Islam is a false religion per Quran itself.

[KWED]

I like the way you jump to my ‘instruction’ of ‘1,2,3…GO!’ to display your ignorance (again)!! Should I now throw a stick for you to fetch?? I am sorry, I should not have said that. The fact is I do appreciate your quick response to my comments. I wish I could do the same. I am sure this is your full-time job and have nothing else better to do, BUT, I do have other priorities, and responding to ignorance is just NOT my priority, BUT I do read your comments and try to respond to your ignorance whenever I can find the time.

As to your question ‘is this the best response…?’, well, it IS the best response to someone who is ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally!! Glad you agree.

And stop cracking jokes about you ‘presenting a variety of points supported by rational argument and evidence’, LOL, let me say it again – you have come out with zero-point other than displaying your ignorance and your inability to think logically and rationally.

When you keep getting knocked down, sometimes the wisest thing is to just stay down.

Here’s what the Quran said –
"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess" - 4:24

"Successful believers; are those who guard their chastity; Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess" - 23:5-6

"O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives; and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you" - 33:50

The key phrase in those verses is whom ‘the right hand possesses’. If Allah permits those female slaves solely to be kept as sex slaves only, then Allah would NOT have to use the phrase ‘whom the right hand possesses’.

Straw man.
I have never claimed that the female slaves and captives are only to be used for sex. However, as you admit, they can be used for sex by their owner/captor/

I have already explained to you what ‘the right hand possesses’ means, but, knowing you are incapable to think logically and rationally, let me repeat it, although I know it will be a waste of time.
Anyway, ‘what the right hands possessed’ is the reference to the female slaves whom you rightfully and lawfully owned.

Yes, I agree. The Quran permits Muslims to legally own other humans as property (slaves). And you think this is morally acceptable.

‘Rightfully and lawfully owned’ means these female captives are not (to be made) sex slaves but, to get intimate with them, they must rightfully become one’s wives and that’s what the above verses are saying.

Wrong. The verses differentiate between wives and slaves. If Muslim men can only have sex with their wives, it would not separately mention slaves/captives. This is confirmed in the hadith already quoted. Muhammad's men were worried about committing zina with their female captives, so Muhammad revealed the verse saying it's ok to have sex with married women if they are your property.

What the ISIS or those so-called Muslim extremists did has nothing to do with Islam,

The Quran and sunnah permit Muslim men to use their female slaves/captives for sex. ISIS do that, citing those verses and hadith as justification. How can you claim that their actions "have nothing to do with Islam" ?

as ISIS, like you, is just as ignorant of the TRUE teaching of Islam.

The "true teaching of Islam" is what is in the Quran and sunnah.
Using female slaves/captives for sex is in the Quran and sunnah.
Therefore it is part of the "true teaching of Islam".
QED

Blaming Islam and God is like blaming the traffic lights for the frequent accidents when it is the motorists who frequently jump the red lights and disregard the traffic rules are the causes of the accidents.

Poor analogy.
Blaming god and Islam for what ISIS do is like blaming Farage and the Tories for Brexit.

 

[JerryMyers]

When you keep getting knocked down, sometimes the wisest thing is to just stay down.

Straw man.
I have never claimed that the female slaves and captives are only to be used for sex. However, as you admit, they can be used for sex by their owner/captor/

Yes, I agree. The Quran permits Muslims to legally own other humans as property (slaves). And you think this is morally acceptable.

Wrong. The verses differentiate between wives and slaves. If Muslim men can only have sex with their wives, it would not separately mention slaves/captives. This is confirmed in the hadith already quoted. Muhammad's men were worried about committing zina with their female captives, so Muhammad revealed the verse saying it's ok to have sex with married women if they are your property.

The Quran and sunnah permit Muslim men to use their female slaves/captives for sex. ISIS do that, citing those verses and hadith as justification. How can you claim that their actions "have nothing to do with Islam" ?

The "true teaching of Islam" is what is in the Quran and sunnah.
Using female slaves/captives for sex is in the Quran and sunnah.
Therefore it is part of the "true teaching of Islam".
QED

Poor analogy.
Blaming god and Islam for what ISIS do is like blaming Farage and the Tories for Brexit.

LOL…Another grand display of ignorance, and the inability to think logically and rationally!! I am sure you can’t help yourself in this matter!!

As I have said if you want to continue making a fool of yourself, hey, I am not stopping you… in fact. I am enjoying it!!
Tell you what, let me prove that again.. when I snap my fingers, you give me another display of ignorance, inability to think logically and rationally .. don’t disappoint me now… OK, SNAP!! Go!

 

[KWED]

LOL…Another grand display of ignorance, and the inability to think logically and rationally!! I am sure you can’t help yourself in this matter!!

As I have said if you want to continue making a fool of yourself, hey, I am not stopping you… in fact. I am enjoying it!!
Tell you what, let me prove that again.. when I snap my fingers, you give me another display of ignorance, inability to think logically and rationally .. don’t disappoint me now… OK, SNAP!! Go!

The only way you can salvage any self-respect or save any face is to try and respond to my points.
But you can't. You have realised that you simply don't have the equipment and have given up.
I'll give you another chance...

Do you consider slavery and using female slaves/captives for sex to be morally acceptable, in principle? - Yes or no?

Come on, cat got your tongue? Surely it can't be that difficult. After all, you are the one who kept claiming the moral high ground. Should be an easy one to answer...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you consider slavery and using female slaves/captives for sex to be morally acceptable, in principle? - Yes or no?

There is no "yes or no" answer.
A war situation is an exception.

Your cherry-picking of verses to further your agenda is more than obvious.

We know that you think that adultery is OK, as long as people are "adults" [ over 18? ] and is by mutual consent.
Your idea of morality is one in which marriage is no longer meaningful.

 

[KWED]

There is no "yes or no" answer.
A war situation is an exception.

In which case, you believe slavery an using female slaves/captives for sex is morally acceptable, in principle.
Or you believe it is morally wrong, in principle.

But anyway, why do you think that it is morally acceptable for Russian soldiers to use female Ukrainian captives for sex?

Your cherry-picking of verses to further your agenda is more than obvious.

What are you on about?
If we are discussing the issue of using female slaves/captives for sex, then obviously I am going to highlight those verses and hadith that explicitly permit such actions. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

We know that you think that adultery is OK, as long as people are "adults" [ over 18? ] and is by mutual consent.
Your idea of morality is one in which marriage is no longer meaningful.

Non sequitur. That would be like saying that because some cars break down, driving is no longer meaningful.
Of course marriage is meaningful to those who consider it important. Even those who don't understand that others find it meaningful. Some people have affairs and yet are still fully committed to their marriage.
What's more, both the Quran and sunnah allow Muslim men to commit adultery with their female slaves and captives. Can you explain why that is perfectly fine but doing the same thing with a free woman is morally unacceptable.
However, why should finding marriage meaningful mean that people who have affairs should be brutally tortured to death. You still haven't managed to explain that.

You see, my idea of morality does not involve killing people for mutually consensual actions which do not harm anyone.
TBH, I really can't see how you can claim torturing a woman to death for having consensual sex is in any way morally superior to just letting her get on with it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..why do you think that it is morally acceptable for Russian soldiers to use female Ukrainian captives for sex?

Do you find unprovoked war morally acceptable?
Do you find slavery of one nation over another acceptable?

Not everybody behaves well in this world.
There are plenty of verses in the Qur'an that tell us how to behave.
..but you only highlight historical practice of slavery and "under-age" marriage and so on.

In this era, people think that casual sex is acceptable, as we have developed various forms of reliable contraception.
You live in this era, and can't seem to understand why family law is so important. You just talk about "sex", as if it is all about pleasure and nothing else. People are becoming spiritually blind, and western society is collapsing.

 

[stevecanuck]

'Cherry picking' definition according to Islamoapologists:

Claiming the Qur'an says 'x', and then providing verses that prove the Qur'an says 'x'.

 

[KWED]

x

Interesting that you avoided the question.
You claimed that using female captives for sex is acceptable "in a war situation".
There is "a war situation" in Ukraine.
Russian soldiers are using captive Ukrainian women for sex.
By your argument, you find that morally acceptable.

Do you find unprovoked war morally acceptable?

No.

Do you find slavery of one nation over another acceptable?

No.
You see, when you have a coherent moral framework, you don't find yourself tied in knots trying to justify the morally unacceptable.
You should try it.

There are plenty of verses in the Qur'an that tell us how to behave.
..but you only highlight historical practice of slavery and "under-age" marriage and so on.

If you can ignore or contextualise the passages that promote or condone the bad stuff, why don't you do the same with the nice passages? Again, you to be consistent rather than trying to find excuses to justify the morally unacceptable.

Also, you are merely employing the "Jimmy Savile Defence". Do you excuse all the child rape because of all the millions he raised for charity?

In this era, people think that casual sex is acceptable, as we have developed various forms of reliable contraception.

If the sex is adult, informed and consensual, to is no one's business but those engaging in it.

You live in this era, and can't seem to understand why family law is so important.

Of course family law is important. It helps protect the rights and safety of supposes and children.

You just talk about "sex", as if it is all about pleasure and nothing else.

Where did I say that?

People are becoming spiritually blind, and western society is collapsing.

Au contraire. People are becoming spiritually awakened, and have been for some time. The grip of intolerant, patriarchal, ancient superstition is weakening. We now understand that any "spiritual" aspect to life comes from within ourselves and we don't need to slavishly follow irrational dogma to satisfy some belligerent, unstable god. Society is as safe, healthy and rewarding as it has ever been - especially in liberal secular democracies. You just seem very out of touch with reality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If the sex is adult, informed and consensual, to is no one's business but those engaging in it..

That's total nonsense..
It violates the family, and enrages other family members, and so is anti-social.
The police are continually being called out in the UK for disturbances caused by illegal sexual relationships and alcohol.

What you are saying is that fathers and brothers and husbands and wives shouldn't care what their relatives / spouses get up to.
You're lost mate.

 

[KWED]

That's total nonsense..

So who decides when and with whom a woman can have sex? Her husband?

It violates the family,

How do you mean?

and enrages other family members,

Lots of things annoy other family members. Should they all be illegal?

and so is anti-social.

No it isn't. Society may not even be aware of it.

The police are continually being called out in the UK for disturbances caused by illegal sexual relationships

No idea what you are on about here. A married person having sex with someone other than their spouse is not illegal.
Also, the police are regularly called to disturbances between married couples, so your argument fails anyway.

and alcohol.

Who mentioned alcohol? We are talking about whether people having exit-marital sex should be killed or not.
You believe they should, yet you keep claiming to be my moral superior. Surely you can see the problem there. You believe that a woman in an abusive marriage who finds love in the arms of another should be tortured to death. Any civilised person can see that is morally abhorrent.

What you are saying is that fathers and brothers and husbands and wives shouldn't care what their relatives / spouses get up to.

Firstly, of course a husband or wife should care what their spouse is up to. However, they cannot control what their partners do, however much you want to be able to.
Second, why are you bringing fathers and brothers into a discussion about adultery? That's pretty weird, tbh. Are you saying that fathers and brothers are having sex with female relatives, or that they should be able to control what their daughter/sister does in their marriage? Either way, not a good look.

And I notice that you are still avoiding most of my points and arguments. I wonder why...

 

[muhammad_isa]

We are talking about whether people having exit-marital sex should be killed or not..

That might be what you are thinking about .. I have not mentioned killing..

The best thing is that people take sexual relationships very seriously. In a society where adultery is legal, a lot of people tend not to.

Time will tell what will happen over the next 100 years.
..but it looks like more enmity between sexes rather than love.

 

[KWED]

That might be what you are thinking about .. I have not mentioned killing..

But the religion that you follow and claim is perfect prescribes killing them, so don't try and duck the issue.

The best thing is that people take sexual relationships very seriously. In a society where adultery is legal, a lot of people tend not to.

So you think adultery is acceptable as long as the participants have thought seriously about what they are doing.

Time will tell what will happen over the next 100 years.
..but it looks like more enmity between sexes rather than love.

Don't understand your point here. There is neither enmity nor love between the sexes as a general rule. Individuals will have individual attitudes. It is nonsensical to claim that all men must love all women, and vice versa.

And still ignoring most of my posts, I see. Hmm...

 

[JerryMyers]

The only way you can salvage any self-respect or save any face is to try and respond to my points.
But you can't. You have realised that you simply don't have the equipment and have given up.
I'll give you another chance...

Do you consider slavery and using female slaves/captives for sex to be morally acceptable, in principle? - Yes or no?

Come on, cat got your tongue? Surely it can't be that difficult. After all, you are the one who kept claiming the moral high ground. Should be an easy one to answer...

LOL! You are a natural comedian!!

Didn’t I tell you I wish I could respond to your comments as quickly as you responded to mine?? The fact is I have other responsibilities too and responding to someone who is ignorant and lack the ability to think logically and rationally in forums is just NOT on my priority list!!

I know this is your full-time job as you probably do not have any other things to do, BUT that does NOT mean others are also in the same pathetic situation as you are!! So stop flattering yourself which is, to be honest, rather hilarious. But you are quite right in one thing - responding to someone who is ignorant and lacks the ability to think logically and rationally like yourself can be quite difficult at times!!

And to your question relating to ‘using female slaves/captives for sex’ to which I have responded, but, I will respond again - do you know what the phrase ‘what the right hand possessed’ mean'?? If you do not know or refuse to know (despite the fact that I have explained it to you), then all your ‘knowledge’ on female captives being used for sex is just conjectures and demonstrations of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally. The only way you can salvage any self-respect or save any face is to show me the Quran verse(s) or hadiths that literally have the word ‘for sex’ or ‘sex-slave’ in matters relating to female captives. But you can't.

By the way, you are not qualified to judge on morality as anyone who said you can have sex with anyone’s wife as long as its consensus cannot be a person of moral himself. Do you have a wife??

Go ahead and give me another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally. Surely it can't be that difficult. After all, you have been displaying your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally again and again and again…. Should be an easy one to give another rerun of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally… now do as you are told .... on the count of three…1, 2, 3 ..SNAP! GO! (this is fun!)

 

[KWED]

LOL! You are a natural comedian!!

I see you are still incapable of answering a simple question on moral standards. Presumably that is because you realise you are between the ideological rock and a hard place that religionists so often find themselves.
Condemn slavery and using female captives for sex and you are condemning Allah and Muhammad.
Condone them, and you look like a medieval barbarian.

Didn’t I tell you I wish I could respond to your comments as quickly as you responded to mine?? The fact is I have other responsibilities too and responding to someone who is ignorant and lack the ability to think logically and rationally in forums is just NOT on my priority list!!

Speed of response is not the issue. It is that when you do respond, you don't actually say anything.

And to your question relating to ‘using female slaves/captives for sex’ to which I have responded, but, I will respond again

Yes, and I dealt with your response in detail. You then failed to respond to my rebuttal of your argument.

- do you know what the phrase ‘what the right hand possessed’ mean'??

Once again - it means "slaves or captives owned as property". Really not sure what your point is.

show me the Quran verse(s) or hadiths that literally have the word ‘for sex’ or ‘sex-slave’ in matters relating to female captives. But you can't.

Is that really the best you can do? It's hilarious. So the Quran is all metaphor and allegory and needs to be understood in context - but now, suddenly it is entirely literal and only means exactly what it says, if it doesn't explicitly say something in specific words, then it doesn't mean it.

But anyway, here is a sahih hadith from Bukhari...
"We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah (4:24) was revealed. Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.''
That clear enough for you?

By the way, you are not qualified to judge on morality as anyone who said you can have sex with anyone’s wife as long as its consensus cannot be a person of moral himself. Do you have a wife??

You still seem to be labouring under the illusion that it is anyone's business but the woman's. She can have sex with whoever she likes, but other's can't simply decide to have sex with her.
If my wife wanted to have sex with another man or woman, I might not like it but I couldn't stop her. And I certainly wouldn't kill her for doing it.
The moral position is to accept that she has the free will and right to make her own choices.
The immoral position is for the husband to tell her what she can and can't dodo, and then kill her if she doesn't obey him.

Feel free to continue making yourself look foolish. I'm happy to continue shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[JerryMyers]

I see you are still incapable of answering a simple question on moral standards. Presumably that is because you realise you are between the ideological rock and a hard place that religionists so often find themselves.
Condemn slavery and using female captives for sex and you are condemning Allah and Muhammad.
Condone them, and you look like a medieval barbarian.

Yet ANOTHER display of ignorance and the inability to think logically and rationally!!! It’s amazing how you do this day in and day out without any feeling of shame, and worse still, you think you are right!! Now that’s what I call arrogant stupidity!! But I guess that’s the best anyone who is ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally can do.. and you prove it time and time again.

Keep on doing that and you will look as ignorant as a stone-age man!

Speed of response is not the issue. It is that when you do respond, you don't actually say anything.

Yeah, speed of response is not the issue, the issue is you have presented NOTHING (other than a display of ignorance and the inability to think logically and rationally) for anyone to respond!!

Yes, and I dealt with your response in detail. You then failed to respond to my rebuttal of your argument.

You mean you responded by displaying your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally?? If doing that over and over again means you responded ‘in detail’, ok, I give you that! See, who said I cannot agree with you??

Once again - it means "slaves or captives owned as property". Really not sure what your point is.

And yet another display of your ignorance. So, yup, to someone who is ignorant, that’s what it means…

Really not sure why you keep displaying your ignorance. Is it something that comes naturally to you???

Is that really the best you can do? It's hilarious. So the Quran is all metaphor and allegory and needs to be understood in context - but now, suddenly it is entirely literal and only means exactly what it says, if it doesn't explicitly say something in specific words, then it doesn't mean it.

But anyway, here is a sahih hadith from Bukhari...
"We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah (4:24) was revealed. Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.''
That clear enough for you?

LOL.. is that the best you can do?? Your ignorance is really getting annoying!! It’s like watching a monkey make a fool of itself which may be hilarious at first but after a while of the same performance over and over again, it gets annoying!!

Anyway, let me go through this hadith again which ignorant like you like to use to slander Islam and create the perception that Islam allows rape.

Let’s see what Quran 4:24 really says –
“And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise” – Sahih International

Let’s see another verse where the phrase ‘those your right hands possess’ is used –

“And serve God and do not associate anything with Him and BE GOOD to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and neighbour who is not of kin, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS; surely God does not love him who is proud, boastful” – Quran 4:36

Clearly, Allah is commanding Muslims to BE GOOD to the parents, orphans, the needy, and the neighbors, … AND THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS.

Unless you think raping is an act of BEING GOOD to those who are raped, then any rational and logical-thinking person will know raping in general, and in this case, raping of women captives of war is forbidden in Islam. For these Muslim captors to get intimate with these women, these captive women must be ‘what their right hands possessed’, and in this case, these women must be legally married to them. Is that clear enough for you?? Or do you still choose to be ignorant??

So, stop making a fool of yourself (especially to the Muslims) over and over again by trying to pretend to be an expert in a field which clearly you’ve ZERO knowledge of!!

You still seem to be labouring under the illusion that it is anyone's business but the woman's. She can have sex with whoever she likes, but other's can't simply decide to have sex with her.
If my wife wanted to have sex with another man or woman, I might not like it but I couldn't stop her. And I certainly wouldn't kill her for doing it.
The moral position is to accept that she has the free will and right to make her own choices.
The immoral position is for the husband to tell her what she can and can't dodo, and then kill her if she doesn't obey him.
Feel free to continue yourself look foolish. I'm happy to continue shooting fish in a barrel.

So you are saying your moral position is it's morally ok to let your wife sleep with anyone she likes and enjoys (obviously you can’t give her sexual joys anymore .. poor old chap!) as long as the sexual affair is between 2 consenting adults, right?? Fantastic!! You know what, I know a lot of guys and maybe, a couple of gals (if your wife is bisexual) who would love to touch base with your wife!! So, what says you?? (Wink, wink)

By the way, feel free to continue making yourself look foolish. I'm happy to continue shooting fish in a barrel.

Hmmm.. I know you need a little push …SNAP! 1,2,3..GO and make a fool of yourself NOW…!

 

[KWED]

Anyway, let me go through this hadith again which ignorant like you like to use to slander Islam and create the perception that Islam allows rape.

When Islam began, "rape" (sex without free, informed consent) was not a concept. There was only "lawful" and "unlawful" sex. So what Muhammad and his men did was not "rape" as it was "lawful".
However, Islam permits what is today classed as "rape", that is undeniable.

Let’s see what Quran 4:24 really says –
“And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise” – Sahih International

Let’s see another verse where the phrase ‘those your right hands possess’ is used –

“And serve God and do not associate anything with Him and BE GOOD to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and neighbour who is not of kin, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS; surely God does not love him who is proud, boastful” – Quran 4:36

Clearly, Allah is commanding Muslims to BE GOOD to the parents, orphans, the needy, and the neighbors, … AND THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS.

Not sure what your point is here.
We have established that "those your right hand possess" refers to slaves and captives.
There are three verses that explicitly allow Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves/captives. There are several sahih hadith that further confirm this. That is beyond debate.
This was not considered to be wrong or harmful or mistreatment in any way. It was a simple right they had over them. The conditions imposed meant that they had to feed and clothe their slaves/captives, and couldn't be overly violent - but once again, having sex with them was not considered to be "mistreatment".

raping of women captives of war is forbidden in Islam.

No it isn't, because it is not a concept in Islam. But having sex with women captives of war is explicitly permitted in Islam.
There is no mention of "consent". As Islamic scholar Dr Jonathan Brown states, consent was irrelevant as the right of sexual access was granted by ownership or marriage.

For these Muslim captors to get intimate with these women, these captive women must be ‘what their right hands possessed’, and in this case, these women must be legally married to them. Is that clear enough for you?? Or do you still choose to be ignorant??

You seem to be confusing two issues. Islam prohibits you from marrying women who are already married - unless they are your slaves or captives (which in itself raises some moral questions). However, the issue here isn't marriage, it is simply sex.
23:6 says that sex is permitted with wives or slave girls.
33:50 states that sex is permitted with wives and slave girls.
You need to read the whole Quran, not just cherry-pick and selectively interpret single verses.

So, stop making a fool of yourself (especially to the Muslims) over and over again by trying to pretend to be an expert in a field which clearly you’ve ZERO knowledge of!!

Here is the opinion of one of the most widely consulted modern sheykhs, Muhammad al Munajjid -
"With regard to your question about it being permissible for a master to be intimate with his slave woman, the answer is that that is because Allaah has permitted it. Allaah says “And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame” (23:6)

"Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery"

"It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with anyone except his wife or his female slave (concubine). A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her."

So it would appear that "expert Muslims" do agree with me.

So you are saying your moral position is it's morally ok to let your wife sleep with anyone she likes and enjoys

There you go again, implying that you should have control over who she sleeps with.
I may not like it, but it is her decision, not mine. I might get upset, try counselling, even divorce her. But I wouldn't dream of having her tortured to death for it. That is just insane!
The moral position is for people to have freedom, not to control them like property.

 

[KWED]

So you are saying your moral position is it's morally ok to let your wife sleep with anyone she likes and enjoys (obviously you can’t give her sexual joys anymore .. poor old chap!) as long as the sexual affair is between 2 consenting adults, right?? Fantastic!! You know what, I know a lot of guys and maybe, a couple of gals (if your wife is bisexual) who would love to touch base with your wife!! So, what says you?? (Wink, wink)

By the way, feel free to continue making yourself look foolish. I'm happy to continue shooting fish in a barrel.

Hmmm.. I know you need a little push …SNAP! 1,2,3..GO and make a fool of yourself NOW…!

Simple question, requiring only a "yes" or "no" response.

Do you think it can ever be morally acceptable to kill a woman for having consensual, extra-marital sex?
Yes or no?

I know you won't answer because of that Islamic rock and a hard place you find yourself between.

 

[JerryMyers]

When Islam began, "rape" (sex without free, informed consent) was not a concept. There was only "lawful" and "unlawful" sex. So what Muhammad and his men did was not "rape" as it was "lawful".
However, Islam permits what is today classed as "rape", that is undeniable.

What is undeniable is your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally!

Yes, you are right what Muhammad and his men did was not rape as the women were ‘whom their right possessed’, and thus it is lawful. Even today, having sex with your own wife, that is, whom your right hand possessed is NOT unlawful nor is it immoral. I know it’s difficult for you to understand as you can have sex with anyone’s wife as long as it’s consensual.

Not sure what your point is here.

Of course, your ‘not sure’ responses to my points are expected as you have zero knowledge of Islam, else I won’t call you ignorant!

We have established that "those your right hand possess" refers to slaves and captives.
There are three verses that explicitly allow Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves/captives. There are several sahih hadith that further confirm this. That is beyond debate.
This was not considered to be wrong or harmful or mistreatment in any way. It was a simple right they had over them. The conditions imposed meant that they had to feed and clothe their slaves/captives, and couldn't be overly violent - but once again, having sex with them was not considered to be "mistreatment".

We have ONLY established your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally – that is beyond debate.

Authentic hadiths cannot contradict the Quran and the Quran clearly tell you ‘what the right hand possessed’ means.

The reference to slaves and captives of ‘what the right hand possessed’ you gave is in the context of that hadith, it is NOT a general and definitive reference.

No it isn't, because it is not a concept in Islam.

Yes, you are right, rape is not a concept in Islam. Is rape a concept in atheism??

But having sex with women captives of war is explicitly permitted in Islam.
There is no mention of "consent". As Islamic scholar Dr Jonathan Brown states, consent was irrelevant as the right of sexual access was granted by ownership or marriage.

Yes, Dr. J. Brown is right - the word ‘consent’ is irrelevant in marriages as consent and the right to sexual access IS AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED by marriage! That is universally understood in any society! In a marriage, it’s the responsibility of both the husband and wife to fulfill the sexual needs of each other – something that you cannot understand – is that why you allow your wife to sleep with anyone she desires as you can no longer fulfill her sexual needs?? You have my sympathy, man!

You seem to be confusing two issues. Islam prohibits you from marrying women who are already married - unless they are your slaves or captives (which in itself raises some moral questions). However, the issue here isn't marriage, it is simply sex.

What nonsense are you talking about??! Marriage is what makes it lawful for you to get sexually intimate with the women of your desire!! Your ignorance is confusing you!!

23:6 says that sex is permitted with wives or slave girls.
33:50 states that sex is permitted with wives and slave girls.
You need to read the whole Quran, not just cherry-pick and selectively interpret single verses.

Not only are you cherry-picking the verses, but you are also cherry-picking parts of the cherry-picked verses!!
So, take your own advice – ‘You need to read the whole Quran, not just cherry-pick and selectively interpret single verses’.

BTW, which part of Quran 23:6 and 33:50 tells you that you can have sex with slave girls that your right hand DID NOT possess??

Here is the opinion of one of the most widely consulted modern sheykhs, Muhammad al Munajjid -
"With regard to your question about it being permissible for a master to be intimate with his slave woman, the answer is that that is because Allaah has permitted it. Allaah says “And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame” (23:6)
"Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery"
"It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with anyone except his wife or his female slave (concubine). A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her."
So it would appear that "expert Muslims" do agree with me.

Not really. You only perceive that “expert Muslims” agree with you because you still cannot understand ‘what the right hand possessed’ means… well, that’s why I call you ignorant!

There you go again, implying that you should have control over who she sleeps with.
I may not like it, but it is her decision, not mine. I might get upset, try counselling, even divorce her. But I wouldn't dream of having her tortured to death for it. That is just insane!
The moral position is for people to have freedom, not to control them like property.

Freedom is not about morals, freedom is about rights. Marriage is not about controlling your partner, marriage is about sharing and responsibility (the husband to his wife and the wife to her husband). Your inability to understand morals, freedom, and responsibility is yet another proof of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

 

[JerryMyers]

Simple question, requiring only a "yes" or "no" response.
Do you think it can ever be morally acceptable to kill a woman for having consensual, extra-marital sex?
Yes or no?
I know you won't answer because of that Islamic rock and a hard place you find yourself between.

Don’t flatter yourself again and again.
First of all, having sex with someone who is NOT ‘what your right hands possessed’, that is, NOT your wife/husband is NOT only a sin but it is also immoral. The issue of morality is something that atheists like you cannot understand as you don’t believe in a God. When you don’t believe in the existence of a God, then, sin is also non-existence, and ‘morality’ is what you said it is and you try to force your kind of ‘morality’ on others. Nice try!

Now, coming back to your question, you seem to miss the point - it’s not about killing the woman for having consensual, extra-marital sex, it’s about penalty/punishment based on the seriousness of the sin committed. The fact that the penalty for adultery and fornication is equivalent to the death penalty, tells us adultery/fornication is a very serious sin in Islam. People will not take the sin of committing adultery/fornication seriously if the penalty/punishment is just equivalent to a slap on the wrist.

It’s also important to note that after stressing the severe punishment for adultery/fornication, God also assures mankind that if they regret their deed and repent to their Lord, never to commit their sin again, Allah will forgive them -

˹They are˺ those who do not invoke any other god besides Allah, nor take a ˹human˺ life—made sacred by Allah—except with ˹legal˺ right, nor commit fornication. And whoever does any of this will face the penalty. Their punishment will be multiplied on the Day of Judgment, and they will remain in it forever, in disgrace. As for those who repent, believe, and do good deeds, they are the ones whose evil deeds Allah will change into good deeds. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And whoever repents and does good has truly turned to Allah properly” - Quran 25:68-71.

So, your question should be 2 folds –

1. Do you think it can ever be morally acceptable to consensual, extra-marital sex?
The answer is NO. Extra-marital sex and fornication can NEVER be morally accepted. Consensual doesn't make extra-marital sex morally accepted just as murdering someone who wanted to commit suicide doesn't make it not a crime.

2. Do you think the penalty for adultery/fornication should be death?
The answer is NO because I believe in repentance for the forgiveness of sin and I fear God’s punishment far more than man’s penalty/punishment.

 

[KWED]

Yes, you are right what Muhammad and his men did was not rape as the women were ‘whom their right possessed’, and thus it is lawful.

It was not "rape" then, but it would be now. Muhammad's actions 1400 years ago would see him arrested on charges of war crimes today.
This raises an important question. Which is the more moral system, the one that allows using female captives and slaves for sex, or the one that prohibits it?

Even today, having sex with your own wife, that is, whom your right hand possessed

So you think that a husband "owns" his wife? I wonder where you got that idea..

is NOT unlawful nor is it immoral.

It is if it is not consensual.
You you believe that a husband must have his wife's consent to have sex with her?

I know it’s difficult for you to understand as you can have sex with anyone’s wife as long as it’s consensual.

Yes. Sex between consenting adults is always legal. If one of the parties is married, that is up to them to deal with any moral implications.

Of course, your ‘not sure’ responses to my points are expected as you have zero knowledge of Islam, else I won’t call you ignorant!

"Not sure what your point is" was because your point seemed to have no relation to mine. A "non sequitur".
My position is that slavery, and using female slaves for sex is wrong. You merely pointed out that Islam permits slavery and using female slaves for sex. I already knew this. It forms the basis of my argument.
Your point did nothing to address my position that it is wrong. It merely accepts the fact that it happens.

We have ONLY established your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally – that is beyond debate.
Authentic hadiths cannot contradict the Quran and the Quran clearly tell you ‘what the right hand possessed’ means.
The reference to slaves and captives of ‘what the right hand possessed’ you gave is in the context of that hadith, it is NOT a general and definitive reference.

You seem confused.
1. The Quran clearly states that Muslim men may have sex with "those their right hand possess".
2. You have accepted that "those who your right hand posses" refers to slaves and battlefield captives.
3. Sahih hadith give explicit examples of Muhammad allowing his men to have sex with battlefield captives.

So, either you consider this acceptable or unacceptable in principle. You seem to think it is acceptable.

Yes, you are right, rape is not a concept in Islam. Is rape a concept in atheism??

Nothing is "a concept in atheism" except the non existence of gods. (Atheism is not an ideology with doctrine and rules).
However, non-consensual sex is indeed a concept in civilised society, and it is prohibited.
Why do you think there is no concept on non-consensual sex in Islam? (Hint: because consent is not regarded as necessary and the right to sexual access is granted by marriage or ownership - as you admitted earlier).

Yes, Dr. J. Brown is right - the word ‘consent’ is irrelevant in marriages as consent and the right to sexual access IS AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED by marriage! That is universally understood in any society!

You seem dangerously confused here.
The right to sexual access is absolutely NOT granted by marriage in many societies. Marital sex without consent is "rape".

In a marriage, it’s the responsibility of both the husband and wife to fulfill the sexual needs of each other – something that you cannot understand

Maybe in Islam, but not legally in civilised societies. A wife is not obliged to sleep with her husband.

is that why you allow your wife to sleep with anyone she desires as you can no longer fulfill her sexual needs?? You have my sympathy, man!

A husband cannot "allow" or "forbid" his wife from sleeping with anyone she chooses. He doesn't own her, despite what Isa may have taught you.

What nonsense are you talking about??! Marriage is what makes it lawful for you to get sexually intimate with the women of your desire!! Your ignorance is confusing you!!

I have given you multiple references that clearly and definitively show that Islam allows men to have sex with women they are not married to - as long as they are their slave or captive.

BTW, which part of Quran 23:6 and 33:50 tells you that you can have sex with slave girls that your right hand DID NOT possess??

What are you on about? "Those your right hand possess" are your slaves.
You really have no idea what is going on here, do you?

Not really. You only perceive that “expert Muslims” agree with you because you still cannot understand ‘what the right hand possessed’ means… well, that’s why I call you ignorant!

Oh dear...

Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery. Allaah says, describing the believers
“those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,__ for then, they are free from blame”

Not sure how much clearer it can be.
"Those your right hand possess" are "slaves"
Allah allows Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.