "hanging the alive bodies until
they die". This is merely Abdallah's shameless lie.
My response:
It is not clear if the maimed bodies were hanged on the trees before or after
they were fully killed. This is why I took the worst-case-scenario and
used it against the bible; that is the bodies were still alive when they were
hanged.
Since Abdallah added this lame excuse also to his original article, I have written
a response to it over there and do not need to repeat it here. If you think this
comment has any validity to it, please have a look at this
update of my rebuttal.
Abdallah continues:
I also want the reader to know that I couldn't thank Jochen Katz enough for
shooting himself in the foot, not because of anything
personal, but rather, because he further helped me to prove that the Bible is
bogus and inconsistent. Below, everyone will
see how David was a sick and careless murderer for selectively killing
an innocent man for only telling him news about the death of Saul!
You are most welcome, Abdallah. And my feet are doing well, thank you for your
concern about my health.
The strange thing is that even though he has been exposed as wrong over and over
again, Abdallah apparently never learns to read, think, and argue more carefully.
With the argument that is about to follow, Abdallah put a machine gun salvo through
his own feet.
A couple of further comments are in order before we examine the story and Abdallah's
interpretation of it. In a Muslim country he would never be able to attack and insult
David with impunity as he does here. To malign any prophet of God would be a crime
and he could be severely punished for it, if not be shot. Maligning Muhammad carries
the death penalty, and the Qur'an demands to hold all prophets in equal respect.
But his hatred for the Bible is so intense, he doesn't care any longer about
Islamic principles, though he still claims to be a Muslim.
Since Abdallah claims that there are plenty of murders committed by the prophets of
the Bible, in what way would another such instance prove that the Bible is bogus, let
alone inconsistent? Wouldn't another murder, on the contrary, mean that it is consistent?
And what about bogus? If the Bible tells the truth, negative truth or positive truth,
it can hardly be evidence that it is bogus. How can any correct historical report
in the Bible lead to the conclusion that it is bogus? On the other hand, if the report
is not correct, how can Abdallah derive from it that David was a sick and careless
murderer? Oh, well. Logic was never Abdallah's forte.
Whatever the case, what follows is simply another utter stupidity on the part of
our virtual ‘Bible scholar’. Let's see how Abdallah exposed his ignorance
this time. He writes:
Let us carefully read 2 Samuel 4, but before that
let us read 1 Samuel 24:7-9:
1 Samuel 24
7 With
these words David rebuked his men and did not allow them to attack Saul. And
Saul left the cave and went his way.
8 Then David went out of the cave and
called out to Saul, "My lord the king!" When Saul looked
behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to
the ground.
9 He said to Saul, "Why do you listen when men say,
'David is bent on harming you'?
Now let's read the short chapter of 1
Samuel 24. Pay close attention to the bolded and underlined parts
below:
2 Samuel 4
Ish-Bosheth Murdered
1 When Ish-Bosheth son of
Saul heard that Abner had died in Hebron, he lost courage, and all
Israel became alarmed.
2 Now Saul's son had two men who were leaders of
raiding bands. One was named Baanah and the other Recab; they were sons of
Rimmon the Beerothite from the tribe of Benjamin-Beeroth is considered part of
Benjamin,
3 because the people of Beeroth fled to Gittaim and have lived
there as aliens to this day.
4 (Jonathan son of Saul had a son who was lame
in both feet. He was five years old when the news about Saul and Jonathan came
from Jezreel. His nurse picked him up and fled, but as she hurried to leave, he
fell and became crippled. His name was Mephibosheth.)
5 Now Recab
and Baanah, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, set out for the house of
Ish-Bosheth, and they arrived there in the heat of the day while he
was taking his noonday rest.
6 They went into the inner part of the house as
if to get some wheat, and they stabbed him in the
stomach. Then Recab and his brother Baanah slipped away.
7 They
had gone into the house while he was lying on the bed in his bedroom. After they
stabbed and killed him, they cut off his head. Taking it with them, they
traveled all night by way of the Arabah.
8 They brought the head of
Ish-Bosheth to David at Hebron and said to the king, "Here is the head of
Ish-Bosheth son of Saul, your enemy, who tried to take your life. This day the
LORD has avenged my lord the king against Saul and his offspring."
9
David answered Recab and his brother Baanah, the sons of Rimmon the
Beerothite, "As surely as the LORD lives, who has delivered me out
of all trouble,
10 when a man told me,
'Saul is dead,' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and put
him to death in Ziklag. That was the reward I gave him for his news!
11 How much more-when wicked men have
killed an innocent man in his own house and on his own bed-should I not now
demand his blood from your hand and rid the earth of you!"
12 So David gave
an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off their hands and feet and
hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and
buried it in Abner's tomb at Hebron.
Few points to notice from the above verses:
1- David and Saul became friends once again
after the incident inside the cave. Read 1 Samuel 24.
2- David didn't like
the idea that two of his men killed Saul's son, Ish-Bosheth. He punished
them to death.
3- David SO UNJUSTLY
killed an innocent man for only telling David that Saul died!
Okay, most of Abdallah's text is a quotation of Bible text, so there is not much to comment on here.
Regarding his points of interpretation, I think it is not quite correct to say that Saul and
David became friends (unless one has a very low understanding of the meaning of friendship),
but I am not going to dwell on this point as it is insubstantial for our discussion.
His comment under 2- is really out of touch with reality. David was the king, i.e. he was
the highest judicial authority of the country. The issue was not whether he liked the idea
of some people killing other people. As the king, it was his duty to uphold law and order.
The penalty for murder was death. David simply acted correctly in his function as judge.
However, they were not "punished TO death" (i.e. punished UNTIL they died), but they
received the verdict "punishment BY death", i.e. death was their punishment. David
gave the orders that they be put to death, and the men were executed.
Abdallah's new and utterly false claim is found in his point number 3-, i.e. that David
allegedly had an innocent man killed simply for telling him the news of Saul's death. In fact,
with this new charge against David, we have reached Abdallah's main point in this article.
As usual, he thinks he has found THE point of silencing all Christians, and makes a lot
of noise about his victory without double-checking whether he may actually have overlooked
something.
In his ignorance and over-confident braggery, Abdallah issues these challenges:
I'd like Jochen
Katz, the hypocrite, to tell us: WHERE IS THE DIVINE JUSTICE in David's selective
murder of an innocent man in point #3?
How is David better
than Prophet Muhammad when he killed an innocent man for NO REASON??!!
Produce the evidence
that Prophet Muhammad SELECTIVELY killed an innocent man!
Abdallah mixes different issues and categories again. Even if it had been true that David
killed an innocent man, WHY would that be an issue of divine justice? Did Abdallah see
anywhere in this text that God commanded David to kill this man? No! Did Jochen Katz claim
that the killing of an innocent man IS an example of divine justice? No! Then why does Osama
challenge me to show where the divine justice is in this story if nobody claimed that this
was an act of divine justice in the first place?
There are two different issues, one concerning the justice of David, and the other
concerning the justice of God. 1: Did David kill an innocent man or not?
2: Did God command David to kill an innocent man or not? Abdallah seems not
to be able to differentiate between the two.
It is very well possible that David is guilty of the death of an innocent man, but doing
so out of his own human decision, without listening to God and obeying his voice. This again
could happen in two different ways, either because he made an honest mistake, i.e. he was
convinced to kill a guilty person, but he was misinformed, and the man was in reality innocent;
or because he deliberately put to death an innocent because of whatever sinful motive, thus
breaking the law of God. In either case, David would be guilty, but it wouldn't be a question
of divine justice since it was not God who commanded David to do so. Again, it is perfectly
possible that David killed an innocent man without this fact in any way detracting from God's
justice.
However, this second of the underlined questions above is irrelevant in the case raised
by Abdallah (i.e. the story in 2 Samuel 4), since the man that David ordered to be killed
was not innocent; he was put to death as punishment for the murder that he had admitted
committing! [The real question would be: Why does Abdallah call a murderer innocent? Perhaps
because he wants to consider Muhammad innocent despite the many people he murdered? Anyway,
we'll come to that after we finish with the discussion regarding David.]
I understand well that Abdallah sees no other way to deal with me except in hurling insults.
That is shown again in the fact that he added the epithet "the hypocrite" (i.e. another slur
without any evidence), but I have absolutely no clue what he means by the expression "David's
selective murder".
Since I do not understand it, I cannot answer it. I see that the same word appears again
in his third challenge: Produce the evidence that Prophet Muhammad
SELECTIVELY killed an innocent man! Would the challenge to "produce
evidence that Muhammad killed an innocent man" not be sufficient? Why would he emphasize
so strongly the word "SELECTIVELY"? I don't really know. Perhaps that is simply his
attempt to prevent me to point to Muhammad's
murders of the Banu Qurayza, at least 600 men whom he killed summarily and indiscriminately?
Because those murders were not selective, not individual (i.e. he probably didn't even
know the name of most of the people whom he ordered to be put to death), but it was an event
of mass-murdering people, therefore that doesn't count as the kind of evidence Abdallah is
asking for?
Whatever is the deal with Abdallah's qualifier ‘selectively’, let me now answer
his charge that, in 2 Samuel 4, David killed an innocent man. Actually, let me begin the answer
by quoting two more emails of that distinguished mailing list already mentioned above. After
Abdallah had published the article we are currently evaluating, he again sent out a proud email:
From: Muslim2099@aol.com
To: < list of email addresses deleted again >
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:35 AM
Subject: THANK YOU Mr. Jochen Katz!! I couldn't do it without you :)
Peace be upon you everyone,
While poor Mr. Katz thought he gave me the TKO, I came back to him with the TKO LOL :).
Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/jochen_preposterous_lies.htm.
In this article, you will see Mr. Jochen Katz' contribution to my site by giving me the Biblical verses
that showed how King David so carelessley killed an innocent man for only telling him news.
Yet, the hypocrites of the "Answering Islam" team attack Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him,
while our beloved Noble and Honorable Prophet never killed any innocent man,
nor killed any innocent child like the horny and pornful bible did.
Thank you again Mr. Katz. Your contributions along with the other weasel, Shamoun,
had been so great to my site lately :).
Osama
As everyone can see, Abdallah uses again his favorite but meaningless expression
"horny and pornful bible", and he made another claim that I had not seen before.
He claimed that the Bible killed an innocent child. As so common with many
of his accusations, he forgot to tell us how exactly the Bible managed to do that, ...
but perhaps an old and really heavy Bible fell off a high bookshelf in a library
directly onto the head of a young child who died from its impact? How else does
Abdallah imagine that a book can kill children? Anyway, that was not the reason
I quoted this email. I cited it only because of the reaction it prompted by another
Muslim. He responded:
From: SBWUS
To: < list of email addresses deleted again >
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: THANK YOU Mr. Jochen Katz!! I couldn't do it without you :)
The so-called rebuttal is nothing but
HOGWASH,
I am by no means endorsing the crap uttered
and/or authored by Jachan
Katz or anyone from website "answering-islam" team.
To me, you all are ignoramuses' full
of bigotedness and ignominies', however,
truth must be told. Regarding the reference and/or
allegation that David, killed an innocent man, Osama,
has as usual not done his home work and not properly researched the
sbuject matter. Had Osama read the 2 Samuel 1:2-16, he would have saved humiliation
and would
have avoided making a fool 
out of
himself. Since, I am not an ass-kisser like it goes back forth between
Osama
and Nadir
,
I would say, what is true. I am living example of WYSIWYG!
Osama must know that 1
Samuel 24 is about: David sparing Saul's life and probably
reconciling his differences with Saul by clearing things up.
Where as the 2 Samuel chapter 4 is about the murder of
Ish-Bosheth, however, what is cited in 2 Samuel
4:10 must be read with context that is found in 2 Samuel
1:2-16. If these Christians do that kind of deceptive acts of lifting
things, statements off the context while spewing venom against Islaam. Others
should not follow their lead as tit for tat or due toi sheer ignorance.
Here it espources the doubt of both to be the factor.
Ciao
It is pretty obvious that SBWUS (Shahid bin Waheed) is not a friend of mine, or
of Answering Islam, so he definitely didn't send this message to do me a favor.
He is certainly no friend of Osama Abdallah either. But the personal animosities
displayed in that message are not the interesting part. Two aspects are important.
One is the date of the response (27 October 2004). The other is that, in this e-mail,
Shahid bin Waheed informed Osama Abdallah that he had just made a fool of himself,
and explained to him WHY his main argument in this article, i.e. the claim
that David killed an innocent man, was utterly wrong.
Although most of the time the publications of SBWUS are no better in quality or
logic than those of Abdallah, in this case he has hit the nail on its head. It is
plain deception to lift statements out of context in the way Abdallah did it here,
and in many other places as well. The context is vitally important for a correct
interpretation. After Abdallah was informed about his error just some hours after
he had published it, I decided to wait and see whether he would correct himself.
He did not. Over a week later, Abdallah has published another half dozen articles,
but he still actively propagates his false claim about "David murdering an innocent
man simply for bringing him the news of Saul's death". For example, he included this
claim again in several articles or pages published or redesigned after this date, i.e.
he added it to the main entry
page to his site on 31 October, and also included it in these three pages
(*,
*,
*)
on 4 November, in each case by making this emphasized link to it:
David's Selective Murders!
David so carelessly killed an innocent man for only telling him news.
(click here)
Whether or not it was a deliberate lie and misrepresentation of the Bible passage at the time
when he first made this charge in the presently discussed article, or simply an honest
mistake born out of ignorance, has now become irrelevant. After he had been informed on
27 October that his charge is wrong, yet continues to repeat the same attack and accusation
over and over again, there is now no question left that it is a deliberate lie. Had it
been an unintentional mistake, Abdallah would have removed it immediately. He has not done
so. Similarly, he has not removed any of the misrepresentations that I exposed in my first
article. He still keeps them in the article, even though he has changed this article
several times since then, but only by adding additional lies (i.e., the charge that
Elisha killed 42 innocent children), and slightly rearranging
the sequence of the old false claims. Is there any more evidence necessary before he
is proven to be a deliberate liar?
In any case, David's statement is clearly a reference to something that had just happened
recently. Would it not have been more responsible to actually look up the story itself, in order
to know all the details involved, instead of drawing hasty conclusions, and making accusations
against David, merely based on a reference to a story? Abdallah apparently thinks
differently. As we can seemingly not expect Abdallah to go through the trouble of looking
up 2 Samuel 1:1-16
for himself, I am going to quote it here for him:
David Hears of Saul's Death
1 After the death of Saul, David returned from defeating the Amalekites
and stayed in Ziklag two days. 2 On the third day a man arrived from Saul's camp,
with his clothes torn and with dust on his head. When he came to David, he fell to the ground
to pay him honor.
3 "Where have you come from?" David asked him.
He answered, "I have escaped from the Israelite camp."
4 "What happened?" David asked. "Tell me."
He said, "The men fled from the battle. Many of them fell and died. And Saul
and his son Jonathan are dead."
5 Then David said to the young man who brought him the report, "How do
you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?"
6 "I happened to be on Mount Gilboa," the young man said, "and
there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and riders almost upon him.
7 When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said,
‘What can I do?‘
8 "He asked me, ‘Who are you?’
" ‘An Amalekite,’ I answered.
9 "Then he said to me, ‘Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes
of death, but I'm still alive.’
10 "So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after
he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band
on his arm and have brought them here to my lord."
11 Then David and all the men with him took hold of their clothes and tore them.
12 They mourned and wept and fasted till evening for Saul and his son Jonathan,
and for the army of the LORD and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.
13 David said to the young man who brought him the report, "Where are
you from?"
"I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite," he answered.
14 David asked him, "Why were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy
the LORD's anointed?"
15 Then David called one of his men and said, "Go, strike him down!"
So he struck him down, and he died. 16 For David had said to him, "Your blood
be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the LORD's
anointed.’"
The situation is crystal clear: The man admitted to have killed Saul (v. 10), and even brought
the evidence for it, the crown of Saul that he had taken (v. 10). Thus, David issued the verdict
that, based upon his own testimony of the murder, the man is to be put to death (v. 16).
How then can Abdallah accuse David of committing the crime to have ‘selectively killed
an innocent man’?
The story is actually slightly more complicated than this, but the evidence presented here
should suffice for now to show that Abdallah is wrong in his charge. The open question now
is whether or not Abdallah will finally remove that accusation from his site and apologize
for ever making this slanderous charge against David. For those interested in getting
a full understanding of the incident, I will publish a more detailed exegesis of this story
within a couple of weeks. [Hint: The man lied! The moral of the story is this: using deception
and lying to gain something can backfire against you and even cost you your life. Could it be
that this message is actually relevant to Abdallah in any way?]
Though Abdallah's main point in this article has now been dealt with, we are still not done
since Abdallah continued his rantings:
Enough of Abdallah's tiring repetitiveness by which he merely tries to avoid answering
the questions he is asked. This has already been responded to above.
Let's see how he does in the next part of his attack on me:
He wrote:
And it doesn't become any more true by repeating a similar charge in the
second article published on the same day:
First let us look at the Sayings (Hadiths) of our beloved Prophet
that dealt with camel urine:
Narrated Abu Qilaba: "Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl
or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So
the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to
drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as
directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the
Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in
the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and
brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and
it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of
iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water,
no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft
and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and
His Apostle . (Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions
(Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234)"
Cutting the
hands and feet of the enemy in the Bible:
Before we proceed, it is important to know that the Bible's
Prophets too did similar punishment (cutting hands and feet of the
enemy):
2 Samuel 4
10 when a man
told me, 'Saul is dead,' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him
and put him to death in Ziklag. That was the reward I gave him for his news!
11 How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own
house and on his own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and
rid the earth of you!"
12 So David gave an order to his men, and they
killed them. They cut off their hands and feet and hung the
bodies by the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of
Ish-Bosheth and buried it in Abner's tomb at Hebron. (Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/urine.htm)
RESPONSE:
Abdallah managed to include several further ‘errors’ into this second
version. He claims that "the Bible's Prophets too did similar punishment
(cutting hands and feet of the enemy)". First, these people were not
David's enemies. They actually did what they did because they wanted to be
David's friends! This will be obvious to anyone who reads the full story in 2
Samuel 4:1-12. They wanted to receive a reward from David for killing a man
whom they believed was an enemy to David. They were punished by David not
because they were his enemies, but because a just king has to punish all
crimes, even if they are committed by friends.
Second, Osama speaks in the plural, "the Bible's Prophets", as if
this was the usual behavior of ALL the prophets in the Bible. This is
another serious lie. There is not even one prophet in the Bible who did
to his enemies what Muhammad did to the Uraynian shepherds.
My response:
Once again,
I'd like Jochen
Katz, the hypocrite, to tell us: WHERE IS THE DIVINE JUSTICE in David's
selective murder of an innocent man in point #3
above?
How is David better
than Prophet Muhammad when he killed an innocent man for NO
REASON??!!
Produce the evidence
that Prophet Muhammad SELECTIVELY killed an innocent
man!
In what way is THAT a response to what I had written? He merely repeats his three
ridiculous challenges, and the claim that some of his own points are irrefutable,
although they have been refuted a long time ago. However, he does not answer to even
one statement I had made in my text that was just quoted by him. Maybe he simply
has no answer? To shout out again and again that some of his OTHER claims are
irrefutable is simply not an answer to my arguments in which I proved wrong this
particular claim of Abdallah. [Hint: It's the pants-down problem
all over again.]
Oh, I just realized that I have forgotten to answer Abdallah's challenges in those
big red letters. Sorry, it got lost in the shuffle. Thank you so much for repeating it
so that it may not be overlooked. Here are my answers to:
How is David better than Prophet Muhammad when he killed an innocent
man for NO REASON??!! — The topic of my article was not a comparison of
David and Muhammad. The issue was that Abdallah fabricated atrocious lies against the men
of God in the Bible. I exposed his accusations against the Bible to be wrong. That is it.
I have no need to enter a ‘my prophet is better than yours’ competition.
Each man is evaluated individually. The problem of Abdallah being unable to defend Muhammad
without an attempt to slander David, or Moses, or other men of God in the Bible, speaks
for itself. I have no need to enter such a silly game. Finally, since that man was clearly
not innocent, the whole question is irrelevant anyway.
Produce the evidence that Prophet Muhammad SELECTIVELY
killed an innocent man! — Just in case the above-mentioned mass-murder
/ genocide committed by Muhammad against the Banu Qurayza was not selective enough,
here are some examples for Abdallah to ponder. Muhammad selectively murdered
Asma bint Marwan,
Abu Afak,
Ka`b bin al-Ashraf,
`Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt, and
Al-Nadr Bin Al-Harith. Naturally, the circumstances
for each of those murders were slightly different, but basically the only reason for each
of these murders was that they spread the news that Muhammad was not a prophet. It is simply
a matter of free speech that if I am convinced that Muhammad is not a prophet from God that
I can and should warn others not to be deceived by his claim to prophethood. That is fully
legitimate. Now, Abdallah may claim that these critiques of Muhammad are exactly what made
them guilty and therefore they deserved to be put to death. But if opposition to Muhammad
makes guilty per se, even if it is only verbally expressed disagreement, then his
whole challenge is exposed as a sham. I am convinced that these examples more than satisfy
Abdallah's challenge, if the challenge was a serious one.
Let's continue ...
He wrote:
However, that is not all of Abdallah's Bible-twisting published on 24 October
2004. In his first article, we also find these statements:
1- The murders of the
Bible's Prophets:
In his list of nonsensical articles, Silas of the "Answering Islam" team,
wrote a number of articles inventing lies against Prophet Muhammad peace be
upon him while so hypocritically ignoring the same
incidents ("murders" as he called them) that happened from
the Bible's own Prophets!
Let us look at few examples of the Biblical Prophets' "murders":
Exodus 2
13 The next day
he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, "Why
are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?"
14 The man said, "Who made you ruler
and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the
Egyptian?" Then Moses was afraid and thought, "What I did must
have become known."
15 When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses,
but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a
well.
[...]
Killing Innocent
Children:
[...]
Exodus 13
14 "In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does this
mean?' say to him, 'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out
of the land of slavery.
15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go,
the LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man and
animal. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every
womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.'
16 And it will be like a sign
on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of
Egypt with his mighty hand."
While I fully understand GOD Almighty's Wisdom in these verses, but using
the team of clowns' (Answering Islam) logic, this
makes the Bible as a false book and a book of terror. (Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophet_muhammad_not_murderer.htm)
I will begin with the second part of the above-quoted excerpt. Christians
agree with Muslims that God is the Lord over life and death. It is God's
prerogative as our Creator to take away life at any time, whether it is the life
of an old person or that of a young child. God has given all of us life, he can
also take it away. Every day, thousands of children die due to traffic
accidents, diseases, malnutrition, physical abuse, wars, or even for unknown
reasons.
It has never ever been the argument of Answering Islam to blame Muhammad when
God took away the life of children. Abdallah's ‘counter-attack’ on the Bible is
completely ridiculous. This particular passage is listed by him under the main
heading "The murders of the Bible's Prophets:" and the subheading
"Killing Innocent Children:", i.e. for Abdallah this passage is proof
that the prophets of the Bible killed innocent children. This is again a blatant
lie. Not one of these "firstborn of the Egyptians" was killed by a prophet, not
even by an Israelite, not even by a human being. It was God who took their
lives.
Furthermore, Abdallah admits that he knows very well what these verses mean,
but he still twists them and lies about them, since he is so absolutely
desperate to slander the Bible in any way he can (and he is quite imaginative in
doing so), hoping it would in some way justify the problems inherent in Islam.
[Actually, his claim that he "fully understands GOD Almighty's wisdom" is
basically blasphemous, even though he qualifies his statement in so far as he
only claims to understand the totality of God's wisdom that is found "in these
verses".]
Well, let's turn to the first part of the above-quoted text. Yes, Moses was
guilty of killing an Egyptian. However, Abdallah has again cut off essential
parts of the story. Read Exodus 2:11-15 to get the background. The Egyptian was beating
one of the Hebrew slaves -- which may or may not have resulted in the death of
the slave. Moses saw this and killed the Egyptian to rescue the Israelite. In
the end, Moses had to flee and to live in exile for forty years because of this
deed. Whatever it was, it was not "premeditated murder" for his own selfish
gain, but was done in defense of a weak person, and resulted in Moses losing
everything he had at that time. Thus, this incident is hardly comparable to
Muhammad, who ordered his men to slaughter his personal enemies, including old
people and women, simply because they had made fun of him and told others not to
believe in him! For details, consult the section Muhammad and his enemies.
Furthermore, this happened many years before Moses was called to become a
prophet of God. He was not a prophet when this happened. Muhammad, on
the other hand, had his personal enemies slaughtered while being a prophet, and
because they questioned his prophethood. That is certainly a rather important
difference as well.
My response:
First of all ladies and gentlemen, notice how this hypocrite TOOK OUT from my
quotes! He only presented partial ones. Notice the
[...] brackets that he inserted above to fool the
reader. Those missing parts are what the following are with their details
emphasized in my articles:
Oh, oh. It's the Abdallah syndrome again. He simply ignores everything that was said.
He wants to talk only about what was NOT mentioned instead of answering to the issues
that were raised. If there were a "Second, ..." after his initial "First of all ladies
and gentlemen, ..." then this would be okay. However, there is not. In the rest of what
he called his ‘Refutation to the preposterous LIES of Jochen Katz ...’
there will only come some more repetitions of his usual ‘cut and paste’ from
other pages, but he never responds to my arguments at all.
As mentioned before, it is my free choice which of Abdallah's lies I want to discuss.
I had decided to expose his misrepresentations of three specific passages: 2 Samuel 4:10-12,
Exodus 2:13-15, and Exodus 13:13-15. Those parts that I deleted were Abdallah's comments
on the passages Numbers 25:17-18 and Numbers 31:17-18. Since these parts had nothing
whatsoever to do with the other passages, and since they had absolutely no implications for
the interpretation of the three chosen passages, deleting them did not result in distorting
Abdallah's argument regarding the passages under discussion. There was no attempt to fool
anyone, and I cannot see how this makes me a hypocrite.
Furthermore, I indicated that something was omitted from the text by placing [ ... ] there,
so that the reader who wanted to control whether the omitted part was relevant to the argument
could look up what had been omitted. So, I acted in complete intellectual integrity. I quoted
every word that was relevant to the discussion of the passages, and I indicated that I had
deleted some parts that were irrelevant to the present discussion. What is your problem with
that, Abdallah?
On the other hand, I do have a problem with Abdallah's way of ‘responding’.
He calls his article a REFUTATION, quotes long parts of my text, and then writes
"My response:" in big red letters, but what follows does not respond to anything I had
said. He ignores everything that I said in regard to the two passages Exodus 2 and Exodus 13.
Instead he whips himself into a frenzy over my two omission brackets and throws insults
at me because I did not discuss Numbers 25:17-18 and Numbers 31:17-18 as well. Frankly,
what motivation would I have to discuss those two additional passages if he already
ignored my discussion of the other two passages? That is a common behavior of three-year
old children, but certainly not appropriate for somebody who claims to be in the PhD program
at a university. The only result of his temper tantrum is that Abdallah exposed himself
as being absolutely unfit to discuss serious matters.
Regarding the two ‘arguments’ in that above box ... I don't think I need to
respond to those a fourth time in the same article, do I? Although Abdallah has nothing
to say, he surely is able to repeat that nothing many times.
Abdallah continues:
Jochen Katz, the liar, purposely omitted those parts, and so
foolishly shot himself in the foot above to only PRESENT THE FALSE
PICTURE about his horny and pornful bible; the book
of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can lick and suck
their sisters' and lovers' vaginas and breasts,
to the reader.
Blah, blah, blah, ... Abdallah is merely a broken record, and is seemingly
even proud of it.
I've heard so much garbage from Christians before about
Prophet Muhammad!
The reason why I presented all of the verses above was to ask those
weasels if using their own logic, can we also conclude that their Bible and its
Prophets are also false, since murderers were chosen to be Messengers of GOD
Almighty?
The first problem is that you did not use our logic. You didn't use logic
at all. Second, believe me, I understand your motivation. You feel wounded,
you feel hurt, you feel insulted that there are people who do not accept
Muhammad as the best man who ever lived. You are aggrevated that they would
criticize the one man who means most to you in your life. However, attacking
the Bible will never ever deliver a justification for the deeds of Muhammad.
Attacking the Bible is not the same as defending Muhammad, or explaining why
those things that Muhammad did were in reality good and wise and right.
The way you are operating now, you will only show people that you are completely
irrational.
If you desire that others accept Muhammad and love him, you need to show
that what is published by those Christians about him is misrepresenting who
he truly was. If you want to show the world that Muhammad was a true prophet
and should be the model of mankind in his behavior, you need to work hard
on presenting Muhammad's life in a way that shows to the world how those
things that appear revolting to the modern man, are actually the most wonderful
thing Muhammad could have done given the situation that he was in. But it will
only work if you do justice to the historical record in your articles, and not try to cover up
what is written in the Muslim sources.
Again, no amount of lying about the Bible will ever do Muhammad any good.
Attempting to justify Muhammad by screaming, "but those people did the same
things or even worse things" is a rather obvious logical fallacy and will
not convince anyone.
My question to
Jochen Katz here is:
Were
the murderers in the Bible who were chosen as Prophets by GOD Almighty
liars?
This question again makes no sense in the way it is formulated. I simply have
no clue what you are talking about. Which prophet do you call a murderer and on what
basis? So far you haven't been very strong on giving evidence for your accusations.
Moreover, which of their statements do you think are lies, and why? If you could
ask a clear and reasonable question, I may answer you, but this one is incoherent.
Abdallah is closing in on the finishing line with the following essential reading
recommendations:
For the reader to get the detailed links and verses that I presented, please
visit my main page. You'll see the following on it:
Pedophilia
with 3-year old slave girls in the Bible!
Forcing 3-year
old slave girls into sex during the Mosaic Law in the Bible!
(click
here)
Terrorism: "kill all the boys and non-virgin women" under the Mosaic Law! (click here)
42 innocent children were killed
using Wild Bears by Prophet Elisha!
Prophet Muhammad on the other hand loved children even
those who threw stones at him in the city of Al-Ta'if. (click here)
Maiming of the enemies' bodies under David's
Law:
Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies in the
Bible, and hanging their alive bodies on trees until they DIE.
(click here)
David's Selective Murders!
David so
carelessly killed an innocent man for only telling him news.
(click here)
Shutting the loud
mouths of those who unjustly attack Islam, with Truth.
Every single one of these above charges has been answered. If Abdallah continues to propagate
those lies, he will have none but himself to blame when people increasingly conclude that he
is merely a raving maniac and a compulsory liar.
Abdallah's final installment of yet the same insanities:
No further comments are necessary. That was it. We have looked at Abdallah's complete
article and evaluated his arguments. Let me remind the reader of the title and
the purpose that Abdallah had given to this particular webpage:
Refutation to the preposterous LIES of Jochen
Katz about his Bible not containing inhumane murders from its
Prophets!
This article is a rebuttal to "Answering Islam's" Jochen Katz' preposterous
lies in http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/lies1.htm.
It is now up to the reader to decide whether or not Abdallah delievered what he had promised.
- Was this article really a REFUTATION of my arguments?
- Was he able to prove that I had lied, let alone produced PREPOSTEROUS lies?
- Did Abdallah present any proof that any Biblical report demonstrates that even one of the prophets
of God tortured his enemies?
- Was he able to bring even one passage from the Bible that teaches that torturing people
until they die is acceptable?
You be the judge!
APPENDIX
Since Abdallah has already changed his article several times, it is reproduced
below (inside the box) exactly as I downloaded it from his site on 25 October 2004,
the day that I published my response.
|
Prophet Muhammad is a murderer for killing the
enemies? WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S PROPHETS' MURDERS that were blessed by GOD
Almighty?
The sections of this article are:
1- The murders of the Bible's
Prophets.
2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an extremely brutal
way in the Bible.
Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies
in the Bible, and hanging their alive bodies on trees until they
DIE.
1- The murders of the
Bible's Prophets:
In his list of nonsensical articles, Silas of the "Answering Islam" team,
wrote a number of articles inventing lies against Prophet Muhammad peace be upon
him while so hypocritically ignoring the same incidents
("murders" as he called them) that happened from the Bible's
own Prophets!
Let us look at few examples of the Biblical Prophets' "murders":
Exodus 2
13 The next day he
went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, "Why are
you hitting your fellow Hebrew?"
14 The man said, "Who made you ruler and
judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the
Egyptian?" Then Moses was afraid and thought, "What I did must have
become known."
15 When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but
Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well.
Numbers 25
17 "Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill
them,
18 because they treated you as enemies when
they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the
daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as
a result of Peor."
Killing Innocent
Children:
Numbers 31:17-18
"Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every
woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl
who has never slept with a man."
According to the historical elaborations about
Numbers 31:17-18 Biblical Verses in the Jewish Talmud, the girls in "every girl
who has never slept with a man" were AS YOUNG AS 3 YEARS OLD, and
were forced into SEX! See the Talmudic and Biblical proofs and quotes here
(Terrorism and Pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls in the
Bible).
Exodus 13
14
"In days to come, when your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' say to him,
'With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of
slavery.
15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the
LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. This is
why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem
each of my firstborn sons.'
16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a
symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty
hand."
While I fully understand GOD Almighty's Wisdom in these verses, but using the
team of clowns' (Answering Islam) logic, this makes the
Bible as a false book and a book of terror.
By the way, NOT A
SINGLE NOBLE VERSE in the Noble Quran does it Command for Muslims
to kill innocent children!
I openly challenge the team
of weasels to produce one, JUST ONE, Noble Verse from
the Noble Quran that allows killing of innocent children or
people!
Allah Almighty Said regarding innocent souls in the
Noble Quran:
"But if the enemy incline
towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust
in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"
"Fight in the cause of
God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits;
for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble
Quran, 2:190)"
"On that account: We
ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a
person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the
land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one
saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole
people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear
signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the
land. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"
Allah Almighty also Commanded UNCOMPROMISED
Justice:
"O ye who believe!
Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against
Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or
poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of
your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do
justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:135)"
"And fight them on until there is
no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in
God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those
who practise oppression. (The Noble Quran,
2:193)"
"But if at the time of division
other relatives, or orphans or poor, are present, feed them out of the
(property), and speak to them words of kindness and
justice. (The Noble Quran,
4:8)"
"If any do that in
rancour and injustice,- soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And
easy it is for God. (The Noble Quran,
4:30)"
"God doth command you to render back
your Trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between
man and man, that ye judge with justice: Verily how excellent is
the teaching which He giveth you! For God is He Who heareth and seeth all
things. (The Noble Quran,
4:58)"
2- Maiming of enemies' bodies in an
extremely brutal way in the Bible:
Cutting the hands and feet and hanging the alive
bodies until they DIE:
2 Samuel 4
10 when a man
told me, 'Saul is dead,' and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and
put him to death in Ziklag. That was the reward I gave him for his news!
11
How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and
on his own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the
earth of you!"
12 So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them.
They cut off their hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in
Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and buried it in
Abner's tomb at Hebron.
Note to the
reader: Prophet Muhammad peace be
upon him also ordered the
cutting of hands and feet of enemies in one incident, because they pretended to have embraced Islam and then betrayed
and killed Muslims. The Prophet sent his men to chase them down, while
they were running back to their tribe, and finally captured them and brought
them back for punishment. But the point is that you can't disprove Islam
or any religion through incidents like this, especially when worse scenarios
exist in your own Book!
Using this weasel's (Silas) logic and lies, we can ONLY and ONLY conclude
that the Bible too is a false book and the GOD of the Bible does not exist, and
the Biblical Prophets are liars. Of course none of this is true
as none of his false claims and charges against Islam are also
true.
Please visit: What parts of the Bible and Hadiths do Muslims believe are closest
to the Truth, and Why?
What is the Wisdom of Islam?
What is the place of Jesus, Jews, Christians
and other non-Muslims in Islam?
Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam
team section.
Rebuttals to Silas' Articles section.
Answering
Trinity.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the
Bible.
Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have
logical answers for.
What parts of the Bible
do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to
the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.
Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious
people!
Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the
Bible.
Did Isaiah 53 really
prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims
about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed
John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since
GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single
bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How
in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any
penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?!
I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm
34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus
crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and
exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.
|
(Source:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophet_muhammad_not_murderer.htm,
as accessed on 25 October 2004.)
Rebuttals to Osama Abdallah & Answering-Christianity
Answering Islam Home Page