What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |
This article contains biblical quotes about women doing graphical fornication with their "lovers" and the Bible singing praises for it. Viewer's discretion is advised!
My rebuttal to Shamoun's and Katz' "Osama's Dirty Lies" absurd and self-refuting article:
This article is a refutation to Sam Shamoun's and Jochen Katz' absurd article.
Osama's Dirty Lies
Trying so desperately to hit below the belt ...
Osama Abdallah announced the following on his site:
07/21/2005- I added an audio file that I captured from the documentary film, "Sex in the Bible", that proves from the Hebrew language experts' commentaries that the Bible did say that women's vaginas taste like "wine", to the article X-Rated Pornography in the Bible. This will silence all of the noise and the intentional and unethical accusations that were made by Sam Shamoun and Quennel Gale of the "Answering Islam" team regarding me being a "liar". They knew I was telling the Truth, but they tried to play deceptive games with the reader. Now the game is over, and their questionable ethics are exposed. (Source)
Eager to find out how Osama "silenced" us this time, we listened to the audio clip. What did we find? After citing the specific text so often abused by Osama (see our earlier rebuttal), the female narrator comments:
... But when we look closely at the Hebrew, we find out that the anatomy that he is describing MAY BE in fact a bit lower than the belly button.
That's it. The audio clip trumpeted by Osama contains a claim. Wow! No proof. No reasoning. No evidence to support the claim. Simply a claim.
Will anyone in his right mind believe that this is to be counted as the evidence supporting Osamas perverted interpretations? This is merely the speculation of an unnamed commentator who says that the Hebrew MAY BE speaking of something a bit lower than the belly button. Again: What is her proof?
First of all, the vagina tasting like "wine" part in my article is the least one. There are far worse verses than this, which these two polytheist trinitarian pagans refused to address. This is shown further below in the article. And by the way, the fact that the two buffoons didn't even dare to link directly to my article, and only decided to link to my web site's general whatsnew.htm page, proves that they have serious things to hide from their readers. They simply do not want the reader to visit the article.
This team of phonies, especially Sam Shamoun, are notorious in doing this. I have raised this issue in a number of my rebuttals already before    , etc... Notice how he purposely unlinked the links that I had provided for the reader for further evidence and proofs.
Now as to their points above, notice their first lie:"This is merely the speculation of an unnamed commentator who says that the Hebrew MAY BE speaking of something a bit lower than the belly button. Again: What is her proof?"
Only you deceivers say she was unnamed:
I did put in the article, which, again, you purposely unlinked, the reference to the Theology Professor that mentioned this. Here is her info that was displayed on TV:Carole Fountaine
1- She is a Theology Professor, and certainly she's much more knowledgeable than you two.
2- She spoke on the behalf of her school and, more specifically, her
theology department, when she said: "The lover says that
his beloved's naval is like a goblet of wine, but when we look closely at
the Hebrew, we find out that the anatomy that he is describing, may be
in fact a bit lower than the belly button."
This what was displayed on the screen of the documentary film. So not only you invented a new lie by saying she is "unnamed", but you also denied the fact that:
The "we" here is Carole Fountaine and her team of department of theologians!
The "we" here of course includes everyone from the audience, but to be more specific, it includes her team of theologians, because they did the research and studied the Hebrew and discovered the pornography in this pornographic verse.
The lady smiled with a little embarrassment on her face when she said that. This proves:
(a)- She didn't want to be graphic by saying "vagina".
(b)- The word "may be" that the two deceivers purposely misinterpreted, is actually a confirmation and not a doubt. She was trying to be polite and proper in her words. Plus the words "may be" are commonly used in our everyday language, and we do sometimes use them as confirmations. And example of this is:
(c)- If one listens to her voice tone in the audio file, then he/she will see it clearly.
They have both conclusively admitted that their bible is pornographic:
The two deceivers, who are, again, too scared to evenlink directly to my article, have charged me of being a liar and a pervert, despite all of the proofs that they already knew above. This obviously proves the following:
1- They fully recognize the danger of the fact that pornography is actually praised in their bible.
2- They fully realize that such pornography only proves that their bible is corrupt and contains utter trash.
3- Them conveniently and falsely lashing back at me only caused them to shoot themselves in the foot, because they're basically now saying the following:
Yet, none of this is true. On the contrary, Osama Abdallah, your humble writer of this article, is only a messenger, who is only passing what he reads to the reader,- with some analysis,- and a normal reader with a normal mind who only quoted what your pornographic bible said. I am neither a propagator of pornography nor have a perverted and sick mind. But I am glad that you're calling me this, because this only testifies that, indeed, your bible is pornographic and that you are just simply too ashamed of it. That is why you neither directly linked to my article nor did you "refute" all of it - not that you have refuted anything.
Normally when one responds to or refutes an article, he would address all of its points to leave his opponent no opportunity to claim that some points have not been addressed or refuted. But ironically, in your case here, you have hardly addressed anything from my article, and you purposely didn't link to it. Now of course, this explains why you were too scared to link to it. Simply, you just know well that the pornography in your bible is irrefutable. See the incestuous pornography below to further expose you.
Where is the lexical data supporting her claim?
I think the Professors of that university have done this job already. It is also important to know that metaphores and symbolic speech sometimes can not be interpreted through lexical translations. Certainly, there is ample evidence that suggests that the drunk authors who wrote the pornographic book were referring to the woman's vagina. In fact, I strongly believe that this is already an established fact, which Professor Carole Fountaine and her department have already demonstrated. And I am sure that there are countless other theological professors, as long as they're not too ashamed to speak up, who strongly believe that this is indeed referring to the girlfriend's vagina.
In either rate, this piece about her vagina tasting like wine remains a very small one when compared to the others. So let's not get all worked out on it, because we have tons of other pornographic verses that speak directly, and not through metaphors, including giving praises to having incestuous fantasies, that are praised in the two buffoons' gospel of porn. That is why they refused to directly link to my article in their sorry-rebuttal.
What sources did she quote to prove her assertion? Absolutely nothing. After all is said and done, Osama is not even a millimeter closer to giving evidence for the perverted interpretation of the text that has become his obsession.
Why are you finding it very unlikely that the verse was referring to her vagina when we have countless verses that speak sexually about her breasts, and refer to them as tasting like "wine", and also countless other verses that speak about "their bed" and how much love they've given to each others in it? Why her vagina being referenced here sounds very strange to you despite the overwhelming pornographic and sexual context that is clearly and indisputably seen in the book?
I love it when you say "perverted interpretation". Keep attacking me, because these are more bullets that you keep shooting yourself with in the foot, as I've clearly demonstrated.
Furthermore, we read about a praise for an incestuous fantasy being also praised in this book:
Incestuous fantasies being praised in the Gospel of Porn:
Let us now look at the following verses about incestuous fantasies:
Song of Songs 8:1-3 "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house-- she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink [i.e., her vagina's semen!], the nectar of my pomegranates. His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me."
This was the NIV English translation. Many other English translations say "....were a brother to me...."   . Others say "....were as a brother to me...."     .
Aside from the fact that the girl is being very inappropriate and can't keep her sloppy hormones under control and to herself, but the most ironic thing of all is that the bible sings praises about her feelings, words and actions and is giving her the ok to do it and to "be herself".
There are few important points to notice here:
1- She wished if the sexy man was her brother or as her brother who was nursed from her mother's breasts. This means that she had to wish if he were her actual and biological brother, since in the Bible, people don't become brothers and sisters through breast-feeding.
2- It is needless to say that if she actually had a sexy-looking brother, then she would lust after him, and the Bible is ok with that, since the whole book praises the sexual relationship between the girl and her lover.
3- They were not a husband and a wife, because:
4- Furthermore, we read in the gospel of porn:
Clearly, the relationship was between a girlfriend and a boyfriend, and not between a wife and a husband. Otherwise, why would they need to sneak to the field to make sex when they have their home to be alone in? And worst of all, the Bible is ok with all of this throughout this book!
As to the lie about her being his bride, please visit Section #4 to see how I have thoroughly exposed this desperate lie using ample verses from this book.
So in a nutshell, if you're a pornified Bible-following male who happens to have a hot looking and very beautiful female-sister, then thinking sexually about her and her hot curves, body and how wonderful she'd be in bed is not only NOT condemned in this gospel of porn, but it is also praised. Similarly, if you are a professional pornified female bible-follower who is an expert (sorry about the language) in cum-licking and sucking      as it is the case here in the West and everywhere else in the world where Christians are the majority, then having incestuous thoughts about your brother and giving him "blow jobs" in your dreams isn't something wrong after all according to this verse from the Bible.
Pornography is clearly praised in the bible. This is no cheap statement from me. It is a clear-cut and indisputable fact! The bible sings glory songs about not only incestuous relationships, but also about women's vaginas and breasts tasting like "WINE".
If you honestly wouldn't call this pornography, then what else would you honestly and with your clear conscious and integrity call it?
Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Quran: "Then
woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is
from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them
for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
(The Noble Quran, 2:79)"
Yet, unlike Osama, we do not have to twist the Quran to find evidence for Allah's fascination with women's anatomies since he refers to their breasts and vaginal areas:
"Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards, and maidens of SWELLING BREASTS (Arabic- kawa'ib), like of age, and a cup overflowing." S. 78:33 Arberry (see also Dawood, Rodwell)
And (remember) her who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa): We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all people. S. 21:91
And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa) and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12
In the Arabic there is no need to speculate that this may be a euphemistic way of referring to something "a bit lower than the belly button". There is no maybe here. It is an absolutely clear and unambiguous word for the sexual organ.
For the evidence from various sources, including Muslim commentators and scholars, demonstrating that the word farj means the vagina in these specific contexts please consult the article, The Birth Narratives of Jesus in the Quran.
If mentioning the vagina explicitly or implicitly is disqualifying a text from being revelation from God, then the Qur'an is clearly not from God. If this is not a valid criterion, then what is Osama's point? If Osama thinks that mentioning the vagina in any book makes it a text of sexual perversion (and Osama has still not proven that it even is in the Bible), then it is Osama's god and his prophet who are the perverts for producing such sexually explicit texts.
First of all, even in your twisted translation above, the reader clearly sees that there is ABSOLUTELY nothing pornographic in any of the Noble Verses above. A person doesn't have to be over 18 with viewer discretion is advised to read the Noble Quran as it is the case with your gospel of porn.
Second of all, Mary guarded her chastity. The Noble Verse doesn't speak about her her literal "vagina". Notice that for Noble Verses 21:91 and 66:12, the liars did not specify the translation source. This is because they are the liars who twisted the meaning of the Arabic word "Farj", which means the woman's womb, and also means woman's chastity. Mary guarded her "chastity" in Noble Verse 21:91 above, which in return also implies that she guarded her vagina from sexual sinning. She was GOD-fearing and a virgin-chaste-woman. That's what the Noble Verse is saying.
Furthermore, "Mah'bal" in Arabic is the exact word for "vagina" or female's "sexual organ" as the liars put it.
Where in the Noble Quran was the word "mah'bal" used?
And even if it were used, so what?
Where is the pornography in guarding chastity and fearing Allah Almighty?!
If this is all you can come up with, and you would still call the Holy Quran pornographic because of it, then based on what objective ground would you not call your bible a pornographic book, when the book teaches:
1- The girlfriend's vagina tasted like wine.
2- Her breasts taste like wine.
3- Their bed, which they made endless love on, is praised.
4- She wished if he were her brother so it wouldn't be a problem taking him home without secret.
The Bible on her sucking his Holy Penis:
Song of Songs 1:2-4 "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-- for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you! Take me away with you--let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. We rejoice and delight in you; we will praise your love (i.e., semen) more than wine. How right they are to adore you! "
Song of Songs 5:4 "I slept but my heart was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: 'Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.' I have taken off my robe (i.e., he showed his penis to her. Underwears didn't exist back then!) must I put it on again? I have washed my feet, must I soil them again? My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening (I wonder if this is metaphorically referring to her vagina's cunt/clitorous!); my heart began to pound for him."
And my answer to him: Must you put it back on again? No, I think your penis is too holy for not to be shown.
What kind of garbage is this?! And we've already seen above how she fantasized about him being her brother who nursed from her mother's breasts.
Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Quran: "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"
It is indesputably clear that much of the Bible was invented by pornified drunkards. The false book is filled with man-made alterations, fabrications, contradictions and corruptions.
Certainly, the two polytheist trinitarian pagans and hilarious buffoons, Sam Shamoun (who is fond on cursing with the F*** word and telling Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") that they got "raped") and Jochen Katz, who didn't even dare to link to my article, have failed miserably to refute this disastrous and faith-shaking fact.
X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.
Incestuous Fantasies are praised in the Bible.
My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.
Rebuttals to Jochen Katz' Articles section.
Prophet Muhammad is a Murderer for KILLING the enemies? WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE'S PROPHETS' MURDERS that were blessed by GOD?
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.
What parts of the Bible do Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.
Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!
Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.
Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? Psalm 91, Isaiah 42, 52 and 53 all prove Islam's Divine Claim about Jesus never got crucified!
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube