Fantasizing Pedophilia into the
Holy Bible
Quennel Gale
Recently there has been a heated debate on the issue of pedophilia in the bible between answering Islam’s Sam Shamoun and answering Christianity’s Osama Abdallah. This argument was first propagated by Osama Abdallah in hopes of attempting to bring shame upon Christianity and to justify the sick absurd actions of his prophet Muhammad. Osama believes if he can somehow prove that the bible is pornographic, this would justify Islam in the eyes of his reader. Needless to say that such a method of apologetic argument only proves that the accuser, Mr. Abdallah, recognizes the pornographic absurdities of Islam and must desperately fight to attack Christianity.
Here we want to highlight a false argument brought against the Bible by Mr. Abdallah. In his “alleged” response to Mr. Shamoun located here on his website. But before continuing we must first mention that answering Christianity doesn’t necessarily represent orthodox Islamic views but only the absurd propagandic theories of Osama Abdallah, posing as a scholar of Islam. Many of his articles have even angered orthodox Muslims and some even considers him as an apostate. The reason we choose to respond to his material is because Christians need to know that vile attacks on the Bible aren’t as credible as their proponents claim. We begin here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/pedophilia_rebuttal.htm
On this link we want to address in further detail Osama arguing that Song of Songs mentions “women’s vagina”. He begins by posting Mr. Shamoun’s sound rebuttal while offering his comments. We post Mr.Shamoun’s comments with further emphasis:
He wrote:
One other point we want to briefly discuss is Osama’s claim that the Song of Songs states that women’s vaginas taste like wine:
His
sister's vagina tastes like "wine":
"How beautiful
your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman's hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that
never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled
by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.
Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi.
.......
I said 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.' May
your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath
like apples, and your mouth like the best wine. (The NIV Bible, Song of
Songs 7:1-4, 8-9)"
According to the documentary film "Sex in the Bible" on A&E TV Station, the Hebrew translation to "Your naval" is referring to the woman's VAGINA. The English translators substituted the word "NAVEL" WITH "VAGINA." Please rent a copy of the movie and watch it. This was sent to me by my dear brother in Islam Mike who embraced Islam just recently; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.
Osama has deliberately lied to his readers regarding the meaning of "navel" in this passage. Instead of doing the scholarly thing and examining the relevant commentaries and lexicons, Osama appeals to a TV program, which may or may not have said what is claimed. This kind of research is more akin to that which is found in TV tabloid magazines like The Enquirer.
In the first place, anyone remotely familiar with Hebrew literature would see that the verse is structured in a way in which the second line further explicates or explains the meaning of the first, or carries over the thought of the first sentence. Note the passage carefully:
"Your NAVEL
is like a round goblet Which never lacks mixed wine;
Your BELLY is like a heap of wheat
Fenced about with lilies." Song of Songs 7:2 NASB
"Your NAVEL
is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Your BELLY is a heap of wheat,
encircled with lilies." RSV
Thy NAVEL
is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting;
thy BELLY is like a heap of wheat
set about with lilies. 7:3 Jewish Publication Society
(JPS)
Note the parallel here between navel and belly,
which clearly shows that the text is referring to the bride’s belly, not her
vagina. The mention of wine and wheat (which were associated with fertility)
seems to suggest that Solomon is
praising his lover’s womb, since it is the place where a child is woven and
conceived.
Furthermore, an examination of any Hebrew lexicon will show that the word for navel DOES NOT mean vagina:
shorer {sho'-rer}
navel, umbilical cord
(Source: BlueLetter Bible [using in turn The
Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament])
8326 ... the navel, i.q. ... Cant. 7:3; used for the part around the navel, or the belly (which is compared to a bowl). Compare on the other hand ... high place, summit; and ... navel. (Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament: A Dictionary Numerically Coded to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance with an Exhaustive English Index, H.W.F. Gesenius [Baker Book House; (June 1, 1990), paperback; ISBN: 0801037360], p. 851)
2469 … (shrr). Assumed root of the following.
2469a … (shor)
umbilical cord (e.g. Ezk 16:4; Prov 3:8).
2469b … (shera) bracelet (Gen
24:22; Isa 3:19).
2469c … (sharir) sinew, muscle
(Job 40:16).
2469d … (sherirut), … (sherirut) stubbornness.
(Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke [Moody Publishers; 2 Volumes edition, June 1, 1980], Volume II, p. 957)
What makes this even more amazing is that Osama uses this very same book to prove that Muhammad was predicted in the Holy Bible! Notice what he writes here:
Once we get past the deliberate mistranslations of Deuteronomy 33:2 and Jude 1:14-15, we find that these prophecies not only refer unequivocally to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but that they are corroborative of the much-discussed prophecy in Song of Songs, 5:10-16.
According to the well-researched work of Mohd Elfi Nieshaem Juferi and Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, the original Hebrew version of SONG OF SONGS 5:16, if correctly translated, predicts the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) by name:
His mouth is most:
yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my
(paternal) UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters
of
"Muhammad [pbuh] In the Bible," supra, http://members.xoox.com_XMCM/lordxarkun/Islam/songs5_10-16.html, emphasis in original; see also "Muhammad In World Scriptures," supra, at pp. 100-111.
Significantly, in SONG OF SONGS 5:10, this same prophet - expressly identified in the Hebrew as "Muhammad," is described as being "the chiefest among ten thousands" (ibid., emphasis added) (King James Version).
This reference to the "ten thousands" indicates that the Prophet referred to must be the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)! (Source: www.answering-christianity.com/10000.htm; bold capital emphasis ours)
If Osama is
correct, this means that Muhammad must be a porn star, since he is mentioned in
a book which Osama says is full of porn!
It is
obvious from the preceding statements that when the Holy Bible suits his
purpose, Osama has no hesitation to appeal to it as a divine revelation
containing true prophecies of Muhammad. But when it no longer helps his case in
promoting his false prophet and his false religion, he will then proceed to
attack the Holy Bible as a "filthy and slutty
book, full of porn". Such hypocrisy and inconsistency is typical of Osama
and his kind.
Note the stark contrast between our appeal to the Quran and Osama’s appeal to the Holy Bible. We do not believe the Quran is an inspired revelation from God, but we do believe that it is the oldest extant record we have on Muhammad and his Companions. As such, we appeal to it to show what the views the first Muslims held regarding issues such as the integrity of the Bible, the Person of Christ etc. Osama, on the other hand, doesn’t simply appeal to the Bible as an historical record, but a divinly revealed text only when it will serve his purpose of providing supernatural verification for his prophet.
For the refutations of Osama’s lies regarding fathers’ sticking fingers in their daughters, as well as the issue of the Holy Bible and porn, please read the following articles:
http://answer-islam.org/fathers_rape.html
http://answer-islam.org/whatjews.htm
http://answer-islam.org/AnsweringPornography.htm
http://answer-islam.org/Porn1.html
For an analysis of the contents and purpose of the Song of Songs, we highly recommend the following article by Andy Bannister:
http://answering-islam.org/Andy/Songs/commentary.html
And for a look at the Quran’s and Islam’s filthy porn, please read the following articles:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mary.htm
http://answer-islam.org/allahporn.html
Lord Jesus willing, we will soon be publishing a two-part paper on Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha, where we will address many of the responses and objections raised by Osama, and other Muslims, regarding this issue. In that paper, we will also be addressing Osama’s reference to the Talmud. (Ibid)
Now here is how Osama responds:
My
response:
Notice how Shamoun makes foolish remarks and assumptions about a film
that he never even watched. By the way, I did later on watch this film "Sex
in the Bible" on the history channel, as I also
watched "Banned from the Bible", and other films
about the Bible, and all of them are objective and
truthful! If you bothered to watch the film for yourself you then
would've seen that the commentary came from Bible theologians. Not
from clowns and liars such as yourself.
Yes, the verse above did refer to women's vaginas according to those theologians. I suggest instead of taking a dump from your brain and come up with dumb remarks and assumptions like you did above, is to watch the film and see it for yourself, and learn some Hebrew along with it too.
As you can see Mr. Abdallah’s response hardly answers the scholarly material presented by Mr. Shamoun. He doesn’t address the lexicon material present by Sam nor does he attempt to answer his rebuttal directly. Apparently Mr. Abdallah finds this task to difficult to undertake, even though he claims that he wrote a thorough rebuttal to Sam Shamoun. Obviously Mr. Abdallah doesn’t know what the word “rebuttal” actually means. A simple response isn’t a rebuttal if the facts stated in the material aren’t addressed by the person doing the rebuttal. Instead Osama tries to appeal to the reader’s emotion by claiming that:
Notice how Shamoun makes foolish remarks and assumptions about a film that he never even watched.
If you read Mr. Shamoun’s comments carefully you can clearly see that the only one making foolish remarks and assumptions is Mr. Abdallah. The film was never criticized by Sam. He only said that:
Instead of
doing the scholarly thing and examining the relevant commentaries and lexicons,
Osama appeals to a TV program, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT have said what is claimed.
This statement is absolutely true of Mr. Abdallah. His whole argument stems from what “some scholars he can’t seem to remember or name” says about this passage. Hence, Osama has committed the logical fallacy of appealing to dubious authority. Osama is banking on the reader believing his argument based on the simple fact that he believes it is true and that some program stated it, according to him. Osama expects us to believe this argument when all he has is the claim of “a T.V. program on a cable station mentioning this statement as true”. Apparently Osama Abdallah tends to believe everything he sees on T.V. when it agrees with his preconceived notions. Notice the rest of his response:
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 vagina’” in Song of Songs? Let’s 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 in the Hebrew text and language if 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 as so without evidence from the source and the source’s resource. Sadly to say Osama Abdallah failed in all categories here. I have also seen both programs and I have found nothing which claims 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. So why should he think that Christians aught to let these scholars make the final decision on this issue, especially when it has been pointed out over and over that his argument is thoroughly wrong? So lets show you just what Song of Song’s 7:2-3 really says:
"Your NAVEL is like a round goblet Which never lacks mixed wine; Your BELLY is like a heap of wheat Fenced about with lilies." Song of Songs 7:2 NASB
"Your NAVEL is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your BELLY is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies." RSV
Your NAVEL is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. NIV
Your NAVEL is as delicious as a goblet filled with wine. Your BELLY is lovely, like a heap of wheat set about with lilies. NLT
Thy NAVEL is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy BELLY is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies. KJV
Your NAVEL is like a beautiful glass full of wine. Your STOMACH is like gathered grain with lilies around it. NLV
Your NAVEL is a rounded bowl; it never lacks mixed wine. Your waist[1] is a mound of wheat surrounded by lilies. HCSB
Footnotes
1.
c 7:2
Or belly HCSB
Your NAVEL is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your BELLY is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies. ESV
Your NAVEL is a wine glass filled to overflowing. Your body is full and slender like a bundle of wheat bound together by lilies. CEV
Your NAVEL is a rounded goblet; It lacks no blended beverage. Your waist is a heap of wheat Set about with lilies. NKJV
Thy NAVEL is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor; thy BELLY is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies. KJV21
Thy NAVEL is a round goblet, [which] wanteth not mixed wine; Thy BELLY a heap of wheat, set about with lilies; Darby
Your NAVEL is like a round bowl that always has mixed wine in it. Your waist is like a mound of wheat that is surrounded by lilies. NIRV
Your NAVEL is a rounded goblet that never lacks blendedwine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. NIV-UK
Do you see anywhere in the translations where “NAVEL” is the word “VAGINA”? No. Such stupidity on Osama’s part is embarrassing to say the least. If his theologians and scholars were objective and truthful then they should have shown from the Hebrew text where the word “navel” was actually the word “vagina”. Look at the Jewish translation of the Bible and see for yourself what the verse actually says:
Thy NAVEL is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting; thy BELLY is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies. 7:3 Jewish Publication Society (JPS) http://www.breslov.com/bible/Song_of_Songs7.htm#2
shârerękh 'aggan hassahar 'al-yechsar hammâzegh bithnękh `aręmath chithiym sughâh bashoshanniym- Hebrew transliteration
Now is Osama going to accuse the Hebrew native Jewish translators of misunderstanding their own language now? Why didn’t they translate it as the word ‘vagina’? Also what is missing from Osama’s argument is “the Hebrew word for vagina”. If he wanted to prove to us that these theologians were correct then he should have said “the Hebrew word for vagina is this, and the Bible actually has this word in Song of Songs and it was mistranslated as navel”. Instead he claims some cable T.V. documented claimed something while not presenting us any transcript or full video clip of this show to verify if it is true or not. He continues responding to Mr. Shamoun by saying:
If you bothered to watch
the film for yourself you then would've seen that the commentary came from
Bible theologians. Not from clowns and liars such as yourself.
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?
If he can’t then he has no case and this theory must be rejected as one of his many lies and propagation tactics. Also Mr. Abdallah tries to respond to “Jim” in an article posted on our site here:
http://www.answer-islam.org/Osama-Muslim.html
Here the participant responded to Osama and refuted him on many of his pointers on this very same issue. Osama couldn’t even respond back to this article proving that his bluff of “pornography in the Bible” was played and defeated. Instead Osama tries to repeat this material as a rebuttal to Sam Shamoun, without ever hinting to his audience what link he was responded too because he is afraid that the reader would reject his evidence as refuted. He says:
Anyway, I
did in the past rebut this with a Christian. Here it is again:
From www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm:
His
sister's vagina tastes like "wine":
"How
beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are
like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands. Your navel is a
rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a
mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two
fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower.
Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of
Bath Rabbi.
.......
I said 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its
fruit.' May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the
fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine.
(The NIV Bible, Song of Songs 7:1-4, 8-9)"
According
to the documentary film "Sex in the Bible" on
A&E TV Station, the Hebrew translation to "Your
naval" is referring to the woman's VAGINA. The English translators
substituted the word "NAVEL" WITH "VAGINA." Please
rent a copy of the movie and watch it. This was sent to me by my dear
brother in Islam Mike who embraced Islam just recently; may Allah Almighty
always be pleased with him.
Further proofs from Jim; a non-Muslim guy who tried to prove
that I was not accurate about the translation of the word "Naval" in
this Porn-full verse. He sent the following to the Christian
"Answering Islam" team:
"Mr.
Abdallah seems to have done little homework in this matter, since his whole
analysis seems to stem from someone named Mike. Here is actually what this
video says:
The word
navel and the umbilical cord both come from the woman's vagina since this is a
natural part of childbirth."
So Mr.
Jim, what exactly did you disprove here? "Your navel is a
rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine" is clearly speaking
about the vagina (not the umbilical cord), and the water/cum that comes out of
the vagina that "never lacks blended wine", or in
other words tastes like wine! Also, "rounded goblet
(container)" is clearly referring to the vagina since the vagina is in a
way a container or a place that contains. Also notice that
the verses after it speak about her sexy waist and breasts.
Also, the
idea of "natural part of childbirth" IS A SICK
LIE!!, since the whole pornful book, as
clearly shown in the ample verses above and below, is speaking about sex and
brothers and sisters and lovers having sex with each others all night
long. No children and child birth was ever mentioned, and
Certainly umbilical cords are not sexually attractive and don't taste
like "wine". It is clearly and irrefutably speaking about the vagina's cum tasting like
wine since the whole book is about sex and sucking
vaginas and breasts.
I just find it quite sickening that some christians
would go too far in lying and making up hoaxes and lies to cover up for their
horny and pornful bible.
You just further proved how full of porn the Bible really is.
However Osama Abdallah failed to inform Mr. Shamoun or anyone else for that matter, that in Jim’s response, this very same argument was refuted. We quote:
Response-Notice how he changed the argument. The video clearly says
that 1. The Navel and Umbilical cord comes from the vagina
2. This is a natural part of Child birth. Mr. Abdallah changed this to say how
the word was accurately represented. So he invented a strawman
argument because he couldn't answer the part as to why the video didn't say
what he claims. Also I disproved that 1. Vagina wasn't substituted with Navel.
Also notice that Mr. Abdallah didn't post none of this
on his site:
1. A vagina isn't round like a goblet, aparently
Mr. Abdallah has never seen a vagina
2. According to Mr. Abdallah the English translators
subsituted this word to be navel. Look at the Jewish
translation:
2 How beautiful are thy steps in
sandals, O prince's daughter! The roundings of thy
thighs are like the links of a chain, the work of the hands of a skilled
workman.
3 Thy navel is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting;
thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies.
This is very important in showing us how Mr. Abdallah doesn't research his own material because the Jewish translators also called it NAVEL. They can’t be accused of mistranslating this word because they aren’t English translators. The reason why both the English translators and the Jews translates this word as navel is because in Hebrew it is “Shorer” and it means navel, umbilical cord. Mr. Abdallah argument also presents even more problems.
1. What is the English
translators purpose for subsituting this word
2. How does this action, if it occured verify Islam?
3. If they left
other words, such as penis according to you, why hide vagina?
Jim-Mr. Abdallah's conclusion makes no sense and if he really wants to be truthful he should also state to his audience that the Jewish translators and the Hebrew Bible doesn't have the word vagina in it. You can even go to this link and see for yourself that "vagina" isn't part of this above verse:
http://www.breslov.com/bible/Song_of_Songs7.htm#2
Jim-With that being said, any logical person can hardly find any reason to accept Mr. Abdallah's conclusion unless they want to intentionally use false information. http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/9940.htm and, http://www.answer-islam.org/Osama-Muslim.html (added emphasis ours)
Others have shown that Mr. Abdallah’s information was false. This message has been on our discussion board for at least a couple of years. Jim also demonstrates Osama’s ignorance when he says:
1. A vagina isn't round like a goblet, aparently Mr. Abdallah has never seen a vagina
For those who don’t know what a “goblet” is, this word describes something that is shaped like a bowel. It is round, etc. We can’t believe that Osama would embarrass himself by reposting this material again! In his desperation to refute Christianity he has opened up himself to more ridicule! Jim responds to this perfectly by saying:
Jim-The above link was what Osama Abdallah was claiming to respond to we notice that:
1. He never talked on why the Jewish Bible doesn't
have this word vagina
2. Why he didn't comment about the fact
that no other Bible in any other language has vagina in it as a word.
3. Why never showed anyone the link I showed explictedly
proving his case as being false.
4. He doesn't even know what vagina in Hebrew means. Shorer
is Navel. Why he didn't go to a dictonary to prove
his point like he so-called did with the grown-up man in the breast suckling
issue?
Conclusion: He didn't answer none of my quotes completely he only took out bits and pieces and left all of the hard information out. If anybody did this with his post he would claim that they didn't address none of his points. We find it strange that he fails to do the same above. Also Here is another imporatant part that Mr. Abdallah didn't show on his site because it would prove to the whole world that he is ignorant of how a vagina looks or if he does then he is intentionally lying read from- http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/10146.htm (IBID)
What is even more embarrassing for Osama is that Jim even addressed his argument on Song of Songs 7:2 even further exposing him as an ignorant neophyte on the bible, even quoting from Osama’s beloved NIV study Bible:
SECTION 4
|
Vagina substituted with nave Song 7:2-Mr. Abdallah's argument |
goblet. A large, two-handled, ring-based bowel (see Ex 24:6; Isa 22:24) (NIV Study Bible, Footnotes on Solomon, pg. 1005) |
Jim-This refers to the verse in which song of songs 7:2 says:
"How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi.
Jim-1. A vagina isn't
round like a goblet, aparently
Mr. Abdallah has never seen a vagina
2. According to Mr. Abdallah the English translators subsituted this word to be navel. Look at the Jewish
translation:
2 How beautiful are thy steps in sandals, O
prince's daughter! The roundings of thy thighs are
like the links of a chain, the work of the hands of a skilled workman.
3 Thy navel is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting;
thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies.
Jim-If vagina is supposed to be here then:
1. It would look like a two handled ring!
2. It would be shaped like a bowel!
3. Everytime you see someone with a bowel with
handles, like a bucket in modern time, Mr. Abdallah would think it would be a
vagina!!
4. I'm sure answering-islam would love this. Hence
Mr. Abdallah has given the Christians another dagger to stab him with.
Does a vagina look like a bowl?
1. When you cook food in bowels are you cooking
them in vaginas?
2. If you carry things in a bowel are you carrying it in a vagina?
3. If Mr. Abdallah has ever ate soup did he eat it
from a vagina?
Jim-This makes no sense at all. A navel would be
round like a goblet because a navel that is poke out resembles this especially
when a woman is wearing a ring in her navel. A Vagina can never resemble a
bowl.
-----------------------------End of
Jim-Where is the answers to the above? Why isn't this on answering Christianity? Are you afraid to tell your audience that you think that a vagina looks like a bowl with two handles? (IBID)
What more can we say on Osama’s stupidity! He thinks that a goblet and a navel is a vagina! Apparently he isn’t too good in thinking with the head on top of his shoulders but the one between his legs! Osama would you also confuse these two now? I guess if he puts his head (on top of his shoulders) in a round bowel he would confuse this as having sexual intercourse! Maybe someone should bang him upside his head with a bowel to knock some sense into it. Osama tries to paint Song of Songs as a pornographic book sanctioning love between two unmarried people:
Please answer this
question for me:
Why should vaginas and illegal sex done by unmarried lovers be talked about in a sexual fantasy in the book that is supposed to be the True Living Words of GOD Almighty from the first place?
Please answer this question for us, WHERE EXACTLY DOES SONG OF SONGS CLAIM THAT THE PEOPLE WERE UNMARRIED IN THE FIRST PLACE? According to Song of Song’s itself, the person was the bride of Solomon. Jim addresses this also in section 7 of his article, which Mr. Abdallah failed to answer also:
SECTION 7
Song of Solomon 4:8 Song of
Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:7-9 Come with me from
Song of Solomon 4:9 Song of Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:8-10 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace.
Song of Solomon 4:10 Song of Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:9-11 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!
Song of Solomon 4:11 Song of Solomon 4 Song of
Solomon 4:10-12 Your lips drop sweetness as the
honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance
of your garments is like that of
Song of Solomon 4:12 Song of Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:11-13 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
Song of Solomon 5:1 Song of Solomon 5 Song of Solomon 5:1-2 I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk. Eat, O friends, and drink; drink your fill, O lovers.
Jim-It is obvious that Mr. Abdallah's intent was misplaced, surely there is no need to ask him whether he knows what the word bride means. Also notice that in Song of Solomon 5:1-2 his wife is called "LOVER" which clearly shows that lover can refer to married and unmarried couples. If Mr. Abdallah is trying to make it unmarried why ignore the "bride" part of it? YOu can't read your opinion into any religious text, Islamic, Christian, etc,. and then claim that it verifies what you want it to say. This isn't logic nor is it fair to any person, whether, Jew, Christian or Muslim.
Even if Mr. Abdallah wants to say that he is married to his sister, biological one, his own quote which he quotes from the KJV would refute that since the Shulmanite girl describes also her origin and her nationalilty. Solomon wasn't a Shulamite so Mr. Abdallah in one aspect is self refuting his own analysis by his quote. Also Notice that Mr. Abdallah doesn't offer any Islamic evidence which claims that all sisters and brothers are biological here is what Muhammad said about the word sister:
In Sahih Muslim, the Hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, says:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, WHEREAS MOSES WAS BORN WELL BEFORE JESUS. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them."" .
Jim-According to Muhammad this name "sister" "brother" for the fellas were given to pious people and people who came before him. Surely if Mr. Abdallah believed that Solomon was a prophet of God he would marry a pious woman. According to Muhammad, Mr. Abdallah's own example this is for people who are pious along with being for apostles, etc, and according to Mr. Abdallah this is porn and his real biological sister.
1. If we accept Mr. Abdallah then we must reject
Muhammad as being false.
2. If we accept Muhammad, then we must reject Mr. Abdallah as being false… http://www.answer-islam.org/Osama-Muslim.html
Now is Osama Abdallah going to claim to us that that he doesn’t know what the word “bride” means? So we want to rephrase Osama’s question to him and ask:
Please answer this question for me:
Why should vaginas and sex not be done by married lovers; not be talked about in a sexual fantasy in the book the True Living Words of GOD Almighty? Also why did you lie and claim that it was unmarried lovers when the texts itself claim they were married?
Can you please answer this for us on your website Mr. Abdallah. Are you going to lie and tell us different? Now in trying to defend the fact that his horny prophet was also found in the very same book he calls “pornographic” Osama responds by saying this:
As to using SONG
OF SONGS 5:10 below to show that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
was foretold, the reason why I posted it is because the ENGLISH Bibles had been
known to be NOTORIOUS in mistranslation [1] [2] [3]. I wanted to introduce the
possibility that the book of Song of Songs was either:
1- Altered and much of the porn was added to it as the NIV Bible's
theologians themselves clearly admit:
From www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm:
The obfuscation Mr. Abdallah puts himself in here is very easy for the reader to see. First off, his link above claims that Song of Songs was not the word of God based on the fact that the authorship wasn’t set in stone according to his warped theories. He even shows that here:
The book of Song of Songs:
"Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)"
"Two lovers, Solomon and a Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. (From the King James Version Commentary, page 945)"
But yet he is claiming that his prophet Muhammad is foretold in a book that isn’t the word of God and has porn added to it! Also Osama makes very bold claims by saying that the Bible was altered with the NIV theologians admitting this. In his quote above you see no such mention of the words “porn”, “corruption” or “alteration”. So we challenge Osama:
1. Who altered the Bible, particularly Song of Songs?
2. What did they change and what was it originally supposed to say?
3. When did they alter the bible and what happen to the original?
4. Did early apologists recognize that the Bible was altered? And how did they expose this?
5. Where exactly does the NIV admit “porn” and “corruption” in their commentary on Song of Songs in particular?
We hope Osama can answer this for us or he should admit that he is basing his theories on un-provable assumptions void of historical evidence and facts. What is also amusing is that Osama claims in Song of Songs:
I posted it is because the ENGLISH Bibles had been known to be NOTORIOUS in mistranslation [1] [2] [3].
So according to him one shouldn’t mistranslate the bible. But notice that his argument on Song of Songs 7:2 is based on “Bible theologians who claim that the word navel is vagina”. Since this is obviously false based on the Hebrew Bible then we wonder why Osama is trying to hide behind the argument of “mistranslation” when no Hebrew text or translation of the bible supports his conclusion on Song of Songs 7:2? He doesn’t even know the theologians he quotes from and according to himself “no name authorship of a book, text or saying is false and should be rejected”! As a further note we quote from the KJV commentary used by Osama above to show you how he lied in claiming that Song of Song promotes pornography:
Two lovers, Solomon and A Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. The book has no narrative sections, being composed entirely of speeches to each other. The Song of Solomon is a celebration OF MARITAL LOVE, UNABASHEDLY PHYSICAL AND EARTHLY (though not lewd). While the song is a straightforward love song, not an allegory, Christians do know that behind the bliss OF MARITAL LOVE stands the eternal love of God, which sanctifies the love of men and women. HUSBANDS AND WIVES can love each other with physical delight because they know the spirit of Christ purifies all human relationships (From the King James Version Commentary, page 945)" Full Quote
There is no porn found here. Osama flat out lied just like he lied about the word “navel” being the word “vagina”. Here is more proof showing that Osama Abdallah doesn’t know the bible and that more than likely, these pseudo-theologians never claimed that the word “navel” is “vagina”. The Hebrew word “shorer” found in Song of Songs 7:2 is also found in other places of the Bible:
"Your NAVEL (shârer) is like a round goblet Which never lacks mixed wine; Your BELLY is like a heap of wheat Fenced about with lilies." Song of Songs 7:2 NASB
Compare to what God said to Ezekiel:
Again the
word of the LORD came unto me, saying, SON OF MAN, cause
You cut a person’s navel or umbilical cord at birth. A person’s vagina is never cut at childbirth unless Osama thinks that every person, including guys have vaginas or maybe he is just prescribing to the Islamic practice of female circumcision, which this Muslim tries so desperately hard to defend:
Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity
permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin
from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done:
A woman used to perform
circumcision in
One does not want to make too much
of this tradition, as it is classified as "weak" by Abu Dawud (the compiler) himself. Nonetheless, it clearly forbids severity in circumcision and bases such
limitation on both the potential to harm the woman and the potential to make
her less desirable to her husband. Yet, despite the restriction against
severity, THE PROPHET DID NOT HERE PROHIBIT CIRCUMCISON COMPLETELY.
Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. It follows that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete removal of the clitoris) or infibulation (excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening), or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations. Such prohibitions are consistent with the hadithic warning against severity in female circumcision.
If the Islamic law does not mandate female
genital mutilation and tolerates only the most mild form of circumcision (and
that only if it produces no adverse effects in the child), then how does it come about that so many people from certain countries
with large Muslim populations insist that savage acts which exceed these limits
are not only permitted, but required by Islamic law? The answer becomes obvious
when one realizes that Christians from many of these countries also insist that
the tradition is mandated by their religion as well. People often confuse
traditions rooted in local culture with religious requirements.
Immigrants from such countries
now residing in the
For Muslims, cliterodectomy and infibulation should be considered harâm (prohibited) practices and opposition to it should be part of our ongoing mandate to fight against superstition and oppression. As to the mildest form of female circumcision, the risks to the girl's future ability to enjoy sexual relations with her husband must place it at best in the category of makrűh (disliked) practices. Since it has neither hygienic nor religious value, there is no justification for Muslims to engage in this painful and potentially harmful practice and it would be best to avoid it completely.
Wa Allahu a`lam. (And God knows best.) - http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm
So we get it now, Osama is so used to seeing his own Muslims cut vaginas of their own until he thinks that “navels are vaginas now”! What is even more embarrassing for both Osama and Islam is that this practice is considered unjustifiable by the above author:
Since it has neither hygienic nor religious value, there is no justification for Muslims to engage in this painful and potentially harmful practice and it would be best to avoid it completely.
But wait earlier he claimed:
THE PROPHET DID NOT HERE PROHIBIT CIRCUMCISON COMPLETELY.
Even though this Hadith is considered questionable, the author was force to admit that Muhammad didn’t prohibit female circumcision. Hence, something that is considered “haram” in Islam was permitted by the prophet himself! Osama can’t hide behind the “weak hadith” argument because this practice wasn’t prohibited in Islam! Now we will began to use Osama’s own words and methodology against him. In trying to defend Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha he says at the beginning of his article:
After our debate
regarding Muhammad’s prophetic claims (available here), Osama
Abdallah, of the Answering Christianity website(*), has tried to
do some post-debate damage-control. For instance, in order to justify some of
the perverted and sick practices of Islam which were raised in the debate,
specifically in regards to pedophilia, Osama has greatly intensified his attack
on the Holy Bible for certain statements and commands relating to women. Osama
has posted the following text on his entry page, and at the top of nearly every
page on his site:
My
response:
Sam Shamoun starts off his article by making a very silly
remark that he himself knows is not anywhere close to the Truth; not even
1%. As of 9/26/2004, my web site contains almost 1000 articles. I
only posted the below points (which he took off the links and a spelled-out URL
from them to prevent the reader from really visiting the links to see the
further irrefutable proofs), to 7 article. And I also posted it at the
top of my message board and programmed it to be read in every post on my
message board to make it clear to the reader that the horny and pornful bible is the real book of terrorism and pedophilia.
Also, as
to the debate, Shamoun likes to glorify himself a
lot. He is both dumb and arrogant, but his stupidity is far worse than
his arrogance. He likes to wax himself to give false illusions. The
reason why I raised the "Aisha being 9" issue is not because of a
worthless loser like you. I raised it because it is a serious issue that
needs to be addressed. Islam-haters use this point (one of the very few
MAJOR point against Islam) to disprove Islam. I simply proved that Aisha's parents not only approved the marriage 1500 years
ago, and the Arabs too approved it back then, but the Biblical Prophets also
practiced it. It was ordinary for young girls to be given away in
marriage in the Bible as I will prove without doubt below.
Notice how he tries to defend Muhammad’s marriage to the 9 year old Aisha. He claims that Islam bashers love using this point to embarrass Islam but he explained it on his site as “it was a norm for the culture of that time”. From his link here we quote:
Every time the Muslims talk about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to the anti-Islamic, the anti-Islamic use Muhammad's marriage with a girl named Aisha as a point against Islam. They claim that since Muhammad was in his 50's and Aisha was only 9 years old, then its ok to call him a "Child Molester":
Narrated Aisha: "The
Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to
Notice here that Aisha's mother and the Muslim women back then were ok with her marriage. It was part of the Arab custom and still is in many of the Muslim and non-Muslim countries today for girls to marry at a very young age. When a girl's body starts showing up (her breasts and her height and physical size), then she would be ready for marriage. This is further elaborated on in the "The Middle Eastern and other Cultures" and "What about Aisha's parents (mon and dad), are they too "Child Molesters"?" and "The life span 1400 years ago was very short" sections below in this article.
The "child molester" charge is a terrible unfair attack on Islam because it doesn't apply to our beloved prophet in anyway! - http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm
So 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. According to Mr. Abdallah, to attack Muhammad as a “child molester” is wrong and unfair. So basically Osama sums it up perfectly when he says:
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.
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 does Solomon, who lived long before Muhammad, is judged with modern standards and comments such as this:
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 we have a right to judge Muhammad then to right? Yes. As you can see, Osama Abdallah contradicts himself, lies and does nothing to prove his idea of “navel” being the word “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, P.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, P. 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 just give a hint into this. 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. What is even more detrimental to Islam is that science has shown that early sex with females is actually more detrimental to the girl:
"Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course
perspective."
Browning, Christopher R; Laumann,
Edward O
Citation: American
Sociological Review,
v62n4, pp.540-560, Aug 1997
Number: 03374356 Features: Table; Illustration; References
Copyright: American
Sociological Association 1997
"Research
interest in the long-term effects of sexual contact between female children and
adults has increased dramatically in the last two decades. Two sets of issues
have driven this enhanced attention. The first concerns the nature and extent
of the impact these experiences have on subsequent well-being in adulthood. Empirical research has offered evidence of
the severe and wide ranging effects of adult-child sex by documenting its
associations with a host of later "symptoms," such as low
self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and sexual dysfunction."
"In each
reduced model (Model 1), we see that adult-child sexual contact is
significantly associated with the outcome considered. Women
who experienced adult-child sexual contact were 1.6 times as likely to report
sexual desire dysfunction, 2.1 times as likely to report sexual response
dysfunction, 2.4 times as likely to report high dysfunction, 1.6 times as
likely to report low overall well being, 1.7 times as likely to report low relationship
satisfaction, and had more sexual activities that they found appealing compared
with those who had no coupled sexual experiences as children. For every outcome except high dysfunction
and number of sex acts found appealing, the introduction of the sexual
trajectory variables (Models 2 and 3) renders the adult-child sexual contact
coefficient insignificant, indicating that the effects of adult-child sex on
adult outcomes are largely indirect, mediated through sexual
trajectories."
Look what
happens when you follow Muhammad’s example! Trying to hide behind cultural norm
only shows that Osama can’t defend Muhammad’s vile actions. Since he loves
science so much we wonder what will he say about this?
Even the United Nations has shown that Muhammad’s perfect example is, well, not
so perfect:
"HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES AFFECTION THE
HEALTH OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN"
"An appraisal of harmful traditional practices and their
effects on women and the girl child.
Traditional
cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community
for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has
specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are
beneficial to all members, while others
are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional
practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women;
EARLY MARRIAGE; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from
controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth
practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl
child; female infanticide; early
pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their
harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such
practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of
morality in the eyes of those practicing them....
(NOTE: most of these are
practiced by the Islamic world).
...Child marriage robs a
girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and
psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the
young woman is removed from her parents' home to that of her husband and
in-laws. Her
husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in
common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to
develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have
intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed....
...Health complications
that result from early marriage in the Middle East and North Africa, for
example, include the risk of operative delivery, low weight and malnutrition
resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in the period of life when
the young mothers are themselves still growing....
The work of the
Committee has also permitted the identification of certain areas where law
reform should be undertaken, in both civil and penal areas, such as the minimum
age for marriage and establishment of the age of criminal responsibility as
being the attainment of puberty. Some States have argued that girls attain
their physical maturity earlier, but it
is the view of the Committee that maturity cannot simply be identified with
physical development when social and mental development are lacking and that,
on the basis of such criteria, girls are considered adults before the law upon
marriage, thus being deprived of the comprehensive protection ensured by
the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The International Conference on
Population and Development, held at
Early pregnancy
can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their babies.
According to UNICEF, no girl should
become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically ready to
bear children. Babies of mothers
younger than 18 tend to be born premature and have low body weight; such babies
are more likely to die in the first year of life. The risk to the young mother's own health is
also greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating
women. ...
An additional health risk to young mothers is
obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby's head is too big for the orifice
of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas,
especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby's head
out unduly....
Generally
throughout the developing world, the average food intake of pregnant and
lactating mothers is far below that of the average male. Cultural practices,
including nutritional taboos, ensure that pregnant women are deprived of
essential nutriments, and as a result they tend to suffer from iron and protein
deficiencies...." - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs23.htm
UNITED NATIONS
Even if Osama tries to claim that is wrong to judge by modern standards, scientific standards have proven that no matter what time period, this early marriage to a young girl, following Muhammad’s example is detrimental to her health. So Muhammad’s perfect example, whether back then or now is still wrong based on scientific findings!!! Remember this next time when you see Muslims try and appeal to science to verify Islam. The Quran claims about Muhammad:
Surely in the Messenger of God you have a good example. 33:21
This is echoed by this Muslim site on Muhammad’s perfect example:
A. Prophet Muhammad
r was an
inspired man with an extraordinary
personality. He was gifted with mighty powers of imagination, elevation
of mind, delicacy and refinement of feeling. His intellectual qualities were
extra ordinary. He had a quick apprehension, a retentive memory, a vivid imagination and
an inventive genius. Pure-hearted and
beloved in his circle, he was of sweet and gentle disposition. He
set a shining example to his people.
His character was pure and stainless.
The real cause of his many marriages at an old age was charity, and in
order to protect the widows of his persecuted followers…
D. The Prophet r was endowed with great
words of wisdom and teachings. The words that he uttered are not the words
of an ordinary man. The Hâdîth ,
the body of transmitted actions and sayings of the Prophet r conveys precious information. The practical character of his teachings gave
birth to the scientific spirit. His teachings are simple, comprehensive and
original. They remained in their
original purity. Everything in the
teachings and postulates of Islâm is in its proper
place. All its parts are
harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other; nothing is
superfluous and nothing is lacking with the result of an absolute balance and
solid composure. The dicta of the Prophet in all matters of law and religion were
inspired and suggested by Allâh I , though
expressed in his own words. Every word
the Prophet r uttered was inspired
by
E. Prophet Muhammad r is the greatest educator of mankind. - http://www.wefound.org/texts/Muhammad_files/Muhammad1.htm
So Allah’s good example is following cultural norms that are detrimental to your health! So according to Osama’s explanation since we must judge Muhammad based on his culture and nobody really found anything wrong with his marriage to Aisha, even though medical science proves other wise then:
1. Can we smoke cigarettes since it is a cultural norm and nobody says anything against it?
Did Muhammad's people and
culture benefit from establishing this practice? No.
Muhammad proclaimed himself as a guide and a light for his followers
however millions of Muslim girls have been subjected to this harmful
practice. Where was the light, guidance
or wisdom in this practice? It was
nothing more than a cultural practice, instituted by Muhammad as part of Islam
then scientifically turns out to be destructive. But because it was good enough for Muhammad,
it is good enough for Muslims; many of their female children suffer as a
result?
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.
Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com