Muslim leaders have a grand agenda: to keep as many Muslims as possible away from the Bible. When this can’t be done, they poison their minds against it so much that when they open a Bible, their minds are already so biased against it that they don’t want to learn anything meaningful from it.
This is how these bearded men consolidate their hold on their followers. But a truth-seeking Muslim must be ready to shake off such mind-numbing manacles.
There are some “porn in the Bible” shock quotes these Muslim leaders cite:
“Your Breasts are like two Fawns”
Here is the full passage (Song of Solomon chapter 4):
1 “How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are doves. Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead. 2 Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn, coming up from the washing. Each has its twin; not one of them is alone. 3 Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like the halves of a pomegranate. 4 Your neck is like the tower of David, built with elegance; on it hangs a thousand shield, all of them shields of warriors. 5 Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies. 6 Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, I will go to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of incense. All beautiful you are, my darling; there is no flaw in you”.
Unless one’s mind has been defiled with a perverse spirit (which is prevalent in Islam) there’s nothing pornographic about this passage. It’s a discussion between two lovers: Solomon and the Shulamite bride.
The Lion Handbook to the Bible (David and Pat Alexander, London, 1983, 368) notes that: “The bridegroom glories in the beauty of his bride. The imagery is oriental, but love the world over shares the same delighted appreciation of the human form.”
Finnis Dake wrote: “The Song [of Solomon] was read annually at the Passover, as Ruth read at Pentecost … It is a poem giving the story of Solomon and a Shulamite – a young woman whom he wanted to make his queen of queens, but who was already pledged to a shepherd of Shunem” (Dake Bible Commentary, 2001, 1133).
“By far the most common common interpretation of the Song of Solomon is that it is a collection of lyrics celebrating human love. This approach, based on affinities with ancient Near Eastern love poetry, seeks to do justice to the plastic language and sensuous imagery that reveal vivid imagination and artistic skill … [T]he Song was a collection of songs assembled as a repertoire for wedding celebrations. The vivid portrayal of the body of the woman (4.1-7; 6.4-7; 7.1-6) and of the man (5.10-16) resemble Arabic wafs sung at weddings. This includes vivid metaphors: hair falling like descending flocks of mountain goats; teeth sparkling like newly shorn goats; cheeks glistening like the inside of a pomegranate covered by a thin veil” (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, eds. Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, Oxford University Press, 1993, 708).
“There is no question that the book is a poetic drama of a lover’s longing for his beloved and of her willing complicity … Furthermore, it should be noted that, though the poetic imagery comes close at times to suggesting the lover and his beloved have in fact come together and joined themselves in that union that they so lovingly describe, the structure of the book itself suggests that has not yet happened. The book, in fact, closes with the words of the beloved, still wooing her lover to come away with her…” (John H. Sailhamer, NIV Compact Bible Commentary, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2003, 359).
Muslims love using the Songs of Solomon as “shock quotes” because of a fallacy of equivocation underlying their arguments. They believe the Quran was authored by Allah himself in heaven – its words are heavenly and purely divine – that it merely descended to earth like snow flakes. So they attempt to force this mythical idea onto the Bible as well, but the Bible is God’s Word penned by over 40 men inspired by the Holy Spirit.
God inspired His Word in various ways, thus the Bible consists of different types of literature and modes of expression.
Furthermore, God Himself created our bodies and instituted marriage in the garden of Eden, He doesn’t find our bodies and beautiful expressions of love between two lovers offensive.
On the other hand, the Quran, purportedly Allah’s words, resorts to sexually graphic imagery. For example:
“And (remember) that lady who guarded her sexual parts [fajahaa]. So We breathed (introduced) into her out of Our Spirit…” (Sura 21:91)
Here, Allah uses a crude Arabic reference to Mary’s vagina, suggesting he breathed into it. In another place he says:
“Surely for the god fearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards, and maidens of swelling breasts like of age and a cup overflowing” (Q 78:33)
“They will recline (with ease) upon coaches arranged in ranks, and We shall wed them maidens, with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.” (Q 52:22)
The Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Sura 56:35-37 says Muslim men “will be able to have sexual intercourse with a hundred virgins in one day.” How fantastic.
So while Muslims hate the language of love used by a couple in the Bible, they gloat in the fact that their Allah will be sitting on his throne day and night, watching a porn orgy of Muslim men having sex with hot virgins accompanied with gross debaucheries while he cheers them on.
Needless to say, such a miserable deity is not worthy of worship.
“Women’s Vaginas taste like Wine”
A Muslim named Osama Abdullah wrote on his website:
“The bible sings glory songs about not only incestuous relationships but also about women’s vaginas and breasts tasting like ‘WINE‘
He quotes Songs of Solomon 7:2 “Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies.”
Even a mere glance at this passage fails to prove what this Muslim porn detective is saying. How exactly did he reach his conclusion? Did he examine any Hebrew lexicon or Bible commentary? He provided no documentation or footnote to back up his claim. But, wait for it, he refers us to a TV programme as proof!
According to the documentary film ‘Sex in the Bible’ on A & E TV station, the Hebrew translation to ‘your naval’ is referring to the woman’s VAGINA
What reasoning person would accept this as evidence? This is a rhetoric on the same level as a gossip tabloid. This happens when people are so desperate to attack the Bible yet still struggle to get a grasp on what to use.
Unfortunately, the Muslim drones visiting this website don’t have the time to ask for solid evidence either.
These are folks who will stoop to the lowest pit just to sling a mud at the Bible. They know nothing about the rich genre, style and figures of speech used in the Songs of Solomon.
In Hebrew literature, passages are often structured such that the second line further explains the meaning of the first sentence. For example:
“Your NAVEL is like a round goblet which never lacks mixed wine.
Your BELLY is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies.” (SOS 7:2)
Notice the parallel between the navel and the belly, which clearly shows that the text is referring to the bride’s belly, NOT her vagina.
Solomon’s reference to wine and wheat (associated with fertility) could suggest his admiration for his lover’s womb wherein a child is woven and conceived.
According to the Brown-Driver Briggs Hebrew English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Vol. II, 957), the word navel in Hebrew is sho’rer and it refers to the umbilical cord.
The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament gives a derivative of words derived from shor (navel) which are: “umbilical cord [Pro. 3:8], ‘shera’ meaning bracelet [Gen. 24:22] ‘sharir’ meaning sinew or muscle [Job 40:16].” No scholarly work translates shorer as vagina.
Muslim critics like Osama Abdullah have only the statements of a TV programme in their armoury. Anybody can prove just about anything from a TV show.
In fact, until the day this man and his anti-Christian armies of the night present a scholarly, documented evidence to back up their accusation (which is impossible anyway), every honest, rational person must discarded the claim of “women’s genitals taste like wine in the Bible” as a slander cooked up from Hell.
Interestingly, this same Islamic website used Song of Solomon 5:10-16 in another article in an attempt to prove that the Bible foretold the coming of Muhammad! Isn’t this wonderful?
So based on their claim that the Bible is “full of porn,” that means Muhammad is a porn star, since he’s mentioned there. You see, this showcases the hypocrisy and inconsistencies that have become the trademarks of Islam.
Muslims conveniently appeal to the Bible as a divine revelation when they want to “prove” their Muhammad or Islam in it. But when it no longer serves their purposes in promoting their false prophet and his false religion, they virulently attack it as a “filthy, slutty book, full of porn.”
To our Muslim friends who love to rehash such slander, I’ve got news for you: the porn is not in the Bible, it’s in your minds and you need some help.