Curing Osama’s Mantra Syndrome:

Demonstrating how Paul’s writings nullify Osama’s desperate attempts of finding Bible Contradictions

This article is essentially a response to Osama’s claim that ‘Paul contradicted the point of Baptism’. Since Osama repeats himself over and over again, much of what we say here also refutes Osama’s "response" to our earlier article, Paul, Peter and John perfectly agree with one another regarding salvation, which can be found here.

Osama breaks down his article into two sections:

The sections of this article are:

1-  Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism.
2-  They are holy?!

Let us look at the following verses about baptism:

"I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.  (From the NIV Bible, Mark 1:8)"

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.  (From the NIV Bible, Mark 16:16)"

The practice of baptism today is done by literally dipping a person into a small pool of water.  The point from it is not to physically clean him from body sweat and odor, but rather to symbolically show that he had been spiritually purified or sanctified, and to sort of mark a date and time of him being "born again".


We are glad to see Osama admitting or realizing that baptism itself doesn’t save or justify but is a symbol of the believer’s "purification or sanctification." In other words, baptism is the physical act or sign which symbolizes or represents a believer’s regeneration or new life in Christ Jesus our Lord. We shall shortly see that this is precisely what Paul believed and taught.

Osama next provides another example of his mantra syndrome, i.e. that by repeating himself a number of times he will somehow convince his readers that he has provided a meaningful rebuttal and/or a solid argument. It’s worth repeating: no matter how many times a person repeats the same error or lie it will forever be an error or lie.


Let us see how Paul nullified and contradicted the point of baptism:

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.
16  How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Paul considered disbelieving husbands who are married to believing wives as purified/sanctified and holy.  Their children too are considered as such even if they turn out to be disbelievers.

Anyone here must ask the simple question:  If the disbelieving husband becomes a believer and embraces the polytheist trinity paganism, then given the fact that he had already been purified through his physical marriage, would he still have to be purified through the physical baptism?  As we saw above, the whole point from baptism is to give sanctification.  Now, if the disbelieving husband had already been sanctified through his marriage, then what is the point from sanctifying him again?


Osama is guilty of at least three fallacies here. He commits the fallacy of equivocation since he equivocates on the meaning of sanctification, erroneously assuming that it has the same meaning in every context. This leads him to commit another fallacy, namely the root or etymological fallacy; assuming that a word is to be defined or restricted to its root meaning. Because of this erroneous assumption Osama ends up committing the fallacy of false dilemma, i.e. that he falsely thinks that Christians are somehow in a dilemma from which they cannot get out of due to what Osama perceives to be a contradiction in Paul’s theology with the teachings of the Lord Jesus.

As we tried to communicate in our initial rebuttal ( the words Paul uses in describing the status or position of the unbelieving spouse, as well as the children, do not always refer to salvation.

Here is the passage again, this time adding the specific Greek words in parentheses so as to highlight their respective meanings:

"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified (hegiastai) through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified (hegiastai) through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy (hagia)." 1 Cor 7:14 NIV

Hegiastai comes from hagiazo. According to the Blue Letter Bible’s online lexicon the word may mean:

Strong's #37 : hagiazo {hag-ee-ad'-zo}

1) to render or acknowledge to be venerable, to hallow
2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God

a) consecrate things to God
3) to purify a) to cleanse externally
b) to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin
c) to purify internally by renewing of the soul

(Source: BlueLetter Bible, definitions adapted from Thayer's lexicon)

The foregoing should make it sufficiently clear that the verb hagiazo doesn’t always mean salvation or purification. It can simply refer to setting apart or devoting something or someone to God. Here is an example of how this word is used without the implication of purification or salvation:

"Now in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also ones made of wood and of clay, and some are for honorable use, but others rather ignoble. So if someone cleanses himself of such behavior, he will be a vessel for honorable use, SET APART (heegiasmenon), useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. But keep away from youthful passions, and pursue righteousness, faithfulness, love, and peace, in company with others who call on the Lord from a pure heart." 2 Timothy 2:20-22

Here, believers are set apart for the Lord’s use by keeping themselves pure, which means that it is not the setting apart which makes them pure in this context. It is the result of their keeping themselves pure which makes them fit to be set apart by God for his sovereign purposes.

Hagia comes from hagios. The word is used throughout the NT with varying meanings, some of which include:

"Then the devil took him to the holy city (tes hagian polin) and set him on the pinnacle of the temple." Matthew 4:5 ESV

Hagios here refers to Jerusalem having been set apart as God’s dwelling place, the place where his name and presence was made known to his covenant people and eventually to the world.

Throughout time the city became anything but sinless or pure since its Jewish inhabitants had defiled the place by turning to idolatry during the First Temple period, and then rejecting their Messiah during the Second Temple period. This resulted in the destruction of the city and the Temple:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’" Matthew 23:37-39 ESV

"And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, ‘Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.’" Luke 19:41-44 ESV

In light of the foregoing hagios can only be understood in relation to God setting Jerusalem apart for his divine purposes. In other words, the emphasis is on the setting apart aspect of the term, not on the purification aspect.

Here is another example, this time from 1 Corinthians 7 itself, namely verse 34. We include 35 as well:

... and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted (hagia) to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world - how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. NIV

The NIV renders the word hagia as devoted since it is quite obvious from the context that Paul is not speaking of salvation. Paul is using the word in its most basic sense of being set apart fully for the devotion and service of the Lord. Paul is not suggesting that an unmarried virgin is purified physically and spiritually, whereas the married woman is not. This provides another example, from Paul himself no less, that the emphasis of the word is not on purification or salvation, but on the setting apart aspect.

Finally, Osama ends up contradicting himself from one paragraph to the next. In the above he writes:

... then given the fact that he had already been purified through his physical marriage, would he still HAVE TO BE PURIFIED THROUGH THE PHYSICAL BAPTISM? As we saw above, the whole point from baptism is to give sanctification. (capital emphasis ours)

Osama implies that a person is purified or sanctified through physical baptism. But earlier Osama wrote:

The practice of baptism today is done by literally dipping a person into a small pool of water. The point from it is not to physically clean him from body sweat and odor, but rather to SYMBOLICALLY SHOW that he had been spiritually purified or sanctified, and to sort of mark a date and time of him being "born again". (capital emphasis ours)

Here, Osama says that baptism SYMBOLICALLY shows that a person has been spiritually purified, which means that physical baptism doesn’t actually sanctify in the sense of purifying a person. If it actually does purify then it is no longer a symbol. If it is only a symbol then it doesn’t literally purify but is merely symbolic of purification.

So which is it Osama? Does baptism purify or not? Is it symbolic or actual? This is just one of many examples of just how incoherent and weak Osama’s responses truly are.

Osama asserts:

My point here is not focusing on the baptism itself. I am not desperately trying to pick out silly points and make a big deal out of them. My point here is: What is the spiritual wisdom behind the disbelieving husbands being purified through their marriage to the believing wives?

Where is the divine perfection in this?

They are holy?!

We have already seen Paul's terrible choice in considering disbelievers as purified.   He further makes a worse mistake by calling them "holy".  Now, I am very certain that Paul knew what the word "holy" meant.  The question here is:  How can any disbeliever be considered as a "holy" person to any person's religious denomination?


Contrary to Osama’s claim, he is indeed trying desperately "to pick out silly points and make a big deal out of them."

We had already explained how the believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving partner, but apparently it has fallen on deaf ears. Osama either doesn’t want to get the point or simply is unable to understand the issues, so we repeat ourselves one final time.

(Side note: For some strange reason Osama keeps referring to disbelieving husbands when the text refers to both husbands and wives. This may be an indication of Osama’s Islamic conditioning which views wives as second-class citizens and property which the husbands own. We will have more to say on this issue in an upcoming refutation of Osama’s attempt of interacting with my rebuttal of his Women in the Bible and Islam.)

Sanctified in 1 Corinthians 7:14 has two particular meanings. First, the unbelieving partner and children are sanctified or set apart in that they come under a godly influence, which other unbelieving families do not experience. In other words, the believing spouse exposes the family to a moral and spiritual lifestyle which impacts the way they live. Instead of living as heathens and in ungodliness, both the spouse and the children may be influenced to live morally upright lives because of the example set by the believing member.

Secondly, the OT scriptures viewed marriage between believers and heathens as defiling and children of such a union were considered unclean as well (Cf. Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 9:1-2; 10:30; 13:1-3, 23-31). Paul, however, states that under the New Covenant the believing spouse makes the marital union acceptable in the eyes of God.

Osama has a problem with Paul making lawful something which was unlawful during the OT period. He complained in his response to the above statement:

Thank you for showing us this contradiction between Paul and the Old Testament. More proofs that Paul is a confused liar.

We have already demonstrated that it is not Paul who lies, but ‘Allah and his prophet’:

Please read these articles for the early Muslim view of Paul, articles that Osama and others have tried (but failed) to refute:

Paul wasn’t contradicting the OT, but going beyond it. In the OT period Israel was God’s covenant people who were given specific geographical borders that distinguished it from the surrounding pagan nations. God’s covenant people were forbidden from intermarrying with their pagan neighbors in order to preserve their purity and distinctiveness, as well as preserving the land from being defiled:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you - and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession." Deuteronomy 7:1-6 NIV

"Be very strong; be careful to obey all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, without turning aside to the right or to the left. Do not associate with these nations that remain among you; do not invoke the names of their gods or swear by them. You must not serve them or bow down to them. But you are to hold fast to the LORD your God, as you have until now. The LORD has driven out before you great and powerful nations; to this day no one has been able to withstand you. One of you routs a thousand, because the LORD your God fights for you, just as he promised. So be very careful to love the LORD your God. But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, then you may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you." Joshua 23:6-13 NIV

Israel failed to heed God’s command and suffered the consequences as a result of it:

"Now these are the nations that the LORD left, to test Israel by them, that is, all in Israel who had not experienced all the wars in Canaan. It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before. These are the nations: the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites and the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath. They were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses. So the people of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. And their daughters they took to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons, and they served their gods. And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD. They forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth. Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia. And the people of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years." Judges 3:1-8 ESV

"The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. He brought up against them the king of the Babylonians, who killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man nor young woman, old man or aged. God handed all of them over to Nebuchadnezzar. He carried to Babylon all the articles from the temple of God, both large and small, and the treasures of the LORD's temple and the treasures of the king and his officials. They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there. He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah." 2 Chronicles 36:15-21 NIV

This is why the Jews in the book of Nehemiah were told to put away their foreign wives and children, in order to preserve the purity of the land from pagan worship and defilement:

"Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God's name and said: ‘You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?’ One of the sons of Joiada son of Eliashib the high priest was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite. And I drove him away from me. Remember them, O my God, because they defiled the priestly office and the covenant of the priesthood and of the Levites. So I purified the priests and the Levites of everything foreign, and assigned them duties, each to his own task. I also made provision for contributions of wood at designated times, and for the firstfruits." Nehemiah 13:23-31 NIV

Yet, unlike Israel, there were no geographical boundaries given to the Church that needed to be preserved from defilement. More importantly, Paul wasn’t contradicting the OT Law which forbade God’s covenant people from marrying unbelievers since he was commenting on a different situation. Paul was speaking about a person that comes to faith who had married while an unbeliever. In that situation the believer should remain married for the reasons already noted above.

Paul agrees with the OT that believers should marry and live in communion with believers, not unbelievers. Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

Let us now turn the tables on Osama and see if Muhammad followed the OT perfectly.


"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4


"A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah. So do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah, which He makes plain to those who understand." S. 2:229-230

The Ahadith state:

Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Miswar ibn Rifaa al-Quradhi from az-Zubayr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr that Rifaa ibn Simwal divorced his wife, Tamima bint Wahb, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, three times. Then she married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr and he turned from her and could not consummate the marriage and so he parted from her. Rifaa wanted to marry her again and it was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he forbade him to marry her. He said, "She is not halal for you until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.17)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said when asked whether it was permissible for a man to marry again a wife he had divorced irrevocably if she had married another man who divorced her before consummating the marriage, "Not until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.7.18)

What Yahweh calls shameful and detestable, Muhammad calls permissible!

In the case that a husband who has divorced his wife (perhaps due to some temporary anger) and then realizes that this was a big mistake and wants to reconcile with her because he still loves her, Muhammad says that the woman first needs to sleep with another man before they can be re-united.


"The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 'Say to the Israelites: "Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you."'" Leviticus 11:1-4

"Do not eat any detestable thing. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you." Deuteronomy 14:3-7


"Of the cattle are some for burden and some for meat: eat what Allah hath provided for you, and follow not the footsteps of Satan: for he is to you and avowed enemy. (Take) eight (head of cattle) in (four) pairs: of sheep a pair, and of goats a pair; say, hath He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? Tell me with knowledge if ye are truthful: Of camels a pair, and of oxen a pair; say, hath He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? - Were ye present when Allah ordered you such a thing? But who doth more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allah, to lead astray men without knowledge? For Allah guideth not people who do wrong. Say: 'I find not in the Message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's'. But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their willful disobedience: for We are True (in Our ordinances). If they accuse thee of falsehood, say: "Your Lord is full of mercy all-embracing; but from people in guilt never will His wrath be turned back." S. 6:142-147

"The sacrificial camels we have made for you as among the signs from Allah: in them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of Allah over them as they line up (for sacrifice): when they are down on their sides (after slaughter), eat ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment, and such as beg with due humility: thus have We made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful." S. 22:36

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle offered four Rakat of Zuhr prayer at Medina and we were in his company, and two Rakat of the Asr prayer at Dhul-Hulaifa and then passed the night there till it was dawn; then he rode, and when he reached Al-Baida', he praised and glorified Allah and said Takbir (i.e. Alhamdu-lillah and Subhanallah(1) and Allahu-Akbar). Then he and the people along with him recited Talbiya with the intention of performing Hajj and Umra. When we reached (Mecca) he ordered us to finish the lhram (after performing the Umra) (only those who had no Hadi (animal for sacrifice) with them were asked to do so) till the day of Tarwiya that is 8th Dhul-Hijja when they assumed Ihram for Hajj. The Prophet sacrificed many camels (slaughtering them) with his own hands while standing. While Allah's Apostle was in Medina he sacrificed two horned rams black and white in color in the Name of Allah." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 623)

Narrated 'Ali:
The Prophet sent me to supervise the (slaughtering of) Budn (Hadi camels) and ordered me to distribute their meat, and then he ordered me to distribute their covering sheets and skins. 'Ali added, "The Prophet ordered me to supervise the slaughtering (of the Budn) and not to give anything (of their bodies) to the butcher as wages for slaughtering." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 774)

The Torah also forbids certain types of water creatures, specifically those that do not have fins and scales (Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9-10). Islam, on the other hand, claims that ALL water creatures are permissible!

Lawful to you is all water-game, and what the sea brings forth, as a provision for you [who are settled] as well as for travellers, although you are forbidden to hunt on land while you are in the state of pilgrimage. And be conscious of God, unto whom you shall be gathered. S. 5:96 Muhammad Asad

It is He Who has made the sea subject, that ye may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender, and that ye may extract therefrom ornaments to wear; and thou seest the ships therein that plough the waves, that ye may seek (thus) of the bounty of Allah and that ye may be grateful. S. 16:14

Imam Malik records:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Safwan ibn Sulaym from Said ibn Salama of the Bani Azraq from al-Mughira ibn Abi Burda of the tribe of Bani Abd ad-Dar that he had heard Abu Hurayra speak about a man who came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, "Messenger of Allah! We travel by sea and we do not carry much fresh water with us so if we do wudu with it we go thirsty. Can we do wudu with seawater?" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, replied, "Its water is pure, and its dead creatures are halal." (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 2, Number 2.3.12)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Hurayra asked Abdullah ibn Umar about eating what was cast up by the sea and he forbade him to eat it. Then Abdullah turned and asked for a Qur'an, and read, "The game of the sea and its flesh are halal for you." Nafi added, "Abdullah ibn Umar sent me to Abdar-Rahman Ibn Abi Hurayra to say that there was no harm in eating it." (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 25, Number 25.3.9)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad from Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman that some people from al-Jar came to Marwan ibn al-Hakam and asked him about eating what was cast up by the sea. He said, "There is no harm in eating it." Marwan said, "Go to Zayd ibn Thabit and Abu Hurayra and ask them about it, then come to me and tell me what they say." They went to them and asked them, and they both said, "There is no harm in eating it " They returned to Marwan and told him. Marwan said, "I told you."

Malik said that there was no harm in eating fish caught by magians, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "In the sea's water is purity, and that which is dead in it is halal. "

Malik said, "If it is eaten when it is dead, there is no harm in who catches it." (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 25, Number 25.3.12)

In light of the foregoing, Muhammad must have been a confused liar according to Osama’s reasoning.

To establish that sanctified here does not mean salvation we only need to repeat what we had quoted from Paul:

Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife? 1 Corinthians 7:16 ESV

Paul makes it explicit that the unbelieving spouse is NOT saved by the faith of the other partner. As we had noted in our first response, the word Paul uses for salvation in 16 is not hegiastai but sooseis, which comes from soozo and is often used in reference to salvation. We noted that if Paul wanted to imply that the unbeliever was saved as a result of the other spouse’s faith then he could have used soozo instead of hagiazo. We also stated that if Paul were using sanctified in verse 14 to mean salvation then there would have been no need for him to explain to the believing spouse that staying with the unbelieving partner may lead to the latter’s salvation. That the Apostle distinguishes the unbelieving spouses’ sanctification from their salvation shows that neither the word sanctified nor the word holy imply salvation in this particular context.

Osama wonders what is the divine perfection behind Paul’s statements. The answer is very simple really. The New Testament teaches that the marriage covenant is to be honored and the family preserved. If the unbeliever wants to continue, the believer should not divorce him or her. This is unlike Islam which demands the divorce at least in the case of the wife becoming a Muslimah. In Islamic law, a Muslimah can never be married to a non-Muslim. In other words Islam destroys such families. Hence, whereas the NT improves upon the OT revelation the Quran on the other hand digresses from and fails to match the moral teaching of Paul’s inspired theology.


We now turn our attention to Paul’s view of Baptism. Osama claimed that Paul contradicts Mark 1:8 and 16:16 regarding baptism symbolizing sanctification or purification. Here are the passages in question:

"I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with/by/in (en) the Holy Spirit."

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (sootheesetai), but whoever does not believe will be condemned." NIV

What is amazing about Osama’s appeal to these passages is that neither one uses the word sanctified or holy! In fact, Mark 16:16 uses the word sootheesetai which comes from THE VERY SAME EXACT WORD FOR SALVATION THAT PAUL USED IN 1 CORINTHIANS 7:16, namely soozo! Hence, Osama’s appeal to Mark 16:16 actually proves our point and vindicates Paul, refuting Osama’s entire argument! It shows that if Paul intended to convey that the unbeliever was saved as a result of the believing partner’s faith then he would have used the word soozo not hagiazo or hagios.

Second, Osama’s argument is based on the erroneous assumption that the words hagiazo and hagios can only mean pure or holy in the sense of salvation. We have already demonstrated why this is erroneous since these words are used in a broader sense. Osama has so far failed to refute our exegesis and evidence and keeps operating under his mantra syndrome.

Thirdly, here is Paul’s view of the role baptism plays in the salvation experience:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by (en) the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV

"For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in (en eni) one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 ESV

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his." Romans 6:3-5 ESV

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses," Colossians 2:11-13 ESV

Compare this with the following:

"For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—" Philippians 3:3 ESV

The foregoing shows that Paul viewed physical baptism as a symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit in regenerating a sinner and uniting him to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. This perfectly agrees with Mark and the other NT books, and further exposes Osama’s inability to both correctly understand and properly exegete the Holy Bible.

Osama brings up the following irrelevant issue:

Paul really admired the "holy" people and elated their status very high.   He, for instance, considered religious leaders as perfect, sinless and infallible:

"The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment.  (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 2:15)"

How can Paul consider a spiritual leader as a "holy" person, and yet at the same time, consider a disbeliever as "holy" too?!

Also, how can a person in general be considered as purified and holy, and yet be condemned to Hell?

What is the dumb point from calling him "holy" and "pure" if he will still be among the evil and bad people who will (according to the polytheist trinity pagan belief) burn in Hell for Eternity?


Osama provides another example of the fallacy of equivocation, since he assumes that Paul used the word sanctified in the same sense in both passages. We have shown above that the same word can have a different meaning depending on the context and referent. Osama needs to spend more time learning basic Biblical theology, the need to learn how to distinguish different meanings of a given word based on an accurate reading of the context, and also learn to avoid committing gross logical fallacies. These gross errors only serve to prove our point that Osama cannot write rebuttals that offer any real substance and is simply wasting everyone’s time and efforts.

Yet, these rebuttals become necessary so that those Muslims who are duped into thinking that Osama has managed to "refute" something will see that this is the furthest thing from the truth. The only real dumb thing in all of this is Osama’s misreading and inability to accurately comprehend the biblical text.


Osama's rebuttals have proven to be illogical and full of utter nonsense and contradictions. We personally don't care what Osama, Muhammad or the Quran say or believe, but when YOU try to tell us that Paul’s words are not the words of God Almighty based on a misreading and faulty understanding of the texts in question, then the matter becomes different.

A simple examination of Osama's "response" makes it clear that he has failed to prove that Paul’s words do not contain any Divine Wisdom in them whatsoever. Osama has failed miserably to show that Paul’s words are self-contradictory or full of stupidity. If anything it is his responses that are self-contradictory and plain irrational!

In the service of our great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus, the glorious apostle Paul’s and our beloved Master and risen Lord. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We love you forever, glorious and risen King.

Sam Shamoun

Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Further articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page