Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Osama Abdallah's Obsession with Pedophilia in the Bible" article:

This article is a rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's article that is located at: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Osama/pedophilia.htm. 

This article will once again DEBUNK Sam Shamoun's desperate attempts to refute the irrefutable points that I posted on my site regarding the sick Bible's pedophilia with 3-year old girls; YES 3-YEAR OLD GIRLS! (you literally sometimes have to read things TWICE to believe them!!).  It will also expose Shamoun's deliberate LIES that he fabricated about me, my points and my site.  He will once again be proven without doubt that he is truly the biggest clown from among the team of liars, "answering Islam".  To get a feel of how much of a true clown Shamoun really is, please visit: 

My annihilation to his lie on "lesbianism in Islam" that he tried to fabricate during our conversation.

Before we start:

This article will also expose the 'Answering Islam' team's hypocrisy for being very quick to claim that Islam is a lie and Prophet Muhammad is a false Prophet and pedophile for MARRYING (not raping) a 9-year old girl whose parents agreed to her marriage and all of the Arabs back then pagans and Muslims agreed too by showing no objections!  The reason no one objected to the marriage was because:

1-  It was widely practiced among Arabs that little girls be married.

2-  People lived short lives due to lack of medicine and much diseases.   Their life span was around 40 to 60 years of age MAXIMUM!.  Some even died much earlier.  So it is only normal and natural to see 10 or 9-year old girls be married off.  People still do it today in the Muslim and non-Muslim third world countries!

The liars have no problem charging Prophet Muhammad with the "pedophile" lie.  But when it comes to Moses and the laws of allowing the Bible-followers to force 3-year old slave girls into sex, we see them silent.

In fact, Shamoun's points during his debate with me revolved around the point of Aisha being 9 years old.

They know that they have nothing of substance beside this silly point of Aisha being 9 years old that they emphasize too much about, while the Arabs 1500 years ago saw no problem with it.

This article will once again expose these clowns, and make them clearly look like utter fools, and most importantly, absolute hypocrites!  Insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing).

He wrote:

Osama Abdallah’s Obsession with Pedophilia

Fantasizing Pedophilia into the Holy Bible

Sam Shamoun

After our debate regarding Muhammad’s prophetic claims (available here), Osama Abdallah, of the Answering Christianity website(*), has tried to do some post-debate damage-control. For instance, in order to justify some of the perverted and sick practices of Islam which were raised in the debate, specifically in regards to pedophilia, Osama has greatly intensified his attack on the Holy Bible for certain statements and commands relating to women. Osama has posted the following text on his entry page, and at the top of nearly every page on his site:

My response:

Sam Shamoun starts off his article by making a very silly remark that he himself knows is not anywhere close to the Truth; not even 1%.  As of 9/26/2004, my web site contains almost 1000 articles.  I only posted the below points (which he took off the links and a spelled-out URL from them to prevent the reader from really visiting the links to see the further irrefutable proofs), to 7 article.  And I also posted it at the top of my message board and programmed it to be read in every post on my message board to make it clear to the reader that the horny and pornful bible is the real book of terrorism and pedophilia.

Also, as to the debate, Shamoun likes to glorify himself a lot.  He is both dumb and arrogant, but his stupidity is far worse than his arrogance.  He likes to wax himself to give false illusions.  The reason why I raised the "Aisha being 9" issue is not because of a worthless loser like you.  I raised it because it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.  Islam-haters use this point (one of the very few MAJOR point against Islam) to disprove Islam.  I simply proved that Aisha's parents not only approved the marriage 1500 years ago, and the Arabs too approved it back then, but the Biblical Prophets also practiced it.  It was ordinary for young girls to be given away in marriage in the Bible as I will prove without doubt below.

Also as to the debate, it is clear that Shamoun LOST the debate without doubt.  The thing is that because it was my first time debating, I fumbled and ran out of time.  Shamoun on the other hand was comfortable and used his fireworks and false illusions and prove his pagan theology.  But despite the disadvantages that I was in, Shamoun MISERABLY FAILED to respond to:

1-  The contradictions and errors in the Bible that I presented in the debate.

2-  My "rat" analogy about Jesus.  Jesus, Shamoun's god, escaped to Egypt from King Herod.  How can GOD Almighty, the One and Only Sovereign LORD of the Universe who Created all things run like a "rat" from King Herod to Egypt?  Jesus obviously was not GOD Almighty as the polytheist trinitarian pagans claim.

3-  Isaiah 42 Prophecied about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.  Not only that, but the people of "Kedar" (which are the Saudis and Yemenis today) are ALL MUSLIMS TODAY.  Isaiah 42 says that they will "rejoice" from what the "Light of the Gentiles" in "Arabia" brings them.  Not only this clearly speaks about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, but Jesus in the Bible never visited Arabia!  This goes again back to my "rat" analogy, because I said that he only went to Palestine and Egypt. 

Shamoun is only good in giving false illusions and self-glorifications.  Like I said, he is both dumb and arrogant, but unfortunately for him, his stupidity is far worse than his arrogance.  He's hilarious indeed.

Also, Shamoun fabricated a sick lie against Islam during the debate.  Here is the proof:

From www.answering-christianity.com/expose_lies.htm:

1-  My debate with Mr. Sam Shamoun on "Is Prophet Muhammad a true Prophet?":

Please be advised that this was my very first debate and I did run short on time to cover all of my points.  I also got confused and fumbled a little bit.  But nonetheless, I was still able to disprove the trinity lie, expose the Bible's corruptions and prove that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was indeed GOD Almighty's True Prophet.

Very important Note about Shamoun's fabricated lies:

Throughout the debate, Mr. Shamoun failed to give a single reference to any of the 'Hadiths' sources that he used.  After further investigation, I discovered that much of what he said was MIXED with fabricated lies!  An example of this when he said that the Prophet used to "gently rub his private against Aisha's thighs".  No where in any Islamic text does this exist.  It is obvious that Shamoun fabricated this lie during the debate and took advantage of the time limits in the debate.

Also, in the Islamic tradition, wives are not elaborated on.   Women and their personal lives with their husbands are considered very personal and almost sacred.  How is it possible for the quote that Shamoun used be true when it was virtually impossible for Aisha or the Prophet to be talking about this to anyone?   He had been known to resort to lies to prove his polytheist trinity paganism lie [1] [2] [3] [4].  A liar proving his lies.  Hilarious indeed.

Comments and analysis from Nadir Ahmed proving that I won the debate.   (Please ignore his bad manners)
My response to the negative remarks said by Nadir Ahmed about me and my site.

Audio Debate
Questions & Answers 1
Questions & Answers 2 (During this session, I had many contacts and distractions. I admit that I did a poor job in answering questions during the session that I have already addressed their points during the Audio Debate, such as "Early Christians' doctrines didn't believe in Crucifixion". I should've given the answer again to the questions).

Also, during the Questions & Answers 2 session, one Christian liar who asked a question gave a false reference claiming that the Prophet had a woman "piss on him".  This same liar is known to be a complete clown on Paltalk as I exposed him when I answered him. Even Sam Shamoun said that he never heard of such incident.   In Islam, fornication is treated with 100 flogs, and adultery is treated with stoning to death.  Plus, women are commanded to cover up their bodies except for the face, hands and feet, and both men and women are Commanded to remain Chaste.  But again, due to the overwhelming distractions that I had from many viewers, I did not give a refuting answer to the lie.   It just passed me without being refuted.

Question on Shamoun's integrity during the debate:
It is interesting to know that Sam Shamoun insisted on having this clown ask a question from the long list of audience.   Was it a deliberate trick between the two of them?  And why was I distracted a lot only during this session and especially when the liar and clown asked his question?  Why did Shamoun pick this loser to ask his question from the long list of audience?

    Elaborations on the debates' points:

• The Bible under the Mosaic Law literally forced 3-year old slave girls into sex.  Yet, Mr. Shamoun during the debate emphasized on sexual morality in the "Mosaic Law", when the Bible is notorious in pedophilia.  Mr. Shamoun was inconsistent for using his Bible as a standard for "sexual morality" when the book was notorious in sexual inconsistencies and pedophilia.
• Comments and analysis from Nadir Ahmed proving that I won the debate.  (Please ignore his bad manners)
• My response to the negative remarks said by Nadir Ahmed about me and my site.
• Sam Shamoun lied, deliberately lied, when he said that I misquoted the NIV Bible's Commentary that exposed his Bible's corruptions.
• Mr. Shamoun further embarrasses himself, and ironically, slips and admits TWICE that his bible is corrupt in this small email debate.
• Did Prophet Muhammad truly marry his daughter in law?  Or is this just another lie?
• Temporary Marriage (Muta) was allowed by the Prophet temporarily to prevent adultery, fornication and rape.

Side notes and rebuttal for Mr. Sam Shamoun on the Aisha's age and her being "too young":

Even in today's societies, and especially in the third-world countries, we find girls getting married at very young ages.  How is it fair to negatively judge our beloved Prophet and his culture who existed 1500 years ago that did what we still do today?  Also, what about Aisha's PARENTS (MOM AND DAD)?  Didn't they see it right and fit to marry their daughter at that age and at that time?  Who are we to judge?

*** A picture and news paper article about a 9-year old girl from Thailand gave birth

*** A 12-year old Christian girl getting married in Romania

Also, didn't the Biblical Prophets marry 100s of wives each?   Is it possible that some of those wives were little girls as well?  It's both highly probable and possible!

Also, Mary is believe to have been 12-14 when she had Jesus.

Aisha was "9" when she married our Prophet.  If this is weird or unacceptable to you, then are BOTH HER PARENTS and the whole Arabs' culture BACK THEN also guilty for giving her and others like her in marriage to other men, 1500 years ago?

Also, see why Muta (temporary) Marriage was allowed and why it was discontinued.

He wrote:

1-  Young girls in the Bible and Talmud, as young as 3, being married off:

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."

In the Torah (In the Book of Numbers in the Bible), after the conquest of Midian and Moab, and the great venereal plague, Moses (peace be on him) ordered that all the women "who have known a man" be killed but that "all the young girls, who have not known a man by lying with him" be kept alive for the Israelites.

Since the only females left fit for marriage and wholesome relations were prepubescent virgins, a Jewish law concerning child marriage was enacted. That law is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

"Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'

Mishnah: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse.

Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "

Is the GOD of Israel a pedophile?

Quick side Note:   Numbers 31:35-40 "[From the captives of war] 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.......of which the tribute for the LORD was 32 [among them were virgin girls]." Even though GOD Almighty's share of the 32 virgin girls is metaphoric, meaning that He didn't come down and have sex with them, but if any wants to call Prophet Muhammad a pedophile or womanizer for marrying (his best friend's daughter with both her parents' approval) a young girl and marrying multiple women throughout his life, then he should not only call his Biblical Prophets as such, but also the GOD of Israel Himself!

Anyway continuing with the above Talmudic quotes, today, the Jewish law for marriage, sets the age of consent for females at 11. (Consent is only one way of marriage) I do not know if modern Jewish law still allows (in theory) betrothal by intercourse as it was practiced in ancient times. ...

By the way, please visit: X-Rated Pornography in the Bible. The Bible literally says that women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".

Also visit: Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible.

2-  Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls to other men in the Bible:

Exodus 21:7-11
7. "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8. "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9. "If he designates her for his son [Note: "his son" means that the master is either her father's age or even much older!], he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10. "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11. "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

First of all, did the daughter have any choice to be sold off by her father, married off by her master to either himself or his son?  No!

Also, the fact that the master can either marry her or marry her off to his son, means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!!  So he's probably at least 30+ years older than her.  Yet, he himself (her father's age or even MUCH older) can marry her.

Again, please visit: X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.  The Bible literally says that women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".

Also visit: Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible.

Also, the fact that there is no AGE LIMIT to how girls in the Bible were sold off and married off to other men, WITHOUT ANY CHOICE, who were much much older than them as also the case with the Biblical Prophets who married 100s of wives each clearly proves the hypocrisy of some Christians who attack Islam through Aisha's very young age, while they clearly ignore the same fact in their own Bible. ...

RESPONSE:

The following biblical passage perfectly describes Osama:

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." Titus 1:15 NIV

Since Osama has been influenced by Islam to see things in either a grossly distorted or sexually perverted manner, it is little wonder that Osama reads things that are nowhere stated, or even implied, into the texts.

My response:

First of all, the reader needs to note that Sam Shamoun is VERY SCARED to keep the links that I originally posted.  He deliberately removed them.  I wonder why.  He also INTENTIONALLY removed a spelled-out link that I wrote.  So, not only he is a coward, but he is also a liar for technically misquoting me.  The link that I spelled out is: www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm.  Please visit either my main page or www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm to see the exact words that I typed and also to be able to visit the links that provide AMPLE more evidence and Bibliography to the claims I made.

The most hilarious thing of all is that Shamoun quoted Titus 1:15 from his Bible while he is a coward and a misquoter who deliberately misleads his readers.  He is indeed very hilarious for saying that this verse applies to me while he is too scared to even keep my links in his paper to allow the reader to FAIRLY read both side's views.

He wrote:

Before we present a careful exegesis of the abused Biblical passages of Exodus 21 and Numbers 31, we need to make some additional observations regarding the above cited charges.

As it is his custom, Osama makes wild claims about the Bible. Let’s first turn to the last of the above quoted statements: "the fact that ... as also the case with the Biblical Prophets who married 100s of wives each ..." Really? THE Biblical prophets married HUNDREDS of wives EACH? By speaking not only of "some", but of "THE Biblical Prophets (plural and definite article!)", and adding "each", Osama tries to create the impression in the minds of the readers that most (if not all) of the prophets in the Bible had HUNDREDS (note again the plural!) of wives. Osama has apparently lost all concern for being truthful in his statements.

My response:

First of all, I never said "all of the Prophets".  Second, when I said the word "married", I meant for it to also include the slave-girls who they had sex with.  Like for instance, Solomon's son Rehoboam had 86 children (28 sons and 60 daughters).  Obviously this big number of children did not come from one or two or three wives.  They had to come from many wives:

Also, the Bible allows for the man to marry an INFINITE amount of women:

Exodus 21:10  "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."

That is why the Biblical Prophets knew of no limits as to how many women they can marry. 

He wrote:

The only example he could validly give is Solomon, and even here his example backfires against him:

"Now King Solomon loved many foreign women: the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabite, Ammonite, E'domite, Sido'nian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, ‘You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods’; Solomon clung to these in love. He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ash'toreth the goddess of the Sido'nians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. So Solomon DID WHAT WAS EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD commanded. Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, ‘Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.’" 1 Kings 11:1-13 RSV

God was very angry that Solomon had married many foreign wives, which caused him to turn away from the pure worship of the true God. Now, since this is the only Biblical example of a person marrying hundreds of wives, and since these wives led the heart of the king away from his pure devotion to Yahweh, does Osama really feel comfortable in appealing to this event as a comparison with Muhammad’s marriages, specifically sex with a minor? Does Osama really want to accept the implications of this passage upon his own prophet, that since God was angry with Solomon for violating his explicit command not to marry multiple foreign wives, since they would lead him away from the fear of Yahweh, this means that Allah was also displeased with Muhammad for marrying so many wives, since it caused him to be more preoccupied with his carnal pleasures than with the worship of Allah?

My response:

Notice how Shamoun tries to desperately fool his reader by creating the FALSE IMPRESSION AND LIE that GOD Almighty got mad at King Solomon for marrying multiple women.  I don't care what kind of women Solomon married.  He could've married female apes for all I care.  My point valid points are:

1-  Sex with 100s of slave-women and wives was practiced in the Bible.  This is what I meant by saying "marriage".

2-  The Bible gives no limits as to how many wives a man can have, and that is why the Biblical Prophets knew of no limits as to how many wives they can have.

He wrote:

In fact, Muhammad’s marriages to multiple women, although not being a direct violation of the OT commandment, does violate Muhammad’s own standards:

And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice. S. 4:3 Pickthall

Allah, Muhammad’s god, permitted Muslims to marry up to four wives. And yet Muhammad, according to the traditions, had 11 wives at one time:

Narrated Qatada:
Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268)

Thus, Muhammad was inconsistent since he failed to live up to his own moral standards, which he claimed were given to him by his god. Either that is the case, or Allah exists to please Muhammad, since he allows the latter to satisfy his carnal cravings, even if it means breaking an express command. It is little wonder that Aisha could say:

Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily)." (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311)

Osama’s claim is formulated so that the reader gets the impression that all the prophets in the Bible married hundreds of wives. Clearly, this polemical formulation is chosen to deceive, and so we challenge Osama:

Please produce the biblical references showing that the prophets of God had hundreds of wives.

My response:

The Prophet peace be upon him married women for political reasons.  Because the Arabs had the tribal mentality, he tried to gain them to Islam by marrying from their women.  None of the Prophet's women, except for Aisha, was a virgin.  Marrying a virgin was a big deal and still is among Arabs and most nations world-wide.  The Prophet's wives were not that attractive as far as social status.

When the Noble Verse 4:3 was revealed to our Prophet peace be upon him, GOD Almighty made it clear that Muslim men can marry up to 4 wives, and His, the Almighty's, preference is to marry only one woman:

Let us look at Noble Verse 4:3 "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice." Notice how Allah Almighty orders men to be either fair to their wives or never marry more than one wife.

Let us look at Noble Verse 4:129 "Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."  Here we clearly see that Allah Almighty tells men that they will never be fair to their wives.

As we clearly see in the Noble Verses above, the Law of polygamy was sent down to protect the Orphans.  After the battle of Uhud that the Muslims lost, almost half of the Muslim men were killed in the battle.  So to protect the Muslims and to balance the ratio between men and women, Allah Almighty allowed for polygamy to be practiced (where a man can marry up to 4 wives).  But He, the Almighty, also made it clear in Noble Verse 4:129 that He doesn't really favor the law of polygamy.

As to the Prophet peace be upon him having 11 wives before the Revelation of Noble Verse 4:3, this doesn't mean anything, because the Prophet's marriages came before the Noble Verse, and thus, they don't count as a point against him.

The liar Sam Shamoun and his team of clowns are trying to portray the false lie about Prophet Muhammad being selfish and contradicting to his own laws for marrying 11 wives when the Noble Quran only limits marriage to 4 wives maximum.  This is a lie and a deception to the reader. 

If anything, this only shows and proves that these clowns really have nothing of substance against Islam what so ever!

As to his request for me to produce the Biblical references about the Prophets had 100s of wives, I've already addressed this above.

He wrote:

Osama’s title (1-  Young girls in the Bible and Talmud, as young as 3, being married off) claims that, IN THE BIBLE, girls of age three are married off. This is false. He has not given ANY supporting evidence for this claim. He quotes from the Talmud, but the Talmud is not part of the Holy Bible, and it never was. Osama’s attack on the Holy Bible is slander, false testimony, and a plain lie. At this point, we have no intention or interest in discussing the Talmud, but suffice it to say, it is not the inspired Word of God, and simply doesn’t establish morality or ethics for Christian believers. The Talmud is a collection of opinions of Jewish rabbis, and is useful in helping us to understand the historical situation of the Jews after the NT era, and some of the practices that were being observed during the time of Christ, but its teachings and standards are subject to the written Word of God. Therefore, when the Talmud clearly contradicts or misinterprets an express biblical command, it is to be rejected by all Bible-believing Christians.

Again, in order to attack the Bible, Osama presents a statement taken from the Talmud, and then claims that this is what the Bible says. To do this even once is a very bad error. However, Osama uses this particular deception systematically. Twice in the above quoted piece (and in many other places as well), he urges people to visit his earlier article, Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible. However, in the article itself, there is not even one reference to the Bible that supports this claim.

My response:

No one here is saying that the Christians are obligated to follow the Talmud.  I used the Talmud's historical elaborations on specific verses in the Bible as proof for:

1-  The Bible's pedophilia.

2-  The Bible condoning the act of forcing 3-year old girls into sex.

Also, the Christians are not the only followers of the Bible!  The Jews too are followers, and everything they do counts for and against the Bible, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS A DIRECT ORDER GIVEN BY MOSES.  And as to the fathers sticking their fingers into their daughter's vaginas article, I have given most of my evidence from the Apocrypha, and not the Talmud.  The Apocrypha is used even today by Roman Catholics.

Again, here is what I wrote so the reader can see the whole picture, instead of the one that the liar posted:

Aisha in Islam:

Let's discuss the age of Aisha being 9 when she married our Prophet in Islam!!

Young girls in the Bible and Jewish Talmud.  Let's look at two main points in the Bible:

1-  Young girls in the Bible and Talmud, as young as 3, being married off:

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."

In the Torah (In the Book of Numbers in the Bible), after the conquest of Midian and Moab, and the great venereal plague, Moses (peace be on him) ordered that all the women "who have known a man" be killed but that "all the young girls, who have not known a man by lying with him" be kept alive for the Israelites.

Since the only females left fit for marriage and wholesome relations were prepubescent virgins, a Jewish law concerning child marriage was enacted. That law is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

"Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'

Mishnah: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse.

Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "

Bibliography and references are available at this article:

(http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm)

Anyway continuing with the above Talmudic quotes, today, the Jewish law for marriage, sets the age of consent for females at 11. (Consent is only one way of marriage) I do not know if modern Jewish law still allows (in theory) betrothal by intercourse as it was practiced in ancient times.

Thirty years ago, the renowned sexologist R.E.L. Masters and Allan Edwardes said in their study of Afro-Asian sexual expression (_The Cradle of Erotica_, Julian Press, New York:1962) said, "Today, in many parts of North Africa, Arabia, and India, girls are wedded and bedded between the ages of five and nine; and no self-respecting female remains unmarried beyond the age of puberty."


**** Also, the age consent in the US and Europe only 100 years ago for girls' marriage was as little as 10, and some popular men figures married little girls who were as young as their daughters.  I have provided the Western links and proofs.

By the way, please visit: X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.  The Bible literally says that women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".

Also visit: Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible.

2-  Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls to other men in the Bible:

Exodus 21:7-11
7. "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8. "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9. "If he designates her for his son [Note: "his son" means that the master is either her father's age or even much older!], he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10. "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11. "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

First of all, did the daughter have any choice to be sold off by her father, married off by her master to either himself or his son?  No!

Also, the fact that the master can either marry her or marry her off to his son, means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!!  So he's probably at least 30+ years older than her.  Yet, he himself (her father's age or even MUCH older) can marry her.

Again, please visit: X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.  The Bible literally says that women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".

Also visit: Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible.

Also, the fact that there is no AGE LIMIT to how girls in the Bible were sold off and married off to other men, WITHOUT ANY CHOICE, who were much much older than them as also the case with the Biblical Prophets who married 100s of wives each clearly proves the hypocrisy of some Christians who attack Islam through Aisha's very young age, while they clearly ignore the same fact in their own Bible.  Here is a sample of the 100s of wives of the Biblical Prophets:

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

Please visit: Aisha was "9" when she married our Prophet.  If this is weird or unacceptable to you, then are BOTH HER PARENTS and the whole Arabs' culture BACK THEN also guilty for giving her and others like her in marriage to other men, 1500 years ago?

Even today, girls in many third-world countries are married off at the same or similar age.  Also, it is believed by many Jews and Roman Catholics that Mary was 12 - 14 when she had Jesus.   Also as I said, the Biblical Prophets who had 100s of wives each most probably married young girls as well.

Also, what about Aisha's PARENTS (MOM AND DAD)?   Didn't they see it right and fit to marry their daughter at that age and at that time?   Who are we to judge?

Also, see why Muta (temporary) Marriage was allowed and why it was discontinued.

He wrote:

In his first section quoted above, Osama makes a further unsupported and unproven assumption:

Since the only females left fit for marriage and wholesome relations were prepubescent virgins, a Jewish law concerning child marriage was enacted. That law is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

He assumes that every girl had intercourse immediately after reaching puberty, i.e. there did not exist any mature virgins. This is hardly a reasonable assumption. Further, he assumes that the Israelites were supposed to have sex with all of those women and girls immediately. Nothing in the text even remotely suggests this erroneous interpretation. It is more likely that those girls were given time to grow up until they reached normal marriage age.

My response:

Before I soundly debunk his points, notice the hypocrisy of Sam Shamoun and his team of clowns.  They are very quick to claim that Islam is a lie and Prophet Muhammad is a false Prophet and pedophile for MARRYING (not raping) a 9-year old girl whose parents agreed to her marriage and all of the Arabs back then, pagans and Muslims!  The reason no one objected to the marriage was because:

1-  It was widely practiced among Arabs that little girls be married.

2-  People lived short lives due to lack of medicine and much diseases.   Their life span was around 40 to 60 years of age.  So it is only normal and natural to see 10 or 9-year old girls be married off.  People still do it today in the Muslim and non-Muslim third world countries!

Anyway, Shamoun again tried to fabricate another lie about the 3-year old girls never been forced into sex after Moses' order.  I will let the Babylonian Talmud, which contains the detailed historical elaborations and proofs about the event, expose his lie:

From www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm (Note that this is the link that Shamoun deliberately removed when he quoted me after I spelled it out):

The following was taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html regarding Numbers 31:17-18 in the Bible:

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."

Children

Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the "sages of blessed memory... whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism" [131]:

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4].
Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]

R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]."
For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."'
[37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]."
Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety."
That is self-evident!
Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133]

The basis for these rulings is the following Mishnaic passage of Tractate Niddah (filth):

A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."
And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. If she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. If one of those who are unfit for marriage has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her did so, they are put to death on her account. But she is free of responsibility.
If she is younger than that age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye.
(Mishnah Niddah 5:4) [134]

Thus, one "of the many important issues worked out in the Mishnah concerns proper conduct with women," [135] and the "entire society of Judaism – that is, the community formed by the Torah – found in the Talmud those modes of thought and inquiry, those media of order and value, that guided the formation of public affairs and private life as well." [136]

While it is reassuring to see there was at least some limit as to what the sages would declare holy and moral, this ruling had severe implications on the interpretation of other topics as well. The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of Moses to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children:

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17).
[This] refers to her who has slept with a man as well as her who is suitable for intercourse, even when she has not slept with a man...
But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. From here R. Shimon b. Yohai used to say: a Proselyte girl who became a proselyte in the age of less than three years and one day, is rendered fit to marry into the priesthood." [137]

According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, Moses therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138]

Bibliography:

[131] Ibid., vol.XXI.A-D, Tractate Bava Mesia, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1990, p.ix-x.

[132] Ibid., vol.XXIII.B, Tractate Sanhedrin 1984, 150. See also vol.XIX.A, Tractate Qiddushin 10a-b, 1992, 33. "Menstruating" here of course refers to the ritual "flux uncleanness" described in Lev.15.

[133] Ibid., vol.XXV.A, Tractate Abodah Zarah, 1991, 168. Emphasis original.

[134] J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. A complete outline, Part IV. The Division of Holy Things. B. Number 37. 1995, 704.

[135] Neusner 1993, 41.

[136] Neusner 1995, 7.

[137] Kuhn 1959, §157, 652f. My translation. In general, proselytes are not allowed to marry into the priesthood.

[138] Ibid., §157, footnote 86, 653.

Shamoun apparently thinks of his Christian readers as ones who can be fooled by his tricks and lies.  Everyone who is famaliar with Shamoun knows that he is a master in delusions.

He thinks he is slick, but unfortunately for him, he is easily exposed, and he is easily proven to be a liar and a fool.

He wrote:

Finally, without giving any evidence, Osama connects this particular statement of the Talmud with the relevant biblical passage. Is this really the proper context? Is that the reason for the Talmudic statement?

In the second section there is yet another paragraph of unwarranted assumptions:

Also, the fact that the master can either marry her or marry her off to his son, means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!! So he's probably at least 30+ years older than her.  Yet, he himself (her father's age or even MUCH older) can marry her.

Osama assumes that the girl is sold into some kind of ‘black box’ without a clue whom she will end up with, as if the father would give his daughter away, not knowing whom she is going to be married to. This is very unlikely, as we will see below. We agree that the text does not explicitly preclude that the husband may be substantially older than the new wife, but we never made an argument against a young woman marrying an older man per se. There is a huge difference between a 60-year old man marrying a 20-year old woman, and a 50-year old man marrying a 10-year old girl, even though the age difference between them is the same in both examples. Given Osama's emphasis on "three year old girls", and that these passages, according to Osama, are supposed to offset the problem of 53-year old Muhammad marrying 9-year old Aisha, he seems to assume that (a) the girl is very young, and (b) the marriage (and subsequently sexual relations) will take place immediately. In all of this, Osama argues essentially from silence. He merely displays his vivid imaginations, but does not present what the text actually says. More will be said about Osama's above argument later in this rebuttal.

Christian writer, philosopher, and apologist, Glenn Miller, has written two superb articles dispelling the gross myths and misrepresentations of what Exodus 21:7-11 and Numbers 31 actually imply. So instead of reinventing the wheel, we will simply quote the relevant parts of the paper to dispel Osama’s misreading and distortion of the texts.

Regarding Exodus 21:7-11, Miller writes:

• Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt (which generally DID conform to the "western" paradigm described above). She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:

   

  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut 5.13f)

  When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deut 24.21)

  If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. (Deut 15.15; note: this is a 'standard' case of debt-slavery, and is different from cases of 'selling a daughter' for a dowry-less marriage--a la Exodus 21--discussed below.)

[ ... ]

Pushback: "Whoa, whoa! Can we not gloss/skip over that last point! I am reeeely bothered by that 'your wife stays here' clause…Can you explain how the various exit scenarios looked, in the case of a Hebrew debt-slave's going free? And is it true that a man could sell his daughter into slavery without any HOPE of freedom for her????

Sure, pal--I'll be glad to (but you'll regret asking me to interrupt the flow of this, with my typically verbose response ... smile)

Here are the two passages, both in Exodus 21 (translation from the Jewish Publication Society version):

"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone." (21.2-4)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment." (21.7-11)

The way I want to approach this is to sketch out the marriage process background (rel. to OT and some ANE aspects), and map these scenarios onto them.

First, the process of getting married (for normal folks).

1. The parents of two families (or head-of-household, often the father, but not exclusively--Hagar 'took a wife for Ishmael out of Egypt', Gen 21,21) discuss and agree on a marriage/union between their respective son/daughter, in the context of a union of families--not of individuals. (The daughter, depending on her age, might have been a participant in these discussions, of course):

"Customs varied over time and place, but the process of marriage included at least four stages: (1) the engagement, (2) payments by the families of both the bride (dowry) and the groom (bride-price), (3) the bride's move to her father-in-law's house, and (4) sexual intercourse." [OT:DLAM, 133]

"Second, a father arranged for the marriage of his daughter by finding a suitable husband for her and negotiating the terms of the marriage." [HI:MFBW, 55]

"When parents deemed their child to be approaching marriageable age, the father of the groom would contact the parents of the potential spouse and negotiate the terms of the marriage, specifically the nature and size of the mohar, "marriage present" ..." [HI:MFBW, 57]

"If the groom died or had a change of heart, his father could insist that the bride be given to one of the groom's brothers if one were available and of age. That is, the bride married into her husband's family--she did not marry an individual." [OT:DLAM, 134f]

"The control of marriages and offspring was also patriarchal. A woman’s father decided whom she could marry (Exod 22:17), although there is evidence that daughters were consulted (cf. Gen 24:55-58)." ["Patriarchy As An Evil That God Tolerated: Analysis And Implications For The Authority Of Scripture", Guenther Haas, Jnl of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3, Sept 1995]

2. This mohar was once thought of (and still called in the literature) as a 'bride price', but more recently it is understood as a 'bride-present' (since sometimes the bride got to keep it herself). It is a payment made by the father of the groom, to the father of the bride:

"The contract described in the Laws of Eshnunna was between the two families, commonly represented by the fathers. For the groom's family, the contract concerned payment of the bride-price, which was a considerable sum of silver in the Old Babylonian period. The bride-price was an act of good faith, insuring the grooms' right to the bride." [OT:DLAM, 133]

"While some have interpreted the mohar as a purchase price, it is preferable to see it as a deposit delivered to the parents of the bride to promote the stability of the marriage and to strengthen the links between the families of those being married." [HI:MFBW, 57]

"The father of the girl negotiated a bride-price with the groom or groom's father, with an expected amount the baseline, the mohar habbetulot, set at fifty shekels, but with no upper limit." [HI:HALOT,:2:1007; Note: this amount in the ANE at that time would have been the value of 5 years of a hired person's labor.]

3. However, depending on the circumstances of the families, this bride-price (and counterpart, the dowry of the girl) could be paid in installments, in non-cash items such as clothing (Judg 14:8-20), and/or in services:

"Normally, the bride-price consisted of sliver or goods, but it could be services ... Jacob worked seven years for Rachel and Leah respectively." [HI:HALOT,:2:1007]

"A fiancé could compound for the payment of the mohar by service, as Jacob did for both his marriages (Gn 29:15-30), or by accomplishing an appointed task, as David did for Mikal (1 S 18.25-27) and Othniel for Calab's daughter (Jos 15:16 = Jg 1:12)." [AI:1, 26f]

"Both the bride-price and the dowry could be paid in installments until the first child was born, at which time the balance of both payments was due. The marriage was legally finalized, and the mother assumed the legal rights of 'wife'." [OT:DLAM, 133]

My response:

For the reader's convenience, I will repaste the part that deals with Shamoun's above nonsense:

Once again, Shamoun is trying to fool his reader and save face by saying "This is very unlikely..."  As we clearly see, he is giving BIASED assumptions for his pedophilic bible, and he is now using those assumptions as truth.   Unfortunately for Shamoun, his readers are much smarter than what he thinks.   The pornful bible, the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can suck their sisters' and lovers' vaginas and breasts, clearly makes the following points about Exodus 21:7-11 above:

1-  Daughters had no choice if their fathers decided to sell them.

2-  The now slave-daughters have no choice if their masters wish to marry them to themselves or to their sons.

3-  There is absolutely no age limit to when the girl can be sold off or married off.

4-  From what's we've seen so far in the Talmud, people back then did not have any problem in forcing little girls, even as young as 3, into sex.  So therefore, a father selling his 10-year old daughter as a slave girl to another man who was his age was very likely and IT DEFINITELY HAPPENED, since we already know the facts about extremely young girls.

I challenge Sam Shamoun to produce one biblical verse that gives minimum age limit to when girls can be sold off (beyond their wills) or married off.

He wrote:

Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling' his daughter ....

1. The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable', 'mercenary' act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for his daughter (generally thought to be under extreme duress):

• "Lagas-Girsu legal texts show children being sold into slavery, and this led the texts' editor to posit a weak family bond. If, as seems likely, the parents were choosing life over death for their children, one does not need to doubt their devotion to the children [OT:LIANE, 35]

   

• "While this legal right of parents was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]

   

  "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class." [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]

   

   

• "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no compensation for the purchase price." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

   

2. Secondly, commentators are quick to point out that this 'selling' isn’t real slavery--its very, very different from 'regular' slavery transactions. [This case is different than the debt-slave situation, in that (1) it is done by the father for a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female; (2) it is about marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor, and is therefore exempt from the must-wait-six-years provision--indeed release would not have to wait nearly that long at all [the 'master' would know very soon if he was not pleased with the bride-to-be]; (3) has multiple exit conditions; and (4) has additional protections and guarantees in it]:

• "Older views held that Mesopotamian marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which the groom purchased the bride, and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations that were being forged by the new union. But it is not helpful to see marriage as purchase because the bride's family too usually presented gifts to the groom's family; instead, marriage seems more a change in status for both parties, like adoption." [OT:LIANE, 52]

   

• "The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. ... Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slave-bride are given in sequence to the "guiding principles" for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]

   

• "The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

   

• "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. ... The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

3. The odd mixture of 'slave' words and 'marriage' words designate this individual as a 'concubine'. Concubines in the ancient world were essentially wives whose offspring were not automatically in the inheritance/succession line. They had all the legal rights of wives, but they had typically originated in a state of slavery. They were subordinate to freeborn-wives (if there were any in the household), and their offspring could be successors ONLY IF the offspring were legally 'adopted' or publicly acclaimed by the owner. They could be legally 'promoted' to full wife status (in the ANE).

• "In Assyria a man could raise a concubine to the status of a wife." [OT:DLAM, 136]

   

• "The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter to be the slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a stranger. If he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first. If he intends her to be his son's wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family." [AI:1, 86]

   

• "This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived up to the agreement made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, then she was to treated as a daughter. And if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his concubine's conjugal rights, food, or clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]

   

• "In addition to the regular wife or wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or concubines who would bear children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's behavior toward a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also apply in a major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with even greater dignity. Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical words in verse 10, there is some question concerning the obligations placed upon the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas, seer, kesut and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These specific expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]

   

• "Exodus 21:7-11 specifically seeks to regulate cases involving Israelite women/girls who were sold by their fathers as female slaves (amot), presumably because of debt. Many commentators assume that this sale envisions marriage to the master or to his son, but the absence of marriage or divorce terminology in the passage suggests the purpose of the sale was concubinage. The regulation safeguards the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary slave. If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation to treat her as his own concubine, or assign her to his son, he may not treat her as an ordinary slave woman. Because he has failed to grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood, she retains the right to redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner, that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her rights under Israelite law." [HI:MFBW, 60]

[Note: one of the two main purposes of concubinage (the other being to provide an heir in a barren marriage)--an economically very expensive expedient in the ancient world--was to keep the family from falling below 'critical mass'. The mortality rate was so high ("as many as one in two children did not survive to the age of five" [OT:FAI:19]), and the labor demand was so high, that additional means of renewal (other than just the single-wife of the ideal) were sometimes necessary:

• "Those labor requirements in early Israel were especially intense for several reasons: cropping patterns, with their seasonal demands for many hands to do certain sowing or harvesting tasks within a relatively short window of environmental opportunity; sporadic needs for terrace maintenance and land clearing; a constant set of time-consuming daily procedures for tending to livestock, securing water, and transforming food products to comestibles. The number of persons needed for the family, as the primary, self-sufficient economic unit, to perform the myriad tasks in a regime with critical labor-intensive periods was greater than a nuclear family could supply. Extended or compound families were essential for survival." [OT:FAI, 18]

   

• "Concubines are women without dowry who include among their duties providing children to the family. Childbearing was an important function in the ancient world, where survival of the family, and often survival at all, was tenuous at best. " [BBC, at Gen 35.21ff]

   

• " A concubine was a true wife, though of secondary rank. This is indicated, for example, by the references to a concubine’s "husband" (Jud 19:3), the "father-in-law" (Jud 19:4), "son-in-law" (Jud 19:5). Thus, the concubine was not a kept mistress, and did not cohabit with a man unless married to him. The institution itself is an offshoot of polygamy." [TWOT, s.v. concubine/pilgsh]

4. This focus on the wife-aspect of this process leads commentators to understand this passage to be about protections for the woman, over and above the protections afforded a male slave, and there were many 'exit clauses' for the woman--to full family membership, or to freedom:

• "When a daughter was sold into slavery by her father, this was intended both as a payment of debt and as a way of obtaining a husband for her without a dowry. She has more rights than a male in the sense that she can be freed from slavery if her master does not provide her with food, clothing and marital rights. [BBC, Exodus]

   

• "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class. If a daughter who became a servant was not pleasing to her master she was to be redeemed by a near kinsman (cf. Lev. 25:47-54) but never sold to foreigners (Ex. 21:8); she could also redeem herself. If she married her master’s son she was to be given family status (v. 9). If the master married someone else he was required to provide his servant with three essentials: food, clothing, and shelter. [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]

   

• "The expectation of seventh-year release was denied to women... Though an owner may be unhappy with a female slave he has bought for himself, he is to permit her to be freed by the payment of a price, apparently by her family, or he is to make provision for her to remain within his own family, perhaps as a daughter-in-law. Despite his own dissatisfaction with her, he has no right to sell her to "a strange family", a family unknown to her, perhaps even one outside the covenant community of Israel. If he keeps her within his own family, yet takes another woman as his own wife or concubine, he is not to deny her the basic rights which his purchase of her for himself guaranteed in the first place. ... If the owner refuses to provide the female slave with these fundamental rights, he waives his claim of possession, and she is free to go her own way. The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. Mendelsohn has cited Nuzian sale contracts which almost exactly parallel the Exodus provisions. Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slavebride are given in sequence to the "guiding principles" for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]

   

• "In addition to the regular wife or wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or concubines who would bear children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's behavior toward a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also apply in a major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with even greater dignity. Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical words in verse 10, there is some question concerning the obligations placed upon the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas, seer, kesut and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These specific expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]

   

• "The regulation safeguards the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary slave. If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation to treat her as his own concubine, or assign her to his son, he may not treat her as an ordinary slave woman. Because he has failed to grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood, she retains the right to redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner, that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her rights under Israelite law." [HI:MFBW, 60]

   

• "The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

   

• "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. ... The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]

   

• "The 'amah of the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 21:7-10) is an Israelite woman sold for this status by her father. If the buyer has designated her for his son, she is treated like any other daughter in-law, becomes a wife, and is not freed in the seventh year. If the man for whom she was acquired as a wife did not want her, he could "redeem her" to another family but he could not sell her, for his not marrying her was considered a betrayal. If he married another woman, he had to keep providing for his 'amah; if not, she would go free." [HI:HALOT:2:1008]

   

• "The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter to be the slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a stranger. If he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first. If he intends her to be his son's wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family." [AI:1, 86]

   

• "This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived up to the agreement made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, these she was to treated as a daughter. And if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his concubine's conjugal rights, food, or clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]

So, this passage is hardly 'negative': it provides an escape from poverty for a young woman, security and protection (and upward social mobility) in the house of a better place, and all the basic legal rights of a wife. (Source: www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html; see also www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html)

My response:

Notice how Sam Shamoun is now trying to divert the reader's attention from the main point.  He is trying to gain sympathy by proving that the father had to be poor in order for him to sell his daughter.  While this was probably historically true, but it still:

1-  Doesn't mean anything!

2-  Proves that the financially desperate father could and would sell his daughter no matter how young she was as a slave girl to a man who was his age or even older.

3-  Not the master nor his son are obligated to marry the sold-off daughter.  While it was likely that she could end up marrying any of them because of her physical presence near them, but neither one of them was obligated to marry her.

4-  The girl could've been married off at any time the master wanted to either his son or to himself.

Again, I challenge Sam Shamoun to show us one biblical verse from his pedophilic bible that gives age limits to girls being married off (beyond their wills) or sold off.

As I said in the introduction of this article, this article will also expose the 'Answering Islam' team's hypocrisy for being very quick to claim that Islam is a lie and Prophet Muhammad is a false Prophet and pedophile for MARRYING (not raping) a 9-year old girl whose parents agreed to her marriage and all of the Arabs back then pagans and Muslims agreed too by showing no objections!  The reason no one objected to the marriage was because:

1-  It was widely practiced among Arabs that little girls be married.

2-  People lived short lives due to lack of medicine and much diseases.   Their life span was around 40 to 60 years of age MAXIMUM!.  Some even died much earlier.  So it is only normal and natural to see 10 or 9-year old girls be married off.  People still do it today in the Muslim and non-Muslim third world countries!

The liars have no problem charging Prophet Muhammad with the "pedophile" lie.  But when it comes to Moses and the laws of allowing the Bible-followers to force 3-year old slave girls into sex, we see them silent.

In fact, Shamoun's points during his debate with me revolved around the point of Aisha being 9 years old.

They know that they have nothing of substance beside this silly point of Aisha being 9 years old that they emphasize too much about, while the Arabs 1500 years ago saw no problem with it.

He wrote:

After seeing that this transaction is properly understood as one of a poor father’s care for the future of his daughter, seeking to find for her security and protection, we are ready to come back to Osama's argument:

Also, the fact that the master can either marry her or marry her off to his son, means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!! So he's probably at least 30+ years older than her.  Yet, he himself (her father's age or even MUCH older) can marry her.

This argument is misguided for several reasons. The father is NOT selling his daughter on a slave market to the highest bidder, whom he does not know anything about, and who is then taking her away into foreign lands and to an uncertain future. This is about a contract between two families, who may know each other, and who would typically live in the same area (same town, neighboring village, or similar). The contract is negotiated/decided on by the two heads of household, the father and the future master. The point is: The father would know in advance who will become the husband of his daughter. That is not an open question.

Let's look again at the text of Exodus 21:7-11:

7. If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.
       He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

This is obviously a legal text, and each verse is one paragraph of law, i.e. giving instructions/conditions for various distinct cases. Osama's fundamental error is that he mixes two cases, and then derives a faulty conclusion from that combination.

Verse 8 indicates that there may be months, or even years, that the girl lives and works in the new household before she marries the master. At the time the contract is made, he obviously liked her. She is designated to become his wife. However, as the time for marriage approaches, he may - for whatever reason - develop a dislike for her, and does not want to marry her any longer. He then must allow her family to redeem her (i.e., buy her back). This shows that, even if the girl is sold at a very young age, the wedding and sexual relations will not take place immediately. Rather, she is given the time to mature until an appropriate age for marriage.

Verse 9 deals with the case that the master made that contract with the intention that the girl may become (eventually) the wife of his son. This does not mean that his son is already an adult at the time of the contract. It only means that the master planned that these two will marry in the future, at a time when both have matured and are ready for marriage. In this case, the master is commanded to treat her like a daughter in his household (not like property). He cannot simply change his mind and marry her himself. This, however, is what Osama apparently assumes without any basis in the text.

Verses 8 and 9 regulate the time before the marriage in two different cases. Verses 10 and 11 are rules for certain possible situations that may arise after marriage has taken place.

Although the father is in need, and has to sell his daughter in order to ensure her survival, and perhaps the survival of his own family, he does not sell her into an unknown future. To the contrary, he knows when making the contract that she will have a future as the wife/concubine of an appropriate husband, and this includes appropriateness of ages.

Summary: In order to force this text to support his polemic, Osama apparently made several assumptions:

1. the girl is extremly young,
2. Verses 8 and 9 describe the same situation, although they are clearly distinct cases,
3. the master's son mentioned in verse 9 is (already) an adult, thus making the master substantially older than the girl,
4. it is the master's sovereign decision whether he would give the girl to his adult son or marry her himself,
5. the marriage (and subsequently sexual relations) will take place immediately after the girl enters into the household of the master.

If all of these assumptions were true, Osama may have had a case, albeit a weak one. However, since these assumptions are mostly wrong, or at least unproven, Osama has simply no case at all.

My response:

Another proof for Shamoun's hypocrisy regarding this subject.  Notice his quote:

"If all of these assumptions were true, Osama may have had a case, albeit a weak one. However, since these assumptions are mostly wrong, or at least unproven, Osama has simply no case at all."

He made silly assumptions such as saying "This is very unlikely...", and now he is trying to use them as solid Truth.  As I've shown above, there is ample evidence from the horny and pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine" and brothers can suck and lick their sisters' and lovers' privates, that:

1-  Little girls as young as 9 years old (similar to our Prophet's age) were sold off and married off during Biblical times. 

2-  There is no minimum age limit to girls being sold off or married off in the bible.

3-  There is no condemnation in the horny and pornful bible about 9-year old girls being married to men who were their fathers' age.

4-  There is clear support in the horny and pornful bible that little girls as young as 9 can be sold off and married off to men who were their fathers' age.

It is beyond doubt that the "answering Islam" team insisting on calling our Prophet a pedophile for marrying a 9-year old girl (whom her father and mother gave her away in marriage), proves that they are clear hypocrites for ignoring worse incidents in their horny and slutty bible.

In Islam girls are not sold off, and they can't be forced to marriage if they don't want.  Also, in no Islamic history were 3-year old girls forced into sex.

Please visit: The woman can not be forced into marriage in Islam.

Women can get divorced from their abusive husbands according to the Noble Quran.

Widows are protected in Islam from their in-laws, but are forced and not protected in the Bible.

How can a woman divorce her husband in Islam?

How does Islam deal with divorce, child custody and support?

He wrote:

We now turn to the second text. First, here are Miller’s comments regarding Numbers 31:

Right off the bat, though, there are several obvious historical errors in these brief statements, and several assumptions that have no warrant whatsoever in either the text itself, or in the historical background of the ANE. The passage will be difficult enough to our sensibilities as it is, but let’s first ‘weed out the chaff’ among these allegations. [These ‘easy’ errors, however, in themselves might not be enough to exonerate God, so we will to dig deep into the passage/situation to surface the actual ethical issues and dynamics.]

[ ... ]

First of all, there was no ‘test for virginity’ needed/used. In spite of the elaborate/miraculous one created by the later rabbi’s (ingenious, but altogether unnecessary) using the Urim and Thummim (!), the ‘test for virginity’ in the ANE was a simple visual one:

• Was the female pre-pubescent?
• Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for that culture?
• Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?

Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles). Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).

For example, the erotic art of the ANE shows a consistent difference in hairstyles between women and sacred prostitutes:

"In fact, the physical characteristics of the women on the [erotic] plaques are totally different from those of other female representations in Mesopotamian and Syrian art. As with the clay figurines, they are frequently naked and their hair is loose—none of these traits is to be found in statues or seals that represent women...These groups [associations of cultic prostitutes] were defined by a generic name [the ‘separated ones’], while their specific names of individual associations hinted at their garments, which were particularly luxurious, or odd, their coiffure, or to their general appearance, which distinguished them from other women." [OT:CANE:2526]

Some of these patterns varied by culture/age:

"Once married, women were not veiled in Babylonia. Legal texts imply that married women were veiled in Assyria." [OT:DLAM:135]

"The bride was covered with a veil that the groom removed. Married women were not veiled in Babylonia but seem to have had a special headgear; legal texts, however, suggest that married women were veiled in Assyria." [OT:CANE:489]

In other words, the process of identifying the females who were (a) not married and (b) not prostitutes, either sacred or secular, would have been relatively straightforward—at the precision level required by the event.

Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for "sex slave" purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event. [But at least one of the writers above—to their credit—added the word ‘presumably’, realizing that the text doesn’t actually say anything about it…]

1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages.

And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Children raised in Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. [Also note that ‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from "New World" slavery, which we normally associate with the word ‘slavery’, and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation.]

2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the ANE was not very ‘into’ using slaves/captives for sexual purposes, even though scholars earlier taught this:

"During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners also used them for sex, but there is little actual evidence to support such a claim" [OT:EML:69]

3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY:

"This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. Except among the Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the centuries after 800 BC, a double standard prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes." [WS:AHTO:39; note: I would disagree with the remark about ‘after 800 bc’ because that dating presupposes a very late date for the composition of the narratives under discussion…If the narrative events occurred closer to the purposed times, then this ‘disparagement’ applied earlier in Israel as well as later.]

4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out ["The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel", Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):

"Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the "young girls who have not known man by lying with him" (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence."

[But note that the traditional rabbinic interpretation of the passage is that all females which were capable of bearing children were killed—not just those who actually were non-virginal. This would drive the average age quite low, although the Hebrew text offers only limited support at best for their interpretation.]

[I should also point out that the "for yourselves" phrase (31.18) is NOT actually referring to "for your pleasure", but is a reference to the opposite condition of "for YHWH" which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or ‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was ‘delivered over to YHWH’ was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill them’. This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’ actually, but was distributed to others within the community.]

[ ... ]

5. The 32,000 girls who were absorbed/assimilated into Israel would have been actually a small number. According to the distribution of them, the 12,000 ‘soldiers’ received 16,000 (half of them), making an average 1.5 per household. The other half (16,000) was distributed throughout all of Israel, meaning that very few families would get one. This would still have been some hardship for the Israelite families, who at this time are still nomadic peoples without any material base from which to live. More than one commentator has noted that this seems to be a surprise act of mercy, and it is interesting to note that Whiston, in a footnote on his 18^th-century translation of Josephus’ account of this passage [Antiq, VII] argues that this sparing of the little girls is a surprise of mercy, given the practical demands of this type of combat in the OT/ANE (which we will discuss later):

"The slaughter of all the Midianite women that had prostituted themselves to the lewd Israelites, and the preservation of those that had not been guilty therein; the last of which were no fewer than thirty-two thousand... and both by the particular command of God, are highly remarkable, and shew that, even in nations otherwise for their wickedness doomed to destruction, the innocent were sometimes providentially taken care of, and delivered from that destruction"

Later, when Israel was more established and settled in the land, and had adequate economic means, they would be able to absorb all the women and children (from hostile-but-conquered foreign cities), but at this early stage this was quite an impossibility. They had no need for "slaves," nor means to support them at this time. (Source: www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html)

One point we would like to add to Miller’s comments is regarding the statement of Numbers 31:40 that ‘32 of these virgins were given as tribute to the Lord.’ The context explains what this exactly means:

"The LORD said to Moses, ‘Take the count of the booty that was taken, both of man and of beast, you and Elea'zar the priest and the heads of the fathers' houses of the congregation; and divide the booty into two parts, between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation. And levy for the LORD a tribute from the men of war who went out to battle, one out of five hundred, of the persons and of the oxen and of the asses and of the flocks; take it from their half, and give it to Elea'zar the priest as an offering to the LORD. And from the people of Israel's half you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of the persons, of the oxen, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all the cattle, and give them to the Levites who have charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.’ And Moses and Elea'zar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. Now the booty remaining of the spoil that the men of war took was: six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand cattle, sixty-one thousand asses, and thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him. And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was in number three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, and the LORD's tribute of sheep was six hundred and seventy-five. The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which the LORD's tribute was seventy-two. The asses were thirty thousand five hundred, of which the LORD's tribute was sixty-one. The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the LORD's tribute was thirty-two persons. And Moses gave the tribute, which was the offering for the LORD, to Elea'zar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. From the people of Israel's half, which Moses separated from that of the men who had gone to war- now the congregation's half was three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep, thirty-six thousand cattle, and thirty thousand five hundred asses, and sixteen thousand persons- from the people of Israel's half Moses took one of every fifty, both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites who had charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses. Then the officers who were over the thousands of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, came near to Moses, and said to Moses, ‘Your servants have counted the men of war who are under our command, and there is not a man missing from us. And we have brought the LORD's offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.’ And Moses and Elea'zar the priest received from them the gold, all wrought articles. And all the gold of the offering that they offered to the LORD, from the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. (The men of war had taken booty, every man for himself.) And Moses and Elea'zar the priest received the gold from the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tent of meeting, as a memorial for the people of Israel before the LORD." Numbers 31:25-54 RSV

Thus, the context shows that the virgins who were set apart for the Lord were to be given to God’s ministers, the priests.

As one can see from the preceding data, the laws prescribed in the Holy Bible are actually for the benefit and protection of the woman’s honor and integrity. This is unlike Islam, which permits Muslims to rape and sell slave women at will:

Thus, what Osama thought was justification for the perverted practices of his religion, actually backfires against him and shows just how vastly superior God’s true Word, the Holy Bible, truly is in comparison to the Quran.

My response:

Again, notice the more hypocrisy on Shamoun's part and how Miller was simply answering away the problems of:

1-  Pedophilia in the bible.

2-  Terrorism and killing of the innocent.

To the reader's convenience, I will post the verses again so you can see it for yourself:

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."

Notice the killing of the innocent boys and women who had nothing to do with anything.  

Numbers 31:35-40 "[From the captives of war] 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.......of which the tribute for the LORD was 32 [among them were virgin girls]."

So was the GOD of Israel also a pedophile for taking for Himself virgin 3-year old girls?

Shamoun brain-farted the following quote: 

"Thus, what Osama thought was justification for the perverted practices of his religion, actually backfires against him and shows just how vastly superior God’s true Word, the Holy Bible, truly is in comparison to the Quran."

What exactly are the perverted practices in Islam?  Aisha was 9 years old when she married our Prophet peace be upon him, after her parents' approval.  People back then had short life spans.  They used to die at the ages of 40 to 60 maximum.  This was due to lack of medicine and much diseases.  It was only normal and natural for little girls to be married at young ages.

Even our third world countries today, and in the US 100 years ago, age consent for girls is as young as 9.  In the US it used to be 10 (just recently, 100 years ago).  See the proof here.

So what exactly are the Islamic "perverted practices" that the hypocrite is referring to?  Or is he just acting like a true clown to save his horny and pornful bible's face from the real pedophilia for forcing 3-year old girls into sex?

I'll let the reader be the judge on this one.

As to selling slaves at will in Islam, again, this is another bogus lie fabricated by the liar and his team.  Here is what Islam says about slaves:

"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),  (The Noble Quran, 24:33)" 

In this Noble Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom if there is good in the Slave, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life.  We also see in this Noble Verse that slaves are not to be forced into prostitution in anyway.

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him also said that our slaves are like brothers to us:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names."  The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.'  (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097.   (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)"

In fact, Shamoun's Bible says that slaves are to be inherited!

Here is what Shamoun's horny and pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can suck their sisters' and lovers' breasts and vaginas, say about slaves:

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

And according to the NT, slaves are to remain as they are.  No where are they commanded to try to free themselves:

"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.  (From the NIV Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1)"

"Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.  (From the RSV Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1)"

Open challenge to Shamoun:   Show us in your pornful bible where slavery is condemned, and that it should eventually end as it is clearly the case in Islam!

To the reader, please visit: The liberation of slaves in Islam.   The ending of the Judeo-Christian and pagan slavery.

Why did slavery exist during Islam? And how did Islam deal with it?

"Your Slaves are your brothers" in Islam

The Prophet divided the food between the slaves and the free.

Treatment of Slaves in Islam.  If you beat your slave, then you will go to hell.

Can a slave request his freedom from his Muslim Master and be granted his freedom in Islam?  Yes.  The Muslim Master must pay him/her money too to get a nice jump start in life too according to the Noble Quran.

Slavery and racism in the Bible.  (Some of my rebuttals are included).

The punishment of rape in Islam Vs. the Bible.  The Bible forces the raped girl to marry her rapist.

Why did Allah Almighty make lawful for Muslim men to have sexual intercourse with the married women whom are captives of war? See how the pornful bible is even worse!  Yet, Shamoun and his team of hypocrites are quite silent about it.

He wrote:

One other point we want to briefly discuss is Osama’s claim that the Song of Songs states that women’s vaginas taste like wine:

His sister's vagina tastes like "wine":

"How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands.  Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine.  Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies.  Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.  Your neck is like an ivory tower.  Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi.
.......
I said 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.'  May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine.  (The NIV Bible, Song of Songs 7:1-4, 8-9)"

According to the documentary film "Sex in the Bible" on A&E TV Station, the Hebrew translation to "Your naval" is referring to the woman's VAGINA.  The English translators substituted the word "NAVEL" WITH "VAGINA."  Please rent a copy of the movie and watch it.  This was sent to me by my dear brother in Islam Mike who embraced Islam just recently; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

Osama has deliberately lied to his readers regarding the meaning of "navel" in this passage. Instead of doing the scholarly thing and examining the relevant commentaries and lexicons, Osama appeals to a TV program, which may or may not have said what is claimed. This kind of research is more akin to that which is found in TV tabloid magazines like The Enquirer.

In the first place, anyone remotely familiar with Hebrew literature would see that the verse is structured in a way in which the second line further explicates or explains the meaning of the first, or carries over the thought of the first sentence. Note the passage carefully:

"Your NAVEL is like a round goblet Which never lacks mixed wine;
Your BELLY is like a heap of wheat Fenced about with lilies." Song of Songs 7:2 NASB

"Your NAVEL is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Your BELLY is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies." RSV

Thy NAVEL is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting;
thy BELLY is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies. 7:3 Jewish Publication Society (JPS)

Note the parallel here between navel and belly, which clearly shows that the text is referring to the bride’s belly, not her vagina. The mention of wine and wheat (which were associated with fertility) seems to suggest that Solomon is praising his lover’s womb, since it is the place where a child is woven and conceived.

Furthermore, an examination of any Hebrew lexicon will show that the word for navel DOES NOT mean vagina:

shorer {sho'-rer}
navel, umbilical cord
(Source: BlueLetter Bible [using in turn The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament])

8326 ... the navel, i.q. ... Cant. 7:3; used for the part around the navel, or the belly (which is compared to a bowl). Compare on the other hand ... high place, summit; and ... navel. (Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament: A Dictionary Numerically Coded to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance with an Exhaustive English Index, H.W.F. Gesenius [Baker Book House; (June 1, 1990), paperback; ISBN: 0801037360], p. 851)

2469 … (shrr). Assumed root of the following.

2469a … (shor) umbilical cord (e.g. Ezk 16:4; Prov 3:8).
2469b … (shera) bracelet (Gen 24:22; Isa 3:19).
2469c … (sharir) sinew, muscle (Job 40:16).
2469d … (sherirut), … (sherirut) stubbornness.

(Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke [Moody Publishers; 2 Volumes edition, June 1, 1980], Volume II, p. 957)

My response:

Notice how Shamoun makes foolish remarks and assumptions about a film that he never even watched.  By the way, I did later on watch this film, "Sex in the Bible", on the history channel, as I also watched "Banned from the Bible", and other films about the Bible, and all of them are objective and truthful!  If you bothered to watch the film for yourself you then would've seen that the commentary came from Bible theologians and Hebrew language experts.  Not from clowns and liars such as yourself.

Yes, the verse above did refer to women's vaginas according to those theologians and Hebrew language experts.  I suggest instead of taking a dump from your brain and come up with dumb remarks and assumptions like you did above, is to watch the film and see it for yourself, and learn some Hebrew along with it too.

Anyway, I did in the past rebut this with a Christian.  Here it is again:

From www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm:

His sister's vagina tastes like "wine":

"How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands.  Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine.   Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies.  Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.  Your neck is like an ivory tower.  Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi.
.......
I said 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.'  May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine.  (The NIV Bible, Song of Songs 7:1-4, 8-9)" 

According to the documentary film "Sex in the Bible" on A&E TV Station, the Hebrew translation to "Your naval" is referring to the woman's VAGINA.  The English translators substituted the word "NAVEL" WITH "VAGINA."  Please rent a copy of the movie and watch it.  This was sent to me by my dear brother in Islam Mike who embraced Islam just recently; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

Further proofs from Jim; a non-Muslim guy who tried to prove that I was not accurate about the translation of the word "Naval" in this Porn-full verse.  He sent the following to the Christian "Answering Islam" team:

"Mr. Abdallah seems to have done little homework in this matter, since his whole analysis seems to stem from someone named Mike. Here is actually what this video says:

So Mr. Jim, what exactly did you disprove here?  "Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine" is clearly speaking about the vagina (not the umbilical cord), and the water/cum that comes out of the vagina that "never lacks blended wine", or in other words tastes like wine!  Also, "rounded goblet (container)" is clearly referring to the vagina since the vagina is in a way a container or a place that contains.   Also notice that the verses after it speak about her sexy waist and breasts.

Also, the idea of "natural part of childbirth" IS A SICK LIE!!, since the whole pornful book, as clearly shown in the ample verses above and below, is speaking about sex and brothers and sisters and lovers having sex with each others all night long.  No children and child birth was ever mentioned, and

Certainly umbilical cords are not sexually attractive and don't taste like "wine".  It is clearly and irrefutably speaking about the vagina's cum tasting like wine since the whole book is about sex and sucking vaginas and breasts.

I just find it quite sickening that some christians would go too far in lying and making up hoaxes and lies to cover up for their horny and pornful bible.

You just further proved how full of porn the Bible really is.

Please answer this question for me:

Why should vaginas and illegal sex done by unmarried lovers be talked about in a sexual fantasy in the book that is supposed to be the True Living Words of GOD Almighty from the first place?

As to using SONG OF SONGS 5:10 below to show that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was foretold, the reason why I posted it is because the ENGLISH Bibles had been known to be NOTORIOUS in mistranslation [1] [2] [3]. 

Also please visit:  Obvious mistranslations of the Hebrew Manuscripts.  See proofs of alterations and deceptions done by the Jews and Christians to disprove Islam in the Bible.

I wanted to introduce the possibility that the book of Song of Songs was either:

1-  Altered and much of the porn was added to it as the NIV Bible's theologians themselves clearly admit:

From www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm:

The book of Song of Songs:

"Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)"

"Two lovers, Solomon and a Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends.  (From the King James Version Commentary, page 945)"

2-  The book was mistranslated from the original Hebrew, and GOD Almighty still preserved His Divine Revelations in it, if it was indeed GOD Almighty's True Revelations.

Because the bible is weird and corrupt, then it is only normal to see strange ways to seek out the Truth in it.  I care about the Bible and I want to know the Truth from falsehood in it.  That is why I decided to post this piece on my site, because SONG OF SONGS 5:10 below so strangely refers to "THE UNCLE", not the lover in the Hebrew letter.  It is also weird to find the word "MUHAMMAD" in it as well.

So could it be possible that the whole letter could've been mistranslated?  Or man's alterations had entered it, which explains why we have so much graphic porn in this book.  Only time will tell.

One last citation on Shamoun's clear and irrefutable hypocrisy:

He said:

Filthy porn?  All of the pedophilia and x-rated pornography in your pornful and pedophilic bible ARE NOT considered "filthy porn", but Allah Almighty saying that He blew His Spirit through Mary to form Jesus (as He, the Almighty, does with every human-fetus according to Noble Verse 32:9), and Paradise will have big-breasted virgins in it is filthy porn to you?

It is obvious and beyond question that Sam Shamoun is guilty of:

1-  Absolute hypocrisy.

2-  Absolute stupidity.

To see detailed responses to his quotes above, please visit the following links:

Fathers are literally allowed to stick their fingers into their own daughters' vaginas in the Bible before the daughters get married.

Forcing 3-year old slave girls into sex in both the Bible and the Talmud.

X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.

X-Rated Pornography in the Noble Quran?  Bunch of nonsense put together by anti-Islamics.

Does Paradise in Islam really have Lesbianism in it?

Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his marriage from Aisha.

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.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.