While they are all very well-known authors in the Islamic...

While they are all very well-known authors in the Islamic library and most of them wrote other famous books in areas like jurisprudence, narrations (hadith), Rejaal (science of narrators), Usool (foundations), and Foroo’ (branches). Does the defense team also doubt their other books which many laws of Islamic societies were built on?! Does the defense doubt these laws too?! Ladies and gentlemen, surely any religion and all of history was built on books written by witnesses and historians.

If we doubted all of them, then there will be no basis for any religion and all of human history!! In such case, we will not be sure whether Jesus was really the Messiah or whether the story of Moses and Pharaoh was really truth or fantasy. We will have doubt whether Prophets Abraham, Joseph, and David really existed or were imaginary characters. Or whether historical figures such as Napoleon, Alexander the great, Julius Caesar, Neiron, and Bismarck were fake personalities or real!

Now is that what the defense wants to convince us with and want to defend their case through doubting your history and religion, even your present and future! Indeed, if historical evidence came from multiple different sources and pointed consistently to one direction, then without a doubt it is qualified to be taken as valid evidence for conviction. Many people have relied on that logical premise in past civil and criminal cases.

As for the talk about nervous reactions, tension, and emotional responses, etc, these excuses do not justify committing crimes in such great scale against children, women, and elderly in cold blood. Such excuses may be used to justify unintentional actions like breaking something or causing a car accident or manslaughter. As for using this pretext to justify war crimes, crimes against humanity, and mass murder, that is certainly unacceptable.

Otherwise, anyone can justify killing thousands of people due to personal mood change resulting from stress. That is clear insanity which cannot be justified by any logic! As for defending the Third defendant Umar ibn Sa’d by claiming that he was only a commander obeying the orders of his master, we respond by saying that the Third defendant had an opportunity to relief himself and resign from the commandership of that army.