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

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

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

This article is a rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's response that is located at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/women2a.htm.

Toward the very end of the article, I have created a section of "Questions to Sam Shamoun about the Bible", in which I ask Sam Shamoun questions about wife beating, anal sex between the husband and the wife, and other issues in the Bible.

He wrote:

Exposing Osama’s Smokescreens and Rabbit Trails:

Revisiting the case for the honorific position of women in Holy Bible
in contrast to their degradation in Islam

My response:

We'll see about that. Below, I will prove to the reader once again, insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing), that Islam treats women far better than the pornful Bible does; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and she had sex with her brother all night long in secret. See the proofs for yourself.

Also, Paul had lied about the coming of the Day of Judgement, and he also lied about his advises and took away the solution to sexual immorality and made things worse. His lie is one of the main excuses that most of the Christians justify fornication through as you will see below.

He wrote:

This is the first part in a series of rebuttals to Osama’s reply to my refutation of his challenge. Lord willing, once I am done with the series I won’t bother wasting anymore time on this issue since the reader will be able to see that Osama’s rebuttals fail to refute the arguments presented throughout our articles. In these series I will omit arguments that were already soundly refuted in my first rebuttal.

My response:

Whether you decide to "waste" your time or not, that is completely up to you, and quite frankly, I could careless about you and your time.

Also, you said "Lord willing". Which Lord? Jesus? The man who begged his GOD Almighty to not put him on the cross and compromised his (Jesus) very own commands about not doing repetitions in Prayers by praying and repeating the same exact prayer all night long? Is this your "Lord"? Is this the one whom you wait for him to "will" things?

To the reader, please visit: Answering Trinity, to see detailed refutations to every single so-called "trinitarian" verse in the Bible.

He wrote:

Osama falsely accuses me of diverting from the issue of Rev. 14:4 even though I spent a great deal of time refuting his gross errors regarding the passage. It appears that instead of first carefully reading through the article in order to grasp my points, Osama has simply chosen to respond to the article as he goes along reading it.

My response:

A bunch of nonsense that will be refuted further down in this article.

He wrote:

He takes a stab at 1 Corinthians 7:1-5:

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.

A couple of paragraphs later, Osama writes:

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.

RESPONSE:

Osama provides further evidence that he is unable to understand and /or interact with the passages in question. He falsely claims that Paul is discouraging men from marrying, ALL THE WHILE FAILING TO NOTE THE CONTEXT:

"NOW FOR THE MATTERS YOU WROTE ABOUT: It is good for a man not to marry ..."

Paul is addressing specific questions and concerns of the Corinthian believers. Paul gives us an idea regarding the nature of these concerns:

"Because of the PRESENT CRISIS, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are." 1 Corinthians 7:26 NIV

Evidently, the circumstances that the Corinthians found themselves in led Paul to conclude that it would be better for individuals to remain unmarried. In other words, Paul was saying that in light of THEIR CRISIS they should remain single.

My response:

What were those crisis? Immorality and the soon coming of the Day of Judgement:

"But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2).

"Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. (From the King James Version Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:25-31)"

Few points to notice here:

1- For 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, since there was too much immorality, which includes sexual sinning, lack of integrity, etc..., Paul seems to blame only the women for such problems. He is saying that since there are immorality problems in the society, then it is best for men not to marry women. But what if it was the men who were causing the problems? Would it have been fair to women for him to say it like that? If men were the real cause of the problem, then the verse should read: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a woman not to marry." These verses clearly have no Divine Perfection nor consistency in them, thus, they can't be from GOD Almighty.

2- Why is marriage to women such a bad idea in those circumstances? Marriage does solve sexual immorality by eliminating fornication and adultery. What is the Divine Wisdom from Paul's rejection to marriage under the circumstances that DESPERATELY NEED MARRIAGE AS A SOLUTION?!

3- If Paul indeed meant to discourage marriage in general (which was a very stupid idea to begin with, and proves that he is a liar and not an apostle of GOD Almighty) for both men and women, then he would not have worded his verse the way he did, and he most certainly would not blame women for all of the immorality that the society was suffering from.

4- Paul obviously was a complete retard when it came to justly and wisely judging the situations and offering solutions. Paul took away the solution with his stupidity and further deprived men from sex, and most certainly he had resulted in many of them to commit fornication which compromised their salvations.

5- For 1 Corinthians 7:25-31, the Day of Judgement never came to pass and Paul and his followers all died. Paul was scaring his followers from the End of Times and promising them that the Hour was about to come and that they should focus all of their attention on it, instead of on their spouses. The Hour never came, and Paul's so-called solution to the immorality problem is used as a lame excuse by more than 90% of all Christian populations world-wide to commit fornication and justify it.

Shamoun further writes: " "Because of the PRESENT CRISIS, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are." 1 Corinthians 7:26 NIV"

"I think"? Is that a Divine verse or is it just uncle Paul's own nonsense? You can't possibly claim it was Divine when uncle Paul said "I think". How ridiculous indeed!

On a side note, I thought Paul's Bible was ALL inspired by GOD Almighty! He himself said it:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (From the NIV Bible, 2 Timothy 3:16)"

How can the scripture be all God-breathed when your very own part of it isn't?!

From www.answering-christianity.com/2tim3_16.htm

In the above verse, we clearly see that the entire Bible is supposed to be inspired from GOD Almighty.

There are few problems however with this claim:

1- There is no actual "Bible". The word "Bible" doesn't even exist in what we call today "The Bible". So when such claim is made, it is not right for us to use it to prove the entire "collection" was inspired from GOD Almighty.

2- Paul obviously didn't know much about the Old Testament for claiming that it is all "God-breathed". GOD Almighty said: "`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)" See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Prophet Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death by their own hands. See History of Man's corruption of the Old Testament.

3- Paul who spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 had ridiculously contradicted himself, because he himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). Verses 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 are today permanently preserved in the "Bible". If GOD Almighty indeed spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 through Paul, then He wouldn't have contradicted Himself in the Verse about the entire Bible being His Words, while permanently preserving Paul's personal words and suggestions in the "Bible". This should be one solid proof that Paul was not truthful. Anyway, many famous Historians and Theologians before came to conclusions that Paul was not truthful.

4- Most of the New Testament is nothing but conversations between people, which are clearly not inspirations from GOD Almighty. For instance, Paul fought with Saint Peter and accused him of being "clearly in the wrong" (Galatians: 2:11-12), and had a huge argument with Saint Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39). Now one must ask, did GOD for instance favor Paul over Barnabas and Peter and inspired him the words while he was fighting with them? If so, since Peter was "clearly in the wrong", then how about his Gospels? Wasn't every word that Peter spoke supposedly inspired by GOD? How then could he be "clearly in the wrong"? One of them must be in the wrong, which in either case, would also produce another contradiction to 2 Timothy 3:16. Is Paul GOD Himself? No Christian believes in that. So why then take everything he says including 2 Timothy 3:16 as the Words of GOD Almighty when they contain clear contradictions in them?

5- The history of the Gospels in the New Testament is very unreliable according to the commentary of the NIV Bible. The NIV Bible is one of the most used Bibles among Christians, and is used in almost every "Bible Search" web site. I wrote down their quotes in DARK GREEN to prove this point. Let me show you a little example of that article:

The Book of Acts:

"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke."

So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other "Satanic false books"? Are we sure that this book too is not a man-made Satanic book?

After all, its just a conclusion, isn't it?

The Book of Hebrews:

"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients."

So because the guy was supposedly "well known (which we don't really know that for sure anyway)", then would that give us the right to consider his words as the Words of GOD Almighty?! I am sorry, but I don't really see the logic behind this! The Book of Hebrews is one of the highly used Books among Christians. I hear references from it a lot when listening to Christians preaching. Yet, no one really knows who wrote it!. This is quite ironic, because Christians use such highly doubtful books in their teachings as if they were the True Living Words of GOD Almighty. I don't care what you call this, but I call it blasphemy, because it is the most ridiculous insult to GOD Almighty and His Holy Words that I have ever seen.

I just hope you see the real cheap quality in the religion of Christianity, with all my respect due to every Christian reader.

This article Just who were the real authors of the Bible exposes the historical unreliability of the Gospels of the Bible, which is extremely important when trying to claim that a discovered Letter/Book was indeed a "Gospel" and it is the Words of GOD Almighty.

Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran (The Muslims' Holy Scripture): "Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book [The Bible] with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:77-79)"

5- "The X-Rated Pornography in the Bible is another proof that the Bible can not be all inspired by Allah Almighty.

Do you believe that the "Bible" contains some Divine Inspirations in it?

Yes I do. Man can try to come up with many lies and additions to the Words of Allah Almighty, but Allah Almighty's Words will always stand out clear from corruption. As a Muslim, I believe that Jesus' personal quotes are the closest to the Truth. But however, the Noble Quran is the error-free Holy Book that we all must follow. Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran: "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption). (The Noble Quran, 15:9)" Also "Nay, this is a Glorious Quran, (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved! (The Noble Quran, (85:21-22)"

He wrote:

Paul wasn’t forbidding marriage IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, as the following passage clearly proves:

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 1 Timothy 4:1-5 NIV

Paul says that those who forbid marriage were actually teaching doctrines of demons!

My response:

Paul as I clearly showed above took away the only solution to sexual sinning from his followers by prohibiting marriage, and falsely lied to them and scared them to death by telling them that the Hour was coming very soon. Later, he changed his views and said that those who prohibit marriage are led by the demon spirits.

Tell us uncle Paul, in the US and Europe today, where there are way too many sexual sinnings in the society (starting from the age of 10 all the way to 99), and they even have nude public beaches, to you, is it a bad idea for Americans and Europeans to get married?

If yes, then under what authority are you saying this? Are you now justifying fornication? If not, then how can you expect from your American and European followers to hold on to their hormones forever and ever?

To the reader, I just hope you see the clear inconsistencies and stupidity in Paul's logic, and the clear lies that were uttered from his blasphemous mouth.

He wrote:

Furthermore, to show just how ridiculous Osama’s understanding of Paul’s letter truly is, we only need to turn to the context of Paul’s statements. Paul went on to say that it was also better that women should remain unmarried:

... An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world - how she can please her husband ... A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is - and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 7:34b, 39-40 NIV

Applying Osama’s logic here will lead us to conclude that Paul’s suggestion to unmarried women and widows shows that he believed that women were higher and better than men, and that "ALL men were ridiculous and low"!

My response:

Now you're making fun of my logic? Did your Paul, the liar, even have a logic? Also, "In my judgement", clearly shows that Paul again had contradicted his very own verse in 2 Timothy 3:16 about "All scriptures" being "God-breathed".

He wrote:

Finally, Osama failed to interact with the reason why I cited 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 and tried to divert his readers attention away from the real issue. But I won’t let him get away with his diversionary tricks and smokescreens so I will repeat my challenge with added emphasis.

My response:

No kidding!

He wrote:

PLEASE PRODUCE A QURANIC VERSE PARALLELING PAUL’S STATEMENT THAT THE BODY OF THE HUSBAND DOESN’T BELONG TO HIM ALONE, BUT ALSO TO HIS WIFE.

My response:

The Noble Quran is a Divine Holy Book. It doesn't contain such stupid statements in it.

He wrote:

Osama next brings up 1 Timothy 2:11-14, a passage which I have dealt with here:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_lies2.htm

This article also deals with passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, 14:34-35 and several others. Glenn Miller also has an excellent series of articles which deal with the meaning of these citations:

http://christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html, specifically: http://christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html

So I will not respond to them here. I simply refer the readers to the preceding articles.

My response:

Here is what 1 Timothy 2:11-14 say:

"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. (From the King James Version Bible, 1 Timothy 2:11-14)"

The verses are as clear as they get. Sam Shamoun did not even post the contents of the verses. We wonder why? 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?

Again, Paul's lack of common sense is what led him to utter such absurdities that generalized against all women and prohibited even those intelligent ones of them from educating men.

Tell us Shamoun, why is Paul even prohibiting for any woman to teach any man? Is any man better than all women? I can see certain men being better than certain women, and vise versa, but Paul's stupidity here is saying clearly and irrefutably that "all men are higher than all women".

Is that why you refused to directly answer these verses for us Shamoun?

Again, where is the Divine Perfection in Paul's words?

He wrote:

Osama continues:

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!

RESPONSE:

Osama tries to divert attention away from my main point since he realizes that he has nothing meaningful to say in response. Osama completely ignores the fact that Paul commands husbands to treat and love their wives AS THEIR OWN BODIES, AS THEY LOVE THEIR OWN PERSONS, paralleling the love Christ has for his Church; a love so great and so strong that it moved him to die for it.

My response:

The verses above say: "gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word". The point here Shamoun is:

Why does Paul consider women's marriage to men as an honor and cleansing to women from their sins? Why isn't men's marriage to women also cleansing to men from their sins?

He wrote:

But we won’t let him get away with his evasion tactics and so here is our challenge:

PLEASE PRODUCE ONE VERSE FROM THE QURAN WHICH COMMANDS HUSBANDS TO LOVE THEIR WIVES AS THEIR OWN BODIES AND AS THEY LOVE THEMSELVES, A LOVE STRONG ENOUGH TO MOTIVATE THE HUSBAND TO DIE FOR HIS SPOUSE IF HE HAS TO.

My response:

Again, the Noble Quran is a Divine Holy Book. It doesn't contain such stupidity in it. That is why you don't see ridiculous and generalizing Noble Verses in the Noble Quran as you see in your pornful bible; the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and she had sex with her brother all night long.

Sam Shamoun still fails to realize that Paul and his Bible look at women as filthy and low, and that they need men to clean them up - like Paul himself was even clean to begin with.

He wrote:

Osama realizes that he cannot produce such a passage and it is no wonder why he needs to run from the issue at hand.

My response:

No kidding!

He wrote:

He is aware that he needs to save himself from embarrassment and hide the fact that the book he considers "scripture" miserably fails to compare with God’s true word, the Holy Bible, as far as treatment of women is concerned. The best he can do in response to this passage is to throw out red herrings since he says later on:

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:

"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

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?

In what way do the actions of individuals, some who may even profess to be Christians, refute the Holy Bible’s PLAIN AND EXPLICIT COMMANDMENT that husbands are to treat their wives as their own bodies? Osama’s argument only proves that men are failing to live up to God’s ideal standards for marriage.

My response:

I see no response to my point above: "So much for a husband's body being owned by him and his wife nonsense." If the Old Testament despises women and says that a birth of a female causes double the pollution that a male causes (Leviticus 12:2-5 above), then how is that contradiction lifting to women?

He wrote:

But do notice Osama’s hypocrisy when he also says in the same paper:

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 [sic] 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.

If the actions of so-called Christians nullify the Holy Bible’s command to treat wives fairly, then the abusive actions of Muslims toward their wives would also nullify the Quran’s alleged commands on the "fair treatment" of women. Their actions would prove that the Quran is both stupid and irrational. The only problem with this analogy is that whereas the Christian who mistreats his wife would be violating the commands of God, a Muslim who beats and abuses his wife would only be carrying out the commands of his god and his prophet. The Muslim would also be perfectly imitating the example of Muhammad’s Companions.

My response:

What Shamoun failed to comprehend here is that the contradiction between Paul and the Old Testament is a scriptural error, while the contradiction between some Muslim men and the Noble Quran is a moral problem that some Muslims have toward Islam, when they insist on doing their evil doings after the Truth had been made clear to them due to their arrogance and stubornness.

He wrote:

As far as Osama’s appeal to Leviticus 12 is concerned this only proves that Osama’s "response" is pretty weak since we had already addressed this fully in our initial response. Apparently being unable to give a meaningful answer, Osama is getting so desperate to save face in the eyes of his readers that he resorts to repeating his claims ad naseum ad infinitum without engaging our response.

My response:

What a bunch of crock!

He wrote:

Does he really think his readers will accept a mere repetition of claims as a valid rebuttal?

My response:

My and your reader knows well who is the real dummy here. Your Paul, Mr. logic and solutions, definitely comes before you.

He wrote:

This is further support of our charge that Osama is chanting instead of presenting an argument, and something we called the "mantra syndrome" in earlier rebuttals [cf. *, *, *, etc.]. Osama’s repetitive appeal to Lev. 12 to undermine the Holy Bible also exposes his hypocrisy since later on in defense of the Quran he will claim that the birth of boys is preferred over the birth of girls!

My response:

I have already refuted your lie about boys in Islam being preferred to be born. I don't care if Muslim cultures and cultures elsewhere prefer for boys to be born. We're debating scripture here, not cultures. You're trying to mix the two to justify your biased pornful bible; the book that only looks at women lustfully for considering their vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".

Here is my rebuttal to your lie about boys in islam being preferred to be born:

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

"When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, Because of the bad news He has had! Shall he retain it On (sufferance and) contempt, Or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) They decide on? (The Noble Quran, 16:58-59)" So considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran.

Also, the Prophet peace be upon him said: Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone cares for three daughters, disciplines them, marries them, and does good to them, he will go to Paradise. (Translation of Sunan abu Dawud, Book 41, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Number 5128)"

Women have the right for the highest education, unlike what some Muslim fanatics claim: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: "The Prophet said, 'He who has a slave-girl and teaches her good manners and improves her education and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward; and any slave who observes Allah's right and his master's right will get a double reward.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Manumission of Slaves, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 723)"

"....Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 39:9)"

"...Those truly fear God, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for God is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. (The Noble Quran, 35:28)"

By the way, I once debated some Muslim fanatics regarding the education of women issue, and from what I gathered from them, they indirectly claimed that they feel threatened by learned wives who are "independent", because they would "challenge their authority", and would be "harder to control". So, the fanatics' views about keeping women unlearned and illiterate as the Taliban did when they ruled Afghanistan is only their personal opinion that is not based on Islamic doctrine.

Unsecured men do not represent Islam. I don't have to oppress my wife and keep her down in order for me to keep our marriage. No, I instead use Noble Verse 30:21 when dealing with my wife: "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)"

He wrote:

Osama erroneously assumes that Paul was somehow suggesting that Christ’s relationship with the Church is exactly identical to a man’s relationship with his wife.

My response:

No, I was point out from your bible that women's marriage to men cleanse them from their sins as I proved it from your bible above. The vice versa is not true.

He wrote:

For Osama’s logic to work that the Church being purified and cleansed by Christ implies that women are also made pure from defilement by their spouses, the husband would have to be sinless just as Christ is sinless. Obviously, this is nonsensical since Paul teaches that all men are sinners in need of purification, not just women:

"What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.’ ‘Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.’ ‘The poison of vipers is on their lips.’ ‘Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.’ ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.’ ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’ Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." Romans 3:9-20 NIV

"In him WE have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on US with all wisdom and understanding." Ephesians 1:7-8 NIV

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:1-7 NIV

My response:

You're taking my words and logic out of context. This is not what I am claiming.

He wrote:

Osama’s logic would also imply that Christ will have sex with the Church (God forbid!) since men have sex with their spouses, a completely erroneous idea.

My response:

Even though I never claimed this, but actually, to Christ, you as his follower are one of his "virgin brides". So metaphorically, the female's vagina (whether it is virgin or not) along with your rear end are Christ's significant other's groin area that he can have metaphoric sex with later on.

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.

Are you and Paul two of Christ's *metaphoric* bride's Shamoun?

Are both your rear ends two *metaphoric* vaginas to Christ's *metaphoric* penis?

Think I am being funny? This is your dumb Bible Shamoun.

He wrote:

Paul wasn’t claiming that the relationship between a husband and wife is exactly parallel and analogous to Jesus and his Church in every single respect.

My response:

Actually the Bible does as I showed above.

He wrote:

Rather, Paul was saying that the husband’s relationship to his wife is analogous to Christ’s relationship with his Church in the sense of their love for and unity with their respective spouses. In other words, we mimic Jesus when we love our wives just as much as Christ loved his Church that he died for it.

My response:

Paul's Ephesians 5:25-33 above clearly said that men's marriage to women cleanses women from their sins, hence, putting men spiritually and self-value above women. Your twisted logic and diversion is the utter nonsense that is desperately trying to fool the reader.

He wrote:

Husbands do not imitate Christ in purifying their spouses, since they are themselves impure and need to be washed in the blood of Christ.

My response:

This actually further proves my point, and further makes matter worse about Paul's views to women, because even the sinning men purify the defiled and filthy women.

Imagine how low women were in Paul's views!

He wrote:

That is why husbands form part of that very same body of Christ, the Church, which Jesus came to purify by his death on the cross.

My response:

Utter nonsense that does not refute my points above. If Paul clearly and truly considered women as equal members to men in Christs' church, then he:

1- Would not have prohibited for any woman to teach any man! (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

2- Would not have prohibit women to speak in churches! (1 Corinthians 14:34)

3- Wouldn't have said that men's marriage to women cleanses the women from their sins, and never mentioned anything about men being cleansed by women! (Ephesians 5:25-33)

He wrote:

If anything, we can use Osama's logic to prove that the women make the man pure and holy. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 that:

"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."

Recall what Osama had to say in regards to the above:

Since Osama assumes that this command refers to the MEN, then he is going to have to also accept that women make the men pure and holy since the women keep men from being immoral. In other words, Osama's logic would lead us to conclude that women must be holy and pure in the sight of God whereas men are not since the women purify men from sexual immorality.

My response:

To the reader, notice how Shamoun is so DESPERATE in finding any verse from his pornful bible about men being cleansed from their sins through women. His phony interpretations and lies above clearly prove that he is a biased and blind individual who is not here to learn, but to rather force his lies upon others and fool his reader.

He wrote:

A little later on in our rebuttal we will deal with Osama’s appeal to the quranic verses 2:231 and 4:19, and deal with 30:21 in the following parts to this series.

Osama continues with his mantra syndrome of repeating things which have already been addressed and refuted, such as bringing up Ecclesiastes 22:3 and Leviticus 12:2-5. So we will simply delete it.

My response:

You meant to say, we will simply not respond to it because we have no response! Here is what the two verses say:

"....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).

Tell us Shamoun, was the birth of your sister a "loss"? And did she really cause double the pollution that you caused?

He wrote:

Again, I am forced to conclude that Osama didn’t first read my response all the way through, but simply started responding to it as he read it. If he had completely read it before responding, then he would have realized that I already refuted his gross misunderstanding of these passages and would have saved himself the embarrassment of constantly repeating himself.

My response:

Yeah, I am really embarrased by you.

He wrote:

Osama also seeks to address the Quran’s very degrading and low view of women. He begins with Surah 2:223, and accuses me of mistranslating the text EVEN THOUGH I WAS SIMPLY QUOTING A MUSLIM TRANSLATION! (In this case, it was Yusuf Ali's translation.)

Osama was obviously unable to respond to my arguments and decided to bring up red herrings. He cites hadiths that refer to having intercourse only through the vaginal area, as if this has anything to do with my point. Yet, Osama is forced to candidly admit:

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.

Several responses are in order. First, it is one thing for the husband to have authority in the house. It is quite another thing altogether for the wife to be called a tilth since this reduces her to the status of property and not a coequal partner.

My response:

No where in the Noble Quran do we see any claim about all men being spiritually higher than all women. Your pornful bible on the other hand does, through 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Ephesians 5:25-33 and other embarrasing verses. My wife being my "tilth" is not degrading to her, because she is not anyone else's "tilth". Not even her father's! Me being the absolute master of the house does not degrade neither my wife nor my children. Allah Almighty did, however, give rights to the wives over their husbands. Husbands can't just treat their wives as they wish:

"..and for women are rights equal to the rights against them but men have a degree over them (in the context of divorce) in what is just. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)"

"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)"

"Let the women live (in 'iddat) in the same style as ye live, according to your means: Annoy them not, so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in their wombs), then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf. (The Noble Quran, 65:6)"

"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; 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)"

"They ask thy instruction concerning the women say: God doth instruct you about them: And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed: that ye stand firm for justice to orphans. There is not a good deed which ye do, but God is well-acquainted therewith. (The Noble Quran, 4:127)"

"The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey God and His Apostle. On them will God pour His mercy: for God is Exalted in power, Wise. (The Noble Quran, 9:71)"

"For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise,- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward. (The Noble Quran, 33:35)"

"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)"

Your pornful bible on the other hand gives not only the husband the authority over the woman, but also her inlaws (his family) after he dies:

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

Widows are protected in Islam from their in-laws, but are forced and not protected in the Bible's NT and OT:

In this article, we will see how Islam protects the widows from the mistreatment of her in-laws, while the Bible forces her to be under their control and mercy.

In Islam:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: "Regarding the Divine Verse: "O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness that you may take back part of the (Mahr) dower you have given them." (4:19) (Before this revelation) if a man died, his relatives used to have the right to inherit his wife, and one of them could marry her if he would, or they would give her in marriage if they wished, or, if they wished, they would not give her in marriage at all, and they would be more entitled to dispose her, than her own relatives. So the above Verse was revealed in this connection. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 103)"

So as we clearly see, Islam in Noble Verse 4:19, clearly prevents the in-laws from trying to control and abuse the widows. Before Islam, widows were basically enslaved to their in-laws. They had no control over any of their inheritance, and they were in many times married off to their former husband's brothers or relatives. Islam came and ended all of that, and lifted the status of women and gave them liberty and rights.

In the Bible's NT and OT:

The Bible has absolutely no regard for women what so ever! I have challenged before Jews and Christians to give me one Biblical verse that praises women in the article: Polygamy is allowed in both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. Let us look at what the Bible says about widows:

"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 25:5)"

It would be nice for the widow to marry her husband's brother, especially if they had a good relationship. But what if they couldn't stand each others? Why does she have to be forced to marry him and be under her husband's family's control and mercy?

Let's not forget about how bad mother in-laws can be, especially toward the wives. The Bible clearly forces the widowed wives, who lived with or near their husbands' families, to continue living under the control and mercy of their in-laws even after their husbands' deaths. It is clear that there is no liberty and freedom of choice granted to women.

The reason why I said "who lived with or near their husbands' families" is because Matthew 22:24-28 in the New Testament doesn't specify that the brothers must be living in one single home together. Being near each others in one town is good enough to force the widow to marry her brother in law.

And by the way, Jesus in Matthew 22:24-32 didn't really answer the question. Let us look at the verses to and analyze what Jesus said:

Matthew 22

24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27. Finally, the woman died.
28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

Humans will not be like Angels in Heaven. According to the Bible itself, Adam was created from dust in Heaven, and GOD Almighty created woman, Eve, for Adam to be his physical mate. So in Heaven, we will not be spirits and angels. We will have earthly-similar bodies, and we will have the feelings and pleasures that we currently have here on earth. This means that we will have sex in Paradise as we do here on earth, and also enjoy seeing, breathing, hearing and sensing good things. GOD Almighty intended for Adam and Eve to have a relationship which included a sexual one in Heaven, long before they were kicked out of it.

The Jews' question was wrong because in Heaven there is no forced marriage. People are free to do what ever they wish and please. But Jesus' answer also wasn't accurate and precise either! Taking his answer in the literal sense will clearly reveal inconsistent and wrong information when comparing it to the Old Testament. Jesus failed to elaborate on our physical life and bodies in Heaven. He never talked about it in the New Testament. He should've addressed it in Matthew 22:24-32. This is another reason why Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe, because he wasn't even perfect with his words. GOD Almighty is Perfect. Jesus was not perfect, and it was GOD Almighty's Holy Wisdom and Intention to not make Jesus perfect. As Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran:

"The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was. (The Noble Quran, 3:59)"

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. (The Noble Quran, 4:171)"

"Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses. (The Noble Quran, 5:78)"

"And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. (The Noble Quran, 5:116)"

He wrote:

Note how the word is used in the Quran in reference to property or land:

Musa said: He says, Surely she is a cow not made submissive that she should plough the land, nor does she irrigate the tilth (alhartha); sound, without a blemish in her. They said: Now you have brought the truth; so they sacrificed her, though they had not the mind to do (it). S. 2:71 Shakir

And when he turns back, he runs along in the land that he may cause mischief in it and destroy the tilth (alhartha) and the stock, and Allah does not love mischief-making. S. 2:205 Shakir

Seemly unto men is a life of lusts, of women, and children, and hoarded talents of gold and silver, and of horses well-bred, and cattle, and tilth (waalharthi);- that is the provision for the life of this world; but God, with Him is the best resort. S. 3:14 Palmer; see also 3:117

And they set apart a portion for Allah out of what He has created of tilth (alharthi) and cattle, and say: This is for Allah -- so they assert -- and this for our associates; then what is for their associates, it reaches not to Allah, and whatever is (set apart) for Allah, it reaches to their associates; evil is that which they judge. S. 6:136 Shakir; see also 6:138

To any that desires the tilth (hartha) of the Hereafter, We give increase in his tilth (harthihi), and to any that desires the tilth (hartha) of this world, We grant somewhat thereof, but he has no share or lot in the Hereafter. S. 42:20 Yusuf Ali

"Go ye to your tilth (harthikum) (betimes) in the morning, if ye would gather the fruits." S. 68:22 Yusuf Ali

Some argue that the use of tilth for women refers to the place of sexual contact, i.e. that only vaginal intercourse is permissible just as Osama suggested. They base this on the fact that this is the only area where the husband’s seed can fertilize the ovum and produce children. In other words, the analogy with an actual tilth relates to seed and fertilization, i.e. a husband planting seed in his wife is similar to a man planting seed in his tilth in order to produce crops.

My response:

I have no problem with my wife being as my "tilth", because I am the only one who has authority over her. She does have rights upon me. She is not a "nobody", and I can't just do anything I want with her. Again, the following Noble Verses that I presented above clearly prove my point:

"..and for women are rights equal to the rights against them but men have a degree over them (in the context of divorce) in what is just. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)"

He wrote:

Although this explanation is possible, it still does not justify calling women a man’s tilth since the term carries with it very negative connotations. As we had noted the term implies that much like an actual tilth is only property which a person owns, and is not equal in value to a human being in the eyes of God, wives also are simply the property of their husbands and are not equal to them in worth. In other words, the language of Surah 2:223 implies that women are on the same level of material possessions such as cattle, homes etc., something clearly taught by the following Muslim sources:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, "Abu Said! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them, shall I then practice coitus interruptus?" Zayd ibn Thabit said, "Give an opinion, Hajjaj!" "I said, 'May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!' He said, 'Give an opinion!' I said, 'She is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.' Zayd said, 'He has spoken the truth.'" (Malik's Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.99)

Here we find a Muslim likening a female slave to a field in the context of sexual pleasure. Since a female slave is a man’s field, a man’s property, the man can sleep with her and refrain from spilling his seed in her if he so chooses.

These next citations are taken and adapted from M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton's The Place of Women in Pure Islam:

Muhammad stated:

"The woman IS A TOY, whoever takes her let him care for her (or do not lose her)." (Ahmad Zaky Tuffaha, Al-Mar'ah wal- Islam [Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, Beirut, first edition, 1985], p. 180)

Umar Ibn al-Khattab once told his wife:

"You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you." (Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn 'Abd Allah Ibn Mousa Al-Kanadi, Al-Musanaf, Vol. 1 pt. 2, p. 263- see also Al-Ghazali, Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din, Vol. II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah [Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut], p. 52)

The Caliph 'Amru Bin al-'Aas said:

"Women are toys, so choose." (Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol. 21, Hadith No. 919)

(For more quotes and info regarding men and women, we highly recommend that our readers read Haqq’s and Newton’s booklet: http://debate.domini.org/newton/womeng.html)

And:

Narrated Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 30; see also Numbers 31 and 32)

Muhammad also claimed that women were the most harmful and evil trial for men:

Usama b. Zaid reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I have not left after me any (chance) of turmoil more injurious to men than the harm done to the men because OF WOMEN. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6603)

Usama b. Zaid b. Harith and Sa'id b. Zaid b. 'Amr b. Naufal both reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I have not left after me turmoil for the people but the harm done to men BY WOMEN. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6604)

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The world is sweet and green (alluring) and verily Allah is going to install you as vicegerent in it in order to see how you act. So avoid the allurement of women: verily, the first trial for the people of Isri'll was caused by women. And in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ibn Bashshar the words are:" So that He should see how you act." (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6606)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: "O Allah, I ask Thee for the good in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her; I take refuge in Thee from the evil in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her." When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume II, Book 11, Number 2155)

As was mentioned in my first response, in applying the teachings of Muhammad the first Muslims wouldn’t even give women the privilege of shaking their hands, especially in the case of young women:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Wahb ibn Kaysan that Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Ata said, "I was sitting with Abdullah ibn Abbas when a Yemeni man came in. He said, 'Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessing' (as-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu), and then he added something more to that. Ibn Abbas said (and at that time his eyesight had gone), 'Who is this?' People said, 'This is a Yemeni who has come to see you,' and they introduced him. Ibn Abbas said, 'The greeting ends with the word blessing.' "

Yahya said that Malik was asked, "Does one greet a woman?" He said, "As for an old woman, I do not disapprove of it. As for a young woman, I do not like it." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 53, Number 53.1.2)

As we see, Muhammad’s followers continued exactly in what Muhammad said. In fact, to this day, the more pious/orthodox Muslim leaders will never shake hands with women. Muhammad’s followers evidently felt that women weren’t good enough to shake hands with but were good enough to sleep with! It seems that they failed to appreciate the dignity and honor the Quran gave to women!

My response:

As I have clearly proven above, Allah Almighty gave the wives rights over their husbands. Husbands can't just treat their wives as "nobody".

Now in regards to the hand shaking between men and women, yes, it is prohibited in Islam, not for the lies and false reasons that you mentioned, but rather to keep the entire society chaste and illegal-sex-free. A hand shake is a physical contact between two persons, and a physical contact between a stranger man and a stranger woman is not allowed, and is considered in many parts of the world, even today, inappropriate.

Physical contact between men and women can arouse sexual thoughts and can promote lust. That is the only reason why men and women can't hand shake.

Sorry Shamoun, if you have no problem with your Christian sister or daughter "being herself" and allow men to have lust about her (through her inappropriate actions and cloths), and have sex before marriage with her, then this is all your problem with GOD Almighty. Islam despises the likes of you and 90% of your christian brethrens.

This is Islam. Take it or leave it!

He wrote:

Third, the following tradition provides the reason why S. 2:223 was "sent down":

"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, Volume II, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2159)"

Instead of respecting the woman's refusal to engage in a particular sexual position, Allah sends down the command permitting men to enter women anyway they see fit! It is up to the men to decide what they want, and the women have to comply.

My response:

You are not only silly, but you're also extremely stupid! With all due respect to the reader. The problem was with the woman who used to practice jewish and christian sex from the back; "doggy style" as they call it today in the west. The problem wasn't with the man who wanted to approach his wife in the normal way. Your use of this narration clearly proves that your points are:

1- Weak.

2- Ridiculous.

3- Desperately need a lot of help, which is why you resorted to such immature approach to prove your pointless point.

He wrote:

Contrast this degrading view of women with the very Pauline passage which Osama failed to properly deal with:

"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 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

The most amazing thing about this is that Osama quoted this hadith apparently without realizing how this provides further evidence that the Quran degrades women.

My response:

We have already dealt with these biblical verses above. In regards to the hadith I gave, it proves nothing about the Noble Quran degrading women. Again, no where in the Noble Quran do we see any claim about all men being spiritually higher than all women. Your pornful bible on the other hand does, through 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Ephesians 5:25-33 and other embarrasing verses.

My response:

The foregoing makes it clear that by calling a wife a tilth the Quran both degrades women and reduces them to the level of property. In fact, Osama essentially concedes this when he writes later on:

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

Osama would have been more correct in stating that women are tilth because men own women, women being their property. It is not simply an issue of authority; it is an issue of ownership.

My response:

Men do not own their women. Allah Almighty did give rights to the wives over their husbands as I clearly mentioned above:

"..and for women are rights equal to the rights against them but men have a degree over them (in the context of divorce) in what is just. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)"

He wrote:

Fourth, Osama fails to inform his readers that the particular hadiths that he appeals to in condemnation of anal sex are all weak narrations according to Muslims. In response to a question regarding sex, Moiz Amjad, a.k.a. the Learner, honestly admits:

Anal sex, in my opinion, is against the natural make-up and physiological structure of the human body. It is, therefore, that I believe that EVEN THOUGH THE SHARI`AH DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT IT, yet it would be in accordance with the teachings of the Shari`ah to consider it prohibited. Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

My response:

Obviously the "Learner" was not aware of the Hadiths that I provided, because they are not weak. They come from Sahih (authentic) Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, two well trusted sources of Hadiths in Islam:

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

Is anal sex allowed between the husband and the wife in Islam?

The sections of this article are:

1- Is anal sex allowed between the husband and the wife in Islam?
2- Cursed are those who perform anal sex.
3- What is the punishment for fornication and adultery in Islam in general?
4- Notice the beautiful commands of Allah Almighty.
5- Anal Sex resources from the Bible for Christians.

It's quite ironic that the Christian team of "Answering Islam" claim that Islam allows and even promotes Anal sex between the husband and the wife. There is a clown among them named Quennel Gale who used this argument in several of his arguments. This paper will expose this cheap lie from this dumb team (I apologize to the reader), and will once again, put Islam on the highest rank of Truth.

Anal sex, or sex from the rear end of the wife is not allowed in Islam. Let us look at the following Noble Verse from the Noble 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 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)"

Cursed are those who perform anal sex:

The following was sent to me by brother Waseem Sakka; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

Regarding your page "Is anal sex really allowed between husband and wife?" There's a couple more hadeeths (Sayings of our Prophet) you can use that are really definitive:

"Cursed is the one who approaches his wife in her rectum" (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 2/479; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 5865).

and:

"The one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, or with a woman in her rectum, or who goes to a fortune-teller, has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, no. 1/243; see also Saheeh al-Jaami', 5918).

What is the punishment for fornication and adultery in Islam in general?

Please visit Punishment for adultery and fornication in Islam.

Notice the beautiful commands of Allah Almighty:

Allah Almighty commands the husbands to fear Allah Almighty and know that they will meet Him. He commands the husbands to be kind with their wives when they approach them to have sex with them.

The husbands are not allowed to force their wives into something that they can't handle or don't desire. They must fear Allah Almighty.

Please visit If the husband rapes his wife, is that a sin in Islam? Is there any answers to this in the Quran?

Anal Sex resources from the Bible for Christians:

Please be advised that I am not trying to hammer Christians here. But since the Christian "Answering Islam" team has gone way too far with their pathetic attempts to put down Islam, even if it meant they have to LIE to get the job done, then I would like to provide for them useful resources regarding Anal sexuality in Christianity and the Bible.

Please visit the most popular Christian Gays and Lesbians web site on the internet, www.godlovesfags.com.

Make sure to visit their guest book, and see the many Christians who support their web site and agree with their Biblical quotes and resources.

Church Priests/Ministers who changed their sex and still preach in their Churches.

Priests with the AIDS.

He wrote:

After demonstrating why the narrations condemning anal sex are weak, Mr. Amjad writes:

Keeping in view the condition of these narratives, it should be quite obvious why I have not based my argument on these narratives. Though the referred narratives have been reported in some of the collections of hadith, yet I cannot call the contents of these narratives "directives of the Shari`ah". There are two reasons for this. Firstly because, as is pretty obvious from the discussion above that the sanad (chain of narrators) of these narratives IS NOT RELIABLE to qualify for ascription of the saying to the Prophet (pbuh). This weakness in sanad is actually a hindrance for me in ascribing something to the Prophet (pbuh), which has not reached us through reliable sources. Secondly, because in my opinion, the nature of Khabr-e-wahid (hadith) is such that it does not allow us to base the directives of Shari`ah on it alone. It seems that even if the Prophet (pbuh) had said something about the prohibition of anal sex, it should be placed as a natural prohibition (as I have done in my referred answer) rather than a prohibition of the Shari`ah. Prohibitions mentioned in khabr-e-wahid (hadith) are those that are either natural prohibitions or clear corollories of prohibitions mentioned in the Qur'an (Shari`ah). Unless a prohibition mentioned in a khabr-e-wahid (hadith) clearly relates to a natural prohibition or is clearly related to a prohibition mentioned in the Qur'an, the ascription of such khabr-e-wahid (hadith) to the Prophet (pbuh) becomes quite questionable.

In the referred case, although it is quite clear that the prohibition of anal sex is a natural prohibition but the reason that I avoided quoting these narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) was that, in my opinion, the sanad of these narratives IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH to ascribe these narratives to the Prophet (pbuh).

Moreover, we see that none of the three most accepted collections of the sayings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), that is the Sahih Bukhari, the Sahih Muslim and the "Mu'atta" of Imaam Malik contain any of these narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). This fact obviously, creates serious doubts regarding the ascription of such narratives to the Prophet (pbuh). (Source; bold and underlined emphasis ours)

You can also read his views here: [1], [2].

My response:

Again, one's misled views do not prove anything. I have provided ample proofs above that prove anal sex to be prohibited in Islam.

He wrote:

Ibn Kathir, while claiming that anal sex is forbidden, refers to certain Muslims who wrote hadiths permitting this practice:

"Quoting his father, from his grand father, Amru Ibn Shu'aib narrated that the Prophet said: 'Having sex with one's wife in the anus is minor sodomy.' On the authority of Ali Ibn Talq, Imam Ahmad narrated: 'The Prophet has forbidden sexual intercourse with one's wife in the anus, for Allah is not ashamed of the truth.' Quoting Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet said: 'Allah will not look at whoever has sex with his wife in the anus.' Also, it was narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said: 'Cursed is he who has sex with his wife in the anus.' Any Ahadith which allow such act are considered incorrect and they were all examined by our Sheikh al-Hafidh Abu Abdullah adh-Dhahabi in a volume which he compiled, and proved weak and false.

"It was narrated on the authority of IBN UMAR, Malik, ash-Shafi'i and at-Tahawi THAT IT IS LAWFUL but it is untrue. An-Nasr as-Sabbagh said: Ar-Rabi' used to swear by Allah that Ibn Abdul Hakam had lied, when he had made allegations against ash-Shafi'i concerning the lawfulness of having sex with one's wife in the anus. On the contrary, ash-Shafi'i mentioned the unlawfulness of having sex with one's wife in the anus in six of his books, and Allah knows best. Also, Ibn Umar forbade it. On the authority of Sa'id Ibn Yasar abu al-Habbab, ad-Darami narrated: 'I said to Ibn Umar: "What do you think of having sex with one's wife in the anus?" Ibn Umar said: "Does anyone of the Muslims do that?"' This is a good Isnad, and explicitly reveals the unlawfulness of such act, and anything attributed to him is rejected on the ground of the above Hadith.

"Ma'mar Ibn 'Isa narrated that Malik considered having sex with one's wife in the anus is unlawful. Quoting Israel Ibn Rawh, Abu Bakr Ibn Zayyad an-Nisaburi narrated: 'I asked Malik Ibn Anas's opinion on having sex with one's wife from the back, he said: "You are but Arabs, and can sowing be in a place other than that which has been ploughed? Do not go beyond the vagina." I said: "People claim that you say that?" He said: "It is a lie, it is a lie."' Thus, this is what has been attributed to them, and it involved Abu Hanifa, ash-Shafi'i, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and their companions, followers and other scholars from the Salaf. They entirely denied the allegation and some of them even believed that having sex with one's wife in the anus is Kufr." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 2 Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 142 to 252, Abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasi Ar-Rifa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd, London; 1998, first edition], pp. 191-192; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir acknowledges that Muslims were circulating hadiths which permitted anal sex, even basing them on the authority of Ibn Umar!

My response:

As mentioned in the quotes you gave, the authenticity of the hadiths was examined, and based on that, it was determined that the MANY hadiths that prohibit anal sex between the husband and the wife to be valid ones. Thus, anal sex between the husband and wife is prohibited in Islam.

He wrote:

In light of the foregoing we present this challenge to Osama:

SINCE MUSLIMS WERE DISHONEST ENOUGH TO FORGE HADITHS PERMITTING ANAL SEX, AND SINCE THE HADITHS WHICH CONDEMN THIS PRACTICE ARE DEEMED WEAK BY OTHER MUSLIMS, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A SINGLE QURANIC STATEMENT WHICH EXPLICITLY CONDEMNS SUCH A PRACTICE? DOESN’T THE FACT THAT SOME MUSLIMS FORGED HADITHS CONDONING ANAL SEX PROVE THAT THE QURAN DOESN’T EXPLICITLY FORBID SUCH A PRACTICE?

Since Osama brought up the issue of anal sex (which wasn’t at all a relevant issue to our initial response to him), we would like to see Osama defend his case against this sexual practice.

My response:

The Noble Quran does not have any Noble Verse that explicitly prohibit anal sex between men and women. But Allah Almighty, however, did create the vagina for the penis and the penis for the vagina. The rectum is not place for the penis, because it is: (1) Very dirty; (2) Very damaging to the body; (3) Very painful.

Allah Almighty did also command the Muslims to follow Prophet Muhammad's commands:

"O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination. (The Noble Quran, 4:59)"

Allah Almighty did leave some Laws to be determined by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. And as we saw in the Hadiths that I provided above, the Prophet peace be upon him did clearly prohibit anal sex.

He wrote:

Osama tries to address S. 3:14 which places women on the level of covetous possessions of men:

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.

RESPONSE:

Let me highlight one specific part of Osama’s statement:

... The birth of males IS MORE PREFERRED, even in many parts of the Western world today, than females ...

This is the same gent who attacked the Holy Bible on the difference in time given in Lev. 12 for the purification of the birth of a male in contrast with a female.

My response:

As I mentioned above, I have already refuted your lie about boys in Islam being preferred to be born. I don't care if Muslim cultures and cultures elsewhere prefer for boys to be born. We're debating scripture here, not cultures. You're trying to mix the two to justify your biased pornful bible; the book that only looks at women lustfully for considering their vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".

Here is my rebuttal to your lie about boys in islam being preferred to be born:

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

"....Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 39:9)"

"...Those truly fear God, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for God is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. (The Noble Quran, 35:28)"

He wrote:

More importantly, how does Osama know that women do not look at men lustfully? Does he claim to know what is in women’s hearts? And who said that women do not look lustfully at men in public? Osama’s response simply demonstrates the desperate lengths some Muslims will go in defending their book’s very degrading view of women.

My response:

Even though this point is quite irrelevant to our discussion here, but you denying the fact that men in general are far more lustful than women in general to suite your point and agenda only shows how dishonest and untruthful you are.

As to Muslims being desperate in defending the Noble Quran, please! Even if this is the case, which is not at all, I would never be desperate in defending my Noble Quran from a clown like you.

And while we're on the same topic, the only liars are your christian theologians who alter and translate the bible in 100s of different versions to suite their agendas. Tell us Shamoun, why there are way too many conflicting bible translations out there? This small example should make it clear to you.

The different "Canons" of the Bible!

Different and conflicting variations of "gospels" and "books" that are disagreed upon by the Churches today.

He wrote:

Third, Osama again seeks to divert his reader’s attention from the real issue. The issue wasn’t whether men are more sexually driven then women. The issue centered on women being placed on the same level of children, horses, silver, gold and land implying that women are not equal to men.

My response:

He wrote:

The degradation of women in this passage is rather clear, but since Osama doesn’t see it we need to spell it out for him. Just as children are not on the same level of authority with their parents, neither are women on the same level of men.

My response:

I agree with the last part of your paragraph. Yes, women don't have the same level of authority in the house as the husbands do.

He wrote:

Just as horses, gold and land are items which men own and possess, so do men own women. In other words, women are the property of men and were made for the pleasures of man.

In light of the foregoing, here is another challenge to Osama issued in the hope that he will get the point and not evade it:

SHOW US A SINGLE VERSE IN THE QURAN WHERE IT IS SAID THAT MEN WERE CREATED FOR THE PLEASURES OF WOMEN. SHOW US A VERSE WHERE MEN ARE PLACED ON THE LEVEL OF CHILDREN, LAND, HORSES, SILVER AND GOLD IN THE SAME WAY THAT WOMEN ARE.

My response:

Your challenge is as goofy as you are, because Allah Almighty does not need to Say that either men or women are created for the pleasure of the other. But Allah Almighty however did Say the following beautiful Noble Verse about love, peace and harmony among spouses:

But for GOD to say that He created certain group people for the pleasure of other group of people as your goofy bible does would be utter nonsense and lies against GOD Almighty, for He would never utter such nonsense, because all people are created for one purpose only, and that is to Worship and Glorify Him, the absolute One GOD Almighty, and to Pray to Him and seek His Mercy, Love and Forgiveness. To the reader, please visit: What is the Wisdom of Islam?

As to the horses and gold and silver, while animals do have rights over their owners (see "Islam prohibits animal imprisonment and cruelty while the (pornful) bible doesn't." for more proofs), but the wives, children and servants also aren't on the same level as animals. Allah Almighty did clearly give the rights of women over their husbands in the Noble Quran:

"..and for women are rights equal to the rights against them but men have a degree over them (in the context of divorce) in what is just. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)"

So to respond to your nonsense, no, women are not just tools in the hands of their husbands. While the man is the one with the uncompromised authority in the family, the women, children, servants, and animals all do have rights upon the man.

To the reader, please also visit: The Prophet said: "Your Slaves are your brothers" in Islam.

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

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

The liberation of slaves in Islam. The ending of the Judeo-Christian and pagan slavery.

I would like to conclude my rebuttal with a very popular Saying from Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him:

"Kullakum Ra'in, wa kullakum mas'oolun aan ra'iyyatih."

"All of you (Muslims) are maintainers, and all of you are responsible for what you maintain."

The Saying means every that Muslim (man, woman, child, slave) has a responsibility toward something(s), and he has full responsibility toward all of the things that he/she is maintaining. The man is responsible for providing for his entire family. The woman is responsible for raising the children and house duties. The servant is responsible for helping the master in planting, harvesting and taking care of other labor work. The child is responsible for getting good grades, going to school and being a good kid. Every human being on this earth has specific duties to maintain and fulfill in every stage of his age.

Questions to Sam Shamoun about the Bible:

Ok Shamoun, it is now your turn to answer questions:

1- Show us where in the Bible does it prohibit for a husband and wife to have anal sex?

2- Show us where in the Bible does it prohibit for men to beat their disobedient wives? Note: I am not referring to normal and obedient wives. I am referring to exceptional wives. You might throw nonsense such as "Christ ordered men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church." Yeah, but then again, Christ, your god, will punish in Hell for Eternity those who don't follow him, thus, this could actually justify wife beating to disobedient and unfaithful wives.

To the reader, Christ, Shamoun's and the trinitarians god, is not the Creator of the Universe. He begged GOD Almighty to not put him on the cross and compromised his (Jesus) very own commands about not doing repetitions in Prayers by praying and repeating the same exact prayer all night long?

See also Answering Trinity, to see detailed refutations to every single so-called "trinitarian" verse in the Bible.

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

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

How do the Bible and the Noble Quran view women?

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

Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.

Jesus begged GOD Almighty to not put him on the cross and compromised his (Jesus) very own commands about not doing repetitions in Prayers by praying and repeating the same exact prayer all night long?

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.

Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.