Islam is a false religion per Quran itself.

[JerryMyers]

Without fail, yet another display of your ignorant and inability to think logically and rationally!!! All at the SNAP of my fingers!!! LOL! Good boy!

That verse has nothing to do with the issue of using female slaves and captives for sex. It is about a Muslim man being allowed to marry his female slave if he can't find a wife who is a free woman. There is no mention of having to marry a slave before being able to have sex with her.
Both the Quran and sunnah are clear on the matter. I have provided multiple references.
Authoritative scholars are also clear on the issue and I have provided multiple tafsir and fatwa.

Did you not see the phrase “those whom your right hands possess” in that passage?? So now, the phrase has nothing to do with the issue of using female slaves and captives for sex?? Isn’t that what I have trying to tell you all along??

That phrase “those whom your right hands possess” IS about marriage and marriage is what makes the sexual relationship lawful and both the Quran and the Sunnah are very clear on this. So stop talking nonsense and making a fool of yourself.

Unless the woman is owned by the man as a slave or captive. I have posted multiple references that clearly and explicitly explain this. I have no idea why you keep ignoring it all and persisting with your own personal opinion.
You claim to occupy the moral high ground because you follow the morality revealed by Allah - yet when you come across a part of it that you find distasteful, you try to rewrite Allah's perfect, divine morality. You couldn't make it up!

Say what???! You just can’t help yourself when it comes to talking nonsense, can you??

I have no idea why you keep ignoring the true meaning of ‘what the right hand possessed’ and keep insisting on your own personal opinion which again and again only reflects your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

So now you deny that the Quran allows Muslim men to have sex with the women that "their right hand possess", despite just admitting it.
You really are all over the place.

Now your ignorance is turning to sheer arrogant stupidity and you keep showing that all over the place.

"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!"
Perhaps you do not understand what "irrelevant" means? (after all, English isn't your first language).

Irrelevant means it’s inapplicable to the subject matter. What do you think it is?? Are you sure English is your first language?? You seem to have problems understanding anything you read… especially in English!!

You said that "consent is irrelevant".
Also, "right of access" implies the ability to gain access to something despite another's protests. If people have a "right of access" across a farmer's field, they can cross that field even if you doesn't want them to. There is nothing he can do to stop them legally.

Another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally???

Yes, anyone can cross the field if the field is NOT a private property, but if it is, and the owner gave you in writing, the right to access it, then you can. The right to access the field does NOT force you to cross the field but it gave you the right to cross the field if you want to.

That's a strange analogy. In the context of sexual intercourse, what is "the boarding area"? Presumably "enter the plane" is actual penetration.
Are you saying that marriage gives a man the right to foreplay, whether the wife wants it or not, but she can refuse penetration? Talk about the inability to think rationally and logically!

LOL, you do have a dirty mind, don’t you?? It’s just an analogy to show you the difference between ‘the right to’ and ‘consent to’. It’s pretty obvious you STILL cannot tell the difference!! Talk about the inability to think rationally and logically!! What a comedian!!

 

[JerryMyers]

Ah, the Nuremberg Defence. I thought as much.
Have you never bothered to think why god said it is a sin? What is actually wrong with it?

Hmm.. Maybe you don’t know what sin is… can you tell me what sin is??

Also strange that you blindly and unquestioningly accept god's word on this issue, but you disagree with him on using female slaves and captives for sex.

Also strange that you persistently ignore the true meaning of the phrase “whom the right hand possessed” and you continue to ignore that God qualified those female captives with that phrase!

I quoted several renowned and authoritative Islamic scholars. Are you claiming that they are all similarly ignorant and irrational?

You mean am I claiming they are similar to you?? Are you admitting that you are ignorant and irrational?? Freudian slip?? LOL!

Straw man. It refers to any slave or captive owned legally, however acquired.

Typical response from a persistent ignorant who is incapable to think logically and rationally!!

Allah uses "those your right hand possess" to differentiate from "wives". Because they are different classes of people. That is just so obvious that it shouldn't need explaining.

Another display of your ignorant and inability to think logically and rationally??

Yes, they are different from ‘wives’ because the phrase ‘those the right hand possessed’ refers to believing slave girls who are eligible for marriage. ‘Wives’ means these women are already married to the man while ‘eligible for marriage’ means those believing slave girls are NOT yet married to the man, but they need to be married to the man (which will make them wives of the man, in case you do not know) BEFORE any sexual activities can take place. That is just so obvious that it shouldn't need explaining.

Another strange analogy. Here's a better one...
"Immigrants and existing residents without proper papers will be detained by the authorities".
It is clarifying the two different classes of people covered by the rule.

That is a better analogy??? LOL. Obviously, you don’t even know what the issue is here!!!

"Sex is permitted with wives and those your right and possess".
Why would Allah mention TYRHP if they were just wives?

Another display of your ignorant and inability to think logically and rationally?? Or is it just a display of your inability to understand what you read??

Depends on your moral framework. Not all morality considers infidelity to be "immoral".

You mean your ‘understanding’ of morality that infidelity is not immoral?? OK.

Your problem here is that you are assuming that everyone's morality is necessarily the same as yours. Each individual case should be assessed on its merits. There is no "one size fits all".

I can say the same thing to you - your problem here is that you are assuming that everyone's morality is necessarily the same as yours. However, we can conclude for someone who doesn’t believe in God, your morality is what you want to understand it to be…. or maybe I should say your morality is what you imagine it to be??? Say, why don’t you ask your imaginary wife and see what ‘she’ has to say about this??? LOL.

Yeah, but your use of it in that sentence makes no sense, unless it means "the same as". What do you think "equivalent to" means?

And why would my usage of ‘equivalent’ don’t make sense to you?? Is it because you are such a simpleton in your understanding that you only understand one meaning of a word or a phrase as you have proven many times??

You aren't thinking rationally or logically there.
Nowhere in the Quran does it say that adulterers must not be stoned to death. Therefore when Muhammad had adulterers stoned to death, he wasn't "going against the Quran".
By your argument, anything that isn't specifically prescribed in the Quran is forbidden in Islam - which is obvious nonsense.

By your argument, if you enter a restaurant and did not see any sign that prohibited spitting in the restaurant, it means spitting is allowed - which is obvious nonsense. You aren't thinking rationally or logically there.

Islam is founded on the Quran and the sunnah of Muhammad. That is a well accepted fact (except for Quranists, or course).

What???! Islam is founded on the Quran and the Sunnah… and it is a well-accepted fact?? Talking about ignorance! Where on earth you get that from?? From your imagination??? What a comedian!!!

But also an essential part of Islam.

Yes, but STILL secondary to the Quran.

You seem confused. The hadith are the record of Muhammad's words and deeds, often explaining what Allah meant. It is not simply a cultural history.

BUT still secondary to the Quran and was written in the setting of the traditions and the customary practices of the time. So what exactly is your problem?? You seem confused.

Have you not been a Muslim long, because you don't seem to know much of the details?

And you have been a Muslim long??? LOL, again being a comedian that you are – your imagination and your ignorance don’t make you an ‘expert’ on Islam! When are you ever going to learn that and stop being a laughing stock to the Muslims?? But hey, if comedy is your profession, please, do what you do best - entertain us!

OK. So any Islamic rule that comes from the sunnah but is not specifically mentioned in the Quran is just a cultural tradition and not a binding part of Islam?

There are no God/Islamic laws coming out from the Sunnah/Hadiths. What came out from the Hadiths/Sunnah is the handling of certain situations/circumstances that became lessons and further clarify God/Islamic laws which are already in the Quran.

So your argument that they can't be god's law because they were already cultural customs is meaningless and can be dismissed.

No, that’s not my argument as it’s not about what can be or what cannot be God’s Law. God's Laws are what God said, NOT what you or any man said. You still seem to be confused between punishments/penalties and God’s Laws/Commandments.

So just to be clear - you reject any rules or laws derived from the sunnah as a part of Islam. You believe they are nothing to do with god?

Let me say it again - There are no God/Islamic laws coming out from the Sunnah/Hadiths. What came out from the Hadiths/Sunnah are the handling of certain situations/circumstances that became lessons and further clarify God/Islamic laws which are already in the Quran.

But you admit that torturing people to death is an acceptable and appropriate punishment for a variety of unspecified offences.

Here comes the liar in you… again – can you show me where and when did I ever admit “that torturing people to death is an acceptable and appropriate punishment for a variety of unspecified offences”?? How many times you want to prove that I am right in saying you are a man of zero integrity?? Frankly speaking, I don’t know why I am still engaged in a forum thread with someone who’s dishonest, ignorant, and incapable to think logically and rationally…. must be the comedy in the nonsense you bring in your comments!!

So, for the fun of it, give me another display of your ignorant and inability to think logically and rationally. At the SNAP of my fingers – 1,2,3…SNAP! GO!! Hihihihi….

 

[KWED]

Without fail, yet another display of your ignorant and inability to think logically and rationally!!! All at the SNAP of my fingers!!! LOL! Good boy!


Did you not see the phrase “those whom your right hands possess” in that passage?? So now, the phrase has nothing to do with the issue of using female slaves and captives for sex?? Isn’t that what I have trying to tell you all along??

That phrase “those whom your right hands possess” IS about marriage and marriage is what makes the sexual relationship lawful and both the Quran and the Sunnah are very clear on this. So stop talking nonsense and making a fool of yourself.


Say what???! You just can’t help yourself when it comes to talking nonsense, can you??

I have no idea why you keep ignoring the true meaning of ‘what the right hand possessed’ and keep insisting on your own personal opinion which again and again only reflects your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.


Now your ignorance is turning to sheer arrogant stupidity and you keep showing that all over the place.


Irrelevant means it’s inapplicable to the subject matter. What do you think it is?? Are you sure English is your first language?? You seem to have problems understanding anything you read… especially in English!!


Another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally???

Yes, anyone can cross the field if the field is NOT a private property, but if it is, and the owner gave you in writing, the right to access it, then you can. The right to access the field does NOT force you to cross the field but it gave you the right to cross the field if you want to.


LOL, you do have a dirty mind, don’t you?? It’s just an analogy to show you the difference between ‘the right to’ and ‘consent to’. It’s pretty obvious you STILL cannot tell the difference!! Talk about the inability to think rationally and logically!! What a comedian!!

I have repeatedly provided references from the Quran, sunnah, classical tafsir and modern scholars unequivocally showing that "Those your right hand possess" refers to slaves and captives, and that Muslim men are allowed to have sex with them. None of these references make any mention of having to marry them first.

So, unless you have anything other than your unsupported opinion that it only refers to marriage, we can consider the issue closed. You have had ample time to present any evidence or argument but you simply repeat the same assertion, despite it having been thoroughly refuted.

However, if you do comeuppance with some evidence or rational argument, feel free to post it and we can examine it.

 

[KWED]

Hmm.. Maybe you don’t know what sin is… can you tell me what sin is??

"Sin" is simply a religious term for what is unlawful.
And you have explained that you consider consensual sex between adults "a sin" simply becuz god sez.

Also strange that you persistently ignore the true meaning of the phrase “whom the right hand possessed” and you continue to ignore that God qualified those female captives with that phrase!

Oh, the irony!
I have provided multiple references from the Quran, sunnah, classical tafsir and modern scholars showing that it refers to slaves and captives, with no mention of marriage being a necessity.
You have provided no support for your argument other than bare assertion.

You mean am I claiming they are similar to you?? Are you admitting that you are ignorant and irrational?? Freudian slip?? LOL!

I presented the opinions of several renowned scholars. You called their opinions "ignorant and irrational".

Yes, they are different from ‘wives’ because the phrase ‘those the right hand possessed’ refers to believing slave girls who are eligible for marriage.

Wrong again. There are sahih Hadith that specifically refer to the women in question as "pagan".
And again, you have failed to provide ant reference that supports your claim that TWYRHP only applies to marriage. Remember that Allah differentiates between wives and "TWYRHP" and "wives". If they were the same, there would be no need for the differentiation.

‘Wives’ means these women are already married to the man while ‘eligible for marriage’ means those believing slave girls are NOT yet married to the man, but they need to be married to the man (which will make them wives of the man, in case you do not know) BEFORE any sexual activities can take place. That is just so obvious that it shouldn't need explaining.

So "permitted to you are your wives, and your wives".

Another display of your ignorant and inability to think logically and rationally?? Or is it just a display of your inability to understand what you read??

Ironically, another display of your inability to refute my "illogical and irrational" points. So try again...
"Sex is permitted with wives and those your right and possess".
Why would Allah mention TYRHP if they were wives?

I can say the same thing to you - your problem here is that you are assuming that everyone's morality is necessarily the same as yours.

But I don't. I accept that different people have different moral frameworks. From my moral perspective I consider thinks like slavery and tirture to be wrong. Your moral framework considers them acceptable. I find it had to understand why someone would find slavery and tarture acceptable, but people are different.

However, we can conclude for someone who doesn’t believe in God, your morality is what you want to understand it to be…. or maybe I should say your morality is what you imagine it to be???

Pretty much, yes. Morality is arrived at through a combination of social and cultural history, personal expectation, innate empathy and altruism, etc.

And why would my usage of ‘equivalent’ don’t make sense to you?? Is it because you are such a simpleton in your understanding that you only understand one meaning of a word or a phrase as you have proven many times??

You said that the penalty for adultery in Islam is equivalent to the death penalty.
1. "Equivalent" means "the same as, corresponds to, has the same effect as" (OED).
2. What is "equivalent to death" other than death, in practical, punishment terms?

By your argument, if you enter a restaurant and did not see any sign that prohibited spitting in the restaurant, it means spitting is allowed - which is obvious nonsense. You aren't thinking rationally or logically there.

You claimed that because the Quran does not explicitly say "adulterers must be stoned", then stoning adulterers is against the Quran, despite the Quran not prohibiting it and Muhammad doing it.

To use your analogy, it would be like going into a restaurant in China (stoning adulterers was already established custom in the region), seeing no signs prohibiting spitting, seeing the restaurant owner spitting, and assuming that spitting was acceptable.

What???! Islam is founded on the Quran and the Sunnah… and it is a well-accepted fact?? Talking about ignorance! Where on earth you get that from?? From your imagination??? What a comedian!!!

As a recent convert you can be excused for not knowing much about the nature of Islam...
"The two major sources of the religion of Islam is the Quran and Hadith. These two are where the majority of the teachings come from." Major Sources of Islam | The Basics to Islam
"The Foundations of Faith in the Light of the Quran and the Sunnah" The Foundations of Faith in the Light of the Qur’an and the Sunnah
"The Qur'an and Sunnah are the two primary sources of Muslim faith". https://iiit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bib-contemp_app_to_quran_and_sunah_combined-1.pdf
"the whole system of Islamic government is largely founded on the sunnah" The Foundation of Islam

Yes, but STILL secondary to the Quran.

They are complementary, not conflicting.

And you have been a Muslim long??? LOL, again being a comedian that you are – your imagination and your ignorance don’t make you an ‘expert’ on Islam! When are you ever going to learn that and stop being a laughing stock to the Muslims??

Interesting that all "the Muslims" flocking to your support and to refute my points are conspicuous by their absence.

There are no God/Islamic laws coming out from the Sunnah/Hadiths. What came out from the Hadiths/Sunnah is the handling of certain situations/circumstances that became lessons and further clarify God/Islamic laws which are already in the Quran.

"The full systems of Islamic theology and law are not derived primarily from the Qur'an. Muhammad's Sunna was a second but far more detailed living scripture" - Dr Jonathan Brown

Here comes the liar in you… again – can you show me where and when did I ever admit “that torturing people to death is an acceptable and appropriate punishment for a variety of unspecified offences”??

You claim that the punishments specified in the Quran are acceptable and appropriate. The unquestionable word of god. The basis of ideal law, etc.
The Quran specifies crucifixion (execution by torture) as a punishment for "fasad" (an unspecified collection of offences).

You may not be smart enough to understand the implications of what you say, but others are.

 

[Link]

What's funny with @KWED, is the opening post addresses all his complaints and grievances, but he doesn't think.

 

[KWED]

What's funny with @KWED, is the opening post addresses all his complaints and grievances, but he doesn't think.

What are my complaints and grievances, and how does the OP address them?

 

[Link]

What are my complaints and grievances, and how does the OP address them?

I can explain this in details (long) or short. But you know what, there's probably no point. If you can't see it now how it addresses what you are saying, chances you won't no matter how much I paraphrase and repeat.

 

[JerryMyers]

I have repeatedly provided references from the Quran, sunnah, classical tafsir and modern scholars unequivocally showing that "Those your right hand possess" refers to slaves and captives, and that Muslim men are allowed to have sex with them. None of these references make any mention of having to marry them first.

So, unless you have anything other than your unsupported opinion that it only refers to marriage, we can consider the issue closed. You have had ample time to present any evidence or argument but you simply repeat the same assertion, despite it having been thoroughly refuted.

However, if you do comeuppance with some evidence or rational argument, feel free to post it and we can examine it.

Yes, you have repeatedly provided evidence of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally!! And you continue to do so… all at the SNAP of fingers!!! Is this FUN or what???

You used Quran 4:24 to ‘show’ that Islam allows Muslim men to have sex with their female captives when there’s nothing in that verse that says anything about unlawful sex! You assumed (through ignorance) that Quran 4:24 is talking about unlawful sex with the female captives when it’s talking about marriage which is forbidden to those female captives who are already married but you can marry those (female captives) who are singles, believers, and eligible for marriage (what the right hand possess).

A clearer translation of that verse comes from Sahih International – “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”.

Those references from the Quran, Sunnah, classical tafsir, and modern scholars you claimed you have provided are in the context of marriage prior to any sexual relationship.

So, unless you have anything other than your unsupported opinion (which came from your ignorance) that it only refers to sex slaves, we can consider the issue closed. You have had ample time to present any evidence or argument but you simply repeat the same assertion, despite it having been thoroughly refuted.

However, if you do comeuppance with some evidence or rational argument, feel free to post it and we can examine it. But if you come up with the same nonsense again and again, then I have no choice BUT to keep telling you the truth of who you are – a man of zero integrity, ignorant, and incapable to think logically and rationally.

 

[JerryMyers]

"Sin" is simply a religious term for what is unlawful.
And you have explained that you consider consensual sex between adults "a sin" simply becuz god sez.

No, I said consensus sex between adults who are NOT married to each other is a sin, but what do you know about sin?? You don’t believe in the existence of God, so, sin is practically non-existent to you.

Oh, the irony!
I have provided multiple references from the Quran, sunnah, classical tafsir and modern scholars showing that it refers to slaves and captives, with no mention of marriage being a necessity.
You have provided no support for your argument other than bare assertion.

Oh, the irony! You have only provided evidence of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally – how many times do I need to say it???

I presented the opinions of several renowned scholars. You called their opinions "ignorant and irrational".

No, I call YOU ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally. Do you imagine yourself as a renowned scholar too?? We know you live in an imaginary world with an imaginary wife but this is going too far!! What a comedian!!

Wrong again. There are sahih Hadith that specifically refer to the women in question as "pagan".

Which sahih hadiths refer to ‘those that the right hand possess’ as pagans??

And again, you have failed to provide ant reference that supports your claim that TWYRHP only applies to marriage. Remember that Allah differentiates between wives and "TWYRHP" and "wives". If they were the same, there would be no need for the differentiation.

Another demonstration of your ignorance and failure to understand the Quran 4:24-25??

So "permitted to you are your wives, and your wives".

‘Eligible for marriage’ does NOT mean you are married. Do you have a problem understanding English or are unable to understand what you read is just in your genes??

Ironically, another display of your inability to refute my "illogical and irrational" points. So try again...
"Sex is permitted with wives and those your right and possess".
Why would Allah mention TYRHP if they were wives?

Who said TYRHP means ‘wives’?? You DO have problems understanding what you read!! But you made a valid point - your points are illogical and irrational!!

But I don't. I accept that different people have different moral frameworks. From my moral perspective I consider thinks like slavery and tirture to be wrong. Your moral framework considers them acceptable. I find it had to understand why someone would find slavery and tarture acceptable, but people are different.

Are slavery and torture still the norm in your society today?? For someone who said he finds slavery and torture to be wrong, you sure cannot stop talking about slavery and torture!! LOL!

Pretty much, yes. Morality is arrived at through a combination of social and cultural history, personal expectation, innate empathy and altruism, etc.

You mean like pretty much that you find infidelity (which could wretch a marriage, a family, someone’s life) is morally acceptable because your morality is derived through innate empathy and altruism, etc ??? Hmmm.. maybe you don’t understand what ‘empathy’ and ‘altruism’ mean….

You said that the penalty for adultery in Islam is equivalent to the death penalty.
1. "Equivalent" means "the same as, corresponds to, has the same effect as" (OED).
2. What is "equivalent to death" other than death, in practical, punishment terms?

‘Equivalent’ means it’s the same only in one aspect, NOT in all aspects. If a mother said she’s having stomach pain equivalent to giving birth, she’s talking about the pain she’s going through at the moment is similar to the pain she felt when she first gave birth. In other words, she’s referring to one aspect of giving birth, that is the pain, and NOT that she’s giving birth again.

Likewise, when I said “the penalty of adultery is equivalent to death”, I am saying the penalty for adultery should strike the same fear to would-be adulterers as it would if they are facing death. Didn’t I give you a hint of what I meant when I said that no one will take the sin of adultery seriously if the penalty for adultery is merely a slap on the wrist??

You claimed that because the Quran does not explicitly say "adulterers must be stoned", then stoning adulterers is against the Quran, despite the Quran not prohibiting it and Muhammad doing it.

You are really confused or you are such a simpleton that you cannot think logically further than what is written.

Stoning, whipping, crucifixion, and the likes are NOT God’s Laws, they are types of punishment as practiced according to the traditional and customary practice of the society in THAT period. We are NOT talking about types of punishment and there’s not a single verse in the Quran that said or implied that adultery is NOT prohibited and adulterers will NOT be punished. So saying “despite the Quran not prohibiting it and Muhammad doing it” is just another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

To use your analogy, it would be like going into a restaurant in China (stoning adulterers was already established custom in the region), seeing no signs prohibiting spitting, seeing the restaurant owner spitting, and assuming that spitting was acceptable.

Another nonsense and another display of your incapability to think logically and rationally!! What “(stoning adulterers was already established custom in the region)” got to do with spitting in a Chinese restaurant??? LOL! Maybe you should ask your imaginary wife for a better analogy!

As a recent convert you can be excused for not knowing much about the nature of Islam...
"The two major sources of the religion of Islam is the Quran and Hadith. These two are where the majority of the teachings come from." Major Sources of Islam | The Basics to Islam
"The Foundations of Faith in the Light of the Quran and the Sunnah" The Foundations of Faith in the Light of the Qur’an and the Sunnah
"The Qur'an and Sunnah are the two primary sources of Muslim faith". https://iiit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bib-contemp_app_to_quran_and_sunah_combined-1.pdf
"the whole system of Islamic government is largely founded on the sunnah" The Foundation of Islam

The Quran and the hadiths are the two major sources (of reference) for the Muslims, YES.

Islam is founded on the Quran and the Sunnah, NO.

As an ignorant who is incapable to think logically and rationally, you can be excused for talking nonsense about the nature of Islam.

They are complementary, not conflicting.

Yes, but NOT all hadiths are authentic.

Interesting that all "the Muslims" flocking to your support and to refute my points are conspicuous by their absence.

Do you mean just as interesting that all “the atheists” in this forum flocking to your support and refuting my points are conspicuous by their absence??? LOL! What a comedian!! You should snap out of your imaginary world and imaginary wife, then perhaps, you won’t be making a laughing stock of yourself so much!!

"The full systems of Islamic theology and law are not derived primarily from the Qur'an. Muhammad's Sunna was a second but far more detailed living scripture" - Dr Jonathan Brown

Maybe you did not see the second part of that quote - “Muhammad's Sunna was a second but far more detailed living scripture”. Anyone who can think logically and rationally will know for something to be ‘a second’, there must be ‘a first’ which, in this case, is the Quran, but then again, we all know thinking logically and rationally is something which is just NOT in you, so yeah, you can be excused.

In the quote above, Dr. J Brown is referring to the understanding of the full systems of Islamic theology and law… and he’s right because the full understanding has to come with references to both the Quran (the primary source) and the authentic hadiths (the secondary source) which recorded Muhammad’s Sunnah.

You claim that the punishments specified in the Quran are acceptable and appropriate. The unquestionable word of god. The basis of ideal law, etc.
The Quran specifies crucifixion (execution by torture) as a punishment for "fasad" (an unspecified collection of offences).
You may not be smart enough to understand the implications of what you say, but others are.

“Fasad” is not an unspecified collection of offenses. Who are you trying to impress - the Muslims or your buddies in this forum?? Stop using Arabic words and making a laughing stock of yourself to the Muslims. Your ignorance is already doing that.

The Quran (and the Bible) specifies crucifixion because, in that society, that’s the traditional and customary punishment of the day. It would be ridiculous to specify lethal injection in a society that has never heard of or is familiar with lethal injection.

You may not be smart enough to understand the implications of what you say, but others are.

 

[KWED]

I can explain this in details (long) or short. But you know what, there's probably no point. If you can't see it now how it addresses what you are saying, chances you won't no matter how much I paraphrase and repeat.

You: "I have a claim"
Me: "OK, care to substantiate it?"
You: "Erm, no".

 

[KWED]

You used Quran 4:24

Also 23:6 and 33:50 - both of which you have ignored.

to ‘show’ that Islam allows Muslim men to have sex with their female captives

And I presented several hadith, tafsir and opinions of scholars that confirm it.
You have presented nothing but your own opinion, with no scriptural or scholarly support.

when there’s nothing in that verse that says anything about unlawful sex!

"And lawful to you are beyond these, that you seek them with your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse." (Quran 4:24)

You assumed (through ignorance) that Quran 4:24 is talking about unlawful sex with the female captives

You seem to have completely missed the point here. I have never claimed that Muslim men having sex with their female slaves or captives is zina. Actually the exact opposite. The Quran states that sex with them is NOT zina. There are hadith that even explain the origin of the ruling - that some of Muhammad's men were reluctant to have sex with their female captives because they were married. "Allah revealed" that that is was ok.
"Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, 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 was revealed"

when it’s talking about marriage

which is forbidden to those female captives who are already married but you can marry those (female captives) who are singles, believers, and eligible for marriage (what the right hand possess).

You are just making this up. There is no mention anywhere in the Quran or sunnah of them having to be single or believers.

Now you need to address verse 23:5-6, which is even more damning...

"Successful indeed are the believers...And those who guard their chastity, Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess"
""O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." - Sahih Bukhari (Note that when his men asked about having sex with their captives, he did not tell them it was forbidden, he just said that practicing contraception was pointless)

Now you need to respond to 33:50...
"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"

"(those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you." - Ibn Kathir

"TWYRHP" does not refer to "wives" because they are mentioned separately on several occasions. Allah differentiates between wives and slaves/captives, because they are a different category.
"You may have lawful sex with your wives, and your wives" would make no sense.

 

[KWED]

No, I said consensus sex between adults who are NOT married to each other is a sin,

Once again... why is consensual, adult sex between unmarried people a sin? What is the logic behind it? Why is it wrong?

Which sahih hadiths refer to ‘those that the right hand possess’ as pagans??

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl" - Sahih Muslim
The Banu Mustaliq were a pagan tribe allied to the Quraysh. This hadith also shows that the men didn't have to marry the captives before having sex with them (because they were going to sell them afterwards).

"Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah (ﷺ) were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allaah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.”" - Sahih Dawud
Note that it says "reluctant to have relations (sex) with" not "reluctant to marry".

Another demonstration of your ignorance and failure to understand the Quran 4:24-25??

Another issue is the very idea that a woman whose village has been attacked, menfolk killed, and been carried off by her attacker as a slave would freely consent to marriage and sex with that man. It is such a ridiculous idea that it beggars belief that you would even present it!

Are slavery and torture still the norm in your society today?? For someone who said he finds slavery and torture to be wrong, you sure cannot stop talking about slavery and torture!! LOL!

You claim Islam is perfect.
Islam prescribes or permits slavery and torture.
Therefore you must consider slavery and torture to be acceptable, both morally and in practice.

Likewise, when I said “the penalty of adultery is equivalent to death”, I am saying the penalty for adultery should strike the same fear to would-be adulterers as it would if they are facing death. Didn’t I give you a hint of what I meant when I said that no one will take the sin of adultery seriously if the penalty for adultery is merely a slap on the wrist??

Muhammad had people stoned to death for adultery, so are you saying he was wrong when he did that?

whipping, crucifixion, and the likes are NOT God’s Laws,

Oh dear. This is what happened when you haven't read the Quran...
"The adulteress and adulterer should be flogged a hundred lashes each, and no pity for them should deter you from the law of God" - 24:2

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides" - 5:33

there’s not a single verse in the Quran that said or implied that adultery is NOT prohibited and adulterers will NOT be punished. So saying “despite the Quran not prohibiting it and Muhammad doing it” is just another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

But the Quran does forbid adultery and fornication, so I have no idea what point you think you are trying to make there.

“Fasad” is not an unspecified collection of offenses.

Ok. So what are the specific offences covered by fasad, and where are they mentioned in that passage?
Ibn Kathir (who was better at Classical Arabic than both of us combined) stated that "fasad" includes "disbelief and acts of disobedience" - so even the clarification is still vague!

 

[Link]

You: "I have a claim"
Me: "OK, care to substantiate it?"
You: "Erm, no".

The approach to truth is important component to declare what is truth. Every society has different approaches to truth and what powers declare truth.

What is the paradigm per Quran? How to approach truth? How to rely on God and his rope per Quran? How did those before us go astray in this regard?

Your approach is the problem. For example, history wise, can we rely on generations before and their authorities, or should we detach from them per Quran?

 

[JerryMyers]

Once again... why is consensual, adult sex between unmarried people a sin? What is the logic behind it? Why is it wrong?

Consensual sex between a couple who are not married to each other is wrong because it is immoral. It is immoral because the act can destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life. Any act that transgress, ruin, bring unjust destruction, disruption, and disharmony to another family is a sin. Therefore, God rules that adultery is a sin.

If you still cannot see the logic of why adultery is wrong, immoral, and a sin, then your inability to think logically and rationally is just the tip of the iceberg.

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl" - Sahih Muslim
The Banu Mustaliq were a pagan tribe allied to the Quraysh. This hadith also shows that the men didn't have to marry the captives before having sex with them (because they were going to sell them afterwards).
"Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah (ﷺ) were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allaah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.”" - Sahih Dawud

So, where does it says those female captives ‘that the right hand possess’ are pagans??

In case you have forgotten, my question IS ‘Which sahih hadiths refer to ‘those that the right hand possess’ as pagans??’

Note that it says "reluctant to have relations (sex) with" not "reluctant to marry".

If you really can read, it says “were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands”. You added ‘(sex)’ to that statement because that’s what someone of zero integrity does – you edit, and change the original statement to tailor-fit your opinion which probably originated from your imagination.

Another issue is the very idea that a woman whose village has been attacked, menfolk killed, and been carried off by her attacker as a slave would freely consent to marriage and sex with that man. It is such a ridiculous idea that it beggars belief that you would even present it!

And how do you know the female captives “whom your right hand possess” did not consent to marriage?? Your imagination ‘wife’ told you??

Marriage was an option back then for female captives to gain freedom and the security status of being a wife, So, why would they not consent to marriage in those days?? Conditions and circumstances in those times are very different from today’s conditions and circumstances.

You claim Islam is perfect.
Islam prescribes or permits slavery and torture.
Therefore you must consider slavery and torture to be acceptable, both morally and in practice.

Islam NEVER prescribed slavery! Slavery was already there long before Muhammad was even born! You think slavery never existed before Muhammad? And where in the Quran is stated torture is permitted??

Muhammad had people stoned to death for adultery, so are you saying he was wrong when he did that?

No, Muhammad was NOT wrong because the rule on adultery (Quran 24:2) which cancels death as the punishment for adultery has not been revealed yet. In the absence of new revelation on adultery. Muhammad referred to the rule on adultery of the Torah Law (Leviticus 20:10) and conformed to the traditional and customary form of punishment of the Jew community. This is narrated in the hadith - "The Jews came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and mentioned to him that a man and woman from among them had committed adultery. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked them, 'What do you find in the Torah about stoning?' They said, 'We make their wrong action known and flog them.' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'You have lied! It has stoning for it, so bring the Torah.' They spread it out and one of them placed his hand over the ayat of stoning. Then he read what was before it and what was after it. Abdullah ibn Salam told him to lift his hand. He lifted his hand and there was the ayat of stoning. They said, 'He has spoken the truth, Muhammad. The ayat of stoning is in it.' So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the order and they were stoned’.
- Muwatta Book 41, Hadith 1. Also in al-Bukhari, Muslim and others.

Oh dear. This is what happened when you haven't read the Quran...

..And you have read the Quran??? Oh, dear. I guess a comedian will always be a comedian!!!

"The adulteress and adulterer should be flogged a hundred lashes each, and no pity for them should deter you from the law of God" - 24:2

Flogging is NOT God’s Law. Flogging is a type of punishment.

In Quran 24:2 you quoted above, God mentioned flogging because flogging was the traditional and customary punishment practice of that society in that time.

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides" - 5:33

The statement “those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger” refers to those who physically pick a fight with the intention to cause grievous harm or to kill the Muslims and all just because of their faith in Allah!! So what do you expect Allah to say to the Muslims?? Just lie down and wait to be killed?? Another example of your inability to think logically and rationally??

But the Quran does forbid adultery and fornication, so I have no idea what point you think you are trying to make there.

If you already knew Allah forbids adultery and fornication, then why even say “despite the Quran not prohibiting it and Muhammad doing it”?? So I have no idea what point you think you are trying to make here. Maybe you don’t know the meaning of ‘prohibit’ and/or ‘forbid’… You sure English is your first language..??

Ok. So what are the specific offences covered by fasad, and where are they mentioned in that passage?

What passage??! You are the one who first brought up ‘fasad’ - ‘The Quran specifies crucifixion (execution by torture) as a punishment for "fasad" (an unspecified collection of offences)’!

Ibn Kathir (who was better at Classical Arabic than both of us combined) stated that "fasad" includes "disbelief and acts of disobedience" - so even the clarification is still vague!

Whether the clarification is vague or not will depend on the context of that Ibn Kathir statement. What we can be certain of is that statement - ‘"fasad" includes "disbelief and acts of disobedience" does NOT imply fasad is ‘an unspecified collection of offences’.

 

[KWED]

Consensual sex between a couple who are not married to each other is wrong because it is immoral. It is immoral because the act can destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life.

I asked...
"why is consensual, adult sex between unmarried people a sin?"

Any act that transgress, ruin, bring unjust destruction, disruption, and disharmony to another family is a sin. Therefore, God rules that adultery is a sin.

Taking a married woman captive as a slave can "destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life", yet that is not a sin. Why?

So, where does it says those female captives ‘that the right hand possess’ are pagans??

You keep banging on about rational and logical thinking, so try actually doing it.
1. The women were from a pagan tribe.
2. Their husbands were pagans.
3. The Muslims felt justified in attacking the tribe and enslaving the women.
Therefore the women must have been pagans.
QED.

And how do you know the female captives “whom your right hand possess” did not consent to marriage?? Your imagination ‘wife’ told you??

Again, try using logic and rational thinking.
A woman's tribe is attacked.
Her husband possibly killed.
She is carried off as a slave by the attackers (possibly the man who killed her husband/brother/father).
The man says "you will have sex with me".
Do you really think any "consent" given would be valid?

And remember that you earlier admitted that "consent is irrelevant" in that context.

Marriage was an option back then for female captives to gain freedom and the security status of being a wife, So, why would they not consent to marriage in those days??

So you admit that women would submit to sex with a captor in order to preserve or improve their life.

Conditions and circumstances in those times are very different from today’s conditions and circumstances.

Ah, so you are now admitting that the Quran was only written for 7th century Arabs, not for 21st century Europeans or Americans.
So when is Allah sending another messenger with his revised guidebook for the modern world? Or is it up to us to decide what parts of the Quran are no longer valid?

Islam NEVER prescribed slavery! Slavery was already there long before Muhammad was even born! You think slavery never existed before Muhammad?

Straw man.
I said "Islam prescribes or permits slavery and torture.".
Slavery is explicitly permitted through all the rules on taking, keeping and treating slaves. You really should read the Quran you know.

And where in the Quran is stated torture is permitted??

Once again, if you had read the Quran you would know.
Crucifixion (5:33), dismemberment (5:33), flogging (24:2), amputation (5:38).

(Torture: The action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment - Oxford English Dictionary)

No, Muhammad was NOT wrong because the rule on adultery (Quran 24:2) which cancels death as the punishment for adultery has not been revealed yet. In the absence of new revelation on adultery. Muhammad referred to the rule on adultery of the Torah Law (Leviticus 20:10) and conformed to the traditional and customary form of punishment of the Jew community. This is narrated in the hadith - "The Jews came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and mentioned to him that a man and woman from among them had committed adultery. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked them, 'What do you find in the Torah about stoning?' They said, 'We make their wrong action known and flog them.' Abdullah ibn Salam said, 'You have lied! It has stoning for it, so bring the Torah.' They spread it out and one of them placed his hand over the ayat of stoning. Then he read what was before it and what was after it. Abdullah ibn Salam told him to lift his hand. He lifted his hand and there was the ayat of stoning. They said, 'He has spoken the truth, Muhammad. The ayat of stoning is in it.' So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the order and they were stoned’.
- Muwatta Book 41, Hadith 1. Also in al-Bukhari, Muslim and others.

So god initially thought stoning was a good idea, but then he changed his mind.
Love how you avoid Muhammad being wrong by admitting that god was wrong.

Flogging is NOT God’s Law. Flogging is a type of punishment.

Are you high?
Flogging is commended in the Quran, by god, as a punishment. It is therefore a part of god's law.
You really don't grasp how Islam works, do you?

In Quran 24:2 you quoted above, God mentioned flogging because flogging was the traditional and customary punishment practice of that society in that time.

Oh, so god's final, perfect and unchangeable guide for all humanity was decided by what was popular amongst pagans at the time?
(Ironically, there is a kernel of truth in your bonkers claim)

The statement “those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger” refers to those who physically pick a fight with the intention to cause grievous harm or to kill

How do you "physically pick a fight" with Allah?
Also, Ibn Kathir is quite clear on the matter ...
"`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief"

What passage??!

You are the one who first brought up ‘fasad’ - ‘The Quran specifies crucifixion (execution by torture) as a punishment for "fasad" (an unspecified collection of offences)’!

5:32-33, obviously.
I cited that verse and pointed out that it prescribes crucifixion for a variety or unspecified offences (fasad).
You replied that fasad isn't a variety of unspecified offences.
So, what are the specific offences that fasad refers to?

What we can be certain of is that statement - ‘"fasad" includes "disbelief and acts of disobedience" does NOT imply fasad is ‘an unspecified collection of offences’.

"acts of disobedience" is most certainly a collection of unspecified offences.
Even "disbelief" isn't specific. Does it mean atheist, or believing in another religion, or just questioning certain elements of Islam?

 

[JerryMyers]

I asked...
"why is consensual, adult sex between unmarried people a sin?"

I just told you!!!

Clearly, not only are you ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally, but you also cannot understand what you read!

Taking a married woman captive as a slave can "destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life", yet that is not a sin. Why?

‘A married woman captive’ in this context, would mean the woman and her husband survived a battle and both were captured. Captives of war (married couples, single males, or females) are either set free or become slaves to their captors. Quran 4:24 specifically said it is forbidden to marry a female captive who is still married as that would mean separating the married woman from her husband. So, the question of destroying a marriage, a family, and ruining someone’s life never arises.

You keep banging on about rational and logical thinking, so try actually doing it.
1. The women were from a pagan tribe.
2. Their husbands were pagans.
3. The Muslims felt justified in attacking the tribe and enslaving the women.
Therefore the women must have been pagans.
QED.

So why shouldn’t I keep banging on your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally when you keep displaying them???

If the husbands were pagans, that does not necessarily mean the wives are too. Even if the women were pagans, it’s forbidden for the Muslim captors to marry them and have a sexual relationship with them –
“..that it is UNLAWFUL to have intercourse with the CAPTIVE WOMEN AMONG THE IDOLATERS and other unbelievers who are without a divine scripture UNLESS THEY FIRST EMBRACE ISLAM. They are forbidden to approach as long as they are following their own religion and these captive girls were among the Arab polytheists who worshipped idols. This tradition and others like it imply that the women embraced Islam and this is how they must be interpreted. Allah knows best. (Abu Zakariya al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim, 1456)

In other words, these pagan female captives (married or not) are NOT ‘what your right hand possess’.

Again, try using logic and rational thinking.
A woman's tribe is attacked.
Her husband possibly killed.
She is carried off as a slave by the attackers (possibly the man who killed her husband/brother/father).
The man says "you will have sex with me".
Do you really think any "consent" given would be valid?

You sure have a strong imagination!!! Hardly surprising as you also have a ‘wife’ out of your imagination too!! LOL!!

But coming back to your question above… NO, no consent is needed because the wife of the man who was possibly killed turned out to be just the imagination of the man (possibly the man who killed ‘her husband’/brother/father)!! That’s so funny!! Man, you are really good at this!!!

And remember that you earlier admitted that "consent is irrelevant" in that context.

When and where did I admit that ‘consent’ is irrelevant?? Can you show me?? Another example of your zero integrity and dishonesty??

I said in the context of marriage, the right to access a sexual relationship is automatically granted.
You seem incapable to understand the difference between ‘the right to’ and ‘consent to’?? Are you sure English is your first language???

So you admit that women would submit to sex with a captor in order to preserve or improve their life.

There you go again putting words in my mouth…sigh.

I said marriage was an option for the female captives to gain freedom and security. I know sex is always on your mind, but do you really think people get married just for sex???

For once, try using logic and rational thinking instead of making a fool of yourself all the time!! Then again, to be honest, I do enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself!!

Ah, so you are now admitting that the Quran was only written for 7th century Arabs, not for 21st century Europeans or Americans.

And there you go again putting words in my mouth…. I guess that’s what someone who’s ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally does.

NOPE, I NEVER said nor have I admitted the Quran was only written for the 7th century Arabs.

I know you are incapable to think logically and rationally, but really, I never realized it was THAT bad!!!

So when is Allah sending another messenger with his revised guidebook for the modern world? Or is it up to us to decide what parts of the Quran are no longer valid?

Someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God asking me that???? What a comedian!!! Hey, if making people laugh is what you do best, please, don’t stop!!! LOL

Straw man.
I said "Islam prescribes or permits slavery and torture.".
Slavery is explicitly permitted through all the rules on taking, keeping and treating slaves.

Your ignorance is showing again!! LOL. Slavery is already in existence long before Muhammad was even born!!

You really should read the Quran you know.

..And you have read the Quran???? Making people laugh seems to come naturally to you!!! Keep it up!

Once again, if you had read the Quran you would know.

And you have read the Quran??? LOL.
Cherry-picking a verse here and there that you hardly can understand doesn’t make you an ‘expert’ on Islam, but it does make you a comedian... and you don’t have to keep reminding me what a good comedian you are, I already knew that!!

Crucifixion (5:33), dismemberment (5:33), flogging (24:2), amputation (5:38).
(Torture: The action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment - Oxford English Dictionary)

Once again, if you had the ability to think logically and rationally you will know crucifixion, dismemberment, flogging, and amputation are NOT God’s Law, but they are types of punishment that are meted out long before Muhammad even existed. These practices, because they are NOT God’s Laws, but rather traditional practices of the time, are no longer practiced today except maybe in some extreme societies.

Torture is often a retaliatory punishment by someone who wants to exact revenge or soldiers may use torture to extract information or confession from prisoners. Torture is not a punishment for a crime. You are not going to find a single verse in the Quran or a statement in the hadiths that say ‘The penalty/punishment for crime X is torture’.

So god initially thought stoning was a good idea, but then he changed his mind.
Love how you avoid Muhammad being wrong by admitting that god was wrong.

No, God is laying the rule that every wrongdoing/sin will be punished accordingly – what’s wrong with that??

Love how you try to avoid sounding ignorant by actually displaying ignorance!! LOL

Are you high?
Flogging is commended in the Quran, by god, as a punishment. It is therefore a part of god's law.
You really don't grasp how Islam works, do you?

Are you that ignorant??

Flogging (depending on the crime) is the traditional and customary form of punishment of the time.
If flogging, crucifixion, stoning, and the likes are part of God’s Law, then, such types of punishment will still be commonly practiced in ALL Muslim-majority countries today, wouldn’t it be???

You REALLY cannot think logically and rationally, can you??

Oh, so god's final, perfect and unchangeable guide for all humanity was decided by what was popular amongst pagans at the time?

(Ironically, there is a kernel of truth in your bonkers claim)

Again, you displayed your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally!

You really need to understand the difference between God’s Laws and the types of punishment of the time. God’s Law doesn’t change with the time, types/methods of punishment do.

Ironically, your bonker claims about Islam turn out to be proofs of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally!!!

How do you "physically pick a fight" with Allah?

If you physically pick a fight with Muslims just simply because of their faith in Allah, then, figuratively speaking, you ‘pick a fight with Allah too. Likewise, if somebody physically picks a fight with you simply because you don’t believe in the existence of God, then, figuratively speaking, he’s picking a fight with anyone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God.

Surely there must be some strands of intelligence in you to understand that, even if you are incapable to think logically and rationally.

Also, Ibn Kathir is quite clear on the matter ...
"`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief"

Yes, those who physically pick a fight with Muslims just simply because of their faith in Allah, are those who ‘oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief’. If they are believers and do not oppose and contradict the Muslims’ faith, why then wage a war with the Muslims simply because of the Muslims’ faith??? Another display of your inability to think logically and rationally???

5:32-33, obviously.
I cited that verse and pointed out that it prescribes crucifixion for a variety or unspecified offences (fasad).
You replied that fasad isn't a variety of unspecified offences.
So, what are the specific offences that fasad refers to?

I did not even say ‘fasad’ is a collection of specific offenses, you are the one who said ‘fasad’ is ‘a collection of unspecified offenses’!!! So I should be the one asking you - what are the unspecified offenses that fasad refers to?

"acts of disobedience" is most certainly a collection of unspecified offences.
Even "disbelief" isn't specific. Does it mean atheist, or believing in another religion, or just questioning certain elements of Islam?

Right, so what are the acts that can be considered disobedience?? And what is 'a collection of unspecified offenses’??

 

[KWED]

I just told you!!!
Clearly, not only are you ignorant and incapable to think logically and rationally, but you also cannot understand what you read!

You said...
"It is immoral because the act can destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life."
If neither of the participants are married, how can it destroy their marriage?
If they don't have a family, how can it destroy their family?
Given this, how is anyone's life ruined?

The world is full of unmarried people in happy, stable, long-term, monogamous relationships. You need to explain how that is "immoral".

 

[JerryMyers]

You said...
"It is immoral because the act can destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life."
If neither of the participants are married, how can it destroy their marriage?
If they don't have a family, how can it destroy their family?
Given this, how is anyone's life ruined?
The world is full of unmarried people in happy, stable, long-term, monogamous relationships. You need to explain how that is "immoral".

You really cannot understand what you read, can you?? Didn’t I say, “Therefore God rules that ADULTERY is a sin” ??? Adultery would mean one of the participants is married or both are married but not to each other.

Are you asking why fornication is a sin?

Fornication is a sin because, like adultery, it too can destroy a life. Do you know how many illegitimate children are there? People who commit fornication do it more often than not, out of lust and that normally means they do it without any sense of responsibility, and probably will go their separate ways after their lustful encounter. And if a child is born out of that, do you think the innocent child and the mother will have a decent normal future, especially when the partner just 'walks away' from it all??

For someone who claims his morality is ‘arrived at through a combination of social and cultural history, personal expectation, innate empathy and altruism, etc.’, you sure don’t seem to understand the meaning of ‘empathy’ and ‘altruism’.

 

[KWED]

You really cannot understand what you read, can you?? Didn’t I say, “Therefore God rules that ADULTERY is a sin” ??? Adultery would mean one of the participants is married or both are married but not to each other.

I asked you why consensual sex between adults was immoral. You replied "It is immoral because the act can destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life."

So you are admitting that your reply does not apply to unmarried people.

Fornication is a sin because, like adultery, it too can destroy a life. Do you know how many illegitimate children are there?

OK. So...
Why is consensual sex between married adults using contraception "immoral"?

Also, are you really claiming that the lives of all children born to unmarried parents are "destroyed"?
And are you similarly claiming that the children of married people never suffer neglect, abuse, etc?

People who commit fornication do it more often than not, out of lust and that normally means they do it without any sense of responsibility, and probably will go their separate ways after their lustful encounter.

You clearly aren't aware of how many people are in long-term, committed, monogamous relationships.
Why is their sex "immoral"?

And if a child is born out of that, do you think the innocent child and the mother will have a decent normal future, especially when the partner just 'walks away' from it all??

So it's only immoral if it results in an unwanted child and one or both of the parents are not willing to takes responsibility for it?

For someone who claims his morality is ‘arrived at through a combination of social and cultural history, personal expectation, innate empathy and altruism, etc.’, you sure don’t seem to understand the meaning of ‘empathy’ and ‘altruism’.

But I agree that abandoning children is immoral, but that wasn't the issue. It was the act of intercourse between unmarried people. That, in itself, is clearly not "immoral".

What you seem to be arguing is that the abuse or neglect of children is immoral (whether born to married or unmarried parents).
I would agree.
But you clearly can't explain why sex between unmarried, consenting adults using contraception is immoral.

 

[JerryMyers]

I asked you why consensual sex between adults was immoral. You replied "It is immoral because the act can destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life."
So you are admitting that your reply does not apply to unmarried people.

When did I admit to that??? We know you have zero integrity, but don’t make it too obvious!! My reply is in the context of adultery. Here’s my full reply (in post #254) –
“Consensual sex between a couple who are not married to each other is wrong because it is immoral. It is immoral because the act can destroy a marriage, a family and ruin someone’s life. Any act that transgresses, ruins, brings unjust destruction, disruption, and disharmony to another family is a sin. Therefore, God rules that adultery is a sin”.

Next time, quote my full reply, don’t just cherry-pick a statement, and in doing so, intentionally or not, throw my response out of context!

I know you cannot understand what you read, but, others can see that I am responding in the context of adultery as I am referring to couples who are NOT married to each other!! Heck, even the word ‘adultery’ is mentioned in my reply!

OK. So...
Why is consensual sex between married adults using contraception "immoral"?
Also, are you really claiming that the lives of all children born to unmarried parents are "destroyed"?
And are you similarly claiming that the children of married people never suffer neglect, abuse, etc?
You clearly aren't aware of how many people are in long-term, committed, monogamous relationships.
Why is their sex "immoral"?
So it's only immoral if it results in an unwanted child and one or both of the parents are not willing to takes responsibility for it?
But I agree that abandoning children is immoral, but that wasn't the issue. It was the act of intercourse between unmarried people. That, in itself, is clearly not "immoral".
What you seem to be arguing is that the abuse or neglect of children is immoral (whether born to married or unmarried parents). I would agree.
But you clearly can't explain why sex between unmarried, consenting adults using contraception is immoral.

Using contraception is a preventive measure against pregnancy, and using it is NOT an act of fornication or adultery.

When an act is deemed as wrong/unlawful/immoral/sinful, then, that act is unconditionally wrong/immoral/sinful to one and for all.

If you are pulled over by a traffic cop for jumping the red lights, you cannot argue with the police officer that you are not in the wrong because your action did not cause an accident and you are actually a considerate and careful motorist. The Law is clear that if you jump the red lights, then, you ARE wrong and guilty of breaking the law, even if you did NOT cause an accident doing it. The same unconditional rule applies to the act of fornication/adultery.