Responding to the
preposterous lies of Osama Abdallah
Here is our refutation of Osama Abdallah of
Answering Christianity in his laughable response to our original article on
pedophilia in the Bible. It should be noted to our reader that Osama Abdallah is very incapable of formulating credible
responses against Christian apologists and this article will serve to expose
the sheer stupidity of his website. He begins by saying:
More
deliberate and preposterous lies by Jochen Katz and
another clown of his, Quennel Gale!
The
sections of this article are:
1- The new preposterous lies by Jochen
Katz and his other clown Quennel Gale.
2- Listing of Murders, Pedophilia and
Terrorism by the Bible's Prophets.
Osama Abdallah has a bad habit of resorting to name calling when he is put on the defensive. He thinks that because others disagree with him and his foolish conclusions, he has the right to use ad hominems against them. Also this topic is A TOTALLY IRRELEVANT ISSUE. I am not discussing anything about the alleged murders committed by the Biblical prophets. My paper solely focused on discussing the alleged issue of pedophilia claimed by Osama Abdallah.
1. Osama has lied from the start of his article to cover up his inability to address my response to him.
2. Jochen Katz has nothing to do with my response.
He continues by saying:
1- The new preposterous lies by Jochen Katz and his other clown Quennel Gale:
Before we begin, it is
important for the reader to know that this is not the first preposterous lie
fabricated by Jochen Katz. In his other lie, he tried so
desperately to prove that the Bible's prophets did not commit inhumane
murders, pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls, and terrorism. In
that article, he lied by purposely removing from my article
during his so-called "rebuttal" and posting partial quotes from
me to give the false message to the reader and to hide
the mentioned points about some of his Bible's Prophets! He had been
exposed and annihilated badly in my response to him.
Osama Abdallah seems to
have me confused with Jochen Katz. Mr. Abdallah how can you answer my material WHEN YOU DON’T EVEN
RECOGINIZE THE AUTHOR WHO IS ADDRESSING YOU? I AM NOT JOCHEN KATZ! I EXPECT YOU
TO ADDRESS MY MATERIAL AND NOT ASSOCIATE ME WITH OTHERS WHO AREN’T EVEN TALKING
ABOUT THIS ISSUE!! Also Osama claims that Jochen
tries to:
desperately to prove that the Bible's
prophets did not commit inhumane murders, pedophilia against 3-year
old slave girls, and terrorism.
Now seeing that I am not concerned about the part
of the alleged murders but only the pedophilia, lets
point out this important word by Osama:
that the Bible's
prophets
Seeing that his whole argument rests upon the
Biblical prophets we expect Osama Abdallah to provide
us examples from the Bible proving his point. However this is all he presents:
1- Young girls in the Bible and Talmud, as young as 3,
being married off:
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman
who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
In the Torah (In the Book of Numbers in the Bible), after
the conquest of Midian and Moab, and the great
venereal plague, Moses (peace be on him) ordered that all the women "who
have known a man" be killed but that "all the young girls, who have
not known a man by lying with him" be kept alive for the Israelites.
Since the only females left fit for marriage and wholesome
relations were prepubescent virgins, a Jewish law concerning child marriage was
enacted. That law is found in the Babylonian Talmud:
"Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A
maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'
Mishnah: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject
to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse.
Gemara: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be
betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "
NOTICE THIS KNUCKLE HEAD CLAIMS THAT HIS EVIDENCE
COMES FROM THE BIBLE BUT LOOK WHAT HIS QUOTE SAYS:
Gemara: Our Rabbis taught:
'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "
Notice that his whole evidence is based on WHAT
SOME RABBIS TAUGHT AND NOT ANY HISTORICAL CLAIM FROM THE BIBLE. But yet he
calls Jochen Katz a liar! APPARENTLY JOCHEN KATZ
CAN’T BE A LIAR SINCE THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY SAM SHAMOUN! How can Osama Abdallah call
somebody a liar when he doesn’t even know who wrote the material? Do you even
read what you claim or are you too stupid to comprehend basic
English due to your hastiness to defend your stupid pagan religion Osama?
THE TALMUD
ISN’T THE BIBLE. THE TALMUD IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE COMMENTARY OF JEWISH
SAGES. NOTHING MORE.
Even Jesus Christ rejected such traditions:
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR TRADITION? Matt. 15:3
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of
God in order to observe your own
traditions! Mark 7:8-9
The Talmud isn’t the command of God, IT IS THE
TRADITONS OF UNINSPIRED MEN. It’s very funny for Mr. Abdallah
to try and slander Christianity based on traditions NOT EVEN SANCTIONED BY GOD.
I CHALLENGE THE LIAR ABDALLAH TO SHOW US
ONE BIBLE VERSE WHICH SAYS A GIRL MUST BE THREE YEARS OLD FOR INTERCOURSE
EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Also, at the very end of
this article in section #2 below, you will see detailed listing of some of the
inhumane murders, pedophilia and terrorism that was done by many of the Bible's
Prophets.
Again, a total red herring, we only discussed the pedophilia part, if Osama wants to talk about terrorism then let him try to explain these actions by Muhammad:
"Whoso disbelieves in God, after he has believed - excepting him who has been compelled, and in his heart is still at rest in his belief - but whosoever's heart is expanded in unbelief, upon them shall rest anger from God, and there awaits them a mighty chastisement." S. 16:106
Al-Tabari comments:
"It has been reported that the Quraish compelled ‘Ammar, his father Yasir, and his mother Sumayya to renounce Islam. So they tied Sumayyya to two camels and pointed a spear to her heart, saying to her that she converted for the men, and killed her. Later they killed Yasir. Thus, these two were the first martyrs in Islam. As for ‘Ammar, he told them, unwillingly, what they wanted to hear. So it was told the Messenger of God that ‘Ammar disbelieved. He said, ‘No, ‘Ammar is full of faith from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet; belief has been mingled with his flesh and blood.' ‘Ammar came weeping to the Messenger of God. Therefore, the Messenger of God started to wipe his tears, and said, ‘If they come back to you, repeat to them what you said.' This is the evidence for the admissibility of speaking unbelief under compulsion." (‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi, Is the Qur'an Infallible? [Light of Life PO Box 13 A-9503 Villach, Austria], p. 97; bold emphasis ours)
Even in the Sahih hadiths, the most authentic traditions about the life of Muhammad, we find that Muslims were encouraged to lie and deceive in order to kill, courtesy of Muhammad himself:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, “Who is willing TO KILL Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” The Prophet said, “You may say it.” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369)
Here is more about deceit and lies used in Islam courtesy of Muhammad himself:
Narrated Zahdam:
Once we were in the house of Abu Musa who presented a meal containing cooked chicken. A man from the tribe of Bani Taim Allah with red complexion as if he were from the Byzantine war prisoners, was present. Abu Musa invited him to share the meal but he (apologised) saying. "I saw chickens eating dirty things and so I have had a strong aversion to eating them, and have taken an oath that I will not eat chickens." Abu Musa said, "Come along, I will tell you about this matter (i.e. how to cancel one's oath). I went to the Prophet in the company of a group of Al-Ashariyin, asked him to provide us with means of conveyance. He said, 'By Allah, I will not provide you with any means of conveyance and I have nothing to make you ride on.' Then some camels as booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked for us saying. 'Where are the group of Al-Ash'ariyun?' Then he ordered that we should be given five camels with white humps. When we set out we said, 'What have we done? We will never be blessed (with what we have been given).' So, we returned to the Prophet and said, 'We asked you to provide us with means of conveyance, but you took an oath that you would not provide us with any means of conveyance. Did you forget (your oath when you gave us the camels)? He replied. 'I have not provided you with means of conveyance but Allah has provided you with it, and by Allah, Allah willing, if ever I take an oath to do something, AND LATER ON I FIND THAT IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I will do the thing which is better, and give expiation my oath.” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Number 361)
Yet in the OT anyone taking an oath and breaking it would fall under the righteous condemnation of God:
“Moses said to the heads of the
tribes of
It shouldn't come to us as a surprise that Muslims have to intentionally use deceitful information to have their religion accepted as being truthful. Look whom they have as a role model; a prophet who lies and breaks oaths. Here we clearly see how Muhammad lied and killed people just because they disagreed with him. INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THIS, OSAMA WANTS TO ATTACK THE PROPHETS OF THE BIBLE. Apparently if what they did was evil THEN HE HAS HIS OWN PAGAN GAWD TO THANK SINCE ALLAH SANCTIONS THESE ACTIONS:
The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will. That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is certain TO INCREASE THE CONTUMACY AND DISBELIEF OF MANY OF THEM, AND WE HAVE CAST AMONG THEM ENMITY AND HATRED till the Day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguisheth it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and ALLAH LOVETH NOT CORRUPTERS. S. 5:64
According to the Quran Allah, the pagan gawd of Islam causes disbelief. But wait, there is more:
And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54
Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30
The term for scheme in Arabic is makara and denotes one who is a deceiver, a conniver, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense. Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and conniving one.
Muslim theologians themselves acknowledge the negative connotation of the Arabic term. For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran, brings up the question of,
"how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." (Ibid. [1992 State University of New York Press, Albany], p. 165)
After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166; all bold italic emphasis ours). Hence, if these prophets acted in a way Osama dislikes THEN IT WAS HIS OWN GOD WHO DECEIVED THEM INTO DOING SO, SINCE ALLAH DECEIVES AND CAUSES BOTH GOOD AND EVIL!
In his http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/index.htm, the lately master of
lies and deceptions, Jochen Katz, or should I say "The Joking Cat", had uttered the following
nonsense:
·
· Fantasizing Pedophilia into the Holy Bible (and a follow-up
answering to Osama's reaction)
After their total humiliation and defeat in my rebuttal that further exposed
the Bible and showed indisputably that 3-year old slave girls were forced
into sex under the Mosaic Law, they decided to fabricate a quite an interesting new
lie. Before I proceed, let me first give you my article and my rebuttal:
1- 3-year old
slave girls were forced into sex under the Mosaic Law in the Bible!
2- My rebuttal to
Sam Shamoun's "Osama Abdallah's
Obsession with Pedophilia in the Bible" article.
Notice Osama’s rhethoric:
the lately master of lies and deceptions, Jochen Katz, or should I say "The Joking Cat",
If this doesn’t sound like a sorry little child, I don’t know what else does! Answering Islam, as well as my site “Answers to Islam”, have reduced Osama Abdallah’s response to childish name calling! LOL! Also look at what Osama said here:
After their total
humiliation and defeat in my rebuttal that further exposed the Bible and showed
indisputably that 3-year old slave girls were forced into sex under the Mosaic Law
But wait. Notice where his proof comes from:
Gemara: Our Rabbis taught:
'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse.' "
I didn’t know the Talmud and Rabbis were THE MOSAIC LAW! But yet he claims
that he exposed the Bible. Both the Talmud and Midrash, etc., were largely embellished in their accounts
and one should be careful in appealing to them for either the understanding of
or for the historical setting of the Mosaic Law. A legend isn't a historical
account, and any argument based on this is very suspect. Notice the compilation
dates of the Talmud:
TALMUD:
In Judaism, the systematic amplification and analysis of
passages of the Mishna, the Gemara,
and other oral law, incl. the Tosefta. Two Talmuds
exist, produced by two different groups of Jewish scholars: the Babylonian
Talmud (c.AD 600) and the Palestinian Talmud (c.AD 400). The Babylonian Talmud is more extensive and thus
more highly esteemed. Both Talmuds formulate
their own hermeneutics to convey their theological system by defining the Torah
and by demonstrating its perfection and comprehensive character. The Talmud
remains a text of central importance, particularly in Orthodox Judaism.
Intensive modern Talmudic scholarship is pursued in
Now look at the compilation of the Midrash
MIDRASH:
In Judaism, a large collection of writings that examine the Hebrew Bible in the light of oral tradition. Midrashic activity reached its height in the 2nd cent. AD with the schools of Ishmael ben Elisha and Akiba ben Joseph. The Midrashim are divided into two groups: Halakhah, which clarify legal issues; and Haggadah, nonlegal writings intended simply to enlighten. The Midrashim are extensively quoted in the Talmud. ( Source)
Basically Osama's entire argument of pedophilia in the bible, rests upon oral traditions written down after the time of Jesus by rabbis who didn’t even live until the 4th and 6th century! But wait, according to Osama, one isn’t supposed to even use this form of methodology in dealing with the Gospels:
Beside,
what evidence are they talking about?! The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years
(depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus. So unless the
Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure
that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering it as the True Living Word of GOD. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm
Do you see the contradiction here! Moses lived around 1400 B.C. or even earlier, THE TALMUD WASN’T EVEN IN EXISTENCE UNTIL THE 4TH CENTURY A.D.! This means that Osama is using a document THAT IS ALMOST 2,000 YEARS AFTER THE FACT! If this isn’t the essence of apologetic stupidity I don’t know what is! But wait, he calls this a sound rebuttal as demonstrated here:
After their sound defeat
in my rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's response, Jochen Katz and his other clown, Quennel
Gale, decided to fabricate ANOTHER PREPOSTEROUS AND DELIBERATE LIE!! In
his http://answer-islam.org/pedophilia_rebuttal.html, Quennel
Gale gives the following title to his so-called new rebuttal:
Osama Abdallah’s Obsession with
Pedophilia
SONG OF SONGS 7:2,3; etc.
Fantasizing Pedophilia into the Holy Bible
Quennel Gale
So instead of addressing my article the best Mr. Abdallah can do is to say:
Quennel Gale, decided to fabricate
ANOTHER PREPOSTEROUS AND DELIBERATE LIE!!
So Mr. Abdallah we want to ask you these series of burning questions to see if you can truly answer them:
1. What preposterous and deliberate lie did we make in our paper in response to your claims?
2. If you knew what lie we committed why didn’t you just point it out?
Osama says that everybody who disagrees with him or his claims about Islam is a liar. This can be added to his countless mantras
1. If you disagree with me YOU ARE A LIAR OR A CLOWN OR A LIAR OR A CLOWN!
Sounds like a demented children’s song! Instead of answering my paper, which he is unable to do, OSAMA JUMPS ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF MY PAPER AND BEGINS WITH THE CONCLUSION:
The desperate liar, Quennel Gale, takes more dump from his brain and utters the following conclusion:
"CONCLUSION:
Osama Abdallah has thoroughly embarrassed himself with his claims about Song of Songs 7:2. He tries to defend Muhammad by saying his actions were nothing more than the cultural norm. Then he contradicts himself and tries to judge the bible based on his standards, which happen to be modern but says that we shouldn’t do this with Muhammad! Such lies and inconsistencies are worthless in trying to refute the Holy Bible the only word of God. God bless all."
This is the last paragraph of my entire paper! It gets even better! Osama Abdallah claims that:
I'd
like to know how I "thoroughly embarrassed" myself when you did not
even address ONE POINT from my article!
He claims now that he WANTS TO KNOW HOW HE EMBARRASSED HIMSELF DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE READ MY ARTICLE. SO LETS POINT THIS OUT AGAIN FOR MR. ILLITERATE:
CONCLUSION:
Osama Abdallah has thoroughly embarrassed himself
with his claims about Song of Songs 7:2. He tries to defend Muhammad by saying
his actions were nothing more than the cultural norm. Then he contradicts
himself and tries to judge the bible based on his standards, which happen to be
modern but says that we shouldn’t do this with Muhammad! Such lies and
inconsistencies are worthless in trying to refute the Holy Bible the only word
of God. God bless all.
Why did I reach this conclusion? Here is why, based on Osama Abdallah’s own words:
We all need to understand
the culture that we are talking about. Life in the
Parents look at the girl's physical appearance when they prepare her for
marriage. They don't care about her age. She could be 9 or 13, it doesn't
matter. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm
According to Mr. Abdallah it is okay for Muslims to marry girls at very young ages just because IT WAS APART OF ARAB CULTURE EVEN TODAY, AND NOBODY PROTESTED TO THIS MARRIAGE. Also, to attack Muhammad as a “child molester” is wrong and unfair. However Osama is a stark hypocrite because he applies his standard to Song of Songs when in fact “IN ANCIENT JEWISH CULTURE, SEXUALITY WASN’T CONSIDERED PORNOGRAPHIC”. Notice his words here:
And I also posted it at the top of my message board and programmed it to be read in every post on my message board to make it clear to the reader that the horny and pornful bible is the real book of terrorism and pedophilia.
So based on Jewish culture and ancient Near Eastern examples
1. Where is the Bible considered pornful?
Osama continues by saying:
But still, she is considered a child in our standards
today!
Well, a lot of the things
we do today are not right in the eyes of many. Our "standards"
today mean nothing to what took place 1400 years ago. Today, anyone under
18 years old is considered a "child", a baby still under his mommy's
and daddy's care. Back then on the other hand, people who reached the age
of 18 were considered wise and very mature.
Let me share this Islamic
story with you:
There is a famous Islamic
figure called "Osama bin Zayd". This
man once led an army of 50,000 Muslim men to meet the Roman Christians.
He defeated them. You won't believe if I tell you that Osama was 16 years
old when he led the 50,000 Muslim men!
This is what I personally
was taught about Osama bin Zayd.
So the point is, Aisha peace be upon her might look as child to you, but back then, she certainly was considered as a woman who was qualified for marriage.
He says it perfectly by mentioning:
Well, a lot of the things
we do today are not right in the eyes of many. Our "standards" today mean nothing to what took place 1400
years ago.
So what standard are you holding Song of Songs to, Mr. Abdallah?
Surely it can’t be ancient standards of the
Muhammad peace be upon
him lived in a society and culture that existed 1400 years ago, and we must not
judge what he or others did based on our standards today. It is wrong and
foolish to do so.
Really! So why is Solomon, who lived long before Muhammad, judged by modern standards and comments such as these:
When we read the Bible,
we learn about some weird pornographic teachings that are certainly not
appropriate for anyone with morals to read. Please visit X-Rated
Pornography in the Bible to see the many pornographic verses in the Bible. You
will read for instance, about Solomon's wife's vagina tastes like wine for him!
So where is this considered pornographic based on
society and culture that existed in the ancient state of
Solomon peace be upon him
lived in a society and culture that existed more than 2400 years ago, and we
must not judge what he or others did based on our standards today. It is
wrong and foolish to do so.
Wouldn’t you agree Mr. Abdallah? If no, then don’t we have the same right to judge Muhammad by modern standards as well? Yes. As you can see, Osama Abdallah contradicts himself, lies and does nothing to prove his idea that “navel” means “vagina”. What is even more embarrassing for him is that Muhammad can’t be judged based on cultural standards of the Arabs alone:
"he does not speak out of low desires. It is not but inspiration which is inspired" (Q. 53:3-4). The ONLY DIFFERENCE between the Qur'an and the Hadith is that whereas the former was revealed directly through Gabriel with the very letters that are embodied from Allah, the latter was revealed without letters and words."(Mishkat-ul-Masabih, the English translation, Book 1, the importance of the Qur'an and Hadith, pp. 2-3)
"Thus, next to the Holy Qur'an the Hadith is the second source of the Islamic Law of social and personal behaviour, because THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE HOLY PROPHET ARE AS BINDING ON THE BELIEVERS AS THE COMMANDMENTS OF ALLAH. 'Whenever Allah and the Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a faithful man or woman to follow a course of their own choice (Q.33:36).'" (Sahih Muslim, Introduction to English translation, p. ii)
The Hadith is to be FOLLOWED EXACTLY "for that which differs from the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up." (Mishkat-ul-Masabih, the English translation, Book 1, the importance of the Qur'an and Hadith, p.5, Quoted from Malabudda Minhu, p.8)
"A Muslim therefore stands in absolute need of a copy of the Qur'an AND A COPY OF THE HADITH for the guidance of his life" (Ibid, pp. 2-3)
And,
"If ye do love Allah, FOLLOW ME: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." S. 3:31
According to the Quran and Hadith, Muhammad is the perfect role model for all mankind. These above quotes point this fact out. Now if we are to base his marriage to Aisha on cultural norms then he can’t be a role model for all since his action is particular to only one culture.
THAT IS HOW YOU EMBARRASSED YOURSELF MR. ABDALLAH!
1. You try to judge Muhammad based on Arabic cultural norms.
2. You try to judge Solomon based on your own opinion.
3. You claim to believe in a prophet for all to follow, EVEN THOUGH YOU IMPLICITLY RECOGNIZE THAT HIS MARRIAGE TO A NINE YEAR OLD GIRL, AISHA, WOULDN’T BE ACCEPTED TODAY!
But to make it worse Osama claims:
you did not even address ONE POINT from my article!
Apparently Osama Abdallah doesn’t recognize the stupidity of his statement here. IF I DIDN’T ADDRESS ONE POINT FROM YOUR ARTICLE then,
1. WHY ARE YOU WRITING A REFUTATION TO MY ARTICLE THAT IS ADDRESSING PEDOPHILIA IN THE BIBLE?
If no single point were addressed here, then Mr. Abdallah wouldn’t have exerted any energy to write a response to my material. So to show you who actually didn’t address anything, Lets highlight some pointers that Mr. Big mouth Abdallah was afraid to tackle from my previous article located here:
http://answer-islam.org/pedophilia_rebuttal.html
1.
His famous
unknown scholars who claimed that “navel” was the word vagina:
By the way, I did later
on watch this film "Sex in the Bible" on the history
channel
He also says:
as I also watched "Banned from the Bible", and other films about the Bible
Okay so he watched films on the Bible, that’s great right? However he finishes by saying:
and all of them are objective and truthful!
Time out here! How exactly does Osama Abdallah know that they are truthful and objective on the specific verse about “women’s vaginas” in Song of Songs? Lets show a list of things missing from Osama’s argument:
1. He doesn’t tell us which scholars claimed that the word “navel” is “vagina.”
2. He doesn’t give us an official transcript from the show which can be used to verify truth of these claims.
3. He doesn’t say where these scholars got their information from to arrive at this conclusion.
4. He doesn’t show us from the Hebrew language or from the biblical text whether their claims are accurate.
But yet:
all of them are objective and truthful!
Truth must be proven, objectivity must be shown, neither can be claimed without providing evidence from the source and the source’s resource. Sadly to say for Osama Abdallah, but he failed in all categories here. I have also seen both programs and I have found nothing which supports what Mr. Abdallah has said. I have Direct TV and I watch many of the Bible programs on the history channel. Since he knows that he is probably caught in a lie, Osama Abdallah is resting on the sole fact that “bible theologians made this claim so it must be true”. I can list you a number of claims Bible theologians make which Osama Abdallah rejects:
1. Trinity.
2. Bible is sole revelation of God.
3. Bible was inspired totally by God.
4. The Bible is the key to heaven.
Would Osama accept these statements as absolute truth? No. Why because he would consult the Quran and his false religion to conclude otherwise. He wouldn’t allow the scholars to make the final decision for him.
2. Claiming that “vagina” is in the
Bible BUT HE DOESN’T KNOW THE HEBREW WORD FOR VAGINA WHICH IS STRANGELY MISSING
IN HIS PAPER:
Even if Mr. Shamoun watched the commentary from these so-called theologians (which Mr. Abdallah doesn’t name) their commentary must be verified historically and through the Hebrew text of the Bible. If they claim that the Hebrew word is “vagina” when it is the word “navel” then their commentary is wrong and must be rejected. How can he call Shamoun a liar when he prescribes to a theory not even verified by the text he uses in his defense! Osama can you do these things:
1.
Show us that
the Hebrew word in question is vagina based on historical usage?
2. Name these scholars for us and tell us how they arrived to their conclusion.
3.
Prove that
we lied and that the word “navel” has never meant what it says but always meant
“vagina”, or at least can mean vagina.
If he can’t then he has no case and this theory
must be rejected as one of his many lies and propagation tactics. (ibid)
I won’t even begin to elaborate on the rest of the material he failed to answer. Osama continues by saying:
Talk about
preposterous lies!! This team
of clowns, and especially the Quennel Gale retard,
are the masters of lies, deceptions and delusions!
While he named his article as a rebuttal to my "Pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls in the Bible" article, ironically and most ridiculously, his article does not address, NOT EVEN REMOTELY, the detailed points and biblical verses that I put in my article!
Really? Apparently Osama Abdallah forgot the contents of his original article. I did elaborate on the Talmud, the age of the girl, the usage of Navel as vagina, Song of Solomon, and I even added the Aisha argument in for extra measure. Also if I didn’t address Osama’s article, how come he didn’t point out WHAT POINTS I MISSED? IT’S VERY EASY TO CLAIM THAT NOBODY ADDRESSED YOUR MATERIAL, BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING TO SHOW WHAT POINTERS THEY MISSED.
This is by far the most
ridiculous trick and lie Jochen Katz and his clowns
ever fabricated to their readers! After their miserable failure to refute
my biblical verses and points that proved without doubt the pedophilia against
3-year old slave girls under the Mosaic Law, they decided to
respond to a verse in my X-Rated Pornography in the Bible article and some of my
Aisha was 9 when she married our Prophet, and PROOFS that 9-year old girls were married to men who were their
fathers' age also in the BIBLE, AND EVEN UNTIL
TODAY IN OUR CULTURES
article, and claim that they have soundly refuted and
debunked my pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls under the Mosaic Law article.
By the way, even Quennel's new response does not refute anything, because
yes, the pornful bible did say that women's
vaginas and breasts taste like "WINE" in the book of "Song of
Songs"! I have used experts in the Hebrew language and bible
theologians to prove this, while he desperately tried to disprove it.
But the point here is ladies and gentlemen is that Quennel Gale's so-called "rebuttal" HAS NOTHING to do with my pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls under the Mosaic Law article, and yet, Jochen Katz (or the Joking Cat), the preposterous liar, tried to fool his reader by giving them the impression that Osama Abdallah's pedophilia in the bible article had been refuted. Hilarious indeed!
Notice the bold statements without evidence:
This is by far the most ridiculous
trick and lie Jochen Katz and his clowns ever
fabricated to their readers!
But he doesn’t tell us where anybody tricked and lied to the
readers, apparently because he can’t find it himself:
After their miserable failure to
refute my biblical verses and points that proved without doubt the pedophilia
against 3-year old slave girls under the Mosaic Law
The Bible verses he used didn’t
mention any single thing about what Osama claims, infact
we repost for your viewing Sam’s response using Glenn Miller’s material WHICH
OSAMA ABDALLAH HAS FAILED TO RESPOND TO:
Regarding Exodus 21:7-11, Miller writes:
·
Many of God's commands to
Six days you shall
labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD
your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or
daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any
of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and
maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember
that you were slaves in
When you harvest the
grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for
the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in
If a fellow Hebrew, a
man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you
six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you
release him, do not send him away
empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and
your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in
[ ... ]
Pushback: "Whoa, whoa! Can we not
gloss/skip over that last point! I am reeeely
bothered by that 'your wife stays here' clause…Can you explain how the various
exit scenarios looked, in the case of a Hebrew debt-slave's going free? And is
it true that a man could sell his daughter into slavery without any HOPE of
freedom for her????
Sure, pal--I'll be glad to (but you'll regret asking me to interrupt the flow of this, with my typically verbose response ... smile)
Here are the two passages, both in Exodus 21 (translation from the Jewish Publication Society version):
"When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone." (21.2-4)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as is the practice with free maidens. If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he fails her in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment." (21.7-11)
The way I want to approach this is to sketch out the marriage process background (rel. to OT and some ANE aspects), and map these scenarios onto them.
First, the process of getting married (for normal folks).
1. The parents of two families (or head-of-household, often
the father, but not exclusively--Hagar 'took a wife for Ishmael out of
"Customs varied over time and place, but the process of marriage included at least four stages: (1) the engagement, (2) payments by the families of both the bride (dowry) and the groom (bride-price), (3) the bride's move to her father-in-law's house, and (4) sexual intercourse." [OT:DLAM, 133]
"Second, a father arranged for the marriage of his daughter by finding a suitable husband for her and negotiating the terms of the marriage." [HI:MFBW, 55]
"When parents deemed their child to be approaching marriageable age, the father of the groom would contact the parents of the potential spouse and negotiate the terms of the marriage, specifically the nature and size of the mohar, "marriage present" ..." [HI:MFBW, 57]
"If the groom died or had a change of heart, his father could insist that the bride be given to one of the groom's brothers if one were available and of age. That is, the bride married into her husband's family--she did not marry an individual." [OT:DLAM, 134f]
"The control of marriages and offspring was also patriarchal. A woman’s father decided whom she could marry (Exod 22:17), although there is evidence that daughters were consulted (cf. Gen 24:55-58)." ["Patriarchy As An Evil That God Tolerated: Analysis And Implications For The Authority Of Scripture", Guenther Haas, Jnl of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3, Sept 1995]
2. This mohar was once thought of (and still called in the literature) as a 'bride price', but more recently it is understood as a 'bride-present' (since sometimes the bride got to keep it herself). It is a payment made by the father of the groom, to the father of the bride:
"The contract described in the Laws of Eshnunna was between the two families, commonly represented by the fathers. For the groom's family, the contract concerned payment of the bride-price, which was a considerable sum of silver in the Old Babylonian period. The bride-price was an act of good faith, insuring the grooms' right to the bride." [OT:DLAM, 133]
"While some have interpreted the mohar as a purchase price, it is preferable to see it as a deposit delivered to the parents of the bride to promote the stability of the marriage and to strengthen the links between the families of those being married." [HI:MFBW, 57]
"The father of the girl negotiated a bride-price with the groom or groom's father, with an expected amount the baseline, the mohar habbetulot, set at fifty shekels, but with no upper limit." [HI:HALOT,:2:1007; Note: this amount in the ANE at that time would have been the value of 5 years of a hired person's labor.]
3. However, depending on the circumstances of the families, this bride-price (and counterpart, the dowry of the girl) could be paid in installments, in non-cash items such as clothing (Judg 14:8-20), and/or in services:
"Normally, the bride-price consisted of sliver or goods, but it could be services ... Jacob worked seven years for Rachel and Leah respectively." [HI:HALOT,:2:1007]
"A fiancé could compound for the payment of the mohar by service, as Jacob did for both his marriages (Gn 29:15-30), or by accomplishing an appointed task, as David did for Mikal (1 S 18.25-27) and Othniel for Calab's daughter (Jos 15:16 = Jg 1:12)." [AI:1, 26f]
"Both the bride-price and the dowry could be paid in installments until the first child was born, at which time the balance of both payments was due. The marriage was legally finalized, and the mother assumed the legal rights of 'wife'." [OT:DLAM, 133]
Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling'
his daughter ....
1. The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable', 'mercenary' act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for his daughter (generally thought to be under extreme duress):
· · "Lagas-Girsu legal texts show children being sold into slavery, and this led the texts' editor to posit a weak family bond. If, as seems likely, the parents were choosing life over death for their children, one does not need to doubt their devotion to the children [OT:LIANE, 35]
· · "While this legal right of parents was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]
"Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class." [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]
· · "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no compensation for the purchase price." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
2. Secondly, commentators are quick to point out that this 'selling' isn’t real slavery--its very, very different from 'regular' slavery transactions. [This case is different than the debt-slave situation, in that (1) it is done by the father for a dependent daughter, rather than an independent self-selling female; (2) it is about marriage and childbearing, instead of simple domestic service labor, and is therefore exempt from the must-wait-six-years provision--indeed release would not have to wait nearly that long at all [the 'master' would know very soon if he was not pleased with the bride-to-be]; (3) has multiple exit conditions; and (4) has additional protections and guarantees in it]:
· "Older views held that Mesopotamian marriage was basically a commercial arrangement in which the groom purchased the bride, and it is true that extant texts are interested in the economic relations that were being forged by the new union. But it is not helpful to see marriage as purchase because the bride's family too usually presented gifts to the groom's family; instead, marriage seems more a change in status for both parties, like adoption." [OT:LIANE, 52]
· "The provisions here stipulated for such a woman make it very likely that she was not sold into slavery for general purposes, but only as a bride, and therefore with provisions restricting her owner-husband concerning her welfare if he should become dissatisfied with the union. ... Such an interpretation makes clear why the provisions for such a slave-bride are given in sequence to the "guiding principles" for the protection of the male temporary slave: the slave-bride had special rights, too, and if they were violated, she too could go free. [WBC]
· "The Hebrew term 'amah used here, does not mean a slave girl in the usual sense, since her status is quite different from that of the male slave. The following laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
· "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. ... The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
3. The odd mixture of 'slave' words and 'marriage' words designate this individual as a 'concubine'. Concubines in the ancient world were essentially wives whose offspring were not automatically in the inheritance/succession line. They had all the legal rights of wives, but they had typically originated in a state of slavery. They were subordinate to freeborn-wives (if there were any in the household), and their offspring could be successors ONLY IF the offspring were legally 'adopted' or publicly acclaimed by the owner. They could be legally 'promoted' to full wife status (in the ANE).
·
"In
· "The ancient law of Ex 21:7-11 allows an Israelite father who is poor or in debt to sell his daughter to be the slave-concubine of a master or his son. She is not freed in the seventh year like the male slaves. If her master is not satisfied, he may resell her to her family, but may not sell her to a stranger. If he takes another wife, he must leave intact all the rights of the first. If he intends her to be his son's wife, he must treat her as a daughter of the family." [AI:1, 86]
· "This restriction was the result of the owner's having been faithless to her, that is, he had not lived up to the agreement made with her household, that she would be his concubine. In addition, if the buyer purchased the woman to be a concubine for his son, then she was to treated as a daughter. And if the buyer took another woman for his wife, he could not reduce his concubine's conjugal rights, food, or clothing." [OT:FAI, 196]
· "In addition to the regular wife or wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or concubines who would bear children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's behavior toward a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also apply in a major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with even greater dignity. Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical words in verse 10, there is some question concerning the obligations placed upon the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas, seer, kesut and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These specific expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]
· "Exodus 21:7-11 specifically seeks to regulate cases involving Israelite women/girls who were sold by their fathers as female slaves (amot), presumably because of debt. Many commentators assume that this sale envisions marriage to the master or to his son,