Rebuttal to Sam Shamouns Article "Muhammad's Marriage to Safiyyah Revisited"

Rebuttal to Sam Shamouns Article "Muhammad's Marriage to Safiyyah Revisited"

Bassam Zawadi

Shamoun has responded back to my article in which I was responding back to his first article on the issue of Saffiyah.

Unfortunately, the topic is not even about Safiyyah anymore! However, these silly arguments still need to be addressed.

This article will be divided into different sections:-

- Refuting Shamoun's section on "Banu al-Mustaliq: Oppressors or Oppressed?"

- Refuting Shamoun's section on "Muhammad: Juwayriyyah's Savior?"

- Refuting Shamoun's section on "Did Muhammad Marry Women For Their Beauty?"

- Refuting Shamoun's section on "A Question On Juwayriyyah's [Lack Of] Piety"

- Refuting Shamoun's section on "Al-Waqidi: A Case of Selectively Citing My Sources? Or Further Evidence of A Muslim's Inability to Address the Real Issues?"

- Refuting Shamoun's section on "Did Muhammad's Wives Really Have A Choice To Leave?"

- Refuting Shamoun's section on "Bassam's Tirade Against the Holy Bible: More Evidence Of Zawadi's Inconsistency"

Let's start with the first one:

Refuting Shamoun's section on "Banu al-Mustaliq: Oppressors or Oppressed?"

There is really nothing much to refute here. Shamoun just basically puts forth several hadith that show that the Muslims attacked the Bani Mustaliq by catching them off guard. The Bani Mustaliq were surprised and unaware of the attack by the Muslims. Then

Shamoun says:

It is hard to accept that Banu al-Mustaliq posed a threat to the Muslims in light of the fact that when Muhammad's band of thugs came upon them they were busy tending their flocks! One would think that the Banu al-Mustaliq would be readying themselves for battle and arming their men with weapons if the Muslim assertion was true.

I'll ignore Shamoun's cheap shot of throwing the term "thugs" at the companions and just get to the point.

Shamoun basically did not even address the narrations that I have put forth previously which state that the Bani Mustaliq were preparing for a war against the Muslims.

Secondly, he quotes Imam Nawawis commentary on Sahih Muslim:

2220. According to Imam Nawawi, this hadith shows that those unbelievers who have received the message of Islam can be attacked UNAWARE if the need so arises. The correct view is that those who have not received the message of Islam, it is essential to give them the Divine Message before giving them the ultimatum of war, but for those who have received this message, it is desirable to inform them before entering the battle. Exception can, however, be made in this case, when there is a dire necessity (Vol. II, p. 81). (Sahih Muslim by Imam Muslim, Rendered into English by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi [Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 11^th reprinted 1995], Volume III & IV, Kitab Al-Jihad Wa'l-Siyar (The Book of Jihad and Expedition), Chapter DCCIV: Regarding Permission To Make A Raid, Without An Ultimatum, Upon The Disbelievers Who Have Already Been Invited Accept Islam, p. 942, fn. 2220; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)

Notice that Imam Nawawi said that the unbelievers won't be attacked unaware UNLESS THE NEED SO ARISES. So what was the need in this specific case? Well due to the narrations I put forth (which Shamoun didn't address), it was because the Bani Mustaliq were preparing for war and the Muslims had to ensure that they didn't sit around getting the first blow.

Thirdly, just because the Muslims had attacked the Bani Mustaliq while they were unaware, that doesn't mean that the Muslims initiated the problem. It does not need a rocket scientist to figure out how to reconcile these narrations. Here is what most likely happened:

The Bani Mustaliq were preparing to launch an attack on the Muslims. The Muslims had foreknowledge about this, therefore they took the initiative and attacked first. The Bani Mustaliq were not aware that the Muslims knew about their preparation for war, therefore they were surprised as to why the Muslims attacked them.

Simple as that. That is what most likely happened if we were to be consistent and accept all the narrations regarding this event. Shamoun is saying that they shouldn't have been attending to their livestock if they were preparing for war. Well isn't it possible that SOME of the tribe were attending to the livestock and not ALL of them? It does not need a rocket scientist to try and guess the details.

Shamoun continues on to say:

A careful examination of the Islamic sources reveals that the Arab tribes, specifically the Meccans, were fed up with Muhammad's threats and hostile attitude towards them.

I am very unimpressed with Shamoun's ignorance taking into consideration that he writes articles on comparative religion on a full time basis. Anyone who reads history knows that the Meccans oppressed the Muslims and drove them out. That they had a huge bounty on the Prophet's head. Shamoun also argued the same thing regarding the Jews. Again, this is Shamoun's ignorance. Anyone who reads history would know that when the Muslims went to Medinah, they immediately signed a peace treaty with the Jews. But it was the Jews who broke the treaties and betrayed the Muslims.

Shamoun says:

This is precisely why the Jewish tribes rejected Muhammad since they knew from their Scriptures that the true God that spoke to Abraham and Moses didn't commission him to be his spokesperson.

Would Shamoun also like to appeal to the Jews knowledge of their scripture when they rejected Jesus' Prophethood?

Recommended Readings

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-expulsion-of-banu-al-nadir/

http://www.faithfreedom.com/ali_sina_exposed/truth_about_jews.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-expulsion-of-banu-qaynuqa/

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-conquest-of-khaybar-and-of-the-remaining-jewish-strongholds-in-al-hijaz/

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/index.php/articles/the-expulsion-of-banu-al-qurayzah

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/was_prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__an_idol_worshipper_

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun36.htm

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_42.htm

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_prophet_muhammad_s_contemplation_of_suicide_disprove_his_prophet_hood__assuming_he_did__

Refuting Shamoun's section on "Muhammad: Juwayriyyah's Savior?"

Shamoun says:

Zawadi wants us to believe that Muhammad married Juwayriyyah because he wanted to save her and her tribe from their fate:

Although Juwayriyya was young and beautiful and of noble lineage, Prophet Mohamed (PEACE BE UPON HIM) was not thinking of all that, he was thinking of how to save her and all her tribe from an ignoble fate.

I wish he continued what I posted earlier in my first article:

By marrying Juwayriyya, the Banu Mustaliq were able to enter Islam with honor, and with the humiliation of their recent defeat removed, and it was not necessary for them to embark on a war of vengeance that would have continued until one of the two parties had been annihilated.

All the booty that had been taken from the Banu Mustaliq was returned, and all the captives were set free, as soon as the marriage took place, for they were now the in laws of Prophet Mohamed (PEACE BE UPON HIM).

Shamoun says:

This response basically ignores or overlooks the fact that it was Muhammad's decision to attack the Banu al-Mustaliq that led to her dire situation! Neither Juwayriyyah nor her tribe would have been in such a predicament, i.e. captivity, had Muhammad decided not to attack them.

No point of reinventing the wheel, because I have already shown that the Muslim attack on the tribe was justified.

Refuting Shamoun's section on "Did Muhammad Marry Women For Their Beauty?"

Shamouns says:

We are at least thankful that he qualified his statement by adding the word "only," which is an implicit admission that her beauty was part of the reason Muhammad married her.

I fail to see the argument or immorality. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is human and is attracted to women. So what? Do men go around marrying ugly women? Obviously, beauty is one of the main things that a person looks for in a woman before he marries her, but not the only thing.

Shamoun narrates the following hadith:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith ibn al-Mustaliq, fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, or to her cousin. She entered into an agreement to purchase her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman, most attractive to the eye.

Aisha said: She then came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) asking him for the purchase of her freedom. When she was standing at the door, I looked at her with disapproval. I realised that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) would look at her in the same way that I had looked.

She said: Apostle of Allah, I am Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith, and something has happened to me, which is not hidden from you. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, and I have entered into an agreement to purchase of my freedom. I have come to you to seek assistance for the purchase of my freedom.

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Are you inclined to that which is better? She asked: What is that, Apostle of Allah? He replied: I shall pay the price of your freedom on your behalf, and I shall marry you.

She said: I shall do this. She (Aisha) said: The people then heard that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had married Juwayriyyah. They released the captives in their possession and set them free, and said: They are the relatives of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) by marriage. We did not see any woman greater than Juwayriyyah who brought blessings to her people. One hundred families of Banu al-Mustaliq were set free on account of her. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 29, Number 3920)

Shamoun uses this hadith to prove that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) married Juwayriah for her beauty.

The hadith does not show that. It shows that it probably was A reason, but not THE reason.

Secondly, this hadith refutes Shamoun. Notice that Juwayriyah said that she had already bargained to purchase her freedom. She asked the Prophet who then offered her marriage and she agreed WILLINGLY. However, she could have refused because if she really wanted to, she could have waited for her family members to come and pay her ransom since she was well known amongst her tribe.

Other narrations show that Juwayriyah was pleased with the marriage and was actually looking forward to it:

Al Bayhaqi narrated that Juwayriyah said, "Three nights before the battle, I dreamt that the moon appearaed from the direction of Yathrib (Medinah) and fell into my lap, but I decided not to tell anyone about it until Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) arrived. When we were captured, I hoped the dream to come true. There, the Prophet (peace be upon him) set me free and then married me." (Al Bayhaqi, Ad-Dala'il, vol. 4, p. 50, Cited in Muhammad Fathi Mus'ad, The Wives of the Prophet Muhammad: Their Strives and Their Lives, p.149)

Just in case Shamoun argues back that Juwayriyah was forced to marry the Prophet (peace be upon him), the following narration will refute him:

It was also reported that Juwayriyah's father said, "O Muhammad! My daughter was captured and this is her ransom. Such a noble lady should never be captured, so set her free." the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Do you not think it is better if we let her make the decision herself (whether to go or to stay)?" Al-Harith answered in the affirmative. When he came to inform Juwayriyah of it, she replied, "I accept Allah and His Messenger." (Ibn Hajar, Al-Isabah, vol. 4, p.265, Cited in Muhammad Fathi Mus'ad, The Wives of the Prophet Muhammad: Their Strives and Their Lives, p.151)

The above narration has been authenticated by Ibn Hajar in Tahzheeb al Tahzheeb, vol. 12, no. 407.

Shamoun continues:

Zawadi couldn't have chosen a worse example to support his case than that of Sauda bint Zamah, for at least two reasons. First, Zawadi conveniently forgot to quote the reason that Ibn Kathir provided for this marriage:

And so it happened. After three years of constant struggle, a relative of his, called Khawla, went to him and pointed out that his house was sadly neglected and that his daughters needed a mother to look after them. "But who can take the place of Khadijah?" he asked. "Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, the dearest of people to you," she answered. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) had been the first man to accept Islam and he was the Prophet's closest companion. Like Khadijah, he had done all that he could do to help the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and had spent all his wealth in the way of Allah. However, while the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was now fifty-three years old, Aisha as only a little girl of seven. She was hardly in a position to look after either the Prophet's household or children. "She is very young." Replied the Prophet. Khawla had a solution for everything. She suggested that he marry at the same time a lady called Sawda, the widow of Al-Sakran ibn 'Amr. Sawda bint Zam'a, may Allah be pleased with her had been the first woman to immigrate to Abyssinia in the way of Allah. Her husband had died and she was now living with her aged father. She was middle-aged, rather plump, with a jolly, kindly disposition, and just the right person to take care of the Prophet's household and family. Sawda went to live in Muhammad's house and immediately took over the care of his daughters and household, while Aisha bint Abu Bakr became betrothed to him and remained in her father's house playing with her dolls. (Wives of the Prophet Muhammad; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

The above quotes by Ibn Kathir don't say that the Prophet (peace be upon him) married Sauda because the Prophet (peace be upon him) wanted to use her as a maid. If that was the case, then the Prophet (peace be upon him) could have had a slave to do it. The reason why the Prophet (peace be upon him) specifically chose Sawda is because he saw the love that she had for Islam. Shamoun "forgot" to quote these quotes by Ibn Kathir:

There was great surprise in Mecca that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would choose to marry a widow who was neither young nor beautiful. The Prophet, however, remembered the trials she had undergone when she had immigrated to Abyssinia, leaving her house and property, and crossed the desert and then the sea for an unknown land out of the desire to preserve her deen. (Ibn Kathir, Wives of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Source)

Shamoun goes on to talk about how the Prophet intended to divorce Sawda. However, I have already shown in this article here that the only narration that talks about the Prophet's intention to divorce Sawda is weak. The rest of the narrations that are authentic only talk about how Sawda feared that the Prophet might divorce her. But that does not show that her opinion is correct and that the Prophet actually did intend to do so.

Refuting Shamoun's section on "A Question On Juwayriyyah's [Lack Of] Piety"

Shamoun posed narrations in English which have not been properly translated and gave a false kind of picture. Since Shamoun does not know Arabic, he could be excused.

The English translated hadith say:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 008, Book 073, Hadith Number 212.

Narated By Abu Huraira : Zainab's original name was "Barrah," but it was said' "By that she is giving herself the prestige of piety." So the Prophet changed her name to Zainab.

However, the word "original" is not there in the Arabic hadith. (here)

Also over here:

Saheeh Muslim

Book 025, Number 5336:

Zainab, daughter of Umm Salama, reported: My name first was Barra. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave me the name of Zainab. Then there entered (into the house of Allah's Prophet as a wife) Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, and her name was also Barra, and he gave her the name of Zainab.

The word "first" is not there in the Arabic hadith (here)

This is important because the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not change her BIRTH name but a nickname that was given to her. This is the same with Juwayriah. Look at the narration that Shamoun posted earlier from Sunan Abu Dawud:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith ibn al-Mustaliq, fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, or to her cousin. She entered into an agreement to purchase her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman, most attractive to the eye.

Aisha said: She then came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) asking him for the purchase of her freedom. When she was standing at the door, I looked at her with disapproval. I realised that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) would look at her in the same way that I had looked.

She said: Apostle of Allah, I am Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith, and something has happened to me, which is not hidden from you. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, and I have entered into an agreement to purchase of my freedom. I have come to you to seek assistance for the purchase of my freedom.

She introduced her self to the Prophet as Juwariyyah, not Barra. Barra was only a nick name given.

Shamoun tries to show that this might be a sexist reason. However, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did give women some positive names at some time:

Saheeh Muslim

Book 025, Number 5332:

Ibn 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) changed the name of 'Asiya (Disobedient) and said: You are Jamila (i. e. good and handsome). Ahmad (one of the narrators) narrated it with a slight variation of wording.

"Jamila" in Arabic means beautiful (could be in character or looks) and only applies to the feminine. In the context of the hadeeth, we see that the Prophet most likely mean't beauty for the character. Because the Prophet did not change the women's name from 'ugly' to 'beautiful' (which would imply physical appearance) but from 'disobedient' to 'beautiful' (which would imply character). So we see that the Prophet did not only give good names to men.

As for the title of Al SIDDIQ going to Abu Bakr, this is a different story. His actual name is not AL SIDDIQ. It is a title, his name remained as Abu Bakr. As for the title of Muhammad meaning "praised one" going to the Prophet well there is nothing wrong with this at all because it is TRUE. He is the Prophet and this is specific for him. If people today call themselves Muhammad it won't be because they are praising themselves, but that they are doing this out of love for the Prophet and want to have his name.

Furthermore, the Prophet specifically prohibited that name Barra. Its not like it was only prohibited for women but allowed for men.

Shamoun then talks about how the Prophet claimed to be an intercessor on the day of judgment. However, Shamoun assumes without evidence that the tone of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is that of arrogance when he was talking. The Prophet was speaking about his status because he was informed by God regarding it. So this is not a matter of the unseen because this has now become public knowledge for us.

However, at the end of the day Shamoun has not proven his first ridiculous argument and that was that the Prophet changed her name from pious because of his "guilty feeling of marrying her".

Refuting Shamoun's section on "Al-Waqidi: A Case of Selectively Citing My Sources? Or Further Evidence of A Muslim's Inability to Address the Real Issues?"

Shamoun says:

As I stated, and as Zawadi himself noted, I clearly said that not everything that al-Waqidi narrated can be considered unreliable, especially when we have corroborating evidence to support his reports.

However, Shamoun does not have corroborating evidence for those two reports. Let me show the narration and specifically highlight which parts of the narration I am arguing is not corroborated by other sound narrations:

Ibn 'Umar [al-Waqidi] - Kathir b. Zayd - al-Walid b. Rabah - Abu Hurayrah: While the Prophet was lying with Safiyyah Abu Ayyub stayed the night at his door. When he saw the Prophet in the morning he said "God is the Greatest." He had a sword with him; he said to the Prophet, "O Messenger of God, this young woman had just been married, and you killed her father, her brother and her husband, so I did not trust her (not to harm) you." The Prophet laughed and said "Good". (The History of al-Tabari, Volume XXXIX (39), p. 185; bold and underline emphasis ours)

I want Shamoun to show me an authentic narration in which the Prophet laughed and said "good".

Secondly, Shamoun accuses me of being inconsistent:

Finally, we would like to expose Zawadi's inconsistency and outright dishonesty by quoting a portion of his "rebuttal" to me where he approvingly cites my reference from al-Tabari, which has al-Waqidi as a narrator, to prove his point:

Secondly, notice what Tabari said:

They tried to drive each other away and fought. Quraysh aided the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under cover of darkness until they drove Khuza'ah into the sacred territory.

According to al-Waqidi: Among the members of Quraysh who helped the Banu Bakr against Khuza'ah that night, concealing their identity, were Safwan b. Umayyah, 'Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Suhayl b. 'Amr, and others, along with their slaves.

When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuza'ah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuza'ah, who had a pact and treaty with him.

So this even goes to show that the Quraysh did help Banu Bakr in attacking the Banu Khuza'ah and this went against the truce they made with the Muslims. ("Muhammad and the Treaty of Hudaybiyya" Revisited; source)

He even cites this very quote again in the following "rebuttal": http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/hudaibiya_part_3.htm

How convenient of Zawadi to use my reference to al-Waqidi to justify Muhammad's treachery and dishonesty! Since Zawadi now demands of me to provide proof that al-Waqidi's narrations are reliable he should have likewise demanded of me to substantiate the above quote regarding Banu Bakr and the Quraysh as well, as opposed to merely taking it at face value.

Ignoramus Shamoun forgets what my main argument was during this whole exchange between me and him on the Hudaybiyyah issue. I argued that the narrations were not reliable and therefore we could not verify what truly happened:

So even according to Sam we cannot be sure about what truly did happen. This is all contradictory evidence. If evidence is contradictory then it is unreliable. Can unreliable evidence be sufficient enough to convict some body of a crime in a reliable court of law? No! So then it cannot be used in this case as well. (Source)

That was my main argument.

I even reiterated my position in the conclusion of my second rebuttal to Shamoun:

However, as I clearly showed in my previous article http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/rebuttal_treaty_of_hudaibiah.htm the facts presented are contradictory and therefore not sufficient enough to make a case due to their unreliability. The burden of proof is on Sam Shamoun to provide evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt that the Prophet broke the treaty. (Source)

So I did acknowledge the unreliability of the reports. However, I just quoted back Tabari against Shamoun because the very source he quoted refuted him. That does not mean that I believed in its reliability or tried to show that I did. But again, since Shamoun can't read my articles properly (he accuses me of doing so with his articles) he went ahead and misrepresented my position to the readers.

Refuting Shamoun's section on "Did Muhammad's Wives Really Have A Choice To Leave?"

It's interesting how Shamoun changes the perspective of his argument. In his first article he gave the impression that the reason why the Prophet's wives didn't leave was because they would have been executed as apostates. So Shamoun was giving the impression that the Prophet's wives really hated Islam deep down in their hearts but pretended to be good Muslims in order to stay alive. And now he is arguing that the Prophet's wives really were believers and the reason why they didn't leave the Prophet was because they feared hell.

Shamoun says:

The evidence we presented indicates that the wives would have been severely punished if any of them decided to leave their religion or marry someone else.

Yes but the law for killing apostates would have come later. If not, then this would have been a special concession for the Prophet's wives because a verse came down specifically being referred to them and promising them safety.

If I were to do so, I could write over a dozen pages showing narrations in which the Prophet's wives were pleased in their marriage and were happy with Islam even after the Prophet's death. I challenge Shamoun to show otherwise. I challenge Shamoun to show evidence that the wives wished that they had divorced the Prophet or were displeased in their marriage to him. It is all assumptions and mind games by Shamoun. That's all. Means absolutely nothing.

Refuting Shamoun's section on "Bassam's Tirade Against the Holy Bible: More Evidence Of Zawadi's Inconsistency"

Shamoun thinks that he can brush aside the links I put forth by posting a big bunch of links. Here are my comments next to some of the links:

http://christian-thinktank.com/quranlike.html (no special refutation, as a matter of fact he justifies the taking of women and children as slaves by claiming self defense. This is exactly my argument with Shamoun. He also argued that it was offensive war against oppression and again this is something that Islam teaches. Read the history of the conquest of Spain by Muslims as a reference. He misrepresents the Islamic position and states that Islam orders this for no justifiable reason)

http://christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html (tries to defend the killing of children by saying that they were collateral damage by saying "The children were not punished FOR the crimes of the father; rather, they were victims OF the crimes of the father. " However, the verse in the Bible is clear that children were to be targeted. He also argued that it was self defense "and responsible Israelite parents would need to do something to protect their lives", however this doesn't justify the intentional targeted killing of the children. The author then comes up with a disgusting logic saying that it was better to give them instant death "people preferred quick deaths over slow agonizing ones, and this data also comes from suicide events.", rather than make them become slaves or leave them in the desert)

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sins_of_prophets.htm (Shamoun attempts to show sins of Prophets from islamic perspective but fails to show anything that is even 1% of the disgust found in the bible)

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm (see rebuttal here)

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/women_in_islam3.htm (see rebuttal here)

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/adam_and_eve_shirk.htm (see rebuttal here)

So much for Shamoun's "wonderful links". In those links provided by Shamoun, they don't even address the arguments that I posted to Shamoun:

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/karim/pregnant_women_ripped_open.htm

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/cannibalism_as_form_of_punishment_in_the_bible__family_members_ordered_to_eat_each_other_up

The links I provided contain information and arguments that have not been refuted by these silly links posted by Shamoun. Even if they were, its not like the "low quality" of the typical Christian response would make the argument go away.

Shamoun then goes on to accuse me of committing a logical fallacy:

Finally, Zawadi's onslaught on the Holy Bible is nothing more than the fallacy of tu quoque (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque). To argue that the Holy Bible contains evil and wicked commands, as Zawadi tries to show, does absolutely nothing to justify Muhammad's vile and immoral behaviour. The most this proves is that both the Holy Bible and the primary sources of Islam are evil and not worthy of our belief.

It doesn't seem like Shamoun didn't read what I said properly (as usual):

Even the false accusations leveled against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are not half as bad as the torture, rape and disgust found in the Bible.

else where I said:

So even if Shamoun is successful in proving his arguments to the Muslims that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was cruel and unjust, he's even pushing us further away from his Bible, because it is much worse than the false accusations put against the noble Prophet. Shamoun shouldn't expect people running to the Bible by giving these kind of arguments against Islam.

So it's not like I argued "well yeah, the Bible contains violence too!". No, no. What I did was refute Shamoun's ridiculous arguments and then showed correct arguments against his Bible. Then I stated that EVEN IF his arguments against the Prophet were true, he would only be pushing us further from the Bible.

A Plea to Shamoun: Please start being objective and stop being a Christian.

Return to Refuting Sam Shamoun

Return to Homepage