My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Osama Abdallah and Temporary Marriage (Muta)" article:

返回新站 返回总目录 My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Osama Abdallah and Temporary Marriage (Muta)" article:

My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Osama Abdallah and Temporary Marriage (Muta)" article:

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

Response:

As you will see, Osama Abdallah has offered anything but a rebuttal, typically when Mr. Shamoun writes articles, Osama Abdallah is very hasty in making a response. Instead of taking the time the read over what is presented by Mr. Shamoun, he believes that the quicker the reply the more likely it is that the article is being refuted. In the realm of scholarly debate this is hardly, if ever, the case. More sound responses are given when more time is taken to address an article point by point. Typically Osama’s form of reply goes similar to this:

Quote point of author’s rebuttal

Osama: Offer general responses and insults or posts links and then claim it is refuted.

Now we will examine Mr. Abdallah’s response to Mr. Shamoun and prove once again that sound scholarly refutation seems to be the last thing that Mr. Abdallah intended to produce with his arguments and statements.

He wrote:

Osama Abdallah And Temporary Marriage:

Revisiting Muhammad’s Permitting a Form of Prostitution known As Muta

Sam Shamoun

Osama Abdallah has produced two audio files where he tries to refute my charge against Nadir Ahmad (bottom of this page) that Muta in Islam is nothing more than a form of prostitution:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/muta_forbidden_in_islam.wav
http://www.answering-christianity.com/muta_in_bible.wav

In this rebuttal we will examine Osama’s defense and see how well he does in addressing my claims.

Does the Bible Really Teach Muta?

As a sheer act of desperation and an obvious attempt of trying to justify Muhammad’s perversions, Osama distorts the following text in order to prove that the Bible condones Muta:

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and lies with her, he shall give THE BRIDE-PRICE for her and make her HIS WIFE. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to THE BRIDE-PRICE for virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

Anyone reading this passage can obviously see that this has absolutely nothing to do with Muta. Rather, this is dealing with a situation in which two parties engage in premarital sex. The verses demand that the person must marry the maiden whom he has seduced into having sex and pay her the bride price. Now in situations where the father of the young maiden refuses to give his daughter to the man then the father is to still receive the bride price, and the reason for doing so should be clear to the readers. By accepting the bride price the persons would be classified as husband and wife, with the sexual act being that which consummated their marital union. The father’s refusal to give his daughter to her seducer would function as a notice that the couple ended up getting a divorce in order to protect his daughter from being shunned by the community which would prevent her from ever remarrying.

My response:

While the bride-price has nothing to do with making the man being equivalent to the girl's former husband, but so far I have no major objection to what you said. The shame is still upon her whether she receives the bride prices or not. She is still looked at as a girl who got deflowered (lost her virginity).

This is hypocrisy #1 on Shamoun's part for covering up for his bible by twisting the meanings and playing word-games.

Response:

Okay, wait a minute here. First Osama Abdallah made the mistake of equivocating the Biblical passage of Exodus 22:16-17 to Muta marriage in Islam. Needless to say he was unaware of the fact that there were two major differences among the two:

In the Bible: The money is paid for the bride BECAUSE THE MAN ENGAGED THE NON-MARRIED WOMAN IN SEX.

In Islam: Money is paid for both the man and the woman TO BECOME MARRIED TEMPORARILY TO HAVE SEX.

It is obvious that Osama Abdallah confused the two because in the Biblical text, the man must pay for his premarital sex BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED A SIN, while in Islam a man must pay TO HAVE SEX WITH A WOMAN, because if he didn’t pay for her services IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SIN. Hence, the Bible punishes the man because of his sin while Islam offers the man a reason to pay for sex. How does Osama respond? By saying “I have no major objection”. Or in other words, he was proven to be a liar for equating this passage to Muta Marriage. If he claims that this isn’t the case then he would have an objection to what was said by Mr. Shamoun. But in spite of being exposed for being ignorant, Osama just brushes it aside and accuses Mr. Shamoun of playing word games. Even though he doesn’t tell us how this occurred we will show you how Mr. Abdallah is playing word games:

1. He thinks that Muta, which is “paying money to marry a woman for sex” temporarily is the same as a man paying because he engaged in premarital sex with a woman.

2. Conclusion: He believes that people who are not married and have sex is the same as people who are married and have sex!

Such stupidity is hilarious to say the least! And he has the nerve to accuse people of playing “word games”? Give us a break!

He wrote:

In light of the foregoing, how in the world can anyone claim that this is analogous to Muta?

My response:

This is actually worse than Muta. Because while Muta is temporary marriage (and it's no longer allowed today because Muslim men no longer travel for 100s and even 1000s of miles on foot to go fight battles or do peaceful missionary work ), and was a legal marriage with dowry pay for the woman and obligations upon the man to take care of her, this fornication act in the Bible is nothing but a shameful illegal sex.

And like I said in the AUDIO session, if the man sleeps with a non-virgin girls, such as a divorced woman, then there is no bride-price upon him. So fornication is quite open for non-virgins in your Bible! This only promotes having bastard children and getting infected with STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) and AIDS.

Also, the Muslim woman who get divorced must wait for 3 months until they can marry again:

"Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)"

So even if the woman wants to turn into a prostitute, she can't, because she has to wait for three months until she can marry again. Otherwise, that would be fornication and fornication is severely punished in the Noble Quran:

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

Also, divorced women get maintenance from their former husbands:

"For divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) On a reasonable (scale). This is a duty On the righteous. (The Noble Quran, 2:241)"

So to say that the fornication of your Bible, that requires no money, is better than Muta is indeed a barrel of laughs!

This is hypocrisy #2 on Shamoun's part for again covering up for his bible by twisting the meanings and playing word-games.

Response:

The claim that this is worse than Muta is the opinion of Osama Abdallah. He has gotten off the point of the argument. He used a passage to try and prove that the Bible sanctioned Muta marriage. But as it was elaborated on earlier, the text isn’t at all similar to Muta since in the latter a person pays a woman to engage in sex and passes it off as temporary marriage, whereas the money to paid in the Exodus text is a form of punishment for engaging in premarital whereby the person becomes bound to the woman, making them husband and wife. Also look at the reason Mr. Abdallah gives for the forbiddance of Muta marriage in Islam:

Because while Muta is temporary marriage (and it's no longer allowed today because Muslim men no longer travel for 100s and even 1000s of miles on foot to go fight battles or do peaceful missionary work )

Basically he is saying MUTA ISN’T ALLOWED BECAUSE MUSLIMS DON’T TRAVEL LONG DISTANCES TO FIGHT BATTLES OR DO DAWAH! Should I laugh or should I cry! Mr. Abdallah doesn’t know the ramifications of his statement. Because if a Muslim army does decide to do battle great distances away or do peaceful Dawah, then MUTA MARRIAGE WOULD BE ALLOWED! So the forbiddance of Muta doesn’t come from Islam but from the personal discretion of a particular Muslim group or army! Needless to say, THIS IS WHY THE SHIITES STILL PRACTICE MUTA TODAY. Muta isn’t necessarily forbidden in Islam! Also Mr. Abdallah commits another gross error by saying:

So to say that the fornication of your Bible, that requires no money, is better than Muta is indeed a barrel of laughs!

Apparently he forgot the very same verse he tried to use in defense of Muta marriage!

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and lies with her, he shall give THE BRIDE-PRICE for her and make her HIS WIFE. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to THE BRIDE-PRICE for virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

If he claims there is no money required for the fornication in the Bible, why does Exodus 22:16-17 say MONEY IS REQUIRED THEN? As for accusing Mr. Shamoun of “playing on words” again, Mr. Abdallah is saying that “money” doesn’t actually mean “money” while proceeding to claim that NO MONEY IS BEING PAID! The rest of his insults rely on the belief that no money is paid because of fornication. Apparently Mr. Abdallah needs to stop doing audio rebuttals and start using “hooked on phonics”. I’m sure they have AN AUDIO FORMAT WHICH WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH EVEN FOR HIS ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER, I may ADD (no pun intended).

He wrote:

As well will discuss in more detail shortly, the main purpose for Muta was to permit men to satisfy their lustful, perverted desires by temporarily marrying a woman for a sum of money or fee. The text in Exodus, on the other hand, is dealing with the unfortunate situation of persons who engage in premarital sex and has nothing to do with a man pretending to marry a maiden for a sum of money with the intention of leaving her as soon as the specified time period for this sexual perversion has terminated.

In other words, Muta is a contract where the man pays a certain price beforehand for the temporary marriage (sexual service) that the woman will then deliver for a certain period of time. That is what makes it legalized prostitution.

My response:

"That's what makes it legalized prostitution"

Very funny indeed. Despite the ample proofs that I provided above and throughout my AUDIO session regarding Islam clearly making it virtually impossible for prostitution to exist in the society, all of this does not mean a thing to him. But his bible openly allowing non-virgins and even virgins to have sex without marriage, and not requiring any monetary punishment for sleeping with non-virgin women is not legalized prostitution to him.

Mr. Shamoun, I really don't care for how long you and I will keep tangling in this subject, because I have till the last day of my life to play with you, and I will be happy to do it because I am having fun with it, but it is quite clear that your absurdity and hypocrisy stink so bad that we can all smell them from far distances.

The STDs, AIDS and pregnancy being pushed and promoted in his gospel of porn's (the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine") leniency is not a problem.

The destruction of morals, ethics, and the basic human dignity in his gospel of porn is nothing to him. His friend coveting his sister and wanting to sleep with her in bed, and insists on seeking her and pushing himself to be accepted by her, especially if she's divorced, is nothing to him. But Islam allowing temporary marriage, which was still a legitimate marriage with all the rules and obligations of regular marriage applied to it, for extreme and special cases, is the world's greatest problem to him.

By the way, according to Islam, I can not covet my friend's sister or any woman:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And God is well acquainted with all that they do. (The Noble Quran, 24:30)"

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed. (The Noble Quran, 24:31)"

Mr. Abdallah doesn’t seem to know the definition of prostitution:

PROSTITUTION

1 : the act or practice of indulging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money
2 : the state of being prostituted : DEBASEMENT (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)

PROSTITUTED

1 : to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money
2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)

And,

PROSTITUTION

the practice of engaging in relatively indiscriminate sexual activity, in general with individuals other than a spouse or friend, in exchange for immediate payment in money or other valuables. (Encyclopedia Britannica Online: Source)

Now look at the definition for Muta marriage in Islam:

MUTA

(Arabic: “pleasure”), in Islamic law, a temporary marriage that is contracted for a limited or fixed period and involves the payment of money to the female partner. Mut'ah is referred to in the Qur'an (Muslim scriptures) in these words: “And you are allowed to seek out wives with your wealth in decorous conduct, but not in fornication, but give them their reward for what you have enjoyed… (Encyclopedia Britannica Online: Source)

As you can see, prostitution is “paying a woman” to have sex with her. In Islam Muta is the very same thing, namely “paying a female partner for sex in a temporary marriage”! How can Osama Abdallah claim that Islam makes prostitution non-existent when both Muta and prostitution deal with a man paying A FEMALE PARTNER TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM? Just because a Muslim can call her a wife instead of a whore doesn’t eliminate THAT HE HAD TO PAY FOR THE SEX DOES IT MR. ABDALLAH? This is a losing argument that Mr. Abdallah can’t obviously win whatsoever. As for his attacks on the Bible being “porn” we must remind Osama Abdallah that “Song of Songs’ is found in the OT, and isn’t a NT Gospel book. Here are more links discussing this argument:

http://www.answer-islam.org/Bibleporn.html

http://answer-islam.org/bible_errors_regarding_heaven.html

http://www.answer-islam.org/silence.html

There is no need to elaborate or refute nonsense which has already been exposed, and which Osama has miserably failed to answer till now.

In the Middle East:

In the Middle Eastern culture, if my sister's girl friend(s) enter the house, then I am obligated to get out, or lock myself quietly in my room, until they leave!

Also, if a woman enters the house without her man, then either all men must leave the house, or get locked in their rooms, except for the young male children.

Ask the Arab-Christians if you think I am exaggerating!

Notice "...that will make for greater purity for them..." This is what Allah Almighty Wants in order for Muslims to keep a Pure Society. Definitely no covets and no sexual arousing.

I am certain that the reader clearly sees how ludicrous Sam Shamoun is.

This is hypocrisy #3 on Shamoun's part for again covering up for his bible by twisting the meanings and playing word-games.

Response:

There is no evidence of this statement by Osama Abdallah. Even if we assume this to be factual, WHY DIDN’T ISLAM GIVE US THIS PRACTICE? If Osama Abdallah is bragging on how Islam eliminates shameful practices, can he find in the Quran, Hadith or the Islamic traditions where this cultural practice is sanctioned by Allah and Muhammad? Making unprovable statements and then claiming that Mr. Shamoun is a hypocrite just won’t do. Also Mr. Abdallah seems to be ignorant of the fact that Mr. Shamoun is Middle Eastern also! Moreover, this cultural practice could have and more than likely did come after Islam, indicating that Muhammad and Allah didn’t necessarily sanction this practice.

He wrote:

The above passage, on the other hand, specifies the punishment for the man who did something forbidden. He has to pay a hefty sum for doing what was not allowed. In Muta the man pays for sexual service that is then legally his. In the Bible passage the man has to pay a penalty for doing what was forbidden.

With the same logic, one could claim that buying a car is equivalent to stealing it and then paying a fine when getting caught.

Osama’s gross reading of this text reminds us of the following passage:

"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

It is only those whose hearts and minds are perverted who can distort God’s Word in the manner in which Osama distorts it.

Osama complained that the Holy Bible prescribes no physical discipline such as flogging for fornicators, or for those who engage in premarital sex, like that found in the Quran. The answer is rather simple, why should there be a specific punishment for this sin? Is God required to prescribe physical punishments for every specific sin a person commits? Isn’t God’s command that the person must marry the young maiden who he has slept with punishment enough in that it shows that one cannot simply sleep with someone without being bound to that individual for life?

What is even more amazing about Osama’s objection is his selectivity. Osama has no problem with the fact that the Quran nowhere prescribes specific physical punishments for acts of homosexuality, lesbianism or bestiality like the Holy Bible. It is grossly inconsistent for him to complain about the lack of physical correction regarding a specific sin but have absolutely no problem with the Quran’s utter failure to explicitly address perverted acts such as homosexuality, lesbianism or Muhammad’s permitting prostitution, let alone prescribe any specific punishments for such acts.

My response:

Actually Titus 1:15 applies to you, because you are the one with the hypocrisy here; not me.

You said:

"Osama complained that the Holy Bible prescribes no physical discipline such as flogging for fornicators, or for those who engage in premarital sex, like that found in the Quran. The answer is rather simple, why should there be a specific punishment for this sin?"

Sexual coveting, AIDS, STDs, pregnancy, destruction of morals, destruction of chastity in the society, and a billion other reasons that I can't think of right now.

All of these do not mean a thing to you?

But when a priest's daughter sins, ooooh, she must get burnt with fire:

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 21:9)"

So if a priest's non-virgin (or virgin) daughter commits fornication, then she gets burnt with fire.

But any normal non-virgin can have as much sex as possible! It doesn't matter!

I don't know, should I count this as another hypocrisy by Shamoun? Yeahhhh let's do it :-).

This is hypocrisy #4 on Shamoun's part for again covering up for his bible by twisting the meanings and playing word-games.

Response:

Other than babbling on about STD’s and pregnancies which are common in both Western and third world countries, Osama Abdallah doesn’t even give a meaningful response here. In Africa for example where there is a high Muslim population, aids, STD’s and pregnancies are very high! Should we blame Islam and the Quran for this? Osama wouldn’t think so would he? If Islam cleanses society as he claims then why do many Muslim African countries have these same problems as the West? We’ll leave that for Mr. Abdallah to answer for us. As for appealing to Leviticus 21:9, Mr. Abdallah is still “all bark and no bite”. Let’s go back to his favorite verse again:

If a woman is engaging in premarital sex or fornicating, then the man who is foolish enough to commit this action would pay the bridal price binding him to her in marriage. It is false to say that any non-virgin can have as much sex because no man would be willing to pay such huge sums for her service all the time since the Scriptures do not allow for sexual intimacy outside the confines of marriage. Any sex that is not done within these confines is sexual immorality and harlotry which God utterly abhors and detests:

You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God DETESTS THEM BOTH. Deut. 23:18

Therefore, my question to Mr. Abdallah is simply this, “If a woman or man can get money to have sex all they want why does God detest both of them if he is for this then?” Also to show that Muta Marriage or “prostitution” is wrong we turn here:

"'Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness. Lev. 19:29

What is the very thing Muhammad did? He allowed Muta marriage to allow his followers to pay for sex to satisfy their needs!

He wrote:

Osama’s Challenge for Me

Apart from his gross lies and distortions of what the Holy Bible says about marriage and divorce, Osama presented the following challenge to me:

Where in the Bible are non-virgin girls forbidden from having sex with their boyfriends?

I was expecting that Osama would have given me a rather hard challenge, but I am not surprised that this is the best he could do. Here is the answer from God’s true Word, the Holy Bible:

"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 WOMEN 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

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, THEY SHOULD MARRY. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." 1 Corinthians 7:8-9

"Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned." 1 Corinthians 7:25-28

"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. 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 7:36-39

"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

Paul plainly states that a person who burns with desire MUST GET MARRIED, not engage in premarital sex. Paul even says that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives and that she would be an adulteress if she were to live with another man while her husband is still alive. Paul then says that widows can be married if they want, but doesn’t say that they are free to find a boyfriend to sleep with.

My response:

Just as I thought, you fell right threw the trap!

Ladies and gentlemen notice this hypocrite's absurdity and hypocrisy here. Out of his entire bible, he brings us quotes from a dubious and doubtful self-proclaimed prophet, named Paul, who came between 2,000 to 3,000 years after the Law of Moses!

Many Christian theologians believe that Paul is a liar! They reject his books and teachings. But going along with Shamoun, let us accept Paul into the Bible.

What Shamoun is telling us here is that for 2,000 to 3,000 years, the Bible followers had absolutely no prohibition for fornication!

The fact that Shamoun only relied on the dubious Paul clearly and irrefutably proves that Shamoun is the real liar here who is twisting and playing games.

Now were Paul's teachings really prohibiting fornication, or is this another lie by Shamoun?

First of all, as we clearly see, there is nothing about fornication in the verses that Shamoun presented above. Yes, they're talking about marriage, but that has nothing to do with fornication. Wives living good with their husbands, and being loyal to them, and men who are burning with passion need to get married, etc... are all advises for social life.

But is there an actual prohibition for fornication here? Absolutely not!

Do we see a command for college students to not have parties and end up jumping each others after they all get drunk and turn off the lights and commit all kinds of sexual immorality? Absolutely not!

Do we see disciplinary actions for fornicators as it is in Islam (flogging them each with 100 stripes publicly)? Absolutely not!

All of this doesn't mean anything to him, but if anything doesn't look good enough in Islam, then all Hell breaks loose.

That's both immature and irresponsible, along with it being a hypocrisy.

Response:

Let’s examine the fallacies of Osama Abdallah’s responses and break them down for all to see how shoddy his arguments truly are. First he claims:

Where in the Bible are non-virgin girls forbidden from having sex with their boyfriends?

Remember his challenge was to show FROM THE BIBLE where premarital sex was wrong. When Mr. Shamoun posts the applicable verses from the New Testament, here is how Osama Abdallah responded:

Just as I thought, you fell right threw the trap!

Ladies and gentlemen notice this hypocrite's absurdity and hypocrisy here. Out of his entire bible, he brings us quotes from a dubious and doubtful self-proclaimed prophet, named Paul, who came between 2,000 to 3,000 years after the Law of Moses!

WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CHALLENGE? PRESENT A VERSE FROM THE BIBLE! Meaning it didn’t matter if it came from the OT or the NT! Hence, Osama Abdallah lost the challenge hands down. He didn’t say show me from the “Book of Moses” where fornication is prohibited he explicitly said “show me from the Bible”! How could Mr. Shamoun be a hypocrite when Mr. Abdallah explicitly told him to PRESENT A VERSE FROM THE ENTIRE BIBLE on fornication? Let’s break it down for Mr. Abdallah because apparently he doesn’t speak English to well.

1. When you say show some evidence from an entire book, in this case the Bible, then this would mean quoting any part of this book meets that request and challenge.

2. When you claim that, “oh he only found this in one part but not the other part”, in this case the NT instead of the OT, this doesn’t take away from the fact that your original challenge was to find evidence from any section of the book since you never specified what part of the book the evidence must be taken from.

It is obvious that Mr. Abdallah doesn’t even read his own challenges correctly in his desperate attempts to refute Mr. Shamoun’s material! Instead he introduces a red-herring about Paul claiming that he is a self-proclaim doubtful prophet! Guess where he gets his information? From “Christians he claims doesn’t believe in Paul”! The problem for Osama is that Christianity isn’t based upon the testimony of a group of Christians but on Jesus himself. Notice what he said about Paul:

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you, Lord?' Saul asked. 'I AM JESUS, WHOM YOU ARE PERSECUTING,' HE REPLIED. 'Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.' The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, 'Ananias!' 'Yes, Lord,' he answered. The Lord told him, 'Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. IN A VISION HE HAS SEEN A MAN NAMED ANANIAS COME AND PLACE HIS HANDS ON HIM TO RESTORE HIS SIGHT.' 'Lord,' Ananias answered, 'I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.' BUT THE LORD SAID TO ANANIAS, 'Go! THIS MAN IS MY CHOSEN INSTRUMENT TO CARRY MY NAME before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.' Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord - Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here - has sent me so that you may see again annd be filled with the Holy Spirit.' Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. Acts 9:3-20

Listening to the words of Jesus we see that:

1. He personally chose Paul as his servant

2. Ananias was the second witness that Jesus himself spoke to who confirmed Paul.

3. Jesus used Paul to carry his name to the Gentile world.

Therefore, Osama Abdallah is a liar for claiming that Paul was a self-proclaimed dubious prophet! What is even worse for him is that the Quran states that Christians are cursed if they don’t follow the words of Jesus:

Those of the Children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they rebelled and used to transgress. They restrained not one another from the wickedness they did. Verily EVIL WAS THAT THEY USED TO DO! Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that ALLAH WILL BE WROTH WITH THEM and in the doom they will abide. If they BELIEVED IN ALLAH AND THE PROPHET and that which is REVEALED UNTO HIM, they would not choose them for their friends. But MANY OF THEM are of evil conduct. S. 5:78-81

The Quran also says that in order to be a true follower one must follow the words and decrees of Jesus:

We gave Moses the scripture, and subsequent to him we sent other messengers, and we gave Jesus, son of Mary, profound miracles and supported him with the Holy Spirit. Is it not a fact that every time a messenger went to you with anything you disliked, your ego caused you to be arrogant? Some of them you rejected, and some of them you killed. S. 2:87

Say, "We believe in GOD, and in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and all the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them. To Him alone we are submitters." S. 2:136

These messengers; we blessed some of them more than others. For example, GOD spoke to one, and we raised some of them to higher ranks. And we gave Jesus, son of Mary, profound miracles and supported him with the Holy Spirit. Had GOD willed, their followers would not have fought with each other, after the clear proofs had come to them. Instead, they disputed among themselves; some of them believed, and some disbelieved. Had GOD willed, they would not have fought. Everything is in accordance with GOD's will. S. 2:253

As you can clearly see from the Quran, Jesus was supported with miracles and the Holy Spirit and, with God’s complete, Jesus chose Paul to carry on his message after he was taken into heaven! Therefore Osama, by believing certain Christians, is rejecting his own Quran’s statements regarding believing in Jesus, who was the one who personally chose Paul! Jesus says regarding accepting or rejecting those whom he has appointed:

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. HE TOLD THEM, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. Go! I am sending YOU out like lambs among wolves..."He who LISTENS TO YOU LISTENS TO ME; he who REJECTS YOU REJECTS ME; but he who rejects me REJECTS HIM WHO SENT ME." The seventy-two returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name." Luke 10:1-3, 16-17

Notice, Jesus explicitly says that those WHO HE SENDS ARE THE SAME AS LISTENING TO HIM. THOSE WHO REJECT THEM REJECTS NOT ONLY JESUS BUT GOD HIMSELF! Hence, to disbelieve Paul is to in fact disbelieve Jesus himself who chose Paul, which in turn means disbelieving in what the Quran says about Jesus!

Therefore, by trying to defend his Quran Osama Abdallah actually winds up contradicting it and making himself a disbeliever. Besides, even the Islamic sources extol Paul:

<so We reinforced them with a third>

means, ‘We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger.’ Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu’ayb Al-Jaba’i, “The names of the first two Messengers were Sham’un and Yuhanna, and THE NAME OF THE THIRD WAS BULUS, and the city was Antioch…

<Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.>

meaning, ‘from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.’ This was the view of Abu Al-‘Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di‘amah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 8, Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan, abridged under a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; First Edition, September 2000], p. 179; bold emphasis ours)

Sham’un refers to Simon Peter, Yuhanna to the apostle John, and Bulus is Arabic for Paul. This source therefore affirms that the apostle Paul was one of the Messengers sent by God! This is highly interesting, especially in light of the fact that Muslims often vilify Paul, attacking his credibility. Yet, it seems that the first Muslims did not doubt for a moment that Paul was a true follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, or at least a true follower of Jesus’ Apostles. For instance, in Alfred Guillaume's The Life of Muhammad (Oxford University Press Karachi) we find the first Muslims endorsing the legitimacy of Paul as a representative of Christ’s teachings:

"God has sent me (Muhammad) to all men, so take a message from me, God have mercy on you. DO NOT HANG BACK FROM ME AS THE DISCIPLES HUNG BACK FROM JESUS SON OF MARY. They asked how they hung back and he said, 'He called them to a task SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH I HAVE CALLED YOU. Those who had to go a short journey were pleased and accepted. Those who had a long journey before them were displeased and refused to go, and Jesus complained of them to God. (T. From that very night) every one of them was able to speak the language of the people to whom he was sent.' (T. Jesus said, 'This is a thing that God has determined that you should do, so go.')

"Those whom Jesus son of Mary sent, BOTH DISCIPLES AND THOSE WHO CAME AFTER THEM, in the land were: Peter the disciple AND PAUL WITH HIM, (PAUL BELONGED TO THE FOLLOWERS AND WAS NOT A DISCIPLE) to Rome. Andrew and Matthew to the land of the cannibals; Thomas to the land of Babel, which is in the land of the east; Philip to Carthage and Africa; John to Ephesus the city of the young men of the cave; James to Jerusalem which is Aelia the city of the sanctuary; Bartholomew to Arabia which is the land of Hijaz; Simon to the land of Berbers; Judah who was not one of the disciples was put in place of Judas.'" (Ibid. p. 653; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Other Muslim sources that affirm the preceding statement include:

“Among the apostles and those disciples around them, whom Jesus sent out, there were Peter and his companion Paul.” (Thalabii, Qisas al-Anbiyaa, pp. 389-390)

And,

“Among the apostles, and the followers who came after them were the Apostle Peter and Paul who was a follower and not an apostle; they went to Rome. Andrew and Matthew were sent to the country whose people are man-eaters, a land of blacks, we think; Thomas was sent to Babylonia in the east, Philip to Qayrawan (and) Carthage, that is, North Africa. John went to Ephesus, the city of the youths of the cave, and James to Jerusalem, that is, Aelia. Bartholomew was sent to Arabia, namely, the Hijaz; Simeon to the land of the Berbers in Africa. Judas was not then an apostle, so his place was taken by Ariobus. He filled in for Judas Iscraiot after the latter had perpetrated his deed.” (The History of al-Tabari - The Ancient Kingdoms, Vol. IV, trans. Moshe Perlmann [State University of New York Press, Albany 1987], p. 123; bold emphasis ours)

The translator, Moshe Perlmann, comments on the above statement that Paul was not an apostle:

317. In Islamic terms the messengers or apostles pave the new path. Their work is continued by the tabi'un, the followers, members of the next generations, who lead the Faithful. (Ibid.)

Hence, according to al-Tabari Paul was a faithful follower of the Apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. In fact, al-Tabari lists Paul as one of those martyred for the faith:

“Abu Ja'far says: They assert that after Tiberius, Palestine and other parts of Syria were ruled by Gaius, son of Tiberius, for four years. He was succeeded by another son, Claudius, for fourteen years, following which Nero ruled for fourteen years. He slew Peter and crucified Paul head down. For four months Botlaius [Vittelius] ruled thereafter. Then Vespasian, father of Titus whom he sent to Jerusalem, ruled for ten years. Three years after his rise to power, forty years after the ascension of Jesus, Vespasian sent Titus to Jerusalem. Titus destroyed it and slew numerous Israelites in his wrath over the fate of Christ…” (Ibid., p. 126; bold emphasis ours)

For more information on this please see these links:

http://www.answer-islam.org/Apostles.html

http://www.answer-islam.org/PaulandMuhammad.html

http://www.answer-islam.org/Stpaulandislam.html

And for Osama’s last note, Paul always called himself an Apostle:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called TO BE AN APOSTLE and set apart for the gospel of God, ... Romans 1:1

Paul, called TO BE AN APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God, ... 1 Cor. 1:1

Paul, AN APOSTLE - sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God, the Father, ... Galatians 1:1

Christians always look at Paul as an Apostle, not a prophet since the two are different according to the NT. In the NT, Christ’s Apostles were greater and higher than the prophets whom Jesus raised up for his Church:

“And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?” 1 Corinthians 12:28-29

As for his claim about Paul’s writings not dealing with fornication Mr. Abdallah has once again failed to read carefully. Notice his statements here:

But is there an actual prohibition for fornication here? Absolutely not!

Now look at the verses again:

"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 WOMEN 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

Commentary: If fornication is premarital sex, how can Osama Abdallah claim that this verse is not talking against fornication when Paul explicitly says one should not have sexual relations with a woman, but because of temptation SHOULD MARRY HER BEFORE ENGAGING IN THIS ACT.

Commentary: If fornication is premarital sex, then why does Paul say the unmarried and widows should get married so they won’t be tempted into to sex. Apparently Mr. Abdallah doesn’t believe that fornication isn’t premarital sex!

Need we say more on this issue! No. That is why Mr. Shamoun concluded that:

Paul plainly states that a person who burns with desire MUST GET MARRIED, not engage in premarital sex. Paul even says that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives and that she would be an adulteress if she were to live with another man while her husband is still alive. Paul then says that widows can be married if they want, but doesn’t say that they are free to find a boyfriend to sleep with. (Emphasis mine)

How does Osama answer this? He doesn’t! He goes out into left field talking about homosexuality, etc.. We will not address that part right now for it is off topic. Our interest is only the discussion of Muta marriage. We will go to the topic only after we first finish Islamic prostitution.

He wrote:

Here is what we find regarding divorce and remarriage:

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some INDECENCY in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance. When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken." Deuteronomy 24:1-5

"It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:31-32

"And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’ Mark 10:10-12

"To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should REMAIN UNMARRIED or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

The above citations assume that if specific individuals have legitimate grounds for divorce then they are to remarry if they desire intimacy. In fact, Jesus goes so far as to condemn individuals that have divorced for reasons other than sexual immorality, and classifies any of their subsequent marriages as adultery. If God condemns such marriages then how much more would he condemn and despise divorcees from engaging in premarital sex?

In order to summarize the preceding points, here is what we gather from the foregoing:

1. A person who burns with sexual desire must get married, which means that no one is allowed to engage in premarital sex, whether that person has been married or not.

2. A married woman is bound to her husband till death.

3. A married couple cannot divorce each other for any legitimate reason with the exception of sexual immorality.

4. A widow must either remain single or get married.

5. The command in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 presupposes that a divorcee is to remarry if he/she wishes to engage in sexual intimacy, provided that their divorce was based on legitimate grounds. Otherwise, they must remain single or return to their spouse according to 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Basically, what all these passages are teaching is that a person has the option to either marry or remain single. There is no other option that allows for a person, whether single or divorced, whether male or female, to engage in pre-marital sex. That is why Exodus 22:16-17 demands that a person who has engaged in premarital sex marry that person.

For a more in depth look on what both the Holy Bible and Islam say about these specific issues please read the following: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/remarriage1.htm

Now that Osama’s challenge has been addressed we turn our attention to Muhammad permitting Muslims to engage gross immorality.

My response:

Very cute indeed.

After Shamoun openly admitted that his Old Testament contains absolutely nothing about forbidding fornication with non-virgin girls, and showed even worse verses in his New Testament, which anyway came 1000s of years before the NT, which means that the Bible followers had always seen fornication as something ok and normal, he ironically thinks that he has refuted me.

Shamoun told Nadir Ahmed (alias MonkeyPox): "Monkey, I don't know if you notice but people are laughing at you here...."

Well, I say the same to Shamoun: Shamoun, I don't know if you notice, but people are laughing at you here, because you just demonstrated that both your Old and New Testaments are empty when it comes to prohibiting fornication with non-virgin females.

1- Boyfriends and girlfriends are allowed!

2- Premarital sex is allowed!

3- STDs, AIDS, Pregnancy, destruction of chastity, destruction of morals are all promoted in your Bible.

I say checkmate buddy!

My rebuttal to his absurd points regarding Muta in Islam is coming soon, insha'Allah.

Response:

Again, another sound and in depth response by Mr. Abdallah! He lost this argument hands down. The OT does forbid fornication and we gave examples in this article. As for prohibiting fornication, the Bible clearly does:

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." (1 Corinthians 6:18-20)

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." (Ephesians 5:3)

The above passages tell us to flee from sexual immorality and not allow even a hint of sexual immorality in our lives. These are strong words, so it is important that we make the right decision about premarital sex.

Now notice some more ways that God condemns sexual immorality:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

"We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did--and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died." (1 Corinthians 10:8)

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." (Hebrews 13:4)

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)

These passages say that the "sexually immoral" will not inherit the kingdom of God, but instead they will be judged and will be sent to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Christians will not be sent to the fiery lake of burning sulfur, but the above passages give us a very clear idea of the heart of God concerning sexual immorality. God has a strong view of any kind of immorality, so we should try to err on the side of purity. For example, the apostle Paul said that the Church will be presented to Christ as a pure virgin bride:

"I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him." (2 Corinthians 11:2)

This indicates that purity and virginity are highly valued before marriage in Scripture. Premarital sex takes away that purity and virginity. For those who have already lost that purity before marriage, God is willing to forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). As Christian recording artist Rebecca St. James says, if we have made the mistake of having sex before marriage then we can repent and give our sexuality back to God and become "recycled virgins." As I see it, the idea of being a "recycled virgin" means that we have received forgiveness from God and we are now keeping ourselves pure for marriage without having premarital sex anymore (just like a virgin).

Notice that the apostle Paul said that if unmarried people cannot control their sexual desires then they should get married:

"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion [literally, "be inflamed (with anger, grief, lust)" - see Strong's Greek Dictionary]." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

The above passage says that if unmarried people are not able to be celibate (as Paul was) and they find themselves burning with sexual desire, then they should get married in order to avoid committing any sexual sins. This means that sex outside of marriage is a sin, as the following passage also indicates:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman [or, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," according to the NIV footnote]. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, KJV)

In the above passage, notice that Paul had a very specific reason why people should get married: "to avoid fornication." Here is what the English word "fornication" means:

· "to have sex with someone who you are not married to" (Freesearch Dictionary)

· "Fornication: Sexual intercourse that is "illicit", outside of marriage." (Medical Dictionary)

· "fornication n. sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other." (Law Dictionary)

· "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

· "NOUN: Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.
WORD HISTORY: The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin word fornix, from which fornicti, the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant "a vault, an arch." The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded the verb fornicr, "to commit fornication," from which is derived fornicti, "whoredom, fornication." Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.)

· "c.1300, from O.Fr. fornication, from L.L. fornicationem (nom. fornicatio), from fornicari "fornicate," from L. fornix (gen. fornicis) "brothel," originally "arch, vaulted chamber" (Roman prostitutes commonly solicited from under the arches of certain buildings), from fornus "oven of arched or domed shape." Strictly, "voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman;" extended in the Bible to adultery." (Online Etymology Dictionary)

When Bible translations, Bible commentaries, etc., use the English word "fornication," the primary meaning of this word is voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. As we can see in the definitions above, the word "fornication" has had the basic meaning of "prostitution, premarital sex" since the 1300's (which was before the KJV was written in 1611). "Fornication" is the word which many Bible scholars use for translating the Greek word porneia into English when the Scriptural context is describing premarital sex. According to various Greek dictionaries and Bible commentaries, here is what the Greek word porneia means:

· "harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication." (Strong's Greek Dictionary, emphasis added)

· "porneia:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols" (Thayer's Greek Dictionary, emphasis added)

· porneia - "Fornication, lewdness, or any sexual sin" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates, p.1201, emphasis added)

· "Fornication. Chastity was the exception instead of the rule among Gentiles at this period." (People's New Testament commentary, Acts 15:20, emphasis added)

· "and from fornication--The characteristic sin of heathendom, unblushingly practiced by all ranks and classes, and the indulgence of which on the part of the Gentile converts would to Jews, whose Scriptures branded it as an abomination of the heathen, proclaim them to be yet joined to their old idols." (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary, Acts 15:20, emphasis added)

· "Fornication, all uncleanness of every kind was prohibited; for πορνεια [porneia] not only means fornication, but adultery, incestuous mixtures, and especially the prostitution which was so common at the idol temples, viz. in Cyprus, at the worship of Venus; and the shocking disorders exhibited in the Bacchanalia, Lupercalia, and several others." (Clarke's commentary, from http://www.e-sword.net/commentaries.html, Acts 15:20, emphasis added)

· "and from fornication; not spiritual fornication or idolatry, but fornication taken in a literal sense, for the carnal copulation of one single person with another" (Gill's commentary, Acts 15:20, emphasis added)

· "Fornication - Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia
Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other. Adultery is one type of fornication.

In every form, fornication was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law among God's people, the Israelites (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16). (See ADULTERY.)

Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).

"The Greek word for 'fornication' (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. ...In Biblical usage, 'fornication' can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28)." (Dr. Henry M. Morris)

The word "fornication" is sometimes used in a symbolic sense in the Bible, for example, meaning a forsaking of God or a following after idols (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1:2; 2:1-5; Jer. 3:8-9)." (christiananswers.net, emphasis added)

So depending on the context, the Greek word porneia can mean adultery, incest, prostitution, idolatry, etc., but the important point here is that porneia also means fornication (premarital sex) as in this example:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication [porneia], let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, KJV)

As we saw earlier, the above passage says that people should get married in order to prevent committing the sin of fornication (premarital sex). (Source)

So as in the words of Osama Abdallah:

I say checkmate buddy! Shamoun beat you hands down!

Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com

Home Back Home
New Articles Back to New Section