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

My response to Sam Shamoun's rebuttal to my article "How do the Bible and the Noble Quran view women?":

This article is a response to Sam Shamoun's rebuttal at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/women.htm.

Note:  I have written another rebuttal which refutes Sam Shamoun's response to this article:  My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Exposing Osama's Smokescreens and Rabbit Trails (PART 1)" article.

He wrote:

Osama has issued a challenge to Jews and Christians to respond to his article regarding the biblical view of women. We heartily accept his challenge and here is our response to his misrepresentation of what both the Holy Bible and the Quran really teach about women. Osama begins:

RESPONSE:

Here is what Jesus thought of women, taken from the very pages of the NT which he, through his Spirit, inspired:

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

"Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife AS HE LOVES HIMSELF, and the wife must respect her husband." Ephesians 5:25-33

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as HEIRS with you of the gracious gift of life, SO THAT NOTHING WILL HINDER YOUR PRAYERS." 1 Peter 3:7

My response:

We right off the bat see a direct diversion from Revelation 14:4 that I used.   This verse is very important because it explicitly considers women as defiling to men.  Mr. Shamoun started his article by ignoring the first Biblical verse I used regarding degradation of women.  But since the Bible is notorious in degrading and directly insulting women, I will gladly respond to the verses he mentioned above:

In regards to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, let us look at the very beginning of the verse:

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

Paul in his book clearly discourages men from marrying.  He is clearly saying that if it wasn't for sexual immorality/sinning, he would've commanded/advised his followers to not marry women.  Why is that Paul?  Could it be that Paul considers ALL women as ridiculous and low?  Could it be that Paul considers men higher and better than women?  He obviously does.

Let us further look at how Paul views women:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Timothy 2:11-14

Here we clearly see that Paul would rather not see women teach/educate men, because "the woman being deceived was in the transgression."  I really don't know his logic here.  What does Eve's sin have anything to do with an educated woman in science, for instance, educating people (men and women) in a formal class room setting?

Notice also that Paul clearly said "It is good for a man not to marry" in 1 Corinthians 7:1.  His statement was explicitly about men only.  It wasn't about marriage in general.  It was specifically about his personal preference for men to not lower themselves (according to him) and to marry the "transgressing" women.

In regards to Ephesians 5:25-33, it has nothing to do with lifting the status of women:

"Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife AS HE LOVES HIMSELF, and the wife must respect her husband." Ephesians 5:25-33

Paul again is the author of the book of Ephesians.  We clearly saw Paul's views regarding women in 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 above.   Paul here is not lifting the status of women.  He is simply telling men the following:

"Now that you fell into the trap of marrying a transgressing woman (after I told you that I prefer for you not to get married), then shut up and eat it for the rest of your life!  Just make sure to be kind to her and don't be mean or abusive to her because it is meaningless and pointless, and it wouldn't be pleasing to GOD Almighty."

Notice also Paul said that Jesus cleansed the church and washed it with the word.  

Is Paul suggesting that men's marriage to women actually cleans the women from their defiling conditions/status?

He is apparently suggesting that!

To actually elaborate further on this, let us go back to the Old Testament and see what the Bible says about the birth of females compared to that of males':

"....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" Ecclesiasticus 22:3 (From the New Jerusalem Bible.  It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days." Leviticus 12:2-5 (exists in all Bibles).

So, as we clearly and irrefutably see from all of this, women are not spiritually and physically equal to men.  The Bible in both the Old Testament, and Paul's own teachings clearly and irrefutably suggests that women:

1-  Their birth causes double the pollution/dirt/uncleanness (call it what ever you want) more than males'.

2-  Women are cleansed and purified when they marry men.  Men, however, are not necessarily cleansed and purified when they marry women.

3-  In the Roman Catholic religion, the birth of any woman is a loss.  It is hated for women to even be born!  This is not only in the Roman Catholic's Bible, but also in all Bibles as clearly shown in Leviticus 12:2-5.

Anyway, let us continue with Mr. Shamoun's verses that he presented:

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as HEIRS with you of the gracious gift of life, SO THAT NOTHING WILL HINDER YOUR PRAYERS." 1 Peter 3:7

Both of these verses are very similar to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 above.  Therefore, we need not to see more elaborations for them, because they clearly DO NOT refute my points about Leviticus 12:2-5, Ecclesiasticus 22:3, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 above.

He wrote:

It is evident that when Peter says wives are the weaker vessels, he means this in relation to their physical makeup, since he clearly says that wives are heirs of the promise along with their husbands. In fact, Peter says that a husband’s prayers will be hindered, or rendered ineffective, if he fails to treat his wife with respect. Hence, loving and treating one’s wife kindly is an integral part of having one’s prayers heard!

My response:

I agree with you here Mr. Shamoun regarding Peter.  But when I present Paul's views to you as I did above, they clearly present an irrefutable contradiction regarding women.  Paul prefers for men not to marry women, and both the OT and Paul don't consider them as clean/pure as men, while Peter considers them as a "gracious gift of life".  Peter vs. Paul and the Old Testament clearly contradict each others in their views about women in the Bible!

It seems to me that Paul remained more consistent with the Bible's ORIGINAL views toward women far more than Peter did.  Peter's comments in 1 Peter 3:7 are sweet and full of love and passion toward women.   As a truthful person, I must admit to that.   But I know that Peter went way too far with his personal views.

Now let us look at 1 Corinthians 7:10-15:

10  To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11  But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12  To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13  And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
14  For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15  But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Quick Note:  Notice how the NIV Bible translators put (I, not the Lord) in parenthesis.  They are suggesting that Paul in verses 12 through 15 was speaking only his own personal words and wasn't inspired by GOD Almighty, even thought HE NEVER DECLARED IT IN THESE VERSES.  This is only their interpretation and addition.  In any how, even if they were right, and Paul wasn't speaking GOD Almighty's Words, then this still would contradict Paul's own words in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"  Obviously, not all the Bible is God-breathed because Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 would've contradicted that, as he also clearly contradicted it in 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 when he said that he is not always inspired by GOD Almighty, because both sets of verses are now PERMANENTLY PRESERVED in the Bible, which obviously doesn't make all of the Bible "God-breathed".  Maybe 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 is what gave the NIV Bible translators the liberty to consider 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 as Paul's own words (even though he never said so) and not GOD's.  This obviously proves that the Bible is so cheap to them that they would give themselves the liberty to add and take off from it as they please without fearing anything.

Anyway, is Paul suggesting here that a disbelieving man or woman would still be purified/cleansed and win Paradise just because they are married to a believer?  I don't quite understand his logic here!  How can a believing woman raise her children, especially in a male-dominated society (where a woman follows everything her husband says and does) back then, to be polytheist trinitarian pagans who believe in 3 gods, while the disbelieving husband might interfere heavily with that?  Would the disbelieving husband and the disbelieving children still be saved even if they don't embrace the polytheist trinity paganism just because the wife/mother is a believer?  Is this what Paul meant by "sanctified"?

In any rate for all of this, we see one thing that crystal clear:

The Bible is a bunch of trash that is full of contradictions!  It is certainly not perfect: Not in it's history (See the historical evidence of how most of the books and gospels were written by mysterious people), nor in its contents and literature.   It is clear that it is made up of a bunch of gibberish nonsense.

He wrote:

Let us contrast this with Allah of the Quran:

"Your wives are as A TILTH unto you; so approach YOUR TILTH when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe." S. 2:223

"Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things THEY COVET: WOMEN and sons; Heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses branded (for blood and excellence); and (wealth of) cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the POSSESSIONS of this world's life; but with Allah is the best of the goals (to return to)." S. 3:14

"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, AND SCOURGE THEM: but if they are obedient to you then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" S. 4:34 Rodwell

My response:

Let us examine each of the Noble Verses Sam Shamoun presented.  I will expose his intentional mistranslation and deception in the last Noble Verse that he mentioned:

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear God. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe. (The Noble Quran, 2:223)"

This Noble Verse was clarified in details through the Sayings (Hadiths) of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him.  Let us look at some of them:

"Narrated Jabir: Jews used to say: 'If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back [The vagina as clearly shown below], then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.' So this Verse was revealed:-- 'Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will.' (2.223) (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (peace be upon him)), Number 51)"

"Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) declared that the Jews used to say: When a man has intercourse with his wife through the vagina but being on her back. the child will have squint, so the verse came down:" Your wives are your tilth; go then unto your tilth as you may desire" (ii. 223) (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 8, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3363)"

"Jabir (b. Abdullah) (Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Jews used to say that when one comes to one's wife through the vagina, but being on her back, and she becomes pregnant, the child has a squint. So the verse came down:' Your wives are your ti'Ith; go then unto your tilth, as you may desire.' (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 8, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3364)"

"This hadith has been reported on the authority of Jabir through another chain of transmitters, but in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Zuhri there is an addition (of these words): 'If he likes he may (have intercourse) being on the back or in front of her, but it should be through one opening (vagina).' (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 8, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3365)"

"Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Ibn Umar misunderstood (the Qur'anic verse, "So come to your tilth however you will")--may Allah forgive him. The fact is that this clan of the Ansar, who were idolaters, lived in the company of the Jews who were the people of the Book. They (the Ansar) accepted their superiority over themselves in respect of knowledge, and they followed most of their actions. The people of the Book (i.e. the Jews) used to have intercourse with their women on one side alone (i.e. lying on their backs). This was the most concealing position for (the vagina of) the women. This clan of the Ansar adopted this practice from them. But this tribe of the Quraysh used to uncover their women completely, and seek pleasure with them from in front and behind and laying them on their backs. 

When the muhajirun (the immigrants) came to Medina, a man married a woman of the Ansar. He began to do the same kind of action with her, but she disliked it, and said to him: We were approached on one side (i.e. lying on the back); do it so, otherwise keep away from me. This matter of theirs spread widely, and it reached the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).

So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur'anic verse: 'Your wives are a tilth to you, so come to your tilth however you will,' i.e. from in front, from behind or lying on the back. But this verse meant the place of the delivery of the child, i.e. the vagina. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2159)"

For more information and further Hadiths, please visit Anal sex is not allowed between the husband and wife in Islam.

It was your people, the Jews and Christians, that used to think that if a husband has sex with his wife from the back (into the vagina and not the rectum), and she gets pregnant, then their child will have a "squint".  Islam came and corrected that nonsense.

As to the wife being a "tilth" to her husband, the husbands have the authority in the house, and therefore they have the authority over their wives and children.  There is nothing degrading to women in this Noble Verse.  The only women that take offense of this Noble Verse are YOUR western women who spread their legs 500 times before marriage, and perhaps several times while married (through "one night stands"), and 500 times after marriage.

Such women need serious discipline, and I don't expect them to appreciate a Noble Verse such as 2:223.  In any how, you need to know that they are YOUR women and not ours.  So therefore, I don't really care about how offensive the Noble Quran is to your women, because to our standards, more than 90% of your women are whores, while more than 90% of our women remain virgins and pure until marriage.

"Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: Women and sons; Heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses branded (for blood and excellence); and (wealth of) cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the possessions of this world's life; but in nearness to God is the best of the goals (To return to).  (The Noble Quran, 3:14)"

Where is Allah Almighty in error here?  The birth of males is more preferred, even in many parts of the Western world today, than females.  And men are generally more sexually active in appearance than women.  We don't see many women look at men lustfully in the public, while we do see many men look at women lustfully in the public, especially during the summer when women's bodies are more exposed from wearing shorter and more revealing cloths.  So, the Statement that Allah Almighty made in Noble Verse 3:14 is very accurate.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all).  (The Noble Quran, 4:34)"

All of the Noble Verses I present from the Noble Quran are translated by Minister Abdullah Yusuf Ali; may Allah Almighty rest his soul.  The unethical and deceiver Sam Shamoun used a non-Muslim translation to this Noble Verse:

"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, AND SCOURGE THEM: but if they are obedient to you then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" S. 4:34 Rodwell

Few notes to notice here between my translation and his:

1-  In my translation, men are in charge of their wives because men are generally given more strength than women, and because Allah Almighty Commanded men to financially support the women.  In his bogus translation, it says "superior".   Even though his translation has some truth in it, but it is not very accurate.

2-  In my translation, Allah Almighty Commands the men to beat the disloyal (either flirting wives or wives who are too defiant to their husbands as many male-hating feminists are today in the West) wives after the third warning.  In his translation, it says to scourge (flog) them.

Let me further elaborate on this to clearly expose Sam Shamoun's intentional lies, especially that he himself is an Arabic speaking polytheist trinitarian pagan.  So he should've noticed this obvious mistranslation very easily from his non-Islamic resource:

The Arabic word for "scourge" or "flog" is "ijlidu", which is derived from "jald", which means "a flog".  This Arabic word is used in the following Noble Verses:

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog (ijlidu) 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)"

"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them (ijliduhum) with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-  (The Noble Quran, 24:4)"

The Arabic word used in Noble Verse 4:34 is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba" which means "beat".  The Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" don't necessarily mean "hit".  The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them.  It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.

Allah Almighty used the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 14:24 "Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? -- A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens".  "daraba" here meant "give an example".  If I say in Arabic "daraba laka mathal", it means "give you an example". 

Allah Almighty also used the word "darabtum", which is derived from the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:94, which mean to "go abroad" in the sake of Allah Almighty:

"O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: 'Thou art none of a Believer!' Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant.  Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate.  For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do.   (The Noble Quran, 4:94)"

So "daraba" literally means "beat", or "go abroad", or "give" but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example.

Important Note:  Notice how Allah Almighty in Noble Chapter (Surah) 4 He used "daraba (4:34" and "darabtum (4:94)", which are both derived from the same root.  He used both words in the same Chapter, which tells me that "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:34 means to desert or leave, since that's what its derived word meant in Noble Verse 4:94.   The next section below will further prove my point.

I am sure there are more Noble Verses that used words derived from "daraba" in the Noble Quran, but these are the only ones I know of so far.  In the case of Noble Verse 4:34 where Allah Almighty seems to allow men to hit their wives after the two warnings for ill-conduct and disloyalty, it could very well be that Allah Almighty meant to command the Muslims to "leave" the home all together and desert their wives for a long time in a hope that the wives would then come back to their senses and repent.

Noble Verses and Sayings that support the prohibition of any type of wife beating:

The following Noble Verses and Sayings from the Noble Quran and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him respectively seem to very well support the above interpretation:

"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.  (The Noble Quran, 4:128)"

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.  (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her.  (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"

"on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.  (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

In any how, the word "daraba" does not at all mean "flog" or "scourge" as the Arabic-speaking liar Sam Shamoun and his mistranslation falsely claim!

Whether you believe that "beat" in Noble Verse 4:34 is referring to either physical beating or just leaving the house, the point here is that the Noble Verse is not for all women.  It is only for the bad ones who failed to accept the first two warnings.  The third warning is a "beating".  After that they have to get divorced if they can't agree to reconcile.

The divorce in Islam does not have to go through the route of Noble Verse 4:34.  A man can divorce his wife without any prior warnings if he feels he can't live with her.   The woman too can get a divorce through "Khala'" if she feels that she can't live with her husband.

For more information and details please visit:  My husband divorced me 3 times!  Am I really divorced?, and read section "How can a woman divorce herself from her husband?".

To avoid compromising the Noble Quran and Islam's Laws, I have written two articles regarding Noble Verse 4:34: One that supports the physical beating, and the other not supporting it.

Please visit:  Is Wife beating allowed in Islam?  This is a section that contains two links: One agreeing, and the other disagreeing.

He wrote:

The hadiths record:

Narrated Abdullah bin Zama:
That he heard the Prophet delivering a sermon, and he mentioned the she-camel and the one who hamstrung it. Allah's Apostle recited:--
'When, the most wicked man among them went forth (to hamstrung the she-camel).' (91.12.) Then he said, "A tough man whose equal was rare and who enjoyed the protection of his people, like Abi Zama went forth to (hamstrung) it." The Prophet then mentioned about the women (in his sermon). "It is not wise for anyone of you to lash his wife LIKE A SLAVE, for he might sleep with her the same evening." Then he advised them not to laugh when somebody breaks wind and said, "Why should anybody laugh at what he himself does?" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 466)

Narrated 'Ikrima:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering AS MUCH AS THE BELIEVING WOMEN. Look! Her skin IS GREENER THAN HER CLOTHES!." When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless 'Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow," (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715)

My response:

In the first Hadith, the Prophet peace be upon him was not giving permission to men to lash their wives as long as it is not as bad as a slave would get it.  It was part of the pagan Arabs' custom to brutally beat their disobedient slaves.  Bilal, who became Prophet Muhammad's best friend, was beaten almost to death for embracing Islam.  The Prophet here was only giving an example.

Anyway, the Prophet himself forbade the beating of slaves, and considered them as "brothers":

"Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him, then expiation for it is that he should set him free.   (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4079)"

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names."  The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.'  (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share) - (another narrator) Dawud said:" i. e. a morsel or two". 4097.   (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4096)" 

Narrated Anas: "The Prophet said, 'None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother [this includes slaves, since a slave is considered a brother as shown above] what he likes for himself.'  (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 12)"

In the second Hadith, there are few points to notice and mention:

1-  The man failed to follow Noble Verse 4:34 which was sent by Allah Almighty -- that if we were to consider the "physical beating" interpretation of it as the valid one, and not the "leaving the house".

2-  The woman was trying to get back with her first husband.  In Islam, if a woman gets divorced or divorces herself from her husband through the Islamic court by "Khala'", then the only way she can get back with her husband, or her husband gets back to her is by HER MARRYING ANOTHER PERSON, HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HIM, AND THEN GET A DIVORCE FROM HIM.  This is to guarantee that divorce would not be a joke among Muslims.

3-  The woman was claiming that her second husband was sexually no good.  The husband disputed that, and brought his two sons from another marriage as a proof that he can perform sex.  The Prophet peace be upon him then told the woman "by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow".

4-  Aisha's opinion about the woman's bruise doesn't prove or disprove anything.   She got angry because she saw another woman badly beaten, which is perfectly fine and acceptable.  But her emotions and opinions are not Islamic Verdicts!

5-  Not a single Muslim scholar would disagree with the following:

The Hadiths have serious problems in historical documentations!  Meaning, a Hadith might be documented today, but we don't know when it came and what was its purpose.  In this case, WE DO NOT KNOW if this Hadith came before or after Noble Verse 4:34 above!  If it came before the Noble Verse, then this clearly shows that Allah Almighty had stepped in and resolved the issue of when WIFE BEATING WOULD BE ALLOWED, and it would be only allowed once (if we were to take the "physical beating" interpretation and not "leaving the house" as the valid one!).

He wrote:

Interestingly, Osama quotes the following hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud in order to show that husbands are not permitted to beat their wives:

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Osama conveniently fails to mention the hadiths which follow RIGHT AFTER:

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:
Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, HE (the Prophet) GAVE PERMISSION TO BEAT THEM. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2141)

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2142)

It is quite clear that Muhammad wasn’t telling the men that they couldn’t beat their wives at all. These other hadiths show that wife beating is permitted under the right circumstances, and here is where the problem is. THERE ARE NO GOOD REASONS FOR BEATING ONE’S WIFE!

My response:

As I mentioned in point #5 above:

5-  Not a single Muslim scholar would disagree with the following:

The Hadiths have serious problems in historical documentations!  Meaning, a Hadith might be documented today, but we don't know when it came and what was its purpose.  In this case, WE DO NOT KNOW if this Hadith came before or after Noble Verse 4:34 above!  If it came before the Noble Verse, then this clearly shows that Allah Almighty had stepped in and resolved the issue of when WIFE BEATING WOULD BE ALLOWED, and it would be only allowed once (if we were to take the "physical beating" interpretation and not "leaving the house" as the valid one!).

As to me "conveniently failing to mention the hadiths which follow RIGHT AFTER", I did not do that at all!  The sequence/order of Hadiths does not AT ALL mean that the earlier ones were mentioned before the later ones.  The Hadiths were documented as they were compiled and narrated by people. 

No one knows which Hadith came before the other.

To me personally, by reading this Hadith:

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

It clearly tells me that the Prophet told this Hadith after the one Sam Shamoun mentioned.  The reason for this is because my Hadith is a general one that covers all aspects, while his Hadith was based on an incident.

Also, if the interpretation of "physically leaving" instead of "physically beating" in Noble Verse 4:34 above is true, then the Hadith I mentioned is clearly a great support for this Noble Verse's interpretation!  The Noble Verse would also be a great support for the Hadith.

But at any rate, Sam Shamoun's Hadith does not nullify my Hadith.  However, Noble Verse 4:34 does nullify his Hadith, because the physical beating (if this is the correct interpretation) would not be allowed at any time the man wishes!

He wrote:

Continuing further:

Narrated Qays ibn Sa'd:
I went to al-Hirah and saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Apostle of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you. He said: Tell me, if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I WOULD COMMAND WOMEN TO PROSTRATE THEMSELVES BEFORE THEIR HUSBANDS, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2135)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 122)

My response:

The first Hadith clearly shows that women must respect their husbands and appreciate them.  I don't see any shame or harm against women in this Hadith.  The second Hadith talks about defying women to their husbands.  It is talking about those women who try to exploit their sexuality against their husbands.  Again, I see no shame or harm against women in this Hadith.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but unless Mr. Shamoun doesn't mind his wife depriving him sexually (other than during her menstruating period), then I don't see his logic and point in presenting the second Hadith here!

He wrote:

Let us summarize the Islamic data regarding women:

1. Women are a man’s tilth and possession.
2. Men are superior to women due to their superior qualities.
3. Disobedient wives can be beaten.
4. The hadith also shows that even slaves can be beaten.
5. According to Aisha, believing women suffered more than the other women.
6. A husband beat his wife so badly that he left a green mark on her body. And yet Muhammad says nothing to the husband.
7. Muhammad permitted emboldened wives to be beaten.
8. Umar, the second Caliph, claims that a man shall not be asked the reason why he beat his wife.
9. Muhammad would have ordered women to bow down and prostrate before their husbands.
10. Angels curse women who refuse to accept her husband’s invitation to have sex. Evidently angels have nothing better to do than to curse women who do not satisfy their husbands' sexual cravings!

We would like Osama to produce a hadith stating that angels also curse men who refuse to satisfy their wives' sexual cravings. If he is unable to produce such a statement, then he needs to explain to his readers why his god Allah gives preferential treatment to men but not to women.

My response:

Here is my response to your points.  For point #8, I do know that many Arabs and Muslims in the "third world nations" use their old cultural practices to dominate women, which has no basis in Islam.  These people are violators to the Laws of Islam as I will prove below:

1-  Women are AS men's tilth, because men in Islam do have the authority of the house over the wives and children.

2-  Men are protectors to women because men are stronger than women (in general), and Allah Almighty Commanded men to financially support the women.

3-  It is only an interpretation that disobedient wives can be physically beaten.   I have showed very solid proofs that "idribuhunna" can also mean "physically leave them" especially that the same root word was used in 4:94 in the very same Noble Chapter for "leaving for the Cause of Allah Almighty".

4-  I have showed above that slaves CAN NOT be beaten in Islam, and if they do get beaten, then they must be set free.

5-  Aisha's opinion and emotions as I said are not Islamic Verdicts.

6 & 7-  In regards to the husband leaving a mark on his wife's body and emboldened wives to be beaten, we don't know if these incidents took place before or after the Revelation of Noble Verse 4:34.  As I said above, the Hadiths' history for when and what purpose they were narrated is not documented.

8-  In regards to Allah Almighty will not ask a man why he beat his wife, this is as long as the man does not violate the Law of Noble Verse 4:34, which permits the beating only and only once for disloyal and loose (flirting) wives.   Otherwise, the man would be violating Allah Almighty's Holy Commands:

"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.  (The Noble Quran, 4:128)"

"...on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.  (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)"

I do know that many men in the Muslim world and non-Muslim world such as the Hindus in India and the Budhists in China do practice their old culturs and dominate and control women.  I know that in Palestine during my grand father's times, men used to do it a lot and men probably still do today.  This is not Islamic, even if it's used by many Muslim men.  A mean man to his wife is a violator to Noble Verse 30:21.  An abusive man to his wife is a violator to Noble Verses 2:231 and 4:19.

9-  As to our Prophet peace be upon him would command the women to prostrate to their husbands if it were allowed, this is only his personal opinion and his way of saying that men are to be respected and honored by their wives.  This obviously have no Quranic support, and therefore, I careless about it.  It's the same with Aisha's opinion in point #5 above.  It too have no Quranic support, and therefore I careless about it too.

Note:   Have their book a Quranic support to those two points, then I would've taken it seriously as a valid theological point to discuss.  Many things had been narrated on the tongue of Prophet Muhammad that we don't know if they were truthful or not.  The only way to validate them is by comparing them to the Noble Quran.  If they agree with the Noble Quran, then we take it.  Otherwise, we reject it.  This is how sincere Muslims follow Islam.  The Hadiths are like the Bible; they are full of contradictions and deceptions.  Therefore, we must be careful when dealing with them.

10-  Women who try to exploit their sexuality against their husbands have no place in Islam, and they are cursed by Allah Almighty and His Angels peace be upon them.

As to your request "We would like Osama to produce a hadith stating that angels also curse men who refuse to satisfy their wives' sexual cravings", I have none, and I careless about basing my Islam on sources other than the Noble Quran FIRST.  Like I said above, the Hadiths are like the Bible; they are full of contradictions and deceptions.

Anyway, I can produce Noble Verses that would satisfy your request from the Noble Quran, which is really the ONLY BOOK I put my entire trust on:

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear God. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.  (The Noble Quran, 2:223)" 

When a husband deals with his wife, he must always "fear Allah and know that he will meet Him" someday and be held accountable for every atom of positive and negative he did to his wife:

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!  And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.   (The Noble Quran, 99:7-8)"

Further more:

"...on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.  (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)" 

How can a husband live on a "footing of kindness and equity" with his wife if he intentionally deprives her from sex?  How is that fair and "equity"?

Do these Noble Verses answer your request Mr. Shamoun?

He wrote:

In fact, we challenge Osama to produce verses or statements from either the Quran or ahadith which state that:

1. Husbands are to love their wives just as Allah loves the ummah. The only problem with this argument is that not even Allah loved his ummah as much as Jesus loved his Church. Allah never became man to die for the ummah in order to make it holy as Jesus did for the Church.
2. Husbands are to love their wives as they love themselves and their own bodies.
3. A husband’s body doesn’t belong to him only, but also belongs to his wife.
4. A husband cannot deprive his wife of sexual pleasure and intimacy, except by mutual consent.
5. A husband’s prayers are hindered if he mistreats his wife.

This again demonstrates how Islam's treatment of women pales in comparison to the treatment given to women in the Holy Bible, God's true inspired Word.

My response:

Here are the answers to your points:

1-  First of all, this "GOD loved all people" in the Bible proves that your God is a hypocrite, because how can he love me and torture me in Hell Fire for eternity?!  What is that love?  THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR argument is that you have no proof for Jesus dying on the cross for your sins.  I have proven beyond doubt that almost every single books and gospel in the Bible of today was written by a MYSTERIOUS author!  I have also proven that the Old Testament perfectly agrees with the Noble Quran about Jesus never got crucified.  Please visit:

Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross.  I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken.  My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion.  I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.

But anyway, husbands are commanded to love their wives and live with them on a footing of kindness and equity:

"...on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.  (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)"

That's much better than giving stupid and irrational statements such as "love your wife as Allah loved Mankind" because Allah Almighty does not love all mankind.  Otherwise, why does He have Hell and Heaven?!

As Allah Almighty responded to your nonsense in the Noble Quran:

"(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of God, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to God belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"  (The Noble Quran, 5:18)"

2-  Husbands can never love their wives as they love themselves.  This is a very inaccurate statement to be said from GOD Almighty!   It's quite ironic that the highest divorce rates today are among the Bible followers (whether you choose to call them "Christians" or not)!  Humans can make these stupid statements, but GOD Almighty can't.  Paul in the New Testament and the Bible in the Old Testament certainly view women as much lower than men as I clearly showed in the beginning of this article in great details and quotes!

A better and more accurate statement would be the two Noble Verses that I presented above:

"...on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.  (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)"

3-  "A husband’s body doesn’t belong to him only, but also belongs to his wife".  Another stupid and irrational statement that is clearly refuted and contradicted by the majority of the Bible followers today with their high divorce rates and cheating on their spouses!  This statement by itself is clearly contradicted in the Old Testament.  The Bible doesn't even prefer for women to be born:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days." Leviticus 12:2-5

So much for a husband's body being owned by him and his wife nonsense.

Mr. Shamoun, can you give me the spiritual reason/wisdom behind Leviticus 12:2-5?

4-  "A husband cannot deprive his wife of sexual pleasure and intimacy, except by mutual consent".  I agree with this, and the Noble Quran does answer this as I showed above:

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear God. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.  (The Noble Quran, 2:223)" 

When a husband deals with his wife, he must always "fear Allah and know that he will meet Him" someday and be held accountable for every atom of positive and negative he did to his wife:

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!  And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.   (The Noble Quran, 99:7-8)"

Further more:

"...on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.  (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)" 

How can a husband live on a "footing of kindness and equity" with his wife if he intentionally deprives her from sex?  How is that fair and "equity"?

Do these Noble Verses answer your request Mr. Shamoun?

5-  "A husband’s prayers are hindered if he mistreats his wife".  Abusive men don't fear Allah Almighty.  Allah Almighty warned men and ordered them to fear Him when they deal with their wives as clearly shown in Noble Verse 2:223 above.  He also ordered men to live on a "footing of kindness and equity" with their wives as clearly shown in Noble Verse 4:19 above.

Men who are abusive and not just to their wives have no spiritual connection with Allah Almighty:

"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well- acquainted with all that ye do.  (The Noble Quran, 4:135)"

"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.  (The Noble Quran, 5:8)"

"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)"  Please visit Why was Polygamy allowed in Islam?

"God doth command you to render back your Trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice: Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For God is He Who heareth and seeth all things.  (The Noble Quran, 4:58)"

"In most of their secret talks there is no good: But if one exhorts to a deed of charity or justice or conciliation between men, (Secrecy is permissible): To him who does this, seeking the good pleasure of God, We shall soon give a reward of the highest (value).  (The Noble Quran, 4:114)"

"'Amongst us are some that submit their wills (to God), and some that swerve from justice. Now those who submit their wills - they have sought out (the path) of right conduct:  (The Noble Quran, 72:14)"

He wrote:

Lord Jesus willing, we will have more to say about women in Islam when we turn our attention to Osama’s misquotation of the Quran and the ahadith. It seems that Osama will not only misinterpret and twist the Holy Bible to suit his purposes; he is also willing to do the same with his own religious sources.

My response:

I have exposed the obvious contradiction between Peter vs. Paul and the Old Testament above.  I have twisted no Truth.  All I did was present simple proofs about the Bible's negative views toward women.  And as to turning your attention toward me to refute me, Mr. Shamoun, I can't wait for this to happen!

I wish you focus on me so I can show you the Truth and lead you to Islam!

He wrote:

Returning to Revelation 14:4,

My response:

Finally you decided to return to the very first verse I used.  You just said that I twist the Truth.  I have obviously twisted no Truth.  But what about you Mr. Shamoun?  Why did it take you too long to get back to the very first verses I presented?

He wrote:

Osama continues his claims:

RESPONSE:

Osama erroneously assumes that since the text doesn’t specifically mention fornication or adultery the Christian claim is therefore incorrect. Unfortunately for Osama, a careful examination of the entire chapter of Revelation 14 demonstrates that it his counter-argument which is incorrect:

"Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless. Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth - to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.’ A second angel followed and said, ‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine OF HER ADULTERIES.’ A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.’ This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus." Revelation 14:1-12

The inspired author specifically mentions the nations who partook of the adulteries of the false apostate world system RIGHT AFTER mentioning the 144,000 who had refrained from defiling themselves with women! Therefore, the claim that 14:4 is referring to adultery and fornication is actually correct. Yet, the adultery spoken of here is spiritual in nature, i.e. idolatry and false religious worship.

My response:

Mr. Shamoun, I know that the verse is referring to adultery/fornication!  That's not the point here!  The point is the way the verse was said.  The way the verse was said is insulting to women.  Like I said:

"Some Christians emailed me and said that Revelation 14:4 is referring to those sinless men who stayed away from fornication and adultery, and it is not meant at all to be degrading or insulting to women. My response to them is: The verse does not say "those who did not defile themselves with fornication or adultery". Have the verse said that, then it would've included both males and females and there would be nothing to disagree about. But the verse clearly and irrefutably says: "those who did not defile themselves with women", which means (1) No females will be among those men; and (2) Women are defiling to men."

Yes Mr. Shamoun, the verse never said "fornication or adultery" even though it was referring to sexual sinning.  The verse instead directly insulted women.

Let me ask you this Mr. Shamoun, using Revelation 14:4, do the 144,000 "men of God" have women in them?  Please be honest to yourself when give an answer, because I despise stupid people and stupid answers!

Also, if you're suggesting that Babylon is referred to as a woman who caused "Adulteries", then this still doesn't prove anything, because Revelation 14:4 talked about "women" (plural) and not "woman" (singular).  Women in Revelation 14:4 are the physical human females. 

In whatever way you look at it, whether my interpretation (which is very straight forward), or your interpretation (which is full of awkwardness), this still proves my point that the Bible here is clearly insulting women; by whether it was directly considering them as defiling to men (as I am suggesting) or by calling the idol worshiping as "women".  By either case, it is still very ridiculous and insulting!

He wrote:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown’s Critical and Explanatory Commentary on the Whole Bible states:

4. virgins - spiritually (Matthew 25:1); in contrast to the apostate Church, Babylon (Revelation 14:8), spiritually "a harlot" (Revelation 17:1-5, Isaiah 1:21; contrast 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:25-27). Their not being defiled with women means they were not led astray from Christian faithfulness by the tempters who jointly constitute the spiritual "harlot." (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=re&chapter=014)

My response:

Why are we talking about virgins here?!

He wrote:

The chapter preceding Rev 14, as well as that which immediately follows it, supports this interpretation:

"And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, ‘Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?’ The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast - all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns LIKE A LAMB, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." Revelation 13:1-8, 11-17

It is not a coincidence that Rev. 13 and 14 are juxtaposed. It is quite evident that John intended to contrast the true believers of Rev. 14 that followed the true Lamb by not defiling themselves with the false worship of the beast, from those in 13 who worshiped the beast and were deceived by the false lamb.

My response:

That is a bunch of gibberish nonsense!  By you actually suggesting that "women" in Revelation 14:4 actually means idols and "false worship of the beast" is quite ridiculous!

Who is twisting the Truth here Mr. Shamoun?   Me, or  you?

You did it from the beginning of the article by ignoring the verse and taking a long route to come to it, and you're doing it now again by avoiding the main point of why I posted the verse!  Mr. Shamoun ever since when the word "woman" means "false worship of the beast"??!! 

The main point here is that Revelation 14:4 is a direct insult to women!  Your nonsensical and deceiving interpretation does not mean anything here, because that too is insulting to women.

He wrote:

Again:

"One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the punishment THE GREAT PROSTITUTE, who sits on many waters. With her the kings of the earth COMMITTED ADULTERY and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine OF HER ADULTERIES.’ Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: ‘Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings-and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.’ Then the angel said to me, ‘The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. The woman you saw is THE GREAT CITY that rules over the kings of the earth.’" Revelation 17:1-18

My response:

Revelation 14:4 clearly says: "those who did not defile themselves with women".  If what you're suggesting about "women" here meaning Babylon and idol and beast worship, then it should've said:

"those who did not defile themselves with PROSTITUTES".

Revelation 17:5 clearly says:

"MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

By choosing to use the word "women" instead of "prostitutes", the Bible in Revelation 14:4 still insults women by putting them in the category of prostitutes (that if we were to take your interpretation as the correct one).

Revelation 14:4, however, came before the book started talking about Babylon.   Therefore, it is not right for you to assume that "women" in Revelation 14:4 are the same as "prostitutes" in Revelation 17:5.

In regards to Revelation 17:18, we now see that "the Great City" was in a shape of a woman in the man's dream.  This is nice, but it still doesn't nullify Revelation 14:4, because Revelation 14:4 was talking about actual physical human women, while Revelation 17:8 is saying that the "Great City" looked like a woman.

He wrote:

The idea being conveyed here is similar to that stated by the apostle Paul:

"I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. 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. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." 2 Corinthians 11:1-4

The 144,000, much like chaste virgins, remained faithful to their espoused husband by refusing to embrace a false religious system spearheaded by the great harlot.

My response:

As I showed above, women in Revelation 14:4 is different.  Also, what do Paul's Corinthians books have anything to do with the book of Revelation?  You are mixing verses together to falsely prove your point.  I clearly showed you above Paul's negative views toward women in his books.  Also, since you're now talking about virgins of Christ, let me show you this parable of Jesus that allows polygamy:

The following was taken from: Polygamy is allowed in both the Old and New Testaments!  Jesus himself allowed polygamy:

Note:  There are more verses in the article that prove polygamy is allowed in the NT.  Please read the entire article if you need further proofs regarding polygamy in the Bible's OT and NT.

Jesus' parable allows polygamy between 1 man and 5 women!

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

Matthew 25

The Parable of the Ten Virgins

1. "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2. Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
3. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them.
4. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps.
5. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6. "At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'
7. "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps.
8. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'
9. " 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'
10. "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11. "Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'
12. "But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'
13. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

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

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

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

He wrote:

This leads us to our second point, namely that Revelation also uses the symbol of a woman in a positive sense to describe redeemed believers:

"A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: A WOMAN clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet AND A CROWN of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days ... When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring-those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." Revelation 12:1-6, 13-17

"Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: ‘Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.’ (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) Then the angel said to me, ‘Write: "Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!"’ And he added, ‘These are the true words of God.’" Revelation 19:6-9

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband." Revelation 21:1-2

"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. One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.’" Revelation 21:8-14

The heavenly Jerusalem is also called the mother of all true believers, and is the very dwelling of those who have been made perfect forever:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother." Galatians 4:22-26

"But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." Hebrews 12:22-24

My response:

This does not prove or disprove anything.  If Paul and others decided to call Jerusalem their "mother" and "woman", then be it.  This still does not nullify the fact that Revelation 14:4 was speaking about the sexual defiling of women to men.  Revelation 14:4 was generalizing about all women, while the verses that Mr. Shamoun presented are talking about one "woman", which is the city Jerusalem.

Like I said above Mr. Shamoun, even if your interpretation about Revelation 14:4 is true, then this is still insulting for all women, because the Bible chose to substitute the naming of "Babylon's prostitutes" to "women", making it sound like the majority of women, if not all women, are defiling to men, which is exactly my point!

Revelation 14:4 could've said: "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with prostitutes (or Babylon's prostitutes), for they kept themselves pure.  They follow the Lamb wherever he goes.  They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

Have Revelation 14:4 said the above, then we would have nothing to argue about here! 

The fact that you want to desperately prove that Revelation 14:4 meant exactly this quote that I MADE UP clearly proves that your point is weak!  Revelation 14:4 said "did not defile themselves with women".   The mysterious author of the book of Revelation obviously had some negative views toward all women.  His views as we've seen in the beginning of this article are clearly supported in the Old Testament and the books of Paul.

He wrote:

N.T. commentary G.K. Beale sums up the meaning of Rev. 14:4 best. Speaking of the characteristics of the 144,000, Beale notes:

First, they are those who "who were not polluted by women, for they are virgins." The meaning of "polluted" and "virgins" has been hotly debated.

Literal Views. Some see in "virgins" a literal reference to a group of celibate Christian men or to celibate Christian men and women (cf. Matt. 19:12). One problem with these literal views is that nowhere else does Scripture view sexual relations within the bond of marriage as sinful. Furthermore, if the 144,000 is a symbol for the entire people of God, that would mean that John required celibacy for the whole church, which is improbable.

Neither does this verse more generally refer to those, whether married or unmarried, who have abstained only from literal sexual immorality. Closer to the intended idea, though still too literal, is Carrington’s proposal that the notion concerns Christians who abstained from the sexual rites connected with the pagan temples and idolatry (though he remains open to a more figurative understanding) ...

In the final analysis, it is preferable to understand parthenoi ("virgins") as a metaphor of all true saints who have not compromised in various ways with the world because they have remained loyal as a virgin bride to her betrothed (as in 19:7-9; 21:2; 2 Cor. 11:2). Of course, this must be the case if the conclusion already reached above is correct that the 144,000 represent all true believers. Satake notes that in the only other places in the text where saints surround Christ (7:9, 17; 19:8-9), it is always the whole redeemed community that does so. Additionally, if the 144,000 is a figurative number for completeness, why should not the mention of "virgins" also figurative in like manner? Brutsch agrees, though he mentions the possibility that a literal group of virgins could be mentioned as metonymous for the whole redeemed community. That Jerusalem and the picture of a "prepared bride" are both figurative for the entire church in 21:2 enforces an all-inclusive symbolic interpretation of the "virgins" here.

This figurative view is enforced even further by the fact that not only is Jerusalem as a bride based on the OT (see on 21:2) but "virgin" is repeatedly applied to the nation of Israel in the OT ("virgin of Israel" and similar phrases in 2 Kgs. 19:21; Isa. 37:22; Jer. 14:17; 18:13; 31:4, 13, 21; Lam. 1:15; 2:13; Amos 5:2). The Hebrew for "virgin" in the majority of passages is rendered in the LXX by parthenos. Possibly even in the background is Jeremiah 31, where the same word is used three times for Israel’s future purity in a context in which Israel’s restoration is predicated with themes similar to those of Rev. 14:1-4: (1) Israel is to "sing aloud" about its salvation (Jer. 31:7) and (2) "shout for joy on the height of Zion" (v 12), where they will be with God (v 6); (3) they have been saved as a "remnant" (v 7); (4) they are God’s "firstborn" (v 9; see below on the association of "firstborn" with "firstfruits"). That at least the broad background of Israel as "virgin" may well be in mind is further suggested by the fact that behind the notion of "defilement" in Rev. 14:4 is OT Israel’s defilement with idolatry (see below) and that the same notion is ready at hand in 14:8-11. Additionally, "virgin" as a veiled allusion to the new Israel in 14:4 fits admirably with the temptation to commit immorality with national Babylon, which is also figurative in context (14:8).

Parthenoi is masculine to conform to the preceding houtoi and hoi egorasmenoi, which themselves may have been changed from a feminine "144,000" because in the OT the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel were men (1QSa 2.11-17 says that Ps. 2:7 will be fulfilled when the Messiah comes to Qumran and the male "heads" of the "tribes of Israel sit before him"). Parthenoi could also be masculine as part of a picture of those have not had (figurative) illegitimate intercourse with "the great harlot" (17:1). "Babylon the Great ... who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality" (14:8). Also included is the idea of abstaining from imperial and regional idolatries. That the metaphorical description of Babylon as a harlot is developed further in 14:8, right after 14:1-4, and in 17:1-5 shows that the portrayal of virgin saints is also figurative. The harlot metaphor in 14:8 is a development of the immoral "women" (gunaikon) of v 4 with whom Christian virgins have not been defiled. The two metaphors of an immoral "woman" (gune) and "harlot" (porne) are repeatedly equated in 17:1-9, 15-18 in continuation of the pictures in 14:4, 8. Alford argues against this connection on the basis that gune is plural in 14:4 and singular in ch. 17, but this disregards the corporate nature of images in Revelation (e.g., gune in 12:1; 19:7; and 21:9 is certainly corporate) and the description in 17:5 of the Babylonian woman as "the mother of harlots." (Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary - The Book of Revelation [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. & Paternoster Press, 1999], pp. 738-740; bold emphasis ours)

My response:

Again, like I said above, this does not prove or disprove anything.  The use for words "virgin", "bride" and "woman" for Jerusalem and the people of Israel doesn't again nullify that Revelation 14:4 was referring to sexual sinning with prostitutes.  Revelation 14:4 was generalizing about all women, while the verses that Mr. Shamoun presented are talking about one "woman".

Like I said above Mr. Shamoun, even if your interpretation about Revelation 14:4 is true, then this is still insulting for all women, because the Bible chose to substitute the naming of "Babylon's postitutes" to "women", making it sound like the majority of women, if not all women, are defiling to men, which is exactly my point!

Revelation 14:4 could've said: "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with prostitutes (or Babylon's prostitutes), for they kept themselves pure.  They follow the Lamb wherever he goes.  They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

Have Revelation 14:4 said the above, then we would have nothing to argue about here! 

The fact that you want to desperately prove that Revelation 14:4 meant exactly this quote that I MADE UP clearly proves that your point is weak!  Revelation 14:4 said "did not defile themselves with women".   The mysterious author of the book of Revelation obviously had some negative views toward all women.  His views as we've seen in the beginning of this article are clealy supported in the Old Testament and the books of Paul.

He wrote:

Osama continues with his misinformation:

RESPONSE:

Osama conveniently ignores the context and chooses to focus only on the part regarding women’s menses. Osama fails to inform his readers that the same thing is said of men’s discharges:

"IF ANY MAN has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness: Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water. When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off SEVEN DAYS for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. On the EIGHTH DAY he must take TWO DOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he WILL MAKE ATONEMENT before the LORD for the man because of his discharge. When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, BOTH must bathe with water, and THEY will be unclean till evening."’" Leviticus 15:1-9

It is quite clear that women are not being degraded here; otherwise we would have to conclude that men are also being degraded. A further indication that the passage is not degrading women can be seen from the offering for atonement, which is exactly the same for both.

One possible reason why these laws were given was to protect others within the camp of Israel from contracting any possible disease or illness from the flow of blood or bodily discharges. After all, God did make the following promise to Israel:

"He said, ‘If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you.’" Exodus 15:26

"The LORD will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you." Deuteronomy 7:15

My response:

When one reads that the birth of a female causes double the pollution that of the birth of a male in Leviticus 12:2-5, and reads the end of Leviticus 15:19-30:

"But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the