What the website "Answer Christianity" can't legitamately answer!!

Que-Here is a message in where Jim challenge Osama Abdallah to answer every single part of his 12 sections on his site. The best Osama Abdallah could do is offer general comments and ignore about 95% of Jim's challenge. He then tries to proceed arguing against the Bible while failing to answer the points below. It is hard for Osama Abdallah to address issues that he can't find already discuss on other Muslim websites in which he reposts their information under different wording.

The reason why this article is important is because Muslims would love to get their hands on slanderous information against Christianity. The points discussed here are invaluable for the Christian reader as well as the non-Muslim reader who can see first hand how Muslim apologists have to intentionally lie since they couldn't refute Christianity based on truth. Here is the message shown below for all to see and read. Jim-Ok now lets begin to show you how Mr. Osama Abdallah explictedly overlooked points that he couldn't answer directly. I see that he likes to conceal others post by reposting hoping that if someone doesn't remember where to find where he was answered that he would somehow verify his stance. This is strange logic and all it proves is that Mr. Abdallah can't directly answer the questions posed to him. I even put them in sections for future reference. Lets see if Mr. Abdallah can address my full point in each section

SECTION 1

On this link- http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/10166.htm

He repeats the same information again. Lets show you how I already responded to that without him posting a reply:

Mr. Abdallah-Jim,

The Book of Song of Songs's authors are not even known! And the purpose of it is also not even known! How can you consider a PORNOGRAPHIC BOOK like this as the Words of GOD Almighty?! How many times do I have to tell this to your little brain! Read the following from the NIV Bible's commentary:

The book of Song of Songs:

"Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was theauthor remains an open question. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)"

Response-How is the authorship of the book relevant as to where Solomon was married or not? Mr. Abdallah offers no answer but nothing more than great conspiracy theories. here are the problems with this conclusion.

1. Solomon could be the author and still be married?
2. Even if he wasn't the author how exactly does this verify whether he was married or not?
3. How does this prove that Islam is correct?
4. Islam could be false and Christianity could be pornographic.
5. Both could be false and neither one can be porn.
6. Islam could be true and Christianity couldn't be porn.

Jim-These are several factors which are missing in being discussed by Mr. Abdallah. His point makes no sense other than trying to shift the readers attention from the marriage to authorship.

(http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/9940.htm)

And,

In the Song--- it is love that finds words--- INSPIRED WORDS THAT DISCLOSE ITS EXQUISITE CHARM AND BEAUTY AS ONE OF GOD'S CHOICEST GIFTS...GOD INTENDS THAT SUCH LOVE--- GROSSLY DISTORTED AND ABUSED by both ancient and modern people---be a NORMAL PART OF MARITAL LIFE in his good creation. (NIV Study Bible, Commentary on Song of Songs, pg. 998)

Jim-We must ask Mr. Abdallah, Are you blind? Do you know what marital means? Even in his slave article at which he mentions about this dealing with Mr. Gale

One thing, the reference to where they got the quote from is not complete! This is bogus and unacceptable in the professional world of dialogues.

Jim-Mr. Abdallah has not answered my material as seen above all he did was repost the same old information again. Why didn't he comment on the part about the NIV saying that Solomon was married? If he answered my post then we should see an answer to this, or is it that Mr. Abdallah doesn't have any credible answers?

SECTION 2

Two lovers, Solomon and A Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. Mr. Abdallah's incomplete quoting from links-http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/9866.htmTwo lovers, Solomon and A Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. The book has no narrative sections, being composed entirely of speeches to each other. The Song of Solomon is a celebration OF MARITAL LOVE, UNABASHEDLY PHYSICAL AND EARTHLY (though not lewd). While the song is a straightforward love song, not an allegory, Christians do know that behind the bliss OF MARITAL LOVE stands the eternal love of God, which sanctifies the love of men and women. HUSBANDS AND WIVES can love each other with phyisical delight because they know the spirit of Christ purifies all human relationships (From the King James Version Commentary, page 945)" Full Quote

Jim-Mr. Abdallah didn't even bother to address why he didn't quote the full quote on my previous page. Hence he has not answered my posted message all he can do is repeat the same information over and over again. EVEN ON HIS SITE HE WAS TO AFRAID TO MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE COMPLETE QUOTE AS OPPOSED TO THE ABBREVIATED QUOTE WHICH HE SAYS VERIFIED THAT SOLOMON WAS MARRIED. ANOTHER UNANSWERED PART.

SECTION 3

Jim-look at the part on his site where claims that he wrote a satisfactory response on this link: http://www.aol40.com/x_rated.htm



Further proofs from Jim; a non-Muslim guy who tried to prove that I was not accurate about the translation of the word "Naval" in this Porn-full verse. He sent the following to the Christian "Answering Islam" team:

"Mr. Abdallah seems to have done little homework in this matter, since his whole analysis seems to stem from someone named Mike. Here is actually what this video says:

The word navel and the umbilical cord both come from the woman's vagina since this is a natural part of childbirth."

So Mr. Jim, what exactly did you disprove here? Whether "Naval" accurately means "vagina" or something inside the vagina it wouldn't make much difference. You just further proved how porn-full and disgusting the bible really is.

Response-Notice how he changed the argument. The video clearly says that 1. The Navel and Umbilical cord comes from the vagina
2. This is a natural part of Child birth. Mr. Abdallah changed this to say how the word was accurately represented. So he invented a strawman argument because he couldn't answer the part as to why the video didn't say what he claims. Also I disproved that 1. Vagina wasn't substituted with Navel. Also notice that Mr. Abdallah didn't post none of this on his site:

1. A vagina isn't round like a goblet, aparently Mr. Abdallah has never seen a vagina
2. According to Mr. Abdallah the English translators subsituted this word to be navel. Look at the Jewish translation:

2 How beautiful are thy steps in sandals, O prince's daughter! The roundings of thy thighs are like the links of a chain, the work of the hands of a skilled workman.
3 Thy navel is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies.

This is very important in showing us how Mr. Abdallah doesn't research his own material because the Jewish translators also called it NAVEL. They can’t be accused of mistranslating this word because they aren’t English translators. The reason why both the English translators and the Jews translates this word as navel is because in Hebrew it is “Shorer” and it means navel, umbilical cord. Mr. Abdallah argument also presents even more problems.

1. What is the English translators purpose for subsituting this word
2. How does this action, if it occured verify Islam?

3. If they left other words, such as penis according to you, why hide vagina?

Jim-Mr. Abdallah's conclusion makes no sense and if he really wants to be truthful he should also state to his audience that the Jewish translators and the Hebrew Bible doesn't have the word vagina in it. You can even go to this link and see for yourself that "vagina" isn't part of this above verse:

http://www.breslov.com/bible/Song_of_Songs7.htm#2

Jim-With that being said, any logical person can hardly find any reason to accept Mr. Abdallah's conclusion unless they want to intentionally use false information. http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/9940.htm

Jim-The above link was what Osama Abdallah was claiming to respond to we notice that:

1. He never talked on why the Jewish Bible doesn't have this word vagina
2. Why he didn't comment about the fact that no other Bible in any other language has vagina in it as a word.
3. Why never showed anyone the link I showed explictedly proving his case as being false.
4. He doesn't even know what vagina in Hebrew means. Shorer is Navel. Why he didn't go to a dictonary to prove his point like he so-called did with the grown-up man in the breast suckling issue?

Conclusion: He didn't answer none of my quotes completely he only took out bits and pieces and left all of the hard information out. If anybody did this with his post he would claim that they didn't address none of his points. We find it strange that he fails to do the same above. Also Here is another imporatant part that Mr. Abdallah didn't show on his site because it would prove to the whole world that he is ignorant of how a vagina looks or if he does then he is intentionally lying read from-http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/10146.htm

SECTION 4


Vagina substituted with nave Song 7:2-Mr. Abdallah's argumentgoblet. A large, two-handled, ring-based bowel (see Ex 24:6; Isa 22:24) (NIV Study Bible, Footnotes on Solomon, pg. 1005)

Jim-This refers to the verse in which song of songs 7:2 says:

"How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi.

Jim-1. A vagina isn't round like a goblet, aparently Mr. Abdallah has never seen a vagina
2. According to Mr. Abdallah the English translators subsituted this word to be navel. Look at the Jewish translation:

2 How beautiful are thy steps in sandals, O prince's daughter! The roundings of thy thighs are like the links of a chain, the work of the hands of a skilled workman.
3 Thy navel is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies.

Jim-If vagina is supposed to be here then:
1. It would look like a two handled ring!
2. It would be shaped like a bowel!
3. Everytime you see someone with a bowel with handles, like a bucket in modern time, Mr. Abdallah would think it would be a vagina!!
4. I'm sure answering-islam would love this. Hence Mr. Abdallah has given the Christians another dagger to stab him with.

Does a vagina look like a bowl?

1. When you cook food in bowels are you cooking them in vaginas?
2. If you carry things in a bowel are you carrying it in a vagina?
3. If Mr. Abdallah has ever ate soup did he eat it from a vagina?

Jim-This makes no sense at all. A navel would be round like a goblet because a navel that is poke out resembles this especially when a woman is wearing a ring in her navel. A Vagina can never resemble a bowl.
-----------------------------End of quotee..

Jim-Where is the answers to the above? Why isn't this on answering Christianity? Are you afraid to tell your audience that you think that a vagina looks like a bowl with two handles? Here are more examples of Mr. Abdallah's reposts

SECTION 5

Again, we don't know who wrote the book. Please visit X-Rated Pornography in the Bible regarding this pornful and sick book; the book of:

1- She wished if her lover was her brother nursed at her "mother's breasts" so she wouldn't have to take him home in secret.
2- Her breasts and vagina taste like wine for him.

The KJV Bible's Theologians and Historians say that the porn-full book talks about Solomon and his lover. But we don't know whether it was Solomon who wrote this book or not, nor do we know whether this is some ridiculous poem and a lie written after he died or not.-Reposted Material

Response: He claimed that this was an answer, however Osama abdallah didn't answer nothing I wrote read:

Jim-Mr. Abdallah should actually take a course in logic before trying to use this word as a fancy cognate to make his analysis look more theological. Also Mr. abdallah shouldn't have problems with porn movies either since according to him Muhammad is found in the same book "Song of Songs" Note his wording:


1. MACHAMMADIM - From "MACHAMAD" which in this particular verse, the words "altogether lovely" was translated from mahmad (). is translated into "lovely". "Altogether" is added as a contextual reference to "v'chulo" which means "in entirety" or "absolutely". "MACHAMAD" means "desirable, praiseworthy, beautiful, etc". Though it is archaic, it is found elsewhere in the Bible to describe precious and coveted items. The fact that this "MACHAMAD" evidently may well be the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) has already been thoroughly outlined and established.

To add further weight to these argument, let us take a closer look at this four character word. The way this word is written is Hebrew is . That happens to be the EXACT same way Muhammad's name is written in Hebrew. http://www.answering-christianity.com/song5_16.htm

Contradicts

Again, we don't know who wrote the book. Please visit X-Rated Pornography in the Bible regarding this pornful and sick book. http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm

Jim-Therefore we must conclude that Muhammad, with the added proof given by Osama Abdallah is found in a pornful, sick man made book written by some pornhungry guy! This means that:

1. Muhammad is a porno prophet
2. Man made tampering prophesied Muhammad
3. Muhammad is a prophet prophesied in a porn book not written by God therefore he isn't a prophet of God but of porn.
4. Islam is a religion that verifies porn.

Jim-Do you see the problems and inconsistencies cause by Mr. Abdallah's apologetic analysis.

Jim-This was on my first post and according to Mr. Abdallah, he addressed all my issues. How come we don't find nothing about Muhammad and the contradiction from the same book on his site? Where is the answer Mr. Abdallah?

Conclusion: Based on Mr. Abdallah, Muhammad is found in a pornful book written by perverts, even though Mr. Abdallah claims that he doesn't know who the author is? Isn't this just full of fantasy and sillyness? Yes! Here is more from him:

SECTION 6

Further refutations to Jim's bogus claims:

Osama- According to the Midrash Hagadol, Isaac himself examined by inserting his finger covered with a piece of cloth into Rebekah's vagina before their marriage (Midrash Hagadol to Genesis 24:67 [ed. M. Margulies; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967, 411]; according to Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 16, p. 38a, the examination consisted of defloration [ref. courtesy of Jeffrey H. Tigay, University of Pennsylvania and Prof. Judah Goldin]).

Response: Notice the word "ACCORDING TO! This isn't a quote. If Abdallah claimed that this is true, how come he didn't quote the material from the book? WHERE IS YOUR QUOTE? ACCORDING TO ISN'T A QUOTE! Also what he claims is false, this book says that "Isaac examnined Rebekah after they had sexual intercourse!! Mr. Abdallah is guilty of flat out lying!! Also notice that this is the process of defloration. Look at the definition:

def·lo·ra·tion (dfl-rshn)
n.
1.The act of deflowering.
2.Rupture of the hymen, typically in sexual intercourse.

Jim-Defloration is the act of rupturing the hymen during sexual intercourse. Therefore the man can't stick his hand into the woman's vagina according to Mr. Abdallah. How can you have sexual intercourse and then stick your hand and a cloth at the same time in a woman's vagina. Make no sense does it? Then again most of Mr. Abdallah's material makes no sense. Here is the definition of deflowering:

de·flow·er (d-flour)
tr.v. de·flow·ered, de·flow·er·ing, de·flow·ers
1.To take away the virginity of (a woman).
2.To destroy the innocence, integrity, or beauty of; ravage.

Jim-Deflowering dealing with sex is physically taking away a woman's virginity through sexual intercourse unless Mr. Abdallah is saying that having sex can be done with a cloth now. I'm sure the sexual educators and the medical doctors would love to hear this. Deflowering can't be after sexual intercourse and Mr. Abdallah's statments itself disproves his point, look at the first words of deuteronomy 22:13-18

If a man takes a wife and, after laying with her

Jim-What do we see at the beginning of this topic.

1. the man presenting the cloth after laying with his wife.

According to Mr. Abdallah this is deflowering (deflower) according to what deflower means

1. Taking away the virginity, hence having sex to do this.
2. rupturing the hymen through sexual intercourse

What does the verse say:

AFTER SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Jim-The verse he refers to clearly says AFTER LAYING WITH HER. Also Mr. Abdallah has tried to invent a theory by saying that you can have sex your hand to check a woman's virginity. Here is what a virgin is:

A person who hasn't experience sexual intercourse. Can sexual intercourse be done with a finger? NO.

Sexual-Pertaining to, affecting, or characteristic of sex, the sexes or the sex organs and their functions. Having a sex organ.

Jim-Is a finger a sex organ? That is what Mr. Abdallah is trying to promote now. Hence he must invent theories to justfy his unprovable claim. He didn't quote any of the Mishna, he only said "according to". According to what? Where is the specific quote? He can't furnish one since it doesn't say what he claims. Look at his mixup response to the breast sucking issue:

Third, as to Jim's comment after his questions above, only in narration 8.3424 above we see the translation of the word "man" used for Salim. The rest of the translations, 8.3425 through 8.3427, in which 8.3425 was also Aisha's, the word "man" was not used for Salim.

The mistranslation of the word "man" for narration 8.3424 above took place, because the word "man" can be used sometimes for young kids, even today. Perhaps, the translators saw no problem in using the word "man" without paying a close attention to it.

Have the word "man" been used in all of the translations and narrations above, then we would have nothing to argue about here Mr. Jim. But your obvious desperate point to falsely prove pornography in Islam is very weak.

As I mentioned above, the only possible Arabic words for "grown-up man" who at the same time just reached his "puberty" are "Fatan Balegh" where the "n" at the end is a pronunciation of an Arabic punctuation for the word "Fata", or "Ghulam Balegh". "man" here is a mistranslation, because "fatan" and "Ghulam" both literally mean either a "fellow" or a "kid" depending on how the person is referenced. The word "Balegh" literally means: (1) Grown-up; (2) Passed child-hood as a child starts showing signs of man-hood from his actions.

The word "man" was used for young kids back then and is still used today. Notice however in the narrations above, the word "man" was not always used for Salim, the young boy and the freed slave who had no family. "Fellow" or "kid" are the more accurate translation for our understanding of child-hood and man-hood today.

He WAS NOT a grown up man whom the Prophet wanted for him to have sexual relationship with Sahla as it was mistranslated in only ONE English-translated narration and contradicted in the several other English-translated narrations as Jim so bogusly claims above!

Jim-First and foremost Look at his words:

1.Have the word "man" been used in all of the translations and narrations above, then we would have nothing to argue about here Mr. Jim.

2 But your obvious desperate point to falsely prove pornography in Islam is very weak.

Jim-According to him this word must be used in all parts, let us remind Mr. Abdallah that in Song of Songs 7:2 he claimed that navel was vagina, here is what the verse says again:

2 How beautiful are thy steps in sandals, O prince's daughter! The roundings of thy thighs are like the links of a chain, the work of the hands of a skilled workman.
3 Thy NAVEL is like a round goblet, wherein no mingled wine is wanting; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies.

Jim-Do you see vagina here? No, so Mr. Abdallah says that since the word is used once it can't be truth, so why is he given us a verse where the word isn't present in Hebrew, the English translation nor the Jewish translation? Also the Dr. Khan, the Hadith translator didn't translated the Hadith wrong. First he claims to refute Hadith 3424, however the text says

She said: How can I suckle him as he is a GROWN-UP MAN? SECTION 7

Song of Solomon 4:8 Song of Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:7-9 Come with me from Lebanon, MY BRIDE, come with me from Lebanon. Descend from the crest of Amana, from the top of Senir, the summit of Hermon, from the lions' dens and the mountain haunts of the leopards.

Song of Solomon 4:9 Song of Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:8-10 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace.

Song of Solomon 4:10 Song of Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:9-11 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!

Song of Solomon 4:11 Song of Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:10-12 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon.

Song of Solomon 4:12 Song of Solomon 4 Song of Solomon 4:11-13 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.

Song of Solomon 5:1 Song of Solomon 5 Song of Solomon 5:1-2 I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk. Eat, O friends, and drink; drink your fill, O lovers.

Jim-It is obvious that Mr. Abdallah's intent was misplaced, surely there is no need to ask him whether he knows what the word bride means. Also notice that in Song of Solomon 5:1-2 his wife is called "LOVER" which clearly shows that lover can refer to married and unmarried couples. If Mr. Abdallah is trying to make it unmarried why ignore the "bride" part of it? YOu can't read your opinion into any religious text, Islamic, Christian, etc,. and then claim that it verifies what you want it to say. This isn't logic nor is it fair to any person, whether, Jew, Christian or Muslim.

Even if Mr. Abdallah wants to say that he is married to his sister, biological one, his own quote which he quotes from the KJV would refute that since the Shulmanite girl describes also her origin and her nationalilty. Solomon wasn't a Shulamite so Mr. Abdallah in one aspect is self refuting his own analysis by his quote. Also Notice that Mr. Abdallah doesn't offer any Islamic evidence which claims that all sisters and brothers are biological here is what Muhammad said about the word sister:

In Sahih Muslim, the Hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, says:

"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, WHEREAS MOSES WAS BORN WELL BEFORE JESUS. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them."" .

Jim-According to Muhammad this name "sister" "brother" for the fellas were given to pious people and people who came before him. Surely if Mr. Abdallah believed that Solomon was a prophet of God he would marry a pious woman. According to Muhammad, Mr. Abdallah's own example this is for people who are pious along with being for apostles, etc, and acccording to Mr. Abdallah this is porn and his real biological sister.

1. If we accept Mr. Abdallah then we must reject Muhammad as being false.
2. If we accept Muhammad, then we must reject Mr. Abdallah as being false.

Jim-Anyone who has an open mind and who studies religion knows that "sister" never only refers to a biological relative especially in the Near east where Mr. Abdallah is from. Now read what the NIV Commenatary, which Mr. Abdallah loves to use says about this:





Solomon was having sex with his sister-Mr. Abdallah's argument4:9 my sister. For lovers to address each other as "brother" and "sister" WAS COMMON IN THE LOVE POETRY of the ancient Near East (see vv. 10, 12, 5:1) (NIV Study Bible, Footnotes on Solomon, pg. 1002)

Jim-It is hard to believe that Mr. Abdallah, A near eastern immigrant to the West didn't even know this about that part of the world or what Muhammad said. If he loves to use the NIV commentary I find it strange that he quoting an argument with the answer to this argument being right there in the same bible which he claims to verify his point.

SECTION 8

Solomon wasn't married-Mr. Abdallah's argument3:6-11 Perhaps spooken by friends (see 8:5) if so, this section probably potrays the WEDDING PROCESSION OF SOLOMON AND HIS BRIDE APPROACHING THE CITY. (NIV Study Bible, Footnotes on Solomon, pg. 1001)

JIM-Why is there no response to this on his site? Lets see if he post an answer to all my points highlighted in each section, instead of picking and choosing. Part 2 next. This message was found on on this link

Que-Part two of this challenge to "answering Christianity" will be added in the future along with newer things to come. Until this day, Osama Abdallah has failed to answer even one whole point of Jim's challenge. We can only wait and see if he can put his money where his big mouth is. God Bless.

E-mail me Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com

  1. Home Back Home
  2. New Articles Back to New Section.