返回总目录
My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Osama Abdallah and Temporary Marriage
(Muta)" article.
Search
and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to
search for articles on this site.
New Update:
Muta marriage is forbidden according also to the
Shia sources themselves!
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.
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.
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.
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:
New Update:
Muta marriage is forbidden according also to the
Shia sources themselves!
"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)"
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.
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.
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.
Now let me help Shamoun here regarding sexual
acts in Paul's books:
From www.answering-christianity.com/no_sex_with_male_slaves.htm#lesbianism_in_bible:
5-
Where in the Bible is lesbianism prohibited?
Let us now turn the table around on the hateful bastards and ask them to show us where
lesbianism is prohibited in their gospel of porn, the book
of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine".
Let us look at the following verses in the Bible:
Leviticus 20:13:
13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with
a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death;
their blood will be on their own heads.
No other verse in the Bible covers homosexuality so straight forward as this one!
There are other vague ones such as the damnation of Sodom and Gomorah for the "evil" and "wickedness"
that they've done, but absolutely and most certainly, Leviticus
20:13 is the only verse in the Bible that addresses
homosexuality directly!
The Christians' NT's homosexual verses:
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 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
By the way, "homosexual
offenders" is only limited to males!
The NIV Bible's translators twisted the translation to include females! Here
is the proof from the Arabic translation and other English
translations:
"Mudajioo Al-thukoor" literally means those who go to bed with males!
mudajioo is derived from the root word "madaji'a",
which means beds:
"....(Next), refuse to share their beds,.....(The Noble Quran, 4:34)"
This part says: "Wa Uhjorohunna fee al-madaji'a".
This is further proved at www.QuranSearch.com.
The Arabic transliteration in the link says "....waohjuroohunna
fee almadajiAAi....", which is close to the one I gave.
More proof from other English translations!
Also other English translation of 1
Corinthians 6:9 conflict with the NIV Bible's twisted one:
1 Corinthians 6:9 (Young's literal
translation)
9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not
inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor sodomites,
This one agrees more with the Arabic translation above about only
males!
1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
abusers of themselves with mankind,
The King James Version translation makes no mention about homosexuals!
1 Corinthians 6:9 (Darby)
9 Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the]
kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those
who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
The Darby translation agrees more with the Arabic translation above about only males!
Clearly, 1 Corinthians 6:9 only speaks about male
homosexuals!
1 Timothy 1:10
10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave
traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound
doctrine.
Romans 1:18-32
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to
them.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power
and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,
but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and
birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual
impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things
rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (lies, lies and more lies in the English translation!! See
below)
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and
received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he
gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They
are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing
evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,
they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice
them.
Few notes to point out here:
1- Notice
Paul in Romans 1:26 gave a vague and brief statement regarding women, while in Romans
1:27, he gave a more detailed description about homosexual men!
2- The
English translation of the NIV Bible above is bogus and filled with deliberate lies!
Here is the proof:
| 1- From the Arabic translation: 
Romans 1:26 reads: "....their women deviated/changed
from using their bodies in the natural way to the way that is conflicting with
nature."
No mention of "exchanging natural relations" as
the liars of the NIV Bible above said! In other words, the verse does not
say that women are exchanging sex with each others!
2- From the English translations:
Romans 1:26 (Young's
Literal Translation)
26 Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections,
for even their females did change the natural use into that
against nature;
Romans 1:26 (Darby)
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their
females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature;
Romans 1:26 (KJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: |
While these verses certainly talk about women's misuse of their bodies and practicing sex
in an "unnatural" way, but couldn't this be referring to prostitution?
Wouldn't prostitution with males be a valid interpretation to Romans 1:26?
Wouldn't Romans 1:26 also include women who cheat on their husbands? Also, women
who have sex with animals?
Now certainly, lesbianism may fall under Romans 1:26 as well, just to be fair, but Paul
never elaborated on this very exact point as he did with the males above "inflamed with lust for one another" and doing "indecent acts" with each others.
And certainly, his 1 Corinthians 6:9 above does not address
lesbians at all, which makes me doubt that he really intended to address lesbians in Romans 1:26.
Also certainly, his Old Testament never talked about lesbians!
More evidence about the "unnatural
ways" of women!
- Deuteronomy 23:17
17 There shall be no whore of the
daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.No
homosexual males and no prostitute females are allowed in Israel! There is reference
to homosexual males, but very vague reference to lesbian women (assuming that the female
whores in the verse would fornicate with each others).
- Leviticus 20:15 "IF A
MAN has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you
must kill the animal."
Leviticus 20:16 "IF A
WOMAN approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the
woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own
heads." Notice here that the man has to get caught having sex with an
animal in order for him to be put to death, while the woman does not necessarily have to
get caught having sex with an animal. If she only looks suspicious then she would
still be put to death, while the man has to be caught doing it.
There is no question!
There is no question that we can't apply Leviticus 20:13 above to lesbians, because it only talks about male homosexuals practicing
anal sex. The bestiality verses of Leviticus 20:15-16 clearly and indisputably prove
that the OT is as clear as the sun when it comes to separating the laws between men and
women.
Therefore, Leviticus 20:13 can not be applied to lesbian women.
Period!
So now why should
we assume that Paul addressed lesbians and not just prostitutes, adulterous and/or bestial women in
Romans 1:26 above??
And even if he did, this still doesn't answer the problem of the thousands
of years gap between uncle Paul and Leviticus 20:13 about the prohibition of
lesbianism!
Leviticus 20:13 alone by itself does not in anyway, shape or form prohibit lesbianism!
So what are we to understand from Leviticus
20:13 above?
The way I see it in the OT days (thousands of years before the NT verses above,
assuming that they condemn lesbianism), lesbianism was not addressed at all in the Bible!
In fact, lesbian-christians use this very same argument to justify their
relationships! Don't believe me? Visit www.godlovesfags.com for more details. Also, read sections 10, 11, 12 & 13 from my article X-Rated
Pornography in the Bible.
Open challenge to the Islam-haters!
Now I want to ask those Islam-hating polytheist trinitarian pagans to show me in their gospel
of porn, the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", where two women going at it
graphically, without even necessarily inserting anything into any of their vaginas (to
make the argument less controversial), is forbidden in their book?
Pardon me for being a little graphic, but show me where the rubbing, sucking and
licking between two females, a Christian mother and her daughter for instance,
is forbidden in the gospel of porn, especially during the Old Testament days, 1000s of
years before the New Testament?
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:
- 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.
- A married woman is bound to her husband till death.
- A married couple cannot divorce each other for any legitimate reason with the exception
of sexual immorality.
- A widow must either remain single or get married.
- 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!
Now my rebuttal to his "muta in Islam" absurdities:
New Update:
Muta marriage is forbidden according also to the
Shia sources themselves!
While I highly encourage to listen to my AUDIO rebuttal to his lies, because I
covered all of the points that deal with marriage in Islam, and demonstrated from the
Noble Quran that muta (temporary marriage) is clearly forbidden in the Noble Quran, but I
will go ahead and post some Noble Verses and my points regarding them that clearly proves
my argument:
From www.answering-christianity.com/muta2a_rebuttal.htm:
Also, the Noble Quran is clear about prohibiting men and women from abusing marriage
and perverting the Holy Words and Diving Commands of Allah Almight:
"Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication
marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but
such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers
such a thing is forbidden. (The Noble Quran, 24:3)"
Shamoun's very intial argument was that Islam allows for a Muslim
man to walk up to a prostitute and offer her $50.00 to marry her for an hour. That
was his first and only point. Obviously his ignorance of Noble Verse 24:3 is what lead him to utter
such nonesense, because Allah Almighty as we clearly see, Prohibits chaste Muslim men and
women from marrying fornicators, which would obviously include prostitutes.
What the ignorant missionary perhaps did was that he did a word
search on the word "prostitute" in the Noble Quran's English search engine and
didn't find such a word. Then he got excited and decided to take a brain dump in the
bathroom and utter such thoughts.
Shamoun had
been soundly debunked already in his initial challenge!
(Listen to the AUDIO
debate)
"It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women
after this, nor to change them [divorce them that is] for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee,
except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and God doth watch over all
things.