Asalamù alaýkum wa ramatullah wa barakatu:

If you are one of those treading the path of Islamic Apologetics and are in the habit of indulging in comparative religious talks with Christian Evangelicals it must not have mixed your keen notice the great alacrity and enthusiasm with which they delve in jejune pontifications about the concepts of the Islamic Paradise, especially the promise of 72 hùr (sing: Häwra) to its Muslim male inhabitants. Aside from other prevalent misconceptions about Islam, like the Prophet’s (sallAllahu alayhi wa salãm) marriage to Aishà, this specific topic on the 72 virgins is the most overblown idea that people seems to remember about Islam featuring in both local and international News archives that any scribbler of bad faith could have written on any subject. Commenting on this development, the acclaimed Christian monk, Girolamo Savonarola wrote that:

“Now the religion of Mahomet is absolutely material… It promises to its followers, after this life, nothing but the enjoyment of sensual gratification…” [1]

In the face of this huge Christians’ onslaughts Muslims have generally tried to propitiate this supposed “embarrassment” by making reference to Matthew 19:27-29 where Jesus answered Apostle Peter’s enquiry that what would be their gain for deserting all they owned and followed him with the words that in the regeneration: “everyone who hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father or mother or WIFE… for my sake shall receive an hundredfold…” (KJV) and used this to say that Christians will receive hundred wives at the resurrection which is 28 wives more greater than the 72 promised to the Muslims. Despite the lucid implications of this text, Christians outrightly dismissed this interpretation and instead allied with the conservative view that at the resurrection “they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-5).

In the discussion that follows I wish to do an analysis of the verses in the synoptics in light of the Bible and a look at the concept of an imposed sex-free Paradise.


Although, the NT mentions that God as prepared for those destined for Paradise “things which no eyes have seen, nor ear heard, neither any human mind ever think of” as to the descriptions of the enjoyments meant for its inhabitants Christianity is at a loss. Haven been nurtured in the largely paganistic epicurean Rome, its notions of the make-up of Paradise fails not to display this influence. Paradise is viewed in a merry scene wherein sat God the Father on a throne, Jesus on his right and on the left sat god the holy ghost with the innumerable souls of the blessed in a eternal banquet on the “Lord’s tables” (1 Cor 10:21). Brooding over the vagueness of such a perpetually unmoving scene, the American scientist and author, William Draper remarked:

“… The heaven of the popular, the fashionable Christianity was the old Olympus, from which venerable Greek divinities had been removed. There, on a great white throne, sat God the Father, on his right the son, and then the blessed virgin, clad in a golden robe, and ‘covered with various female adornments;’ on the left sat God the Holy Ghost. Surrounding these thrones were hosts of angels with their harps. The vast expanses beyond was filled with tables, seated at which the happy spirits of the just, enjoyed a perpetual banquet. If, satisfied with this picture of happiness, ILLITERATE PERSONS NEVER INQUIRED HOW THE DETAILS OF SUCH A HEAVEN WERE CARRIED OUT, OR HOW MUCH PLEASURE THE COULD BE IN THE ENNUI OF SUCH AN ETERNALLY UNCHANGING SCENE, IT WAS NOT SO WITH THE INTELLIGENT…” (emphasis added) [2]

To make the issue more compounded, the Catholic Encyclopedia, while discussing what will be the reason for the impeccability of the blessed said that in this “Paradise of bliss” God will cause displeasure to its inhabitants:

“… Because God may still DISPLEASE the blessed soul, in various ways, e.g by REFUSING a higher degree of beatitude, or by letting persons whom that soul love die in sin and sentencing them to eternal torment…” [3]

Contrast this to the Islamic Paradise where there will be absolutely no cause for the slightest displeasure:

Abu Sa’íd Al Khùdri reported that the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wa salãm) said: “Indeed, Allah will say to the people of Paradise… ‘Are you pleased ?’ They will say: ‘why should we not be pleased when You have given us what You have not given anyone from Your creation?…” (Jami al Tirmidhï, volume 4, Book 12, Number 2555; Sahih Muslim Book 40, Number 6787).


The verse quoted above from the 3 synoptic gospels argues that the inhabitant of heaven will not marry just like the angels. This is in sharp contradiction with what we see in Genesis 6 where a group of biblical angels, got tied of a life of celibacy and have to desert their öiketerion (habitation) to screw the daughters of men:

“That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (verse 2)

Since antiquity, the “sons of God” that copulated with the human females are believed to be angels (as is evident in the Book of Enoch). However, due to the negative implications of this verse on the NT words ascribed to Jesus, contemporary scholars have tried to camouflage the actual meaning and it is here we are treated to a master class of dialectic acrobates.

In the 4th century AD, Juihùs Afracanus, proposed the theory that “sons of God -bene ha-elohiým” are the righteous sons of Seth who intermarried with the unrighteous and decadent daughters of Cain. As a consequence of this mixed marriage of ethically different species God caused a universal deluge* to efface the whole of mankind. Champions of this view are almost all contempory scholars e.g Matthew Henry, Jamieson Fausset and Gills in their respective commentaries of the Bible. This may sound appealing at first but there are a number of problems with this claim.

Firstly, no where in the Bible was it indicated that only the sons of Seth were righteous or only the daughters of Cain were unrighteous. This is a delusion of Juihùs to, by all means, look for someone to cast the blame on. The Bible states categorically that:

“… for ALL flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12) and that only in the household of Noah did God found righteousness (Gen 7:1).

Secondly, nowhere did we find in the Bible that God destroyed a people because of mixed marriage. But we see God ordering the Hebrews to keep Midianite virgins as wives (Num 31:17-18). Advocating this view will mean that God fails to be consistent and authorized mixed marriage, for which He destroyed the whole mankind, for the Hebrews.

Evidence shows that early Christian Church Fathers, like Justin Martyr, Iranæus, Athenagoras, Eusebius, Tertullian, Cyprian etc believed “sons of God” to be angels [4] [5]. Also the Septuagint (LXX) translates bene ha-elohiým as angels (angellös) stating the prevailing position of Jews in the 3rd century BC Alexander [6]. In case you don’t know, the septuagint is the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek in the 3rd century BC which was translated by 72 Jewish scholars at the order of Ptolemy Philadelphus for the Alexandrian museum. It precedes the standard Masoretic Text (MT) by over 700-1000 years and was the only translation available at the time of Jesus. So this in itself speaks volumes on the actual meaning of bene ha-elohiým. Any other attempt at presenting alternative views are, in the words of a Christian writer, a “rape of the Biblical text” [7]. A summary of this whole contention was given in the Appendix of “The Companion Bible” as thus:

“This is (sic) why angels are called “sons of God” in every other place where the
expression is used in the
Old Testament. Job 1: 6; 2:1; 38:7. Psalms 29:1; 89:6. Daniel 3:25. Moreover, in Genesis 6: 2 the Septuagint renders it “angels”. Angels are called “spirits” (Psalm 104:4. Hebrews 1:7,14), for spirits are created by God.That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6. The nature of their fall is clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own οἰκητήριον (oiketerion )… The nature of their sin is stated to be “in like manner” to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7…” [8]

The resultant conclusion is that angels have sex and perhaps the words in the gospels only mean that they would be sex in heaven but without marriage. If this will be the case then the Christians’ Paradise will be the most promiscuous place you can ever imagine.



When Islam mentions that there would be intimacy between couples in Paradise Christians went into unreasonable frenzy and laid ridiculous attacks on Mu_hammad (sallAllahu alayhi wa salãm) when the truth of the matter is they are the most sexually immoral in the history of man.

In 2004, a John Jay College of Criminal Justice survey revealed that over 4,392 priests and deacon had charges of child abuse laid against them in the United States with over 11,000- 14,000 priest caused victims [9]. Lest you think this rape sagas by priests are only by the “evil catholics” it should be mentioned that cases of sexual abuse in the U.S are perpetrated mostly by Protestant clergies at a minimum of 70 per day, according to another survey by Christian Ministry Resources (CMR) [10]

If such level of sexual immorality is displayed in this word how much more will be done in this heaven is anybody’s guess !.

Allah Knows Best!

* There is nothing like a universal flood and the Bible erred in this regard because history shows that the dating of the flood using biblical datas corresponds to a time that uninterrupted civilizations flourished in other part of the world. The Qùr’an distinguished that those destroyed were qawmù Nuh (people of Noah). See “The Bible, The Qùr’an and Science” by Maurice Bucaille, p. 232.


[1]- “Triumph Of The Cross ” by Girolamo Savonarola, chapter 7 on the “Utter Irrationality of The Mahometan Religion”; London: Sands & Co. 1901

[2]- “History Of The Conflict Between Religion And Science” by John William Draper, 25th edition, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Thrübner & Co Ltd, Chapter 3.

[3]- Catholic Encyclopedia under “Heaven”

[4]- http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

[5]- http://www.pbcofdecaturalabama.org/OBMink/nephilim.htm

[6]- Taken from a brochure titled “The Meaning of ‘Sons of God’ In Genesis 6:1-4” by Trevor J. Major.

[7]- http://www.creationhistory.com/nephilim.shtml

[8]- Appendix 23 of The Companion Bible

[9]- http://articles.philly.com/2004-02-28/news/25375717_1_victims-and-priests-john-jay-study-abuser-priests

[10]- http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html — with Mohamed Rafiq U R and 13 others.

By: Baruwa Damilola Moshood

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • kenya  On December 4, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    When writing any verse from the Bible,i expect you to quote it exactly as it is written,dont change it to your words cos it is misleading.1st corinthians 10:21 says You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too;you cannot have a part in both the Lords table and the table of demons.(NIV).,Job chapter 1:6,says One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord,and satan also came with them.(NIV).I can go on and on cos nothing you wrote here makes sense,believe in what you believe,and leave pple alone with their beliefs.We shall all stand individually on d day of judgement.

  • Muslim  On December 11, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    Kenya, I can understand that none of the writing made sense to you because you lack the adequate senses to comprehend the post in the first place because 1 Corinthian 10:21 is meant only to show that the souls of the dead christians will be sitting in front of God’s throne in a perpetual banquet and your expression on Job 1:6 is a fine example of your innocent ignorance since its citation here serves the purpose of ONLY showing that the expression bene ha-elohiým is used for angels in every other places it occur in the old Testament as amply expressed in the words of The Companion Bible as thus:

    ““This is (sic) why angels are

    So you the problem lies with your low comprehension capacity. Learn to understand first, thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: