My response to Sam Shamoun's rebuttal to my article "How do the Bible and the Noble Quran view women?".

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

My response to Sam Shamoun's rebuttal to my article "How do the Bible and the Noble Quran view women?":

This article is a response to Sam Shamoun's rebuttal at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/women.htm.

Note: I have written another rebuttal which refutes Sam Shamoun's response to this article: My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Exposing Osama's Smokescreens and Rabbit Trails (PART 1)" article.

He wrote:

Osama has issued a challenge to Jews and Christians to respond to his article regarding the biblical view of women. We heartily accept his challenge and here is our response to his misrepresentation of what both the Holy Bible and the Quran really teach about women. Osama begins:

Let us look at how Islam and the Bible view women, and see in real Truth how terrible the women's status would be if they were living under a true Christian state that follows the Bible 100%:

In the Bible:

Jesus considers women as dirt that defiles men (since Jesus, the GOD, is the one who supposedly inspired the New Testament as Christians claim): Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

RESPONSE:

Here is what Jesus thought of women, taken from the very pages of the NT which he, through his Spirit, inspired:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. IN THE SAME WAY, the husband's body does not belong to him alone BUT ALSO TO HIS WIFE. Do not deprive each other except by MUTUAL consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5

"Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife AS HE LOVES HIMSELF, and the wife must respect her husband." Ephesians 5:25-33

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as HEIRS with you of the gracious gift of life, SO THAT NOTHING WILL HINDER YOUR PRAYERS." 1 Peter 3:7

My response:

We right off the bat see a direct diversion from Revelation 14:4 that I used. This verse is very important because it explicitly considers women as defiling to men. Mr. Shamoun started his article by ignoring the first Biblical verse I used regarding degradation of women. But since the Bible is notorious in degrading and directly insulting women, I will gladly respond to the verses he mentioned above:

In regards to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, let us look at the very beginning of the verse:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. IN THE SAME WAY, the husband's body does not belong to him alone BUT ALSO TO HIS WIFE. Do not deprive each other except by MUTUAL consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5

Paul in his book clearly discourages men from marrying. He is clearly saying that if it wasn't for sexual immorality/sinning, he would've commanded/advised his followers to not marry women. Why is that Paul? Could it be that Paul considers ALL women as ridiculous and low? Could it be that Paul considers men higher and better than women? He obviously does.

Let us further look at how Paul views women:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Timothy 2:11-14

Here we clearly see that Paul would rather not see women teach/educate men, because "the woman being deceived was in the transgression." I really don't know his logic here. What does Eve's sin have anything to do with an educated woman in science, for instance, educating people (men and women) in a formal class room setting?

Notice also that Paul clearly said "It is good for a man not to marry" in 1 Corinthians 7:1. His statement was explicitly about men only. It wasn't about marriage in general. It was specifically about his personal preference for men to not lower themselves (according to him) and to marry the "transgressing" women.

In regards to Ephesians 5:25-33, it has nothing to do with lifting the status of women:

"Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife AS HE LOVES HIMSELF, and the wife must respect her husband." Ephesians 5:25-33

Paul again is the author of the book of Ephesians. We clearly saw Paul's views regarding women in 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 above. Paul here is not lifting the status of women. He is simply telling men the following:

"Now that you fell into the trap of marrying a transgressing woman (after I told you that I prefer for you not to get married), then shut up and eat it for the rest of your life! Just make sure to be kind to her and don't be mean or abusive to her because it is meaningless and pointless, and it wouldn't be pleasing to GOD Almighty."

Notice also Paul said that Jesus cleansed the church and washed it with the word.

Is Paul suggesting that men's marriage to women actually cleans the women from their defiling conditions/status?

He is apparently suggesting that!

To actually elaborate further on this, let us go back to the Old Testament and see what the Bible says about the birth of females compared to that of males':

"....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" Ecclesiasticus 22:3 (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days." Leviticus 12:2-5 (exists in all Bibles).

So, as we clearly and irrefutably see from all of this, women are not spiritually and physically equal to men. The Bible in both the Old Testament, and Paul's own teachings clearly and irrefutably suggests that women:

1- Their birth causes double the pollution/dirt/uncleanness (call it what ever you want) more than males'.

2- Women are cleansed and purified when they marry men. Men, however, are not necessarily cleansed and purified when they marry women.

3- In the Roman Catholic religion, the birth of any woman is a loss. It is hated for women to even be born! This is not only in the Roman Catholic's Bible, but also in all Bibles as clearly shown in Leviticus 12:2-5.

Anyway, let us continue with Mr. Shamoun's verses that he presented:

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as HEIRS with you of the gracious gift of life, SO THAT NOTHING WILL HINDER YOUR PRAYERS." 1 Peter 3:7

Both of these verses are very similar to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 above. Therefore, we need not to see more elaborations for them, because they clearly DO NOT refute my points about Leviticus 12:2-5, Ecclesiasticus 22:3, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 above.

He wrote:

It is evident that when Peter says wives are the weaker vessels, he means this in relation to their physical makeup, since he clearly says that wives are heirs of the promise along with their husbands. In fact, Peter says that a husband’s prayers will be hindered, or rendered ineffective, if he fails to treat his wife with respect. Hence, loving and treating one’s wife kindly is an integral part of having one’s prayers heard!

My response:

I agree with you here Mr. Shamoun regarding Peter. But when I present Paul's views to you as I did above, they clearly present an irrefutable contradiction regarding women. Paul prefers for men not to marry women, and both the OT and Paul don't consider them as clean/pure as men, while Peter considers them as a "gracious gift of life". Peter vs. Paul and the Old Testament clearly contradict each others in their views about women in the Bible!

It seems to me that Paul remained more consistent with the Bible's ORIGINAL views toward women far more than Peter did. Peter's comments in 1 Peter 3:7 are sweet and full of love and passion toward women. As a truthful person, I must admit to that. But I know that Peter went way too far with his personal views.

Now let us look at 1 Corinthians 7:10-15:

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Quick Note: Notice how the NIV Bible translators put (I, not the Lord) in parenthesis. They are suggesting that Paul in verses 12 through 15 was speaking only his own personal words and wasn't inspired by GOD Almighty, even thought HE NEVER DECLARED IT IN THESE VERSES. This is only their interpretation and addition. In any how, even if they were right, and Paul wasn't speaking GOD Almighty's Words, then this still would contradict Paul's own words in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Obviously, not all the Bible is God-breathed because Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 would've contradicted that, as he also clearly contradicted it in 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 when he said that he is not always inspired by GOD Almighty, because both sets of verses are now PERMANENTLY PRESERVED in the Bible, which obviously doesn't make all of the Bible "God-breathed". Maybe 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 is what gave the NIV Bible translators the liberty to consider 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 as Paul's own words (even though he never said so) and not GOD's. This obviously proves that the Bible is so cheap to them that they would give themselves the liberty to add and take off from it as they please without fearing anything.

Anyway, is Paul suggesting here that a disbelieving man or woman would still be purified/cleansed and win Paradise just because they are married to a believer? I don't quite understand his logic here! How can a believing woman raise her children, especially in a male-dominated society (where a woman follows everything her husband says and does) back then, to be polytheist trinitarian pagans who believe in 3 gods, while the disbelieving husband might interfere heavily with that? Would the disbelieving husband and the disbelieving children still be saved even if they don't embrace the polytheist trinity paganism just because the wife/mother is a believer? Is this what Paul meant by "sanctified"?

In any rate for all of this, we see one thing that crystal clear:

The Bible is a bunch of trash that is full of contradictions! It is certainly not perfect: Not in it's history (See the historical evidence of how most of the books and gospels were written by mysterious people), nor in its contents and literature. It is clear that it is made up of a bunch of gibberish nonsense.

He wrote:

Let us contrast this with Allah of the Quran:

"Your wives are as A TILTH unto you; so approach YOUR TILTH when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe." S. 2:223

"Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things THEY COVET: WOMEN and sons; Heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses branded (for blood and excellence); and (wealth of) cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the POSSESSIONS of this world's life; but with Allah is the best of the goals (to return to)." S. 3:14

"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, AND SCOURGE THEM: but if they are obedient to you then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" S. 4:34 Rodwell

My response:

Let us examine each of the Noble Verses Sam Shamoun presented. I will expose his intentional mistranslation and deception in the last Noble Verse that he mentioned:

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear God. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe. (The Noble Quran, 2:223)"

This Noble Verse was clarified in details through the Sayings (Hadiths) of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him. Let us look at some of them:

"Narrated Jabir: Jews used to say: 'If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back [The vagina as clearly shown below], then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.' So this Verse was revealed:-- 'Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will.' (2.223) (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (peace be upon him)), Number 51)"

"Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) declared that the Jews used to say: When a man has intercourse with his wife through the vagina but being on her back. the child will have squint, so the verse came down:" Your wives are your tilth; go then unto your tilth as you may desire" (ii. 223) (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 8, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3363)"

"Jabir (b. Abdullah) (Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Jews used to say that when one comes to one's wife through the vagina, but being on her back, and she becomes pregnant, the child has a squint. So the verse came down:' Your wives are your ti'Ith; go then unto your tilth, as you may desire.' (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 8, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3364)"

"This hadith has been reported on the authority of Jabir through another chain of transmitters, but in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Zuhri there is an addition (of these words): 'If he likes he may (have intercourse) being on the back or in front of her, but it should be through one opening (vagina).' (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 8, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3365)"

"Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Ibn Umar misunderstood (the Qur'anic verse, "So come to your tilth however you will")--may Allah forgive him. The fact is that this clan of the Ansar, who were idolaters, lived in the company of the Jews who were the people of the Book. They (the Ansar) accepted their superiority over themselves in respect of knowledge, and they followed most of their actions. The people of the Book (i.e. the Jews) used to have intercourse with their women on one side alone (i.e. lying on their backs). This was the most concealing position for (the vagina of) the women. This clan of the Ansar adopted this practice from them. But this tribe of the Quraysh used to uncover their women completely, and seek pleasure with them from in front and behind and laying them on their backs.

When the muhajirun (the immigrants) came to Medina, a man married a woman of the Ansar. He began to do the same kind of action with her, but she disliked it, and said to him: We were approached on one side (i.e. lying on the back); do it so, otherwise keep away from me. This matter of theirs spread widely, and it reached the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).

So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur'anic verse: 'Your wives are a tilth to you, so come to your tilth however you will,' i.e. from in front, from behind or lying on the back. But this verse meant the place of the delivery of the child, i.e. the vagina. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2159)"

For more information and further Hadiths, please visit Anal sex is not allowed between the husband and wife in Islam.

It was your people, the Jews and Christians, that used to think that if a husband has sex with his wife from the back (into the vagina and not the rectum), and she gets pregnant, then their child will have a "squint". Islam came and corrected that nonsense.

As to the wife being a "tilth" to her husband, the husbands have the authority in the house, and therefore they have the authority over their wives and children. There is nothing degrading to women in this Noble Verse. The only women that take offense of this Noble Verse are YOUR western women who spread their legs 500 times before marriage, and perhaps several times while married (through "one night stands"), and 500 times after marriage.

Such women need serious discipline, and I don't expect them to appreciate a Noble Verse such as 2:223. In any how, you need to know that they are YOUR women and not ours. So therefore, I don't really care about how offensive the Noble Quran is to your women, because to our standards, more than 90% of your women are whores, while more than 90% of our women remain virgins and pure until marriage.

"Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: Women and sons; Heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses branded (for blood and excellence); and (wealth of) cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the possessions of this world's life; but in nearness to God is the best of the goals (To return to). (The Noble Quran, 3:14)"

Where is Allah Almighty in error here? The birth of males is more preferred, even in many parts of the Western world today, than females. And men are generally more sexually active in appearance than women. We don't see many women look at men lustfully in the public, while we do see many men look at women lustfully in the public, especially during the summer when women's bodies are more exposed from wearing shorter and more revealing cloths. So, the Statement that Allah Almighty made in Noble Verse 3:14 is very accurate.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all). (The Noble Quran, 4:34)"

All of the Noble Verses I present from the Noble Quran are translated by Minister Abdullah Yusuf Ali; may Allah Almighty rest his soul. The unethical and deceiver Sam Shamoun used a non-Muslim translation to this Noble Verse:

"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, AND SCOURGE THEM: but if they are obedient to you then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" S. 4:34 Rodwell

Few notes to notice here between my translation and his:

1- In my translation, men are in charge of their wives because men are generally given more strength than women, and because Allah Almighty Commanded men to financially support the women. In his bogus translation, it says "superior". Even though his translation has some truth in it, but it is not very accurate.

2- In my translation, Allah Almighty Commands the men to beat the disloyal (either flirting wives or wives who are too defiant to their husbands as many male-hating feminists are today in the West) wives after the third warning. In his translation, it says to scourge (flog) them.

Let me further elaborate on this to clearly expose Sam Shamoun's intentional lies, especially that he himself is an Arabic speaking polytheist trinitarian pagan. So he should've noticed this obvious mistranslation very easily from his non-Islamic resource:

The Arabic word for "scourge" or "flog" is "ijlidu", which is derived from "jald", which means "a flog". This Arabic word is used in the following Noble Verses:

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog (ijlidu) each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. (The Noble Quran, 24:2)"

"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them (ijliduhum) with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;- (The Noble Quran, 24:4)"

The Arabic word used in Noble Verse 4:34 is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba" which means "beat". The Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.

Allah Almighty used the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 14:24 "Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? -- A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens". "daraba" here meant "give an example". If I say in Arabic "daraba laka mathal", it means "give you an example".

Allah Almighty also used the word "darabtum", which is derived from the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:94, which mean to "go abroad" in the sake of Allah Almighty:

"O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: 'Thou art none of a Believer!' Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:94)"

So "daraba" literally means "beat", or "go abroad", or "give" but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example.

Important Note: Notice how Allah Almighty in Noble Chapter (Surah) 4 He used "daraba (4:34" and "darabtum (4:94)", which are both derived from the same root. He used both words in the same Chapter, which tells me that "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:34 means to desert or leave, since that's what its derived word meant in Noble Verse 4:94. The next section below will further prove my point.

I am sure there are more Noble Verses that used words derived from "daraba" in the Noble Quran, but these are the only ones I know of so far. In the case of Noble Verse 4:34 where Allah Almighty seems to allow men to hit their wives after the two warnings for ill-conduct and disloyalty, it could very well be that Allah Almighty meant to command the Muslims to "leave" the home all together and desert their wives for a long time in a hope that the wives would then come back to their senses and repent.

Noble Verses and Sayings that support the prohibition of any type of wife beating:

The following Noble Verses and Sayings from the Noble Quran and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him respectively seem to very well support the above interpretation:

"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)"

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"

"on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

In any how, the word "daraba" does not at all mean "flog" or "scourge" as the Arabic-speaking liar Sam Shamoun and his mistranslation falsely claim!

Whether you believe that "beat" in Noble Verse 4:34 is referring to either physical beating or just leaving the house, the point here is that the Noble Verse is not for all women. It is only for the bad ones who failed to accept the first two warnings. The third warning is a "beating". After that they have to get divorced if they can't agree to reconcile.

The divorce in Islam does not have to go through the route of Noble Verse 4:34. A man can divorce his wife without any prior warnings if he feels he can't live with her. The woman too can get a divorce through "Khala'" if she feels that she can't live with her husband.

For more information and details please visit: My husband divorced me 3 times! Am I really divorced?, and read section "How can a woman divorce herself from her husband?".

To avoid compromising the Noble Quran and Islam's Laws, I have written two articles regarding Noble Verse 4:34: One that supports the physical beating, and the other not supporting it.

Please visit: Is Wife beating allowed in Islam? This is a section that contains two links: One agreeing, and the other disagreeing.

He wrote:

The hadiths record:

Narrated Abdullah bin Zama:
That he heard the Prophet delivering a sermon, and he mentioned the she-camel and the one who hamstrung it. Allah's Apostle recited:--
'When, the most wicked man among them went forth (to hamstrung the she-camel).' (91.12.) Then he said, "A tough man whose equal was rare and who enjoyed the protection of his people, like Abi Zama went forth to (hamstrung) it." The Prophet then mentioned about the women (in his sermon). "It is not wise for anyone of you to lash his wife LIKE A SLAVE, for he might sleep with her the same evening." Then he advised them not to laugh when somebody breaks wind and said, "Why should anybody laugh at what he himself does?" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 466)

Narrated 'Ikrima:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering AS MUCH AS THE BELIEVING WOMEN. Look! Her skin IS GREENER THAN HER CLOTHES!." When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless 'Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow," (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715)

My response:

In the first Hadith, the Prophet peace be upon him was not giving permission to men to lash their wives as long as it is not as bad as a slave would get it. It was part of the pagan Arabs' custom to brutally beat their disobedient slaves. Bilal, who became Prophet Muhammad's best friend, was beaten almost to death for embracing Islam. The Prophet here was only giving an example.

Anyway, the Prophet himself forbade the beating of slaves, and considered them as "brothers":

"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"

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)"

Narrated Anas: "The Prophet said, 'None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother [this includes slaves, since a slave is considered a brother as shown above] what he likes for himself.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12)"

In the second Hadith, there are few points to notice and mention:

1- The man failed to follow Noble Verse 4:34 which was sent by Allah Almighty -- that if we were to consider the "physical beating" interpretation of it as the valid one, and not the "leaving the house".

2- The woman was trying to get back with her first husband. In Islam, if a woman gets divorced or divorces herself from her husband through the Islamic court by "Khala'", then the only way she can get back with her husband, or her husband gets back to her is by HER MARRYING ANOTHER PERSON, HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HIM, AND THEN GET A DIVORCE FROM HIM. This is to guarantee that divorce would not be a joke among Muslims.

3- The woman was claiming that her second husband was sexually no good. The husband disputed that, and brought his two sons from another marriage as a proof that he can perform sex. The Prophet peace be upon him then told the woman "by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow".

4- Aisha's opinion about the woman's bruise doesn't prove or disprove anything. She got angry because she saw another woman badly beaten, which is perfectly fine and acceptable. But her emotions and opinions are not Islamic Verdicts!

5- Not a single Muslim scholar would disagree with the following:

The Hadiths have serious problems in historical documentations! Meaning, a Hadith might be documented today, but we don't know when it came and what was its purpose. In this case, WE DO NOT KNOW if this Hadith came before or after Noble Verse 4:34 above! If it came before the Noble Verse, then this clearly shows that Allah Almighty had stepped in and resolved the issue of when WIFE BEATING WOULD BE ALLOWED, and it would be only allowed once (if we were to take the "physical beating" interpretation and not "leaving the house" as the valid one!).

He wrote:

Interestingly, Osama quotes the following hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud in order to show that husbands are not permitted to beat their wives:

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Osama conveniently fails to mention the hadiths which follow RIGHT AFTER:

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:
Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, HE (the Prophet) GAVE PERMISSION TO BEAT THEM. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2141)

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2142)

It is quite clear that Muhammad wasn’t telling the men that they couldn’t beat their wives at all. These other hadiths show that wife beating is permitted under the right circumstances, and here is where the problem is. THERE ARE NO GOOD REASONS FOR BEATING ONE’S WIFE!

My response:

As I mentioned in point #5 above:

5- Not a single Muslim scholar would disagree with the following:

As to me "conveniently failing to mention the hadiths which follow RIGHT AFTER", I did not do that at all! The sequence/order of Hadiths does not AT ALL mean that the earlier ones were mentioned before the later ones. The Hadiths were documented as they were compiled and narrated by people.

No one knows which Hadith came before the other.

To me personally, by reading this Hadith:

It clearly tells me that the Prophet told this Hadith after the one Sam Shamoun mentioned. The reason for this is because my Hadith is a general one that covers all aspects, while his Hadith was based on an incident.

Also, if the interpretation of "physically leaving" instead of "physically beating" in Noble Verse 4:34 above is true, then the Hadith I mentioned is clearly a great support for this Noble Verse's interpretation! The Noble Verse would also be a great support for the Hadith.

But at any rate, Sam Shamoun's Hadith does not nullify my Hadith. However, Noble Verse 4:34 does nullify his Hadith, because the physical beating (if this is the correct interpretation) would not be allowed at any time the man wishes!

He wrote:

Continuing further:

Narrated Qays ibn Sa'd:
I went to al-Hirah and saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Apostle of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you. He said: Tell me, if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I WOULD COMMAND WOMEN TO PROSTRATE THEMSELVES BEFORE THEIR HUSBANDS, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2135)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 122)

My response:

The first Hadith clearly shows that women must respect their husbands and appreciate them. I don't see any shame or harm against women in this Hadith. The second Hadith talks about defying women to their husbands. It is talking about those women who try to exploit their sexuality against their husbands. Again, I see no shame or harm against women in this Hadith.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but unless Mr. Shamoun doesn't mind his wife depriving him sexually (other than during her menstruating period), then I don't see his logic and point in presenting the second Hadith here!

He wrote:

Let us summarize the Islamic data regarding women:

Women are a man’s tilth and possession.
Men are superior to women due to their superior qualities.
Disobedient wives can be beaten.
The hadith also shows that even slaves can be beaten.
According to Aisha, believing women suffered more than the other women.
A husband beat his wife so badly that he left a green mark on her body. And yet Muhammad says nothing to the husband.
Muhammad permitted emboldened wives to be beaten.
Umar, the second Caliph, claims that a man shall not be asked the reason why he beat his wife.
Muhammad would have ordered women to bow down and prostrate before their husbands.
Angels curse women who refuse to accept her husband’s invitation to have sex. Evidently angels have nothing better to do than to curse women who do not satisfy their husbands' sexual cravings!

We would like Osama to produce a hadith stating that angels also curse men who refuse to satisfy their wives' sexual cravings. If he is unable to produce such a statement, then he needs to explain to his readers why his god Allah gives preferential treatment to men but not to women.

My response:

Here is my response to your points. For point #8, I do know that many Arabs and Muslims in the "third world nations" use their old cultural practices to dominate women, which has no basis in Islam. These people are violators to the Laws of Islam as I will prove below:

1- Women are AS men's tilth, because men in Islam do have the authority of the house over the wives and children.

2- Men are protectors to women because men are stronger than women (in general), and Allah Almighty Commanded men to financially support the women.

3- It is only an interpretation that disobedient wives can be physically beaten. I have showed very solid proofs that "idribuhunna" can also mean "physically leave them" especially that the same root word was used in 4:94 in the very same Noble Chapter for "leaving for the Cause of Allah Almighty".

4- I have showed above that slaves CAN NOT be beaten in Islam, and if they do get beaten, then they must be set free.

5- Aisha's opinion and emotions as I said are not Islamic Verdicts.

6 & 7- In regards to the husband leaving a mark on his wife's body and emboldened wives to be beaten, we don't know if these incidents took place before or after the Revelation of Noble Verse 4:34. As I said above, the Hadiths' history for when and what purpose they were narrated is not documented.

8- In regards to Allah Almighty will not ask a man why he beat his wife, this is as long as the man does not violate the Law of Noble Verse 4:34, which permits the beating only and only once for disloyal and loose (flirting) wives. Otherwise, the man would be violating Allah Almighty's Holy Commands:

"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

"...on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)"

I do know that many men in the Muslim world and non-Muslim world such as the Hindus in India and the Budhists in China do practice their old culturs and dominate and control women. I know that in Palestine during my grand father's times, men used to do it a lot and men probably still do today. This is not Islamic, even if it's used by many Muslim men. A mean man to his wife is a violator to Noble Verse 30:21. An abusive man to his wife is a violator to Noble Verses 2:231 and 4:19.

9- As to our Prophet peace be upon him would command the women to prostrate to their husbands if it were allowed, this is only his personal opinion and his way of saying that men are to be respected and honored by their wives. This obviously have no Quranic support, and therefore, I careless about it. It's the same with Aisha's opinion in point #5 above. It too have no Quranic support, and therefore I careless about it too.

Note: Have their book a Quranic support to those two points, then I would've taken it seriously as a valid theological point to discuss. Many things had been narrated on the tongue of Prophet Muhammad that we don't know if they were truthful or not. The only way to validate them is by comparing them to the Noble Quran. If they agree with the Noble Quran, then we take it. Otherwise, we reject it. This is how sincere Muslims follow Islam. The Hadiths are like the Bible; they are full of contradictions and deceptions. Therefore, we must be careful when dealing with them.

10- Women who try to exploit their sexuality against their husbands have no place in Islam, and they are cursed by Allah Almighty and His Angels peace be upon them.

As to your request "We would like Osama to produce a hadith stating that angels also curse men who refuse to satisfy their wives' sexual cravings", I have none, and I careless about basing my Islam on sources other than the Noble Quran FIRST. Like I said above, the Hadiths are like the Bible; they are full of contradictions and deceptions.

Anyway, I can produce Noble Verses that would satisfy your request from the Noble Quran, which is really the ONLY BOOK I put my entire trust on:

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear God. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe. (The Noble Quran, 2:223)"

When a husband deals with his wife, he must always "fear Allah and know that he will meet Him" someday and be held accountable for every atom of positive and negative he did to his wife:

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. (The Noble Quran, 99:7-8)"

Further more:

How can a husband live on a "footing of kindness and equity" with his wife if he intentionally deprives her from sex? How is that fair and "equity"?

Do these Noble Verses answer your request Mr. Shamoun?

He wrote:

In fact, we challenge Osama to produce verses or statements from either the Quran or ahadith which state that:

Husbands are to love their wives just as Allah loves the ummah. The only problem with this argument is that not even Allah loved his ummah as much as Jesus loved his Church. Allah never became man to die for the ummah in order to make it holy as Jesus did for the Church.
Husbands are to love their wives as they love themselves and their own bodies.
A husband’s body doesn’t belong to him only, but also belongs to his wife.
A husband cannot deprive his wife of sexual pleasure and intimacy, except by mutual consent.
A husband’s prayers are hindered if he mistreats his wife.

This again demonstrates how Islam's treatment of women pales in comparison to the treatment given to women in the Holy Bible, God's true inspired Word.

My response:

Here are the answers to your points:

1- First of all, this "GOD loved all people" in the Bible proves that your God is a hypocrite, because how can he love me and torture me in Hell Fire for eternity?! What is that love? THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR argument is that you have no proof for Jesus dying on the cross for your sins. I have proven beyond doubt that almost every single books and gospel in the Bible of today was written by a MYSTERIOUS author! I have also proven that the Old Testament perfectly agrees with the Noble Quran about Jesus never got crucified. Please visit:

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.

But anyway, husbands are commanded to love their wives and live with them on a footing of kindness and equity:

That's much better than giving stupid and irrational statements such as "love your wife as Allah loved Mankind" because Allah Almighty does not love all mankind. Otherwise, why does He have Hell and Heaven?!

As Allah Almighty responded to your nonsense in the Noble Quran:

"(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of God, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)" (The Noble Quran, 5:18)"

2- Husbands can never love their wives as they love themselves. This is a very inaccurate statement to be said from GOD Almighty! It's quite ironic that the highest divorce rates today are among the Bible followers (whether you choose to call them "Christians" or not)! Humans can make these stupid statements, but GOD Almighty can't. Paul in the New Testament and the Bible in the Old Testament certainly view women as much lower than men as I clearly showed in the beginning of this article in great details and quotes!

A better and more accurate statement would be the two Noble Verses that I presented above:

3- "A husband’s body doesn’t belong to him only, but also belongs to his wife". Another stupid and irrational statement that is clearly refuted and contradicted by the majority of the Bible followers today with their high divorce rates and cheating on their spouses! This statement by itself is clearly contradicted in the Old Testament. The Bible doesn't even prefer for women to be born:

So much for a husband's body being owned by him and his wife nonsense.

Mr. Shamoun, can you give me the spiritual reason/wisdom behind Leviticus 12:2-5?

4- "A husband cannot deprive his wife of sexual pleasure and intimacy, except by mutual consent". I agree with this, and the Noble Quran does answer this as I showed above:

When a husband deals with his wife, he must always "fear Allah and know that he will meet Him" someday and be held accountable for every atom of positive and negative he did to his wife:

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. (The Noble Quran, 99:7-8)"

Further more:

How can a husband live on a "footing of kindness and equity" with his wife if he intentionally deprives her from sex? How is that fair and "equity"?

Do these Noble Verses answer your request Mr. Shamoun?

5- "A husband’s prayers are hindered if he mistreats his wife". Abusive men don't fear Allah Almighty. Allah Almighty warned men and ordered them to fear Him when they deal with their wives as clearly shown in Noble Verse 2:223 above. He also ordered men to live on a "footing of kindness and equity" with their wives as clearly shown in Noble Verse 4:19 above.

Men who are abusive and not just to their wives have no spiritual connection with Allah Almighty:

"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well- acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:135)"

"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 5:8)"

"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. (The Noble Quran, 4:3)" Please visit Why was Polygamy allowed in Islam?

"God doth command you to render back your Trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice: Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For God is He Who heareth and seeth all things. (The Noble Quran, 4:58)"

"In most of their secret talks there is no good: But if one exhorts to a deed of charity or justice or conciliation between men, (Secrecy is permissible): To him who does this, seeking the good pleasure of God, We shall soon give a reward of the highest (value). (The Noble Quran, 4:114)"

"'Amongst us are some that submit their wills (to God), and some that swerve from justice. Now those who submit their wills - they have sought out (the path) of right conduct: (The Noble Quran, 72:14)"

He wrote:

Lord Jesus willing, we will have more to say about women in Islam when we turn our attention to Osama’s misquotation of the Quran and the ahadith. It seems that Osama will not only misinterpret and twist the Holy Bible to suit his purposes; he is also willing to do the same with his own religious sources.

My response:

I have exposed the obvious contradiction between Peter vs. Paul and the Old Testament above. I have twisted no Truth. All I did was present simple proofs about the Bible's negative views toward women. And as to turning your attention toward me to refute me, Mr. Shamoun, I can't wait for this to happen!

I wish you focus on me so I can show you the Truth and lead you to Islam!

He wrote:

Returning to Revelation 14:4,

My response:

Finally you decided to return to the very first verse I used. You just said that I twist the Truth. I have obviously twisted no Truth. But what about you Mr. Shamoun? Why did it take you too long to get back to the very first verses I presented?

He wrote:

Osama continues his claims:

My rebuttal to some Christian responses: Some Christians emailed me and said that Revelation 14:4 is referring to those sinless men who stayed away from fornication and adultery, and it is not meant at all to be degrading or insulting to women. My response to them is: The verse does not say "those who did not defile themselves with fornication or adultery". Have the verse said that, then it would've included both males and females and there would be nothing to disagree about. But the verse clearly and irrefutably says: "those who did not defile themselves with women", which means (1) No females will be among those men; and (2) Women are defiling to men.

RESPONSE:

Osama erroneously assumes that since the text doesn’t specifically mention fornication or adultery the Christian claim is therefore incorrect. Unfortunately for Osama, a careful examination of the entire chapter of Revelation 14 demonstrates that it his counter-argument which is incorrect:

"Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless. Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth - to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.’ A second angel followed and said, ‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine OF HER ADULTERIES.’ A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.’ This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus." Revelation 14:1-12

The inspired author specifically mentions the nations who partook of the adulteries of the false apostate world system RIGHT AFTER mentioning the 144,000 who had refrained from defiling themselves with women! Therefore, the claim that 14:4 is referring to adultery and fornication is actually correct. Yet, the adultery spoken of here is spiritual in nature, i.e. idolatry and false religious worship.

My response:

Mr. Shamoun, I know that the verse is referring to adultery/fornication! That's not the point here! The point is the way the verse was said. The way the verse was said is insulting to women. Like I said:

"Some Christians emailed me and said that Revelation 14:4 is referring to those sinless men who stayed away from fornication and adultery, and it is not meant at all to be degrading or insulting to women. My response to them is: The verse does not say "those who did not defile themselves with fornication or adultery". Have the verse said that, then it would've included both males and females and there would be nothing to disagree about. But the verse clearly and irrefutably says: "those who did not defile themselves with women", which means (1) No females will be among those men; and (2) Women are defiling to men."

Yes Mr. Shamoun, the verse never said "fornication or adultery" even though it was referring to sexual sinning. The verse instead directly insulted women.

Let me ask you this Mr. Shamoun, using Revelation 14:4, do the 144,000 "men of God" have women in them? Please be honest to yourself when give an answer, because I despise stupid people and stupid answers!

Also, if you're suggesting that Babylon is referred to as a woman who caused "Adulteries", then this still doesn't prove anything, because Revelation 14:4 talked about "women" (plural) and not "woman" (singular). Women in Revelation 14:4 are the physical human females.

In whatever way you look at it, whether my interpretation (which is very straight forward), or your interpretation (which is full of awkwardness), this still proves my point that the Bible here is clearly insulting women; by whether it was directly considering them as defiling to men (as I am suggesting) or by calling the idol worshiping as "women". By either case, it is still very ridiculous and insulting!

He wrote:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown’s Critical and Explanatory Commentary on the Whole Bible states:

4. virgins - spiritually (Matthew 25:1); in contrast to the apostate Church, Babylon (Revelation 14:8), spiritually "a harlot" (Revelation 17:1-5, Isaiah 1:21; contrast 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:25-27). Their not being defiled with women means they were not led astray from Christian faithfulness by the tempters who jointly constitute the spiritual "harlot." (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=re&chapter=014)

My response:

Why are we talking about virgins here?!

He wrote:

The chapter preceding Rev 14, as well as that which immediately follows it, supports this interpretation:

"And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, ‘Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?’ The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast - all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns LIKE A LAMB, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." Revelation 13:1-8, 11-17

It is not a coincidence that Rev. 13 and 14 are juxtaposed. It is quite evident that John intended to contrast the true believers of Rev. 14 that followed the true Lamb by not defiling themselves with the false worship of the beast, from those in 13 who worshiped the beast and were deceived by the false lamb.

My response:

That is a bunch of gibberish nonsense! By you actually suggesting that "women" in Revelation 14:4 actually means idols and "false worship of the beast" is quite ridiculous!

Who is twisting the Truth here Mr. Shamoun? Me, or you?

You did it from the beginning of the article by ignoring the verse and taking a long route to come to it, and you're doing it now again by avoiding the main point of why I posted the verse! Mr. Shamoun ever since when the word "woman" means "false worship of the beast"??!!

The main point here is that Revelation 14:4 is a direct insult to women! Your nonsensical and deceiving interpretation does not mean anything here, because that too is insulting to women.

He wrote:

Again:

"One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the punishment THE GREAT PROSTITUTE, who sits on many waters. With her the kings of the earth COMMITTED ADULTERY and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine OF HER ADULTERIES.’ Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: ‘Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings-and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.’ Then the angel said to me, ‘The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. The woman you saw is THE GREAT CITY that rules over the kings of the earth.’" Revelation 17:1-18

My response:

Revelation 14:4 clearly says: "those who did not defile themselves with women". If what you're suggesting about "women" here meaning Babylon and idol and beast worship, then it should've said:

"those who did not defile themselves with PROSTITUTES".

Revelation 17:5 clearly says:

"MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

By choosing to use the word "women" instead of "prostitutes", the Bible in Revelation 14:4 still insults women by putting them in the category of prostitutes (that if we were to take your interpretation as the correct one).

Revelation 14:4, however, came before the book started talking about Babylon. Therefore, it is not right for you to assume that "women" in Revelation 14:4 are the same as "prostitutes" in Revelation 17:5.

In regards to Revelation 17:18, we now see that "the Great City" was in a shape of a woman in the man's dream. This is nice, but it still doesn't nullify Revelation 14:4, because Revelation 14:4 was talking about actual physical human women, while Revelation 17:8 is saying that the "Great City" looked like a woman.

He wrote:

The idea being conveyed here is similar to that stated by the apostle Paul:

"I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." 2 Corinthians 11:1-4

The 144,000, much like chaste virgins, remained faithful to their espoused husband by refusing to embrace a false religious system spearheaded by the great harlot.

My response:

As I showed above, women in Revelation 14:4 is different. Also, what do Paul's Corinthians books have anything to do with the book of Revelation? You are mixing verses together to falsely prove your point. I clearly showed you above Paul's negative views toward women in his books. Also, since you're now talking about virgins of Christ, let me show you this parable of Jesus that allows polygamy:

The following was taken from: Polygamy is allowed in both the Old and New Testaments! Jesus himself allowed polygamy:

Note: There are more verses in the article that prove polygamy is allowed in the NT. Please read the entire article if you need further proofs regarding polygamy in the Bible's OT and NT.

Jesus' parable allows polygamy between 1 man and 5 women!

Let us look at Matthew 25:1-13 from the NIV Bible:

Matthew 25

The Parable of the Ten Virgins

1. "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2. Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
3. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them.
4. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps.
5. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6. "At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'
7. "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps.
8. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'
9. " 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'
10. "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11. "Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'
12. "But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'
13. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

According to Jesus' parable, the bridegroom married 5 of the ten virgins! It seems also that Jesus in this parable really allowed for all women to be naked in one room with their one husband. THIS IS INDEED VERY SICK!!! Polygamy is allowed in Islam, but it is forbidden for the man to share the room with more than one wife at a time:

'Abd al-Rahman, the son of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, reported from his father: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: "A man should not see the private parts of another man, and a woman should not see the private parts of another woman, and a man should not lie with another man under one covering, and a woman should not lie with another woman under one covering. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0667)"

But anyway, Jesus in his parable clearly and irrefutably allowed polygamy.

He wrote:

This leads us to our second point, namely that Revelation also uses the symbol of a woman in a positive sense to describe redeemed believers:

"A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: A WOMAN clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet AND A CROWN of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days ... When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring-those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." Revelation 12:1-6, 13-17

"Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: ‘Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.’ (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) Then the angel said to me, ‘Write: "Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!"’ And he added, ‘These are the true words of God.’" Revelation 19:6-9

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband." Revelation 21:1-2

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.’" Revelation 21:8-14

The heavenly Jerusalem is also called the mother of all true believers, and is the very dwelling of those who have been made perfect forever:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother." Galatians 4:22-26

"But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." Hebrews 12:22-24

My response:

This does not prove or disprove anything. If Paul and others decided to call Jerusalem their "mother" and "woman", then be it. This still does not nullify the fact that Revelation 14:4 was speaking about the sexual defiling of women to men. Revelation 14:4 was generalizing about all women, while the verses that Mr. Shamoun presented are talking about one "woman", which is the city Jerusalem.

Like I said above Mr. Shamoun, even if your interpretation about Revelation 14:4 is true, then this is still insulting for all women, because the Bible chose to substitute the naming of "Babylon's prostitutes" to "women", making it sound like the majority of women, if not all women, are defiling to men, which is exactly my point!

Revelation 14:4 could've said: "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with prostitutes (or Babylon's prostitutes), for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

Have Revelation 14:4 said the above, then we would have nothing to argue about here!

The fact that you want to desperately prove that Revelation 14:4 meant exactly this quote that I MADE UP clearly proves that your point is weak! Revelation 14:4 said "did not defile themselves with women". The mysterious author of the book of Revelation obviously had some negative views toward all women. His views as we've seen in the beginning of this article are clearly supported in the Old Testament and the books of Paul.

He wrote:

N.T. commentary G.K. Beale sums up the meaning of Rev. 14:4 best. Speaking of the characteristics of the 144,000, Beale notes:

First, they are those who "who were not polluted by women, for they are virgins." The meaning of "polluted" and "virgins" has been hotly debated.

Literal Views. Some see in "virgins" a literal reference to a group of celibate Christian men or to celibate Christian men and women (cf. Matt. 19:12). One problem with these literal views is that nowhere else does Scripture view sexual relations within the bond of marriage as sinful. Furthermore, if the 144,000 is a symbol for the entire people of God, that would mean that John required celibacy for the whole church, which is improbable.

Neither does this verse more generally refer to those, whether married or unmarried, who have abstained only from literal sexual immorality. Closer to the intended idea, though still too literal, is Carrington’s proposal that the notion concerns Christians who abstained from the sexual rites connected with the pagan temples and idolatry (though he remains open to a more figurative understanding) ...

In the final analysis, it is preferable to understand parthenoi ("virgins") as a metaphor of all true saints who have not compromised in various ways with the world because they have remained loyal as a virgin bride to her betrothed (as in 19:7-9; 21:2; 2 Cor. 11:2). Of course, this must be the case if the conclusion already reached above is correct that the 144,000 represent all true believers. Satake notes that in the only other places in the text where saints surround Christ (7:9, 17; 19:8-9), it is always the whole redeemed community that does so. Additionally, if the 144,000 is a figurative number for completeness, why should not the mention of "virgins" also figurative in like manner? Brutsch agrees, though he mentions the possibility that a literal group of virgins could be mentioned as metonymous for the whole redeemed community. That Jerusalem and the picture of a "prepared bride" are both figurative for the entire church in 21:2 enforces an all-inclusive symbolic interpretation of the "virgins" here.

This figurative view is enforced even further by the fact that not only is Jerusalem as a bride based on the OT (see on 21:2) but "virgin" is repeatedly applied to the nation of Israel in the OT ("virgin of Israel" and similar phrases in 2 Kgs. 19:21; Isa. 37:22; Jer. 14:17; 18:13; 31:4, 13, 21; Lam. 1:15; 2:13; Amos 5:2). The Hebrew for "virgin" in the majority of passages is rendered in the LXX by parthenos. Possibly even in the background is Jeremiah 31, where the same word is used three times for Israel’s future purity in a context in which Israel’s restoration is predicated with themes similar to those of Rev. 14:1-4: (1) Israel is to "sing aloud" about its salvation (Jer. 31:7) and (2) "shout for joy on the height of Zion" (v 12), where they will be with God (v 6); (3) they have been saved as a "remnant" (v 7); (4) they are God’s "firstborn" (v 9; see below on the association of "firstborn" with "firstfruits"). That at least the broad background of Israel as "virgin" may well be in mind is further suggested by the fact that behind the notion of "defilement" in Rev. 14:4 is OT Israel’s defilement with idolatry (see below) and that the same notion is ready at hand in 14:8-11. Additionally, "virgin" as a veiled allusion to the new Israel in 14:4 fits admirably with the temptation to commit immorality with national Babylon, which is also figurative in context (14:8).

Parthenoi is masculine to conform to the preceding houtoi and hoi egorasmenoi, which themselves may have been changed from a feminine "144,000" because in the OT the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel were men (1QSa 2.11-17 says that Ps. 2:7 will be fulfilled when the Messiah comes to Qumran and the male "heads" of the "tribes of Israel sit before him"). Parthenoi could also be masculine as part of a picture of those have not had (figurative) illegitimate intercourse with "the great harlot" (17:1). "Babylon the Great ... who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality" (14:8). Also included is the idea of abstaining from imperial and regional idolatries. That the metaphorical description of Babylon as a harlot is developed further in 14:8, right after 14:1-4, and in 17:1-5 shows that the portrayal of virgin saints is also figurative. The harlot metaphor in 14:8 is a development of the immoral "women" (gunaikon) of v 4 with whom Christian virgins have not been defiled. The two metaphors of an immoral "woman" (gune) and "harlot" (porne) are repeatedly equated in 17:1-9, 15-18 in continuation of the pictures in 14:4, 8. Alford argues against this connection on the basis that gune is plural in 14:4 and singular in ch. 17, but this disregards the corporate nature of images in Revelation (e.g., gune in 12:1; 19:7; and 21:9 is certainly corporate) and the description in 17:5 of the Babylonian woman as "the mother of harlots." (Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary - The Book of Revelation [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. & Paternoster Press, 1999], pp. 738-740; bold emphasis ours)

My response:

Again, like I said above, this does not prove or disprove anything. The use for words "virgin", "bride" and "woman" for Jerusalem and the people of Israel doesn't again nullify that Revelation 14:4 was referring to sexual sinning with prostitutes. Revelation 14:4 was generalizing about all women, while the verses that Mr. Shamoun presented are talking about one "woman".

Like I said above Mr. Shamoun, even if your interpretation about Revelation 14:4 is true, then this is still insulting for all women, because the Bible chose to substitute the naming of "Babylon's postitutes" to "women", making it sound like the majority of women, if not all women, are defiling to men, which is exactly my point!

Have Revelation 14:4 said the above, then we would have nothing to argue about here!

The fact that you want to desperately prove that Revelation 14:4 meant exactly this quote that I MADE UP clearly proves that your point is weak! Revelation 14:4 said "did not defile themselves with women". The mysterious author of the book of Revelation obviously had some negative views toward all women. His views as we've seen in the beginning of this article are clealy supported in the Old Testament and the books of Paul.

He wrote:

Osama continues with his misinformation:

Continuing with the article ...

Women are not only spiritually defiling to men as Jesus put it, but they're also physically defiling when they have their menses. Anything they touch becomes unclean: Leviticus 15:19-30 "And if a woman have an issue (her period/menses), [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she [shall be] unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."

I think it is safe to say that Revelation 14:4 and Leviticus 15:19-30 are sister verses.

RESPONSE:

Osama conveniently ignores the context and chooses to focus only on the part regarding women’s menses. Osama fails to inform his readers that the same thing is said of men’s discharges:

"IF ANY MAN has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness: Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water. When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off SEVEN DAYS for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. On the EIGHTH DAY he must take TWO DOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he WILL MAKE ATONEMENT before the LORD for the man because of his discharge. When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, BOTH must bathe with water, and THEY will be unclean till evening."’" Leviticus 15:1-9

It is quite clear that women are not being degraded here; otherwise we would have to conclude that men are also being degraded. A further indication that the passage is not degrading women can be seen from the offering for atonement, which is exactly the same for both.

One possible reason why these laws were given was to protect others within the camp of Israel from contracting any possible disease or illness from the flow of blood or bodily discharges. After all, God did make the following promise to Israel:

"He said, ‘If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you.’" Exodus 15:26

"The LORD will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you." Deuteronomy 7:15

My response:

When one reads that the birth of a female causes double the pollution that of the birth of a male in Leviticus 12:2-5, and reads the end of Leviticus 15:19-30:

"But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."

He will see that women's menses are actually viewed far more than just a physical uncleanliness as men's semen discharges (whether it is through masturbation or sexual intercourse). A woman also becomes SPIRITUALLY unclean and on the eigth day of her cleanliness she must give an offering of two animals, and the priest must do the work for her atonement and purification.

Mr. Shamoun, do you care to tell us why do women become spiritually defiled from their menses?

And why don't men become spiritually defiled when they discharge semen? Care to explain the spiritual wisdom behind this?

And here is Leviticus 12:2-5 that I mentioned above for the reader's convenience:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

He wrote:

Secondly, the Quran itself has something to say about menses:

"They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they have purified (from menses and have taken a bath). And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as All�h has ordained for you (go in unto them in any manner as long as it is in their vagina). Truly, All�h loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers, etc.)." S. 2:222 Hilali-Khan

Note how other translators render the word Adha:

"Say: They are a hurt and a pollution:" Y. Ali

"Say: It is an illness" Pickthall

"Tell them, "It is an ailment." Muhammad Sarwar

"Say, ‘It is a harmful thing’" Sher Ali

"say, ‘It is harmful’" Khalifah

"say, ‘It is a hurt.’" Palmer

"Answer, they are a pollution:" Sale

The Quran seems to imply that women’s menses are a disease, unlike the Holy Bible.

My response:

You're right. The Noble Quran isn't like the Bible. The Bible considers women as worthless defiled biotecs and men are much higher than them, while the Noble Quran is absolutely fair and just!

As to Noble Verse 2:222 that you mentioned, the Arabic word "Adha" means "hurt". It could be used for "somebody got hurt", or "to hurt somebody". It can be used in both situations. The Noble Quran prohibits for men to have sexual intercourse with women because:

1- Women are physically unclean.
2- Women are vanurable to disease, and men too are vanurable if they have sexual intercourse with them.
3- Many of the women's vaginas are soar and even hurt, and these women are not physically capable to have sex.

But women are never physically defiling to men or any object they touch! Here is the proof:

Narrated 'Aisha: "The Prophet used to recite the Quran with his head in my lap while I used to be in my periods (having menses). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, ONENESS, UNIQUENESS OF ALLAH (TAWHEED), Volume 9, Book 93, Number 639)"

'Aisha reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) would recline in my lap when I was menstruating, and recite the Qur'an. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0591)"

Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0579)"

'A'isha reported: "When anyone amongst us (amongst the wives of the Holy Prophet) menstruated, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked her to tie a waist-wrapper over her (body) and then embraced her. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0577)"

Kuraibthe freed slave of Ibn Abbas, reported: "I heard it from Maimuna, the wife of the Apostle of Allah (way peace be upon him): The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used to lie with me when I menstruated, and there was a cloth between me and him. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0580)"

Umm Salama (one of our Prophet's wives) reported: "While I was lying with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) in a bed cover I menstruated, so I slipped away and I took up the clothes (which I wore) in menses. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Have you menstruated? I said: Yes. He called me and I lay down. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0581)"

It is reported from 'A'isha that she observed: "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was in I'tikaf, he inclined his head towards me and I combed his hair, and he did not enter the house but for the natural calls (for relieving himself). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0582)"

'A'isha, the wife of the Apostle (may peace he upon him), reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) put out from the mosque his head for me as he was in I'tikaf, and I washed it in the state that I was menstruating. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0584)"

Al-Aswad narrated it from 'A'isha that she observed: "I used to wash the head of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), while I was in a state of menstruation. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0586)"

'A'isha reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to me: Get me the mat from the mosque. I said: I am menstruating. Upon this he remarked: Your menstruation is not in your hand. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0587)"

Abu Huraira reported: "While the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was in the mosque, he said: O 'A'isha, get me that garment. She said: I am menstruating. Upon this he remarked: Your menstruation is not in your hand, and she, therefore, got him that. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0589)"

'A'isha reported: "I would drink when I was menstruating, then I would hand it (the vessel) to the Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he would put his mouth where mine had been, and drink, and I would eat flesh from a bone when I was menstruating, then hand it over to the Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he would put his mouth where mine had been. Zuhair made no mention of (the Holy Prophet's) drinking. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0590)"

If Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him recited the Noble Quran while his head was on the lap of any of his wives who was having her monthly period, and he would eat from the same plate any of them ate from while she had her menses, and he would even allow for any of them to bring a mat that belongs to the Mosque (a spiritually purified place) while she was having her menses, then this means that women who have their monthly periods in Islam are not considered filthy and unclean to a point where anything they touch becomes unclean as the Bible clearly states it.

So much for Mr. Shamoun's deceptions and lies about the Noble Quran degrading women, when in reality his pornful bible is the book of degrading women: The book of women's breasts and vaginas taste like "wine". Visit www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm to see the proofs!

He wrote:

This becomes especially evident when we consider that this same word is often used elsewhere in a negative sense:

"And fulfil the pilgrimage and the visitation to God; but if ye be besieged, then what is easiest for you by way of gift. But shave not your heads until your gift shall reach its destination; and he amongst you who is sick or has a HURT upon his head, then the redemption is by fasting or by alms or by an offering. But when ye are safe again, then let him who would enjoy the visitation until the pilgrimage (bring) what is easiest as a gift. And he who cannot find (anything to bring), then let him fast three days on the pilgrimage and seven when ye return; these make ten days complete. That is, for him whose family are not present in the Sacred Mosque; and fear God and know that God is keen to punish." S. 2:196 Palmer

"They will not harm you save a trifling HURT, and if they fight against you they will turn and flee. And afterward they will not be helped." S. 3:111 Pickthall

"When thou (O Apostle) art with them, and standest to lead them in prayer, Let one party of them stand up (in prayer) with thee, Taking their arms with them: When they finish their prostrations, let them Take their position in the rear. And let the other party come up which hath not yet prayed - and let them pray with thee, Taking all precaution, and bearing arms: the Unbelievers wish, if ye were negligent of your arms and your baggage, to assault you in a single rush. But there is no blame on you if ye put away your arms because of the INCONVENIENCE of rain or because ye are ill; but take (every) precaution for yourselves. For the Unbelievers Allah hath prepared a humiliating punishment." S. 4:102

"O ye who believe! Be ye not like those who vexed and INSULTED Moses, but Allah cleared him of the (calumnies) they had uttered: and he was honourable in Allah's sight." S. 33:69

See also S. 2:262-264; 3:186, 195; 4:16; 6:34; 7:129; 9:61; 14:12; 29:10; 33:48, 53, 57-59; 61:5.

We therefore have good grounds to say that the Quran views women’s menses as an illness, a hurt, and/or an inconvenience.

My response:

What a shame from an Arabic speaking person such as yourself to say nonsense like this. As I said above, the word "Adha" could be used for "somebody got hurt", or "to hurt somebody". It can be used in both situations, and you should know this very well! The Noble Quran prohibits for men to have sexual intercourse with women because:

As I clearly showed from the Narrations above, the Prophet peace be upon him NEVER considered women as physically defiling to men, and that anything they touch becomes unclean. This nonsense only exists in your Bible.

He wrote:

Obviously, the Quran is clearly wrong here since we know from medical science that menses are actually very good and healthy for women. Osama may claim that hurt here doesn’t mean that menses are harmful to the woman, or that menses are necessarily bad in and of themselves, but that it is harmful to the man since he may contact an illness or disease. If so, then he acknowledges my claim earlier in relation to the possible purpose behind the regulations of Leviticus 15. Osama would then have to explain the reason for his criticism of Leviticus when his own book says essentially the same thing.

My response:

The Noble Quran never said that menses are not good for women. This is only your own false interpretation and deception. As to my book saying "essentially the same thing", this is also wrong, because the Noble Quran doesn't consider women as spiritually defiled when they have their menses. Only your pornful bible, the book of women's breasts and vaginas taste like "wine", considers women as spiritually defiled during their menses.

He wrote:

But the problem gets worse.

My response:

Oh no!

He wrote:

The latter explanation seems unlikely in light of the fact that women are forbidden from fasting or offering the five prayers during their menstrual cycle:

A woman who is in her monthly cycle cannot:

Perform the five prescribed prayers (Salat al Fard) (prayers missed due to menstruation do not have to be made up)
Touch the Qur'an,
Make ta'waf around the Kaba,
Fast (Days of fasting missed during Ramadan may be made up within the next lunar year)
Engage in sexual intercourse with her husband (kissing, hugging, and other intimate touching outside of the genital area is okay).
It is better for her not to be in the musallah (area where prayers are performed) in the masjid or Islamic centre.
(http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Issues/Women/Islam_Menses.htm)

My response:

Here is my response to your six points:

1- Yes women can't physically pray to Allah Almighty when they are physically unclean. They however don't become spiritually defiled as your bible considers them.

2- This is very debatable. Many Muslims disagree with this point, because the Noble Quran never made any mention about it. The following Hadiths seem also to support my point:

If Prophet Muhammad's wives were able to grab (touch) the Prayer's mat, then this means that they can also touch the Noble Quran as long as their hands are clean, because their "menstration is not in their hands". But however, some Muslims scholars argue that since a male who is not clean (ejaculated semen) is not allowed to touch the Noble Quran, then this same principle would apply to women who are having their menses. But since women were able to grab Prayer's mats and not considered as they have defiled them, then women probably also touch the Noble Quran during their menses.

Women in Islam can definitely recite the Noble Quran in their heads during their menses. It is only the physical touching of the Noble Quran that is not agreed upon. But for a desperate anti-Islamic such as Sam Shamoun, this silly point is a big deal to him.

3- This point is also very silly. Going around the Holy Site of Kaaba in Mecca is not allowed for both women in their menses and men who ejaculated. What is wrong with this one Mr. Shamoun?

4- Yes women can't fast when they're physically unclean. Men too can't ejaculate while fasting.

5- "Engage in sexual intercourse with her husband (kissing, hugging, and other intimate touching outside of the genital area is okay)." The Hadiths I provided above prove this. But again, what is wrong with this point? Are you actually suggesting that it should be ok for a man to have sexual intercourse with his manustrating wife?! Even your pornful bible prohibits this!

6- Again, manustrating women and unclean men can't perform Prayers. Your quote does not say "women are prohibited". It says "It is better", which means that it is a suggestion that women not to be around the area of Prayers, but it is not prohibited, and women certainly don't make anything they touch unclean as your pornful bible says.

He wrote:

Allah evidently is offended at the sight of menstruating women offering the prescribed prayers or fasting. This only goes to show that the Quran views menstruation as something evil or dirty. If it were not the case that Allah considers women’s menstruation as something sickening, then why would women not be allowed to pray and fast? If it is only meant to protect men from the possibility of contracting an illness, then why shouldn’t women pray and fast?

My response:

This is where you show that you are stupid and irresponsible in your readings and writtings. Allah Almighty is not offended by women, and he most certainly never called them "evil, dirty or sickening". Prostration to Allah Almighty has to be done with a clean body. Uncleanliness of the body, whether it is ejaculation of semen by men or manustration by women, is not acceptable for Prayers.

Women are excused from Praying and Fasting while menstruating. They will not be punished for missing these Acts of Worships! Allah Almighty, the Most Merciful, made life for menstruating women a little easier for them!

It doesn't suprise me that a polytheist trinitarian pagan who is blind in faith person such as yourself failed to see the beauty of this in Islam!

In fact, it is your pornful bible, the book of women's vaginas and beasts taste like "wine", explicity says that a birth of a female causes double the pollution as the birth of male:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days. (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 12:2-5)"

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

He wrote:

Other passages which provide support for this interpretation include:

"O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have TOUCHED women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving." S. 4:43 Pickthall

"O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have TOUCHED the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful." S. 5:6 Shakir

According to these passages, if a man touches a woman before praying he must then purify himself. Someone may claim that touch here refers to sexual relations since the same word is used in S. 19:20 in reference to Mary having not been sexually touched by a man.

Although it may be true that touch can convey the idea of sexual activity, it is not certain that this is what the word means in these respective texts, especially when we take into consideration the following statements:

Malik related to me from Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir that Umayma bint Ruqayqa said, "I went to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, with the women who took an oath of allegiance with him in Islam. They said, 'Messenger of Allah! We take a pledge with you not to associate anything with Allah, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to kill our children, nor to produce any lie that we have devised between our hands and feet, and not to disobey you in what is known.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'In what you can do and are able.'"

Umayma continued, "They said, 'Allah and His Messenger are more merciful to us than ourselves. Come, let us give our hands to you, Messenger of Allah!' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'I do not shake hands with women. My word to a hundred women is like my word to one woman.'" (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 55, Number 55.1.2)

Abu Dharr reported: THE MESSENGER OF 'ALLAH (may peace be upon him) SAID: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, HIS PRAYER WOULD BE CUT OFF BY (passing of an) ASS, WOMAN, AND BLACK DOG. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil. (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1032- see also Number 1034)

'Urwa b. Zubair reported: 'A'isha asked: What disrupts the prayer? We said: THE WOMAN AND THE ASS. Upon this she remarked: IS THE WOMAN AN UGLY ANIMAL? I lay in front of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) like the bier of a corpse and he said prayer. (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1037)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
Qatadah said: I heard Jabir ibn Zayd who reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas; and Shu'bah reported the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: A menstruating woman and a dog cut off the prayer. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 2, Number 0703)

Furthermore, the Arabic word for touch is used in many places without any sexual connotation being implied. Cf. S. 6:7; 7:95, 188; 8:68; 10:12,21; 11:10; 12:88; 15:54; 16:53; 21:83; 24:14, 35; 33:49; 38:41; 39:49; 41:50; 50:38.

My response:

The "touch" in the Noble Verses you presented above mean sexual intercourse with the wives and not just a simple touch by a finger or a hand shake. This is clearly stated in the following Hadiths:

He wrote:

In fact, many Muslim scholars interpreted 4:43 in the same manner that I have proposed here:

Al-Shafi`i took the verse "Or if you have touched women" (4:43) literally, and considered that contact between the sexes, even accidental, nullified ablution. This is also the position of Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Umar, al-Sha`bi, al-Nakha`i, al-Zuhri, and al-Awza`i, which is confirmed by Ibn `Umar's report: "Whoever kisses OR TOUCHES HIS WIFE WITH HIS HAND must renew his wud�'." It is authentic and related in numerous places including Malik's Muwatta'. Al-Shafi`i said: "Something similar has reached us from Ibn Mas`ud." They all read the above verse literally, without interpreting "touch" to mean "sexual intercourse" as do the Hanafis, or "touch with pleasure" as do the Malikis. (http://sunnah.org/publication/khulafa_rashideen/shafii.htm)

My response:

Ok, now you are mixing women with wives! A husband can touch (without sexual intercourse) his wife and not be violating his ablution. However, if a woman hand shakes another man who is not a father, brother, uncle or husband, then her ablution is disturbed and she has to redo it. The same thing with the man; he can only hand shake his mother, wife, sister or aunt.

That's why in the Muslims' culture, it is not right for you, as a man, to offer your hand to a woman for a hand shake. It is considered very offensive! Muslims adopted this in their normal customs and cultures.

He wrote:

Thirdly, the passages say nothing about what makes a woman unclean for prayer, a clear indication that the Quran considers women second class citizens in relation to the men. It is more concerned with men’s needs and ritual purity than women.

My response:

Again, this is another area where you show yourself to be very stupid in your readings and writings. I have presented ample Hadiths above that clearly prove that women's uncleanliness is only with their monthly periods. As far as disturbing the ablution, several things can cause it:

1- Passing a wind.
2- Discharg of body outputs such as urine and other things.
3- Hand shakes or body contact with unlawful opposite gender (such as her husband's friend shaking her hand).

There are probably other few things that would cause for the ablution to be redone that I can't think of right now. But anyway this should be sufficient enough.

In regards to ablution, it consists of the following:

1- Washing the hands 3 times.
2- Rinsing the mouth 3 times.
3- Blowing the nose with water 3 times.
4- Washing the face 3 times.
5- Washing the elbows 3 times.
6- Wiping the hair once.
7- Wiping the neck once.
8- Washing the ears once.
9- Washing the feet 3 times.

He wrote:

OSAMA:

Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

RESPONSE:

Even though the Apocrypha doesn’t concern us, since God did not inspire these books, we will still offer a response.

My response:

So are you admitting here that your pornful bible; the book of breasts and vaginas taste like "wine", actually contain man-made nonsense in it?

Mr. Shamoun, what then gives you the right to critisize the Noble Quran when you know well that your very own bible contains man-made alterations and innovations in it?!

You said "the Apocrypha doesn’t concern us", yet it exists in the Bible! I ask the reader to visit: The original Bible was lost! See comments from the commentary of the NIV Bible (one of the most used Bibles world wide) itself admitting that most of the Books and Gospels of the Bible are corrupted. No one ever claimed ownership of the current Books and Gospels. The owners/writers are unknown.

I have also refuted Quennel Gale's response to this article, and further proved that the Bible is absolutely doubtful and unreliable.

He wrote:

The first thing to note is the way different translations render the Greek:

"... thugater de ep’ elattosei ginetai."

Note the following translations:

... And a foolish daughter shall be to his loss. Douay Old Testament

... spoilt daughter to thy great loss; Knox Translation

... and a [foolish] daughter is born to his loss.

... if it be a daughter, she brings him to poverty. New American Bible

... and the birth of a daughter is a loss. NRSV

We now quote the context:

"It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined son, and the birth of a daughter is a loss. A sensible daughter obtains her husband, but one who acts shamefully brings grief to her father. An impudent daughter disgraces father and husband, and will be despised by both. Like music in mourning is a tale told at the wrong time, but chastising and discipline are wisdom at all times." Ecclesiasticus 22:3-6 RSV

The context shows that the author is referring to children, whether sons or daughters, who bring shame to their family. As such, the author’s intention is not to generalize all women as evil, since he refers to daughters that are sensible, but only to those women who through their shameful ways bring disgrace to their parents and husbands.

My response:

The context of these verses is as follows:

1- The birth of any daughter is a loss, as this is clearly quoted in the New Jerusalem Bible: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss"

2- A loose daughter, or a disrespectful or overconfident or bold daughter is a disgrace to her father and husband, and both of them will be despised by her.

That's what the context is Mr. Shamoun! You know it very well! But you chose to be a deciever! I that know you're not as stupid as your writtings are.

He wrote:

Another plausible meaning of the first sentence is that daughters are a loss to their parents in that they end up leaving their parents when they get married in order to live with their spouses and build families for them.

My response:

When reading the Ecclesiasticus 22:3-6 that you presented above, one clearly sees that they're talking about descipline and bad children. This interpretation can not be valid here. The problem I have with these verses (which you yourself declared that they're not from GOD Almighty, but yet they still exist in your corrupted bible) is that they generalize against all females! Notice that Ecclesiasticus 22:3 starts out with "It is a disgrace...", which clearly proves my point.

He wrote:

In either case, Osama’s use of this particular passage is simply misplaced since it does not support him in the least.

My response:

It doesn't support me in the least? I'll let the reader do the laughing for me on this one.

He wrote:

OSAMA:

If a woman gives birth to a baby boy, then she becomes unclean for 7 days. But if she gives birth to a baby girl, then she becomes unclean for 14 days. So in other words, the birth of any female causes double the pollution: Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

I think it's safe to say that Ecclesiasticus 22:3 and Leviticus 12:2-5 are sister verses.

RESPONSE:

Muslims complain that the ritual purification of a woman who conceives a baby girl is twice as long as that of a baby boy. Admittedly, this is a difficult passage. Yet, the text itself provides one of the reasons why a mother would be declared unclean only for seven days in the case of male children:

"Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the EIGHTH DAY the boy is to be circumcised.’" Leviticus 12:2-3

The length of uncleanness is interrupted by the command to circumcise the male boy on the eighth day. Being ceremonially unclean on the eighth day may have prohibited the mother from witnessing her own son’s circumcision.

The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary provides another (possible) reason for the command in counterbalancing cultural influences:

"In many countries girls are less desired than boys. Thoughtless husbands might have taken better care of baby boys and their mothers; so a longer time at home might have been positive help for a mother with a baby girl. No difference is made in the temple ritual between the birth of a boy or a girl. The only difference is in the periods of uncleanness and seclusion." (Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III, ed. Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary - Volume 1: Old Testament [Zondervan Publishing House; Grand Rapids, MI 1994], p. 139)

My response:

Two things you said:

1- "Admittedly, this is a difficult passage", which tells me that you can't explain the spiritual wisdom behind it.

2- "In many countries girls are less desired than boys."

Jeremiah in the Bible Mr. Shamoun complained about the Jews corrupted the Scriptures and turning them into a big lie with their false pens and scribes:

"`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws and customs, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!

This exists in the Bible itself Mr. Shamoun! Need I say more?

He wrote:

Furthermore, the context clearly shows that no implication of female inferiority can be inferred from the prolonged period of uncleanness:

"When the days of her purification for a son OR DAUGHTER are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy OR A GIRL. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean." Leviticus 12:6-8

Please observe that the sacrifices for male and female infants are identical, supporting the point that both the male and female infants, as well as all males and females in general, have equal value in the eyes of God.

My response:

This still doesn't nullify my point, nor does it prove or disprove anything. Like I said above:

When one reads that the birth of a female causes double the pollution that of the birth of a male in Leviticus 12:2-5, and reads the end of Leviticus 15:19-30:

Mr. Shamoun, do you care to tell us why do women become spiritually defiled from their menses?

And why don't men become spiritually defiled when they discharge semen? Care to explain the spiritual wisdom behind this?

And here is Leviticus 12:2-5 that I mentioned above for the reader's convenience:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

He wrote:

In fact, if one reads Leviticus in the overall context of the Pentateuch, this conclusion becomes inescapable:

"Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and FEMALE he created THEM." Genesis 1:26-27

"When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male AND FEMALE AND BLESSED THEM. And when THEY were created, he called THEM ‘man.’" Genesis 5:1-2

The female is just as much an image-bearer of God as the male.

My response:

We all know that the physical appearance of women is similar to men. You have brought nothing new here and have failed to prove anything! These verses that you mentioned are irrelavent.

He wrote:

The New Testament reflects this very same point:

"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." 1 Corinthians 11:11-12

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one IN CHRIST JESUS." Galatians 3:28

My response:

Paul, the author of the books of Corinthians and Galatians and others, is notorious when it comes to self-contradiction:

Let us further look at how Paul views women:

In regards to Ephesians 5:25-33, it has nothing to do with lifting the status of women:

Notice also Paul said that Jesus cleansed the church and washed it with the word.

Is Paul suggesting that men's marriage to women actually cleans the women from their defiling conditions/status?

He is apparently suggesting that!

To actually elaborate further on this, let us go back to the Old Testament and see what the Bible says about the birth of females compared to that of males':

"....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" Ecclesiasticus 22:3 (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

1- Their birth causes double the pollution/dirt/uncleanliness (call it what ever you want) more than males'.

2- Women are cleansed and purified when they marry men. Men, however, are not necessarily cleansed and purified when they marry women.

Now let us look at 1 Corinthians 7:10-15:

In any rate for all of this, we see one thing that crystal clear:

He wrote:

Finally, the ceremonial laws regarding male and female infants are less difficult to accept than the following purification rite that Muhammad enjoined on Muslims:

"Ali narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: 'The urine of a baby boy should have water sprinkled upon it. The urine of a baby girl is to be washed off.' Says Qatadah, 'This refers to a male baby that has not yet begun to eat. If he already eats, then the garment is to be washed.'

"This hadith is related by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah. In al-Fath, Ibn Hajar says its chain is sahih.

"Sprinkling is sufficient as long as the boy is still nursing. If he eats solid food, his urine must be washed from the clothes and body. There is no disagreement on this latter point. Perhaps the reason for this exemption to the male baby's urine is that people have a tendency to carry their male babies around, and it would have been difficult to clean the clothes after their frequent urinations." (Fiqh us-Sunnah Volume 1 Purification and Prayer [American Trust Publications, Indianapolis Indiana 1991], pp. 9-10)

The explanation above doesn't work since infant girls are also carried around. So why the difference? Perhaps Osama can answer.

My response:

The first Hadith you gave had no reference! You said that it was mentioned in different sources. Care to give us more details about its location in these sources?

As to the second Hadith, both the first (if it exists in the sources you mentioned) and the second Hadiths are not Noble Quran. Meaning, we are not obligated to follow them word for word! Only the Noble Quran is for all places and all times. The Hadiths that agree with the Noble Quran are also for all places and all times, but the Hadiths that don't agree with the Noble Quran, or have no reference in the Noble Quran:

1- They are weak.
2- They are not obligatory to be followed.

But aside for all of this, what do these Hadiths have anything to do with what we're talking about here Mr. Shamoun?!

He wrote:

OSAMA:

If a woman tries to save her husband from a beating by grabbing the other man's private parts to lift him off her husband, then both her hands must get cut off: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."

RESPONSE:

In what way does this passage degrade women is beyond us, especially when the OT is replete with examples of laws pertaining to the punishment of men also.

My response:

What are those laws of punishment for men? If you had strong ones you would have posted them here. But you know and I know that you have none! In fact, here is another set of verses for you:

Let us look at Leviticus 20:15 "If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."

Let us look at Leviticus 20:16 "If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Notice that in Leviticus 20:15 the man has to be caught having sex with an animal in order for him to be put to death. We have to be sure 100% beyond the shadow of the doubt to kill him.

Notice however in Leviticus 20:16 that if a woman only looks SUSPICIOUS and not necessarily get caught having sex with an animal, she would still be put to death. We do not have to be sure 100% beyond the shadow of the doubt with her in order for us to kill her.

Hmmm, very interesting !!!! Don't Leviticus 20:15 and Leviticus 20:16 prove that the Bible prefers to put women to death whenever an opportunity presents itself?

If these verses are still "beyond you", then it's ok. As long as the reader understands, then that's all I care about.

I just want the reader to always keep this mind when reading the Bible:

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

He wrote:

Again, it seems that Osama will quote just about anything to prove his case, even when those passages have nothing to do with the degradation of women.

My response:

Oh really?

He wrote:

Osama continues:

Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

RESPONSE:

First, let us look at the surrounding context to understand what is actually being stated here:

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything. If he came in by himself he will go out by himself; if he had a wife when he comes in, then his wife will go out with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will belong to her master, and he will go out by himself. But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my master, and my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master will bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door, or the doorposts, and his master will bore through his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she will not go out as the men servants do. If she does not please her master, who has desired her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he takes another wife, he must not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights. And if he does not provide her with these three things, THEN SHE WILL GO OUT FREE, WITHOUT PAYING MONEY." Exodus 21:2-11 NET Bible

It is clear that these laws were meant to PROTECT Hebrew servants, not abuse them as Osama seems to imply.

My response:

Mr. Shamoun, are you blind or just pretending to be stupid? The point from Exodus 21:7-8 is that fathers in the Bible can sell their daughters as slaves! This means (please take this in the right sense) that you, yourself!!, can sell your very own daughter to me as a slave girl!

You wouldn't follow the Laws of the Bible Mr. Shamoun, would you?

He wrote:

Individuals were sometimes forced to either work or give their daughters as servants as a result of debt, poverty, crime etc. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown note:

Every Israelite was free-born; but slavery was permitted under certain restrictions. An Hebrew might be made a slave through poverty, debt, or crime; but at the end of six years he was entitled to freedom, and his wife, if she had voluntarily shared his state of bondage, also obtained release. Should he, however, have married a female slave, she and the children, after the husband's liberation, remained the master's property; and if, through attachment to his family, the Hebrew chose to forfeit his privilege and abide as he was, a formal process was gone through in a public court, and a brand of servitude stamped on his ear (Psalms 40:6) for life, or at least till the Jubilee (Deuteronomy 15:17). (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=ex&chapter=021)

These laws insured the rights and integrity of the servants, preventing masters from treating them as mere property.

My response:

No comments. But I just wish that the Jews did not defile the Bible with their nonsense, so that we would know which came from Allah Almighty and which did not:

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

He wrote:

The fair treatment of female servants wasn’t restricted to the Israelite women alone. God told Israel that if they found an attractive gentile woman amongst the captives they could marry her, but they could not sell or abuse her:

"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her." Deuteronomy 21:10-14

An Israelite could not touch a captive he found attractive for 30 days, which allowed for the captive to mourn the loss of her family and country. The intention of this law was to protect her against any rude passion on the part of the man (i.e., rape). It also gave her time to blend in with the Israelites and to develop affection for the man. Hence, the law served as a mercy from God to protect her against rape. It clearly highlights God’s great compassionate for non-Israelite women taken in war. Gentile women were not necessarily given covenant protection as Israelite women were given. And yet God gives these captive Gentile women protection and insures that they were not regarded as mere slaves, or as contraband from the battle. God in his love gave them the full status of wives, just like Israelite women!

My response:

That is very beautiful! I respect that in the Bible Mr. Shamoun!

He wrote:

Muhammad, on the other hand, permitted Muslims to sleep with slave girls without having to marry them first:

My response:

Stop! Before I let you continue, the Bible did not make it obligatory for the Israeli man to marry the Gentile woman! GOD Almighty allowed for him to marry her, but did not say that the man HAD TO do it. You yourself bolded this part: "you may take her AS YOUR WIFE", and ironically you forgot what you bolded. The man could've easily took her home and had sex with her after the one month period.

Also, another point to notice here is that the woman could've also been married to another Gentile man. The Bible did not restrict for the woman to be single first in order for an Israeli man to be allowed to take her as a slave girl or wife. Her Gentile husband is irrelevant here.

Don't be alarmed to answer this one Mr. Shamoun, because this is how it is also in Islam. Please visit: Why did Allah Almighty make lawful for Muslim men to have sexual intercourse with the married women whom are captives of war?

He wrote:

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery ... S. 4:24 Pickthall

Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (in their case) they are free from blame, S. 23:5-6 Y. Ali

O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. S. 33:50 Pickthall

... And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (then) they are not to be blamed, S. 70:22-30 Y. Ali

My response:

Again, I have covered the topic of female captives of war in great details in this article: Why did Allah Almighty make lawful for Muslim men to have sexual intercourse with the married women whom are captives of war?

However Mr. Shamoun, I will present a Noble Verse from the Noble Quran and a Hadith that are far more beautiful than any verse you can find in the Bible regarding slaves:

From www.answering-christianity.com/equality.htm

Can a slave request his freedom from his Muslim owner?

The Noble Quran not only allows slaves to request their freedom from their Muslim masters, but also orders the Muslim masters to pay the slaves money to help them stand on their feet and to be able to face life with a good jump start.

Let us look at Noble Verse 24:33 "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)," 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.

"The law of slavery in the legal sense of the term is now obsolete. While it had any meaning, Islam made the slave's lot as easy as possible. A slave, male or female, could ask for conditional manumission by a written deed fixing the amount required for manumission and allowing the slave meanwhile to earn money by lawful means and perhaps marry and bring up a family. Such a deed was not to be refused if the request was genuine and the slave had character. Not only that, but the master is directed to help with money out of his own resources in order to enable the slave to earn his or her own liberty." [2]

Again, the Prophet peace be upon him said:

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

He wrote:

The hadith records some of the shameful things which the Muslims did to their captive and slave women:

Chapter 29: IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CAPTIVE WOMAN AFTER SHE IS PURIFIED (OF MENSES OR DELIVERY) IN CASE SHE HAS A HUSBAND, HER MARRIAGE IS ABROGATED AFTER SHE BECOMES CAPTIVE

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practice 'azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3383)

Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

These traditions shockingly demonstrate that Allah gave the Muslims the right to not only sleep with the captives without having to marry them, but to do it with their husbands present!

My response:

Again, the woman in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 could've also been married to another Gentile man. The Bible did not restrict for the woman to be single first in order for an Israeli man to be allowed to take her as a slave girl or wife. Her Gentile husband is irrelevant here.

Also in Islam, slave girls can not be forced into sex:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

Show me one Bible verse that commands men to not force their slave girls into sex.

Also, care to respond to these verses regarding slaves from the Bible Mr. Shamoun?

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."

Deuteronomy 20:13-14 "13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

Numbers 31:17 "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."

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 [virgin women]."

Why kill the innocent children? Why kill all of the non-virgin women? Back then, it was only men who fought men in wars. Women rarely fought in battle fields. So what crime did the innocent children and the non-virgin women do?

Please visit: Human Equality in the Bible vs Islam.

My Challenge to all Jews and Christians:

"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)"

In either translation, we clearly see that the Bible is not a book for freeing slaves. Slavery was practiced very badly during the times of Judaism and Christianity, and was fought against and ended during the times of Islam. It is part of the Bible's "teaching" to practice and promote slavery! And fighting it would "slander" or "defame" the teachings of the Bible.

My Challenge: I invite any Jew or Christian to bring me one Bible verse that orders its followers to free slaves!

While the Bible allows for the people of Israel to will and inherit their slaves and their slaves' children for ever, the Noble Quran allows the slaves to request and get his freedom from his Muslim master:

Again, from www.answering-christianity.com/equality.htm

Can a slave request his freedom from his Muslim owner?

Again, the Prophet peace be upon him said:

He wrote:

In the words of Ibn Kathir, taken from his commentary on S. 4:24:

<except those whom your right hands possess>
except those women whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.
Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed ...

<Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess>.
Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women." This is the wording collected by AT-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5 (Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First edition, March 2000], p. 422; bold emphasis ours)

Now what was that about slave girls in the OT?

My response:

I have already proved to you that the Bible also allows for Israeli men to have sex with their married captive women. I have also proven to you that slaves in Islam can request and earn their freedom, while this is impossible in the Bible.

He wrote:

OSAMA:

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons: "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

RESPONSE:

A careful reading of the entire context will show that the inheritance spoken of was LAND INHERITANCE. It has nothing to do with the bequeathing of money to family members:

"These were those numbered of the Israelites, 601,730. Then the Lord spoke to Moses: ‘To these THE LAND MUST BE DIVIDED AS AN INHERITANCE according to the number of the names. To a larger group you will give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group you will give a smaller inheritance. To each one his inheritance must be given according to his enumeration. The land must be divided by lot; and they will inherit in accordance with the names of their ancestral tribes. Their inheritance must be apportioned by lot among the larger and smaller groups.’ And these are those of the Levites who were numbered, after their families: from Gershon, the family of the Gershonites; of Kohath, the family of the Kohathites; from Merari, the family of the Merarites. These are the families of the Levites: the family of the Libnites, the family of the Hebronites, the family of the Mahlites, the family of the Mushites, the family of the Korahites. Kohath became the father of Amram. Now the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt. And she bore to Amram Aaron, Moses, and Miriam their sister. And to Aaron were born Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. But Nadab and Abihu died when they offered strange fire before the Lord. And those numbered of them were 23,000, all males from twenty years old and upward; for they were not numbered among the Israelites; no inheritance was given to them among the Israelites. These are those who were numbered by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who numbered the Israelites in the plains of Moab along the Jordan River opposite Jericho. But there was not a man among these who had been among those numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest when they numbered the Israelites in the Wilderness of Sinai. For the Lord had said of them, ‘They will surely die in the wilderness.’ And there was not left a single man of them, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun." Numbers 26:51-65 NET Bible

The land that God was going to give Israel was to be divided amongst the twelve tribes. Tribal affiliation was determined from the father’s side, i.e. if your father was from Judah than you were a Judean. Hence, ownership of the land was transferred over to the sons so that it would remain within the possession of that particular tribe and family.

My response:

Notice how Mr. Shamoun quoted from chapter 26 and I quoted from chapter 27. "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" is as clear as it gets!

In regards to your chapter 26, it has nothing to do with this! Chapter 26 was talking about division of land among the tribes of Israel, while chapter 27 that I quoted from talks was talking about the personal property that a family might have!

Mr. Shamoun's verses have nothing to do with my verse! My verse is talking about personal properties, while his verses are talking about something else!

He wrote:

The particular passage that Osama quoted from is dealing with a situation where a man died and only had daughters:

"Then the daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, the son Joseph came forward. Now these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses and before Eleazar the priest and before the leaders of the whole assembly at the entrance to the tent of the meeting and said, ‘Our father died in the wilderness, although he was not part of the company of those that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be lost from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among the relatives of our father.’ So Moses brought their case before the Lord. And the Lord spoke to Moses: ‘The daughters of Zelophehad have a valid claim. You must indeed give them possession of an inheritance among their father’s relatives, and you must transfer the inheritance of their father to them. And you must tell the Israelites, If a man dies and has no son, then you must transfer his inheritance to his daughter; and if he has no daughter, then you are to give his inheritance to his brothers; and if he has no brothers, then you are to give his inheritance to his father’s brothers; and if his father has no brothers, then you are to give his inheritance to his relative nearest to him from his family, and he will possess it. And it will be for the Israelites a legal requirement, as the Lord commanded Moses.’" Numbers 27:1-11 NET Bible

Hence, what Osama thought was an argument supporting his assertion actually backfires against him and demonstrates God’s fairness and concern in insuring that a person didn’t lose his property!

My response:

How about giving the daughters some inheritance while there are sons? How is that back firing at me?! When a woman married during these times, she did not lose her property to her husband! So what is the spiritual wisdom from depriving the daughters any inheritance and giving it all to the sons only?

In Islam, sons are responsible to support their parents, wives, children and widowed sisters (if there are any). That is why the son in Islam inherits double the daughter. But the daughter nonetheless does inherit, and she does not lose her money to her husband.

I challenge Mr. Shamoun to prove to us here that the Bible is more just than the Noble Quran!

He wrote:

Interestingly, there is a passage which may in fact show that daughters could receive an inheritance from the father in regards to finances, i.e. cattle, livestock etc.:

"So the Lord blessed the second part of Job’s life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand female donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah, and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land could women be found who were as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance alongside their brothers." Job 42:12-15 NET Bible

My response:

Job here obviously did his own work and not the work of GOD Almighty. Him granting inheritance to his daughters alongside his sons proves:

1- Job contradicted "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)"

2- Job was not convinced that Numbers 27:8 is a just verse, and perhaps he was not even convinced that it was the True Revelation of GOD Almighty.

3- The Bible in Numbers 27:8 and Job 42:12-15 is in clear contradiction, which proves that what you have today from books and gospels in the bible are nothing but narrations and stories that have contradictions and are not inspired by GOD Almighty.

Again, please visit: The original Bible was lost! See comments from the commentary of the NIV Bible (one of the most used Bibles world wide) itself admitting that most of the Books and Gospels of the Bible are corrupted. No one ever claimed ownership of the current Books and Gospels. The owners/writers are unknown.

He wrote:

Osama issues the following challenge:

My challenge to all Jews and Christians:

I challenge all Jews and Christians to show me one verse from the Bible that really praises women! Just one!! Jesus himself in Revelation 14:4 considered women as dirt that defiles men. Even Jesus, the Christians' highest model, despised women in the Bible!!

It is crystal clear that women in the Bible are nothing but a defiling dirt and trash to men. This is no insult to women by me. This is just simply the way the Bible views women. Ironically, Jesus confirmed this view.

RESPONSE:

We have just exposed Osama’s lies and gross misrepresentation of Jesus’ view of women.

My response:

You have not exposed anything yet. Let alone exposing a lie from me. All of your points had been soundly refuted above!

He wrote:

Osama asks for only one verse that praises women. Here, we give him not just one verse, but many passages:

"He who finds a wife finds what is GOOD and receives FAVOR from the LORD." Proverbs 18:22

"Houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the LORD." Proverbs 19:14

"A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth FAR MORE THAN RUBIES. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar. She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night. In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers. She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy. When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet. She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple. Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes. She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: ‘Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.’ Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD IS TO BE PRAISED. Give her the reward SHE HAS EARNED, and let her works BRING HER PRAISE at the city gate." Proverbs 31:10-31

My response:

I apologize to my readers for issuing a challenge that I myself did not thoroughly investigate. My challenge as is had been SOUNDLY refuted by Mr. Shamoun. But however, this still does not nullify my article and my points, especially the contradictions that I showed regarding women in the Bible, and the ones I am about to show you below with Paul's teachings.

In regards to the book of Proverbs, let us look at the validity of this book from the NIV Bible's theologians' historical evidence:

"Although the book begins with a title ascribing the proverbs to Solomon, it is clear from later chapters that he was not the only author of the book. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 935)"

Can anyone please tell me who that other author was? And did GOD Almighty speak those words through his tongue? In other words, was that person (if we know who he was) appointed by GOD Almighty to alter the book of Proverbs?

(www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm)

He wrote:

Throughout his epistles, Paul greets and praises women for their work in the Lord:

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way WORTHY OF THE SAINTS and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been A GREAT HELP to many people, including me. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to THEM. Greet also the church that meets at their house ... Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was ... Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too ... Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them." Romans 16:1-5a, 6-7, 12-13, 15

"I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life." Philippians 4:2-3

My response:

These verses praise certain women and not women in general. These verses also contradict Paul's own views regarding women, and his preference for them to remain silent in regards to teaching men:

This does not refute my challenge!

He wrote:

Paul exhorts his young prot�g� Timothy with the following instructions:

"Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help." 1 Timothy 5:1-5

My response:

Here Paul is teaching his followers to be polite to people, and to treat elderly as parents and young ones as brothers and sisters. As to the widow who feels helpless, it is her natural inclination to ask GOD Almighty for help!

Where is the praising of women here Mr. Shamoun?

Again, this does not refute my challenge!

He wrote:

Speaking again to Timothy, Paul writes:

"To Timothy, my dear son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. I thank God, whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers. Recalling your tears, I long to see you, so that I may be filled with joy. I have been reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also." 2 Timothy 1:2-5

My response:

Again, Paul here is talking about certain women and not women in general! There is no general praising of women in this verse.

Again, this does not refute my challenge!

He wrote:

The Apostle Peter writes to women:

"Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the HOLY WOMEN of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear." 1 Peter 3:1-6

My response:

This passage of Peter directly contradicts Paul's. While Peter is asking women to be positive with their disbelieving husbands so that their husbands MIGHT be persuaded to embrace Christianity through their wives positive actions " they may be won over without words.....when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.", Paul said something totally different:

1 Corinthians 7:10-15:

Please visit: Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.

Also, notice "but as it is, they are holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14 above. It really doesn't just mean that the disbelieving children would be considered "holy", but also the disbelieving spouse (male or female).

What does Paul here mean by "holy"??!! If the disbelieving spouse would still not be saved in the End, then what is the point from considering them "holy"??!!

How does all of this fit with Paul's very next verse in 1 Corinthians 7:16:

"How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:16)"

So if the wife/husband can never save their spouse unless GOD Almighty Wills, then again, what is the point from calling the disbelieving spouses and the disbelieving children as "holy"?!

It is clear that Paul's "holy" title to disbelieving spouses and children proved to be irrelevant and absolutely pointless! Hence, this makes the Bible imperfect in it's contents and literature, since it contains utter nonsense and foolish opinions in it. Hence, this makes the Bible not the 100% True Holy Words of GOD Almighty.

Why should GOD Almighty, if He truly inspired Paul's nonsense, call disbelievers as "holy" and still roast them in Hell? Wouldn't that make the Perfect GOD Almighty inconsistent and a hypocrite?

Where is the Divine Perfection in this?!

Again, please visit: Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.

As we clearly see above, while Peter recommended for the wives to be very positive with their disbelieving husbands so that these husbands might be "won over" (meaning embrace the religion) through their wives' actions, Paul said that the disbelieving husbands would be "sanctified" through their believing wives. Not only the disbelieving husbands, but also their children even if these children became disbelievers.

Now let us look at what John said:

John 3

15. that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
16. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Again, Paul clearly contradicted John 3:16 "that whoever believes in him shall not perish". How can a disbelieving husband not perish even if his wife was a believer?

Paul and Peter and John are in clear contradiction here!

No matter how you interpret 1 Peter 3:1-6, whether it meant to say that the disbelieving husbands are automatically purified through their believing wives, or it meant to say that the disbelieving husbands might be persuaded to embrace the pagan polytheist religion, 1 Peter 3:16 still would be in clear contradiction with Paul or John in either case!

In any rate for all of this, we see one thing that crystal clear:

The Bible is full of contradictions! It is certainly not perfect: Not in it's history (See the historical evidence of how most of the books and gospels were written by mysterious people), nor in its contents and literature. It is clear that it is made up of man's alterations and innovations and it is not and can not be the Inspired True Word of GOD Almighty.

He wrote:

The preceding passages are self-explanatory, needing no comments, and serve to demonstrate that Osama is unqualified to speak and critique the Holy Bible, the pure word of the true God.

My response:

Most of the verses you presented did not refute my challenge as I clearly showed above. But nonetheless, you did SOUNDLY refute my challenge. You did bring, not only one verse, but more than one verse that praised women in the Bible.

However Mr. Shamoun, my challenge does not nullify my article, nor does it nullify my rebuttal to your response, nor does it nullify the proofs I presented that clearly showed the contradiction between Paul, Peter and the Old Testament regarding women, and the mysterious authors that wrote most of the Bible's books and gospels.

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

How do the Bible and the Noble Quran view women?

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Exposing Osama's Smokescreens and Rabbit Trails (PART 1)" article.

Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.

Women in Islam vs. Christianity.

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.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.