Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog

New Update:

Muta marriage is forbidden according also to the Shia sources themselves!

Was Islam's Muta (temporary marriage) Law immoral?  What does the Bible say about it?

  

  

  

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../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:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/muta_forbidden_in_islam.wav
https://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!

Was Islam's Muta (temporary marriage) Law immoral?  What does the Bible say about it?

  

"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:

no_sex_with_male_slaves_1.jpg (19529 bytes)


"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:

no_sex_with_male_slaves_2.jpg (17201 bytes)

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!

  1. 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).

  2. 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:

  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://./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!

Was Islam's Muta (temporary marriage) Law immoral?  What does the Bible say about it?

  

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.  (The Noble Quran, 33:52)"

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then ONLY ONE, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.  (The Noble Quran, 4:3)"

There are few points to notice in these two Noble Verses:

1-  Allah Almighty did not leave any room for Muslim men and women to marry and divorce as they please, because marriages that are destined for divorce are clearly and strictly forbidden according to Noble Verse 33:52"It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them [divorce them that is] for (other wives)...." clearly proves this.

2-    Irresponsible divorce is not allowed.

3-  Also for those men that are already married, they are highly encouraged to only marry ONE WIFE, in Noble Verse 4:3.

4-  Polygamy was only allowed, from the first place, to enable the Muslim men to sponsor Muslim orphans and to provide for them suitable environments that are filled with care and love since women were primarily responsible for raising children and taking care of the house.  "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice,...." clearly and indisputably proves this.

5-  Since polygamy was only allowed for practical reasons and special conditions, and not for men's lusts and enjoyments of women, then irresponsible marriage and divorce of women is not allowed in the Noble Quran, since Allah Almighty initially preferred for Muslim men, under ordinary and stable conditions, to only marry one wife and to make their marriages permanent ones.

6-  Temporary marriage by an already married person is an unfair and unjust marriage (....but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then ONLY ONE,....), because:

  • The man would be playing favoritism between the wives.

  • He would be exploiting the temporary wives while keeping the permanent ones.

  • Him marrying and divorcing some women while permanently keeping others is clear favoritism and injustice between the wives.

  • And even if the man was single, muta still wouldn't be fair and just to the woman that he is using.  That is why he is commanded to marry "only one" wife.
  • 7-  In the light of all of the points above, we can clearly see that Noble Verses 33:53 and 4:3 clearly prohibit men from exploiting their lust and desire toward women.

      

    Do I expect the foul-mouthed barking missionary to comprehend any of this?   Absolutely not!

     

    (Again, listen to the AUDIO debate)

      

      

      

      

    Back to Muta in Islam section.

    Exposing the Islamic cults.

    Muta marriage is forbidden according also to the Shia sources themselves!

    Was Islam's Muta (temporary marriage) Law immoral?  What does the Bible say about it?


    Send your comments.

    Back to Main Page.