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

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Osama Abdallah and Polygamy" article:

This article is a rebuttal to the foul-mouthed missionary, Sam Shamoun's article that is located at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/bible_polygamy.htm.

1-  Miserably failed to provide a single verse from his entire bible that prohibits polygamy.

2-  Is too desperate to the point that he resorted to lying to his reader by distorting the meanings and text of verses that had nothing to do with polygamy.

3-  Thinks too low of his reader's intellects.

4-  Follows nothing but man-made absurdities and lies and attributes those lies to GOD Almighty.

5-  Was badly refuted on 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 and Romans 7:1-3, because Paul forbade women from marrying multiple men while he never forbade men from marrying multiple women.

  
   

He wrote:

Bassam Zawadi, at the conclusion of this rebuttal (*), stated:

Its also ironic to mention that no where in the Bible is polygamy condemned. Read this.

Zawadi links to Osama Abdallah's paper (*) regarding what the Holy Bible says about polygyny (having multiple wives).

We addressed most of Zawadi's points here: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Lord Jesus willing, we will address his specific paper in the near future. In the meantime, we thought it would be worth addressing the points raised by Osama Abdallah, especially when he challenged Jochen Katz to refute this paper (*). In this way, we will be able to expose some of Osama's blatant distortions.

As is his habit, Osama goes into his typical rant regarding the Bible being corrupt, Paul not being reliable etc., all of which we will simply ignore. We will try to address the main points of his paper that actually deal with the issue of polygyny.

My response:

When one deals with a hogwash-book such as the gospel of porn, - the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine" and she wished if he were her brother so that she wouldn't have to take him home in secret to have sex with him, and sees the countless contradictions in text and history and ample absurdities and blasphemies such as Paul calling GOD Almighty a fool and weak and disbelieving husbands as "holy men" and "sanctified", one can't help himself but to bring those points up to prove to the reader or listener that the gospel of porn is no more than a corrupt book written and altered by men, and it isn't a Divine and Holy Book from GOD Almighty.

As to my challenge to Jochen Katz, if my memory didn't fail me, this was more than 3 years ago.  If it took you three years to get to this article of mine, then this obviously testifies a whole a lot about the quality of writings that I produce, especially when the reader will see shortly how I will dismantle and destroy your absurdities, desperations and straight-out lies below with ample Truth, Logic and Reason; things that your corrupt gospel of porn greatly lacks.

Polygyny and the OT Scriptures

In the perfect environment, in a world free from sin and rebellion, God deliberately designed it so that a man would be united to one woman and that together they would become one flesh:

"Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his WIFE, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Genesis 2:18-25

Polygyny wasn’t introduced until after sin and rebellion entered the world, thereby destroying God’s perfect order of things:

"… Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.’ Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’ He said, ‘I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?’ And the LORD said, ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.’ Cain said to the LORD, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.’ Then the LORD said to him, ‘Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.’ And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. Lamech said to his wives: ‘Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.’" Genesis 4:2b-24

Note that it is the cursed line of Cain, specifically a murderer from his seed, that introduced polygyny! This in itself demonstrates that polygyny is not something which springs forth from the prescriptive will of God, but from the rebellious and sinful heart of man.

This fallen condition of man also explains why God permitted polygyny for a time being; in fact, it is the very reason why God also allowed for divorce:

"And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ He answered them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.’" Mark 10:2-5

God expressly proclaims his utter hatred for divorce:

"‘For I hate divorce,’ says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘and him who covers his garment with wrong,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.’" Malachi 2:16

Jesus’ comments reiterate the point that God’s intention from the beginning was for man to be united with one woman and that the two should live in perfect harmony without ever severing their intimate union. This was all destroyed as a result of the fall of man. Yet God who is in rich in mercy, love and patience, allowed man to continue violating his ideal standard for marriage until the advent of Christ and the New Testament dispensation. More on this in the next section.

4-  Mark 10:2-5 regarding divorce, - a subject that has not much to do with our polygamy-subject here, - is an absurd verse in the New Testament, because it is not Moses who supposedly gave the commandment or allowed divorce, but rather GOD Almighty Himself!  Jesus in the text failed to say that, which proves that the text was neither from Prophet Isa (Jesus), peace be upon him, nor is it from GOD Almighty Himself.

Open Challenge that will silence the foul-mouth:

Like with your absurd and man-made trinity, why do you constantly and always fail to give a specific and clear-cut text from your self-contradicting and fully corrupt pornographic bible that proves your point?

Why do you always have to resort to man-made conclusions and distorting the text by reading your own wishful thinkings into it?

Why does your self-contradicting and fully corrupt pornographic bible, despite its huge size, fail to give a single precise and clear text that prohibits polygamy for us?

Osama boldly claims that:

There is not a single verse from the New Testament that prohibits polygamy. Christians usually mistakenly present the following verses from the Bible to prove that polygamy in the New Testament is not allowed:

After citing Matthew 19:1-9, Osama says:

In the above verses, we see that Jesus was approached with a question about whether or not it is allowed for a man to divorce his wife in Matthew 19:3.  Jesus immediately referred to the Old Testament for the answer in Matthew 19:4. He referred to Adam and Eve, one man and one woman.  The Old Testament does talk about the story of Adam and Eve as one husband and one wife.   However, the Old Testament which Jesus had referred to in Matthew 19:3 does allow polygamy. 

Also, when a man becomes a one flesh with his wife in Matthew 19:5-6, this doesn't mean that the man can't be one flesh with another woman.  He can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and one flesh with his third wife and so on....

We first quote the entire chapter so as to show the readers what Osama conveniently overlooked:

"Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the TWO shall become ONE flesh"? So they are no longer TWO but ONE flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.’" Matthew 19:1-9

Osama chooses not to see the plain meaning of Jesus’ words that marital union exists between two persons, male and female, not three or more.

Moreover, it is not a coincidence that Jesus deliberately appealed to the beginning of creation, specifically quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, in order to demonstrate God’s original design and intention for marriage. What Christ was communicating through his appeal to these specific texts is that the pre-fallen world, where conditions were perfect, reveals that God’s purpose for man was that he should live with one wife in perfect and inseparable union.(1) As noted Bible expositor, the late John Gill, put it:

Matthew 19:4

And he answered and said unto them…
Not by replying directly to the question, but by referring them to the original creation of man, and to the first institution of marriage, previous to the law of Moses;

have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made
them male and female?
This may be read in (Genesis 1:27) and from thence this sense of things collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark expresses it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is therein, and particularly "man", as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel supply it here, made the first parents of mankind, male and female; not male and females, but one male, and one female; first, one male, and then, of him one female, who, upon her creation, was brought and married to him; so that in this original constitution, no provision was made for divorce, or polygamy. Adam could not marry more wives than one, nor could he put away Eve for every cause, and marry another: now either the Pharisees had read this account, or they had not; if they had not, they were guilty of great negligence and sloth; if they had, they either understood it or not; if they did not understand it, it was greatly to their reproach, who pretended to great knowledge of the Scriptures, and to be able to explain them to others; and if they did understand it, there was no need for this question, which therefore must be put with an evil design. (Source; underline emphasis ours)

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown write:

5. And said, For this cause--to follow out this divine appointment.
shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?--Jesus here sends them back to the original constitution of man as one pair, a male and a female; to their marriage, as such, by divine appointment; and to the purpose of God, expressed by the sacred historian, that in all time one man and one woman should by marriage become one flesh--so to continue as long as both are in the flesh. This being God's constitution, let not man break it up by causeless divorces. (Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; source)

Indeed, Christ came to restore these pre-fall conditions, being sent from heaven to regenerate man and the world to God’s ideal standard and design:

"And Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’" Matthew 19:28

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." Romans 8:18-25

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." 2 Corinthians 5:17

In fact, the book of Revelation culminates with the restoration of God’s perfect garden on earth, the Paradise of Eden, which man lost due to the fall:

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.’ And he who was seated on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ Also he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’" Revelation 21:1-5

"Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever." Revelation 22:1-5

What this basically demonstrates is that Christians who live under the teachings of Christ seek to conform themselves to God’s pre-fall standards, trying to implement the same perfect conditions all over the world as much as they can until Christ returns to transform creation. As such, Christians are supposed to model their marriage after the pattern set by God before the fall where one man marries one woman.(2)

The late Adam Clarke, another renowned Bible exegete, stated it best:

Made them male and female
Merely through the design of matrimonial union, that the earth might be thus peopled. To answer a case of conscience, a man should act as Christ does here; pay no regard to that which the corruption of manners has introduced into Divine ordinances, but go back to the original will, purpose, and institution of God. Christ will never accommodate his morality to the times, nor to the inclinations of men. What was done at the beginning is what God judged most worthy of his glory, most profitable for man, and most suitable to nature. (The Adam Clarke Commentary; source; underline emphasis ours)

In light of this, it should come as no surprise that Paul gives the following instructions to believers seeking to get married:

"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have HIS OWN WIFE and each woman HER OWN HUSBAND. The husband should give to HIS WIFE her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to HER HUSBAND. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5

This is a rather explicit statement which limits a man to only one spouse. Note the structure:

• Each man is to have his own wife.
• Each woman is to have her own husband.

If Osama and company wish to say that Paul is not limiting a man to have only one wife then they must also reason that his statements do not limit a woman to marry only one husband either. If a man can have more than one wife according to this text, then by the same token a woman can have more than one spouse. Yet we know that Paul does not allow a woman to have more than one spouse at the same time:

"Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress." Romans 7:1-3

Thus, the grammatical structure of 1 Corinthians 7 clearly limits both the man and the woman to only one spouse at a time. There is no way to get around this exegetically.

Adam Clarke wrote:

Let every man have his own wife
Let every man have one woman, his own; and every woman one man, her own. Here, plurality of wives and husbands is most strictly forbidden; and they are commanded to marry for the purpose of procreating children.

In the Jewish constitutions there are some things not only curious, but useful, respecting marriage. "There are four causes which induce men to marry: 1. Impure desire; 2. To get riches; 3. To become honourable; 4. For the glory of God. Those who marry through the first motive beget wicked and rebellious children. Those who marry for the sake of riches have the curse of leaving them to others. Those who marry for the sake of aggrandizing their family, their families shall be diminished. Those who marry to promote the glory of God, their children shall be holy, and by them shall the true Church be increased." (The Adam Clarke Commentary; source; underline emphasis ours)

Another expositor says:

Verse 2
But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

Christianity is opposed to polygamy, concubinage, divorce and all related evils. Also, there is implicit in this verse a practical condemnation of celibacy. Celibacy being an absolutely unattainable state for the vast majority of mankind, marriage is required as the only practical alternative. (James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament; source)

The late Albert Barnes noted that:

Let every man, etc. Let the marriage vow be honoured by all.

Have his own wife. And one wife, to whom he shall be faithful. Polygamy is unlawful under the gospel; and divorce is unlawful. Let every man and woman, therefore, honour the institution of God, and avoid the evils of illicit indulgence. (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament; source)

Osama then cites Matthew 22:23-32 and claims that:

To further prove this point, let us look at the following from the New Testament:

In Matthew 22:24-28, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman's husband dies, and she didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not.  When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband's brother (even if he were married).  Instead, Jesus replied to them by saying that we do not marry in heaven, and we will be like angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).

So in other words, if Jesus allowed for a widow to marry her former husband's brother even if he were married, then this negates the Christians' claim about the Bible prohibiting polygamy.  A man can be one flesh with more than one woman.  In the case of Matthew 22:24-28, the man can be one flesh with his wife, and one flesh with his deceased brother's wife.  Also keep in mind that Exodus 21:10 allows a man to marry an infinite amount of women, and Deuteronomy 21:15 allows a man to marry more than one wife.

This is rather an intriguing argument, especially when the point of the text has nothing to do with whether a person who is married is permitted to marry his brother’s widow if he dies childless. Rather, the context shows that the Sadducees were trying to use this Mosaic command to confound Jesus regarding the resurrection of the dead, something which they did not personally believe in:

"The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, saying, ‘Teacher, Moses said, "If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother." Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. So too the second and third, down to the seventh. After them all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.’ But Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.’ And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching." Matthew 22:23-33

Second, it is true that during the Old Testament dispensation a person was required to marry his brother’s widow in the case he died childless, even if he happened to be married, in order to procure a child for his deceased sibling.

In the NT dispensation, however, a person who is already married cannot espouse his brother’s widow. According to NT teaching, a person is free to remarry after his/her spouse has died, since the union between a husband and a wife is severed upon the death of one or both spouses; and once in eternity those formerly married couples will relate to one another solely as brothers and sisters in the Lord:

"And Jesus said to them, ‘The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.’" Luke 20:34-36

In other words, God accepts death as a valid dissolution of the marital union (the other being marital unfaithfulness [cf. Matthew 5:31-32; 19:7-9]), allowing for the widowed to remarry so long as it is to a fellow believer:

"A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:39 – cf. Romans 7:1-3

My response:

It would be much better for your reader if you give my full argument without cutting it and/or presenting it partially, unless, of course, you want to resort to lying to and deceiving your reader.

First, let me refute you on "so long as it is to a fellow believer".  What believer?!  The verses don't say that at all, and neither does your either NT.  In fact, Paul, because he is too absurd, allowed Christian women to marry disbelievers and he called the disbelieving husbands, who are supposed to be doomed to Hell, "holy men" and "sanctified", while GOD Almighty in the Old Testament forbade His followers from marrying disbelievers.  I've already thoroughly refuted you on this one and exposed how absurd and unreliable Paul is - the man who also called GOD Almighty a fool and weak.

So, Sam Shamoun, again and again, was caught lying and intentionally covering up for his self-contradicting and fully corrupt pornographic bible, and making it say things that it does not say!

  
You also said:

"We first quote the entire chapter so as to show the readers what Osama conveniently overlooked:

"Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the TWO shall become ONE flesh"? So they are no longer TWO but ONE flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.’" Matthew 19:1-9

Osama chooses not to see the plain meaning of Jesus’ words that marital union exists between two persons, male and female, not three or more."

My response:

Jesus lived among polygamists for 33 years of his life according to your self-contradicting and fully corrupt pornographic bible.  If this is all he could say regarding MARRIAGE and not necessarily POLYGAMY, then I have nothing else to say!

1-  Why should we read this to prohibit polygamy?

2-  Why couldn't you give us one, just one, clear-cut text that clearly prohibits polygamy?

He wrote:

Jesus’ Parable and Osama’s Perverted Mind

Osama takes one of Jesus’ parables and distorts it to mean something else entirely. He writes:

4-   My interpretation in point #3 above is perfectly valid when one looks at the Bible's verses in both the New and Old Testaments that condone polygamy.   The most suitable one I can give you here is the one where Jesus used the bridegroom (1 man) and his 10 virgins (5 became his wives and slept with him) parable!  See section #4 below for the details.  Now how is this parable supposed to prohibit polygamy if it's truly against GOD Almighty's Will?!

And then claims:

4-  Jesus' parable allows polygamy between 1 man (the bridegroom) and 10 virgins (5 became his wives and slept with him)!

Before we begin, interestingly, Jesus said this parable (that contained polygamy in it) to a society that practiced polygamy.  Jesus obviously saw no problem in their polygamy practice!

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

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

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

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

He then says:

5-   Wouldn't Jesus' parable be absolutely pointless if polygamy was forbidden?

It truly takes a special person like Osama Abdallah to see sex in a parable which is focusing on a specific point, namely, a warning to Christians to always be prepared for Christ’s return lest he come and throw them out of his kingdom for failing to be spiritually ready for him! This is what is actually very sick and perverse, and only exposes how twisted and perverted Osama really is. The Holy Bible says of such a person:

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled." Titus 1:15

As a result of his sick, demented mind it doesn’t surprise us that Osama actually thinks that the bridegroom married five of the ten virgins, and assumes from this that Jesus was permitting sexual orgies between a husband and his multiple wives!

Had Osama bothered consulting some commentaries he would have discovered that it was common in those days for a bridegroom to be greeted by the virgin maidens of the town as he prepared to meet his bride. Upon arriving, the bride would take his spouse and celebrate with their families and friends for at least seven days. Note what the commentaries say at this point:

Which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. The lamps used on such occasions were rather torches or flamebeaux. They were made by winding rags around pieces of iron or earthenware, sometimes hollowed so as to contain oil, and fastened to handles of wood. These torches were dipped in oil, and gave a large light. Marriage ceremonies in the East were conducted with great pomp and Solemnity. The ceremony of marriage was performed commonly in the open air, on the banks of a stream. Both the bridegroom and bride were attended by friends; they were escorted in a palanquin, carried by four or more persons. After the ceremony of marriage succeeded a feast of seven days if the bride was a virgin, or three days if she was a widow. This feast was celebrated in her father's house. At the end of that time the bridegroom conducted the bride, with great pomp and splendour, to his own home. This was done in the evening, or at night, Jeremiah 7:34; 25:10; 33:11. Many friends and relations attended them; and besides those who went with them from the house of the bride, there was another company that came out from the house of the bridegroom to meet them, and welcome them. These were probably female friends and relatives of the bridegroom, who went out to welcome him and his new companion to their home. These are the virgins mentioned in this parable. Not knowing precisely the time when the procession would come, they probably went out early, and waited by the way till they should see indications of its approach. In the celebration of marriages in the East at the present day, many of the peculiar customs of ancient times are observed. At a Hindoo marriage, says a modern missionary, "the procession of which I saw some years ago, the bridegroom came from a distance, and the bride lived at Serampore, to which place the bridegroom was to come by water. After waiting two or three hours, at length, near midnight, it was announced, in the very words of Scripture, 'Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.' All the persons employed now lighted their lamps, and ran with them in their hands to fill up their stations in the procession; some of them had lost their lights, and were unprepared, but it was then too late to seek them, and the cavalcade moved forward to the house of the bride; at which place the company entered a large and splendidly illuminated area, before the house, covered with an awning, where a great multitude of friends, dressed in their best apparel, were seated upon mats. The bridegroom was carried in the arms of a friend, and placed in a superb seat in the midst of the company, where he sat a short time, and then went into the house, the door of which was immediately shut, and guarded by sepoys. I and others expostulated with the door-keepers, but in vain. Never was I so struck with our Lord's beautiful parable as at this moment--'And the door was shut.'"

The journal of one of the American missionaries in Greece contains an account of an Armenian wedding which she attended; and, after describing the dresses and previous ceremonies, she says, that at twelve o'clock at night, precisely, the cry was made by some of the attendants, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; and immediately five or six men set off to meet him…

Verse 10. Went in with him to the marriage. The marriage feast. The marriage ceremony took place before the bride left her father's house; but a feast was given at the house of her husband, and which was also called the marriage, or a part of the marriage solemnities. This part of the parable doubtless represents the entrance of those who are ready, or prepared, into the kingdom of God, when the Son of man shall come. They will be ready who repent of their sins; who believe on the Lord Jesus; who live a holy life; and who wait for his coming. See Mark 16:16; John 5:24; Acts 3:19; Revelation 22:11; 2 Peter 3:11,12; 1 Timothy 6:17-19; 2 Timothy 4:6-8.

The door was shut. No more could be admitted to the marriage feast. So, when the truly righteous shall all be received into heaven, it will be closed against all others. There will be no room for preparation afterwards, Revelation 22:11; Ecclesiastes 11:3; 9:10; Matthew 25:46. (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament; source)

And:

1. (1) Ten virgins go out to meet a bridegroom at a wedding.

"Then the kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."

a. Then the kingdom of heaven: Matthew 24 ended with a parable meant to emphasize the idea of readiness for our master's return. Matthew 25 begins with another parable emphasizing the same principle.

b. To ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom: There were three stages to a Jewish wedding in that day. The first was engagement - a formal agreement made by the fathers. The second was betrothal - the ceremony where mutual promises are made. The third was marriage - approximately one year later when the bridegroom came at an unexpected time for his bride.

c. Went to meet the bridegroom: In this parable, the first two stages have already taken place. Now the wedding party (the ten virgins) await the coming of the bridegroom for his bride.

i. Why does Jesus describe ten virgins? Talmudic authorities affirm that there were usually ten lamps in a bridal procession.

(David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible; source)

Thus, the parable has nothing to do with the groom sleeping with the virgins who greeted him but is merely relaying the point that the maidens had to be ready to attend the wedding celebration of the groom and his bride. Osama could have saved himself so much embarrassment had he bothered to take the time to consult some commentaries.

So why did Shamoun chop my text?

Like his notorious book in lies, contradictions and pornography, - along with it calling GOD Almighty a fool, disbelieving husbands as "holy men" and "sanctified", and many other absurdities, - Sam Shamoun is desperate to discredit me.  The reason why he misrepresented my writings above is:

1-  He wanted to take my honesty away from the eyes of the reader.

2-  He wanted to picture me as a lying, desperate and sick pervert.  That is why he attached the Titus verse above to me, which reads:  "To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled." Titus 1:15

Osama responds to an email that cited 1 Timothy 3:2 and 12 where Paul commanded that those being considered for the offices of bishop and deacon must have only one wife. Osama admits that Paul is limiting a bishop and deacon to only one spouse but denies that this applies to everyone. In fact, he actually believes that this instruction proves his point that the NT allows for polygyny!

In fact if anything, they prove my point about polygamy being allowed in the Bible for the ordinary!  Here we clearly see Paul indirectly addressing the practice of polygamy among the "believers", and he only prohibited it to the religious leaders so that perhaps they can have better time and dedication for the church.  A man with 10 wives would be too busy for anything and everything.

Have polygamy been really prohibited by Jesus, Paul would not have told his religious leaders to not practice it!!

Paul would not have seen the need for it!  It's like him telling them and only them:  "Do not worship idols!"  That would be a ridiculous request to make on an issue that is crystal clear among the believers.  And it would be even more ridiculous if he requested it only from a select few.

The fact that Paul prohibited polygamy only on a select few proves that it is allowed for the general public!

In order to expose Osama’s logic (or lack thereof) all we need to do is simply quote the context:

"The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 3:1-13

If Osama’s reasoning were valid this would mean that the rest of Paul’s instructions apply only to bishops and deacons, and that the rest of the Christians were free in these matters. Thus, not only does this suggest that Paul was permitting Christians to have more than one wife, he was also allowing them to engage or adopt the following practices and qualities:

• Reproachful.
• Sober-minded.
• Uncontrolled.
• Disrespectable.
• Lack hospitability.
• Drunkard.
• Violent and not gentle.
• Quarrelsome.
• Love money.
• Unable to manage his own household well.
• Lack dignity.
• Allow his children to be undisciplined and show no submissiveness.

The reader can see that Paul wasn’t limiting these qualifications to the bishops and deacons. Rather, Paul’s purpose in giving these instructions was to encourage the leaders of the Church to serve as examples and model in themselves the very qualities and characteristics that all Christians must have and seek to strive for. 

My response:

The emphesis above about "Let deacons each be the husband of one wife," is mine.

What Shamoun is desperately trying to do here is to apply these verses to the ALL CHRISTIANS!  Notice how he was more than happy to present a clear-cut text prohibiting polygamy to certain individuals.  So obviously, the foul-mouthed missionary, Sam Shamoun, knows the difference between clear-cut text and absurd text that is polluted with wishful thinking being inserted and read into it.  But none of this helped because we're dealing a professionally-trained liar who, once again, tried tried to distort the meaning of the text by applying it to all Christians; something the text doesn't say!

Sorry Shamoun, your point is checkmated!

He wrote:

As Christian philosopher and apologist Glenn Miller puts it:

3. There is another, more general argument expressed in the New Testament, concerning the example of godly leaders.

It is clear (as the questioner notes) that those in Church government/leadership are to be monogamous (the 'husband of one wife' clause shows up in both statements of elder/deacon qualifications: 1 Tim 3.2 and Titus 1.6).

But these leaders are told to be examples to the flock, and the believers are told to follow the example of the apostles, disciples, and leaders. [Phil 3.17; 4.9; 1 Thess 1.6,7; 2 Thess 3.7,9; 1 Tim 4.12; Tit 2.7; 1 Pet 5.3; 1 Cor 4.6; 1 Cor 11.1]

Therefore, in the absence of other NT instruction, ALL believers are to emulate the purity and scripturally-mandated characteristics of our elders--including the monogamous one (2nd in each list!).

In fact, one measure of the 'godliness' of a widow, worthy of welfare support from scarce church funds, was that she be a "wife of one husband" (the exact same phrase turned around)--I Timothy 5.9. The reference to polyandry shows that monogamy was important for general believers as well. (Good question... Is polygamy allowed by the New Testament?; source)

In other words, the believers were to emulate the godliness of their leaders by striving to live in a similar manner to them, which means that they were to also follow their example in having only one spouse.

My response:
 
This absurdity is thoroughly refuted in the sub-section above.  While Shamoun and this Glen Miller "philosopher", - when in reality he is a professionally-trained lair along with Shamoun, - were more than happy to give a CLEAR-CUT TEXT about polygamy being prohibited to deacons, but the two liars went on to distort the text and to insert their wishful and desperate thinkings into it.  

Let us move on....

 
He wrote:

In fact, had Osama bothered to actually read this epistle he would have discovered the following instructions given to widows:

"Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work." 1 Timothy 5:9-10

One of the requirements that Paul says a widow must have in order for the Church to provide support for her is that she was married to one husband. This proves that Paul’s demand for monogamy wasn’t merely for the leaders of the Church. Hence, what Osama thought was an argument in his favor turns out to be one of the stronger refutations of his false allegations!

Besides, we already saw that Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 expressly commanded monogamy for all believers.

My response: (Refuting 1 Corinthians 7:1-5)
 
The highlighted and big-fonted emphasis above are mine.
 
What does a widow and her being married to only one husband have anything to do with our subject here is really beyond me.

As for 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, the foul-mouthed missionary, Shamoun, said:

"Besides, we already saw that Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 expressly commanded monogamy for all believers."

Expressly commanded monogamy for all believers?  Ironically, he has refuted himself when he said above:

"In light of this, it should come as no surprise that Paul gives the following instructions to believers seeking to get married:

"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have HIS OWN WIFE and each woman HER OWN HUSBAND. The husband should give to HIS WIFE her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to HER HUSBAND. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5

This is a rather explicit statement which limits a man to only one spouse. Note the structure:

• Each man is to have his own wife.
• Each woman is to have her own husband.

If Osama and company wish to say that Paul is not limiting a man to have only one wife then they must also reason that his statements do not limit a woman to marry only one husband either. If a man can have more than one wife according to this text, then by the same token a woman can have more than one spouse. Yet we know that Paul does not allow a woman to have more than one spouse at the same time:

"Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress." Romans 7:1-3

Thus, the grammatical structure of 1 Corinthians 7 clearly limits both the man and the woman to only one spouse at a time. There is no way to get around this exegetically."

Actually Sam Shamoun, you have refuted yourself and proven that, yes, a man can marry multiple women while the woman can't marry multiple men!

Here is what the verses say:

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

These verses are no more than advises from Paul to his SINGLE followers to:

1-  Remain unmarried if they could.

2-  If the sexual temptation is too high and becomes irresistible, then they should seek marriage to avoid fornication.

The verses are simply saying this:

"Single men and women, it is best if you remain single (unmarried).  But if you can't resist the sexual temptations, then do get married so that you can avoid the sexual sinning (fornication) and overcome the sexual temptations."

That's it.  That's all there is to it.  Nothing about prohibiting polygamy was mentioned in these verses.  The following English-translations further prove my statement (even though Shamoun's translation above is sufficient enough):

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 (The Message)
1 Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations?
2-6Certainly—but only within a certain context. It's good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to "stand up for your rights." Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it's for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I'm not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 (Contemporary English Version)
1 Now I will answer the questions that you asked in your letter. You asked, "Is it best for people not to marry?"
2 Well, having your own husband or wife should keep you from doing something immoral.
3 Husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex.
4 A wife belongs to her husband instead of to herself, and a husband belongs to his wife instead of to himself.
5 So don't refuse sex to each other, unless you agree not to have sex for a little while, in order to spend time in prayer. Then Satan won't be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 (New Century Version)
1 Now I will discuss the things you wrote me about. It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.
2 But because sexual sin is a danger, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
3 The husband should give his wife all that he owes her as his wife. And the wife should give her husband all that she owes him as her husband.
4 The wife does not have full rights over her own body; her husband shares them. And the husband does not have full rights over his own body; his wife shares them.
5 Do not refuse to give your bodies to each other, unless you both agree to stay away from sexual relations for a time so you can give your time to prayer. Then come together again so Satan cannot tempt you because of a lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 (21st Century King James Version)
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, unless it be with consent for a time only, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not through your lack of selfrestraint.

Now keep in mind that Paul came from a society of polygamists, and therefore, it is quite highly probable that he had men with multiple wives in his group.  Yet, never once did Paul address them and their issues, and never once did these verses of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 prohibit polygamy.  THEY ARE NOT ABOUT POLYGAMY!  They are about single men and women remaining singles, and if they can't, then they should get married.  That's it.

It is beyond question that Sam Shamoun and his false polytheist trinitarian pagans are logically bankrupt.  They have no more than desperate interpretations and absurdities to shove right down their foolish followers.  As anyone with the least amount of brain clearly sees, there is nothing that prohibits polygamy in this load of garbage that he calls Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.  All we see are advises and general statements that have nothing to do with polygamy from the same man who called GOD Almighty a fool and weak and disbelieving husbands as "holy men" and "sanctified".  Never once, did the entire Bible from its book of Genesis all the way to the book of Revelations prohibit polygamy.  On the contrary, there are countless verses that allow polygamy!  Never in these 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 verses or any other verses was polygamy forbidden. 

Again, Sam Shamoun miserably failed to provide a single CLEAR-CUT verse that prohibits polygamy.  He is so desperate that he even lied and tried to twist and distort the meanings and texts of other verses, in the sections above, that had nothing to do with polygamy to the general population and lied and said that they prohibited polygamy.  These are Sam Shamoun's desperate attempts to cheat his reader and to make him read things that do not exist in his pornographic book, - the book of she wished if he were her brother so that she wouldn't have to take him home in secret, and that her vagina and breasts taste like "wine."  Not to mention also his dumb logic about bringing deacons, widows and "one husband" (not even one wife!!) irrelevant arguments to fool his reader and to desperately prove his lies about polygamy being forbidden.

Clearly, Sam Shamoun is false and desperate!

He wrote:

My response:

So Checkmate buddy, you lose and lose miserably!

All Praise and Glory are due to Allah Almighty alone!

And addition from brother Bassam Zawadi:

I would have to say that Shamoun's argument regarding the deacons being with one wife and the rest should take them as examples is weak.

Read 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 in which Paul clearly states that he wishes men were single like him and that it is good to stay unmarried like him. Also in Philippians 4:9, Paul told his people to put into practice what ever they saw from him. So it’s also possible that this includes his celibacy since they saw that from him. Paul also says in 1 Cor 11:1 that we should follow his example just as he followed the example of Christ and both of them were unmarried. So this shows that remaining unmarried is a very big possibility as to what is meant here. Therefore he was asking people to take his example. Now, no where is it said that it is compulsory to follow the example of the deacons in all regards just as Shamoun might argue that it is not meant to follow Paul and Jesus in all regards. This is Shamoun's personal exegesis in which he has offered no objective and strong proof for.  Plus, if the person is forced to follow the deacon even in the way he is married then that means that it is compulsory for the person to be married. Since the deacon should be married to one wife. But then Shamoun is going to argue back that the marriage is optional and not compulsory even though the text makes it sound that way. It appears to me that Christians like Shamoun like to interpret the scripture as they please. Plus when I see Christians are being encouraged to be like over seers in 1 Peter 5, I see what is being emphasized is the fact that they shouldn’t be greedy and love to serve the lord. Nothing about marriage there.

It seems like this website has refuted Shamoun's argument regarding the beacons. http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/polygamy/poly-obj-qa2.htm.  Actually, these Christians refute almost all of the arguments against polygamy in the Bible http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/polygamy/ and so does this site http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/adultery/ 

My final comment:

Polygamy is allowed in the Bible's Old and New Testaments.

A Christian site that agrees with Polygamy.

Another Christian site that agrees with Polygamy (Be Free).

Another Christian site that agrees with Polygamy.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

See Polygamy in Islam-  Total justice to women in Islam.

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

The Bible punishes to death the men who rape married women, but forces the single raped women to marry their rapists.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.