Islam is a false religion per Quran itself.

[KWED]

So I take that as your admission that you are the result of the immoral act of your ‘father’ and mother and you are trying to convince everyone here that there’s nothing to be ashamed of being a bast*rd because fornication is not immoral. OK. Got it!

Seriously, there is nothing to be ashamed of if your mother was unmarried and you never knew your father.

You really cannot understand what you read, can you?? Let me say it again - fornication is immoral because the consensual sexual relationship between two persons not married to each other is a relationship WITHOUT commitment, responsibility and accountability.

*sigh*
I described an unmarried relationship where there is deep commitment, responsibility and accountability. Why is that relationship "immoral".
You can't explain.

 

[KWED]

See what I mean when I said you are going in circles??? In an unmarried relationship, you are mistaking lust for love and there’s no such thing as commitment, responsibility and accountability in such a relationship.

You are simply denying reality. It is absolutely clear that there are long-term, committed, monogamous, loving relationships, that raise happy, successful children, that remain together for life. Yet you just keep crying "but they don't exist!" when they obviously do.

So you admit that marriage is not what makes a person unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful but it is the behavior of the individuals??

I never claimed otherwise.
You are really struggling again.

HUH??! So you are now saying marriage is what make people unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful and this has nothing to do with the behavior of the individuals???

Oh, you poor thing.

 

[JerryMyers]

You are simply denying reality. It is absolutely clear that there are long-term, committed, monogamous, loving relationships, that raise happy, successful children, that remain together for life. Yet you just keep crying "but they don't exist!" when they obviously do.

What nonsense are you talking about???

The reality is - there’s nothing that binds them to be caring, responsible, and committed to each other, other than just their words, and we know too well how people can change their words! Try to get a housing loan from any financial institution based just on your words without signing any binding documents.
Seems to me you are the one who is denying reality!

I never claimed otherwise.
You are really struggling again.
Oh, you poor thing.

LOL. You are the one struggling to answer a simple question here, buddy. No wonder you are scratching your head and scratching your knee! Oh, you poor thing!

Here, let me ask you again - does marriage makes people unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful, OR being unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful is the reflection of one’s behavior and character???

You think you can answer that WITHOUT giving it your usual ‘pretzel’ treatment??

 

[KWED]

The reality is - there’s nothing that binds them to be caring, responsible, and committed to each other, other than just their words,

And their love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc. You know, all the things that bind a married couple.

and we know too well how people can change their words!

A marriage certificate is just words than can be changed. Married people get divorced every day. How do you explain that?

Try to get a housing loan from any financial institution based just on your words without signing any binding documents.

That is so that the loan company can recover their money if the borrower defaults. It is not meant as a sign that they have some emotional involvement.

LOL. You are the one struggling to answer a simple question here, buddy. No wonder you are scratching your head and scratching your knee! Oh, you poor thing!

And yet, you have repeatedly failed to explain why a long-term, committed, monogamous, loving relationship, that raises happy, successful children, that remains together for life, is "immoral.

Here, let me ask you again - does marriage makes people unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful, OR being unfaithful, abusive, and neglectful is the reflection of one’s behavior and character???

I have no idea why you are asking me. I was the one who explained to you that abusive, neglectful, unfaithful relationships are due to the behaviour of the individuals involved, not the type of relationship they are in.
You were the one claiming that those things don't happen in marriage, only in unmarried relationships.
(Actually, I know exactly why you keep avoiding my question and instead keep throwing red herrings)

 

[JerryMyers]

And their love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc. You know, all the things that bind a married couple.

Yeah, so what’s wrong with that?? Is there anything immoral about love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc???

A marriage certificate is just words than can be changed.

It’s not about the words, it’s about what it represents and the rights of the individual involved. Can a woman with children in an unmarried relationship claim alimony from her partner if he walks out of her life for another woman??

Married people get divorced every day. How do you explain that?

So, your rationale for opposing marriage is because people get divorced every day??? Do you also oppose driving tests and driving licenses because accidents happen every day???

That is so that the loan company can recover their money if the borrower defaults. It is not meant as a sign that they have some emotional involvement.

Yes, and those ‘just words’ in those papers give the financial institutions the RIGHTS to claim the defaulted amounts from the borrowers, which without ‘those papers’, what rights have the financial institutions to claim from the defaulted borrowers?? So, tell me what rights (which are recognized by the Law) does the woman (or man) have in a long unmarried relationship that has gone awry???

And yet, you have repeatedly failed to explain why a long-term, committed, monogamous, loving relationship, that raises happy, successful children, that remains together for life, is "immoral.

Here we go again!! You can keep on harping on that, but it does NOT change the fact that I have told you why and the reason you cannot understand why is because commitment, responsibility, and accountability are NOT traits you possessed.

I have no idea why you are asking me. I was the one who explained to you that abusive, neglectful, unfaithful relationships are due to the behaviour of the individuals involved, not the type of relationship they are in.

I don’t think you have any idea of what you are talking about either!

If ‘abusive, neglectful, unfaithful relationships are due to the behavior of the individuals involved, not the type of relationship they are in’, then, why even bring up ‘marriage’ when you are talking about abusive, neglectful, and unfaithful couples in a relationship??

You were the one claiming that those things don't happen in marriage, only in unmarried relationships.
(Actually, I know exactly why you keep avoiding my question and instead keep throwing red herrings)

Here you go again making baseless claims!! Can you show me where and when I ever claim that those things don’t happen in marriage, only in an unmarried relationship???

Show me if you are a man of integrity!
I doubt you can because as I have told you many times before you are a man of zero integrity and you just keep proving me right!!!

 

[KWED]

Yeah, so what’s wrong with that?? Is there anything immoral about love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc???

So you admit that there is nothing immoral about a relationship based on love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc.

Can a woman with children in an unmarried relationship claim alimony from her partner if he walks out of her life for another woman??

Yes.

So, your rationale for opposing marriage

I don't oppose marriage. Where on earth did you get that ridiculous straw man? I'm perfectly happy for people to marry. I would be prepared to get married myself in the right circumstances.

You are trying to explain why a long-term, committed, monogamous relationship based on love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc - is "immoral". Had you forgotten.

Yes, and those ‘just words’ in those papers give the financial institutions the RIGHTS to claim the defaulted amounts from the borrowers, which without ‘those papers’, what rights have the financial institutions to claim from the defaulted borrowers?? So, tell me what rights (which are recognized by the Law) does the woman (or man) have in a long unmarried relationship that has gone awry???

The rights that are laid down in law concerning parental and financial responsibility in the case of a separation. Fathers have a financial obligation in law, even if they aren't married.
You seem woefully ill-informed.

Here we go again!! You can keep on harping on that, but it does NOT change the fact that I have told you why and the reason you cannot understand why is because commitment, responsibility, and accountability are NOT traits you possessed.

You didn't explain why an unmarried relationship that was loving, responsible, monogamous, committed, responsible, etc is immoral. You merely asserted that there are no such unmarried relationships - which is obvious nonsense.

If ‘abusive, neglectful, unfaithful relationships are due to the behavior of the individuals involved, not the type of relationship they are in’, then, why even bring up ‘marriage’ when you are talking about abusive, neglectful, and unfaithful couples in a relationship??

You claimed that unmarried couples cannot exhibit the "moral" behaviour of married couples. I was trying "obviously in vain" to explain that you are wrong.

Can you show me where and when I ever claim that those things don’t happen in marriage, only in an unmarried relationship???

Ok, fine. I was wrong. You agree with me that unmarried couples can exhibit "moral" relationship behaviour, not just married ones.

 

[JerryMyers]

So you admit that there is nothing immoral about a relationship based on love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc.

I was responding to your comment – “And their love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc. You know, all the things that bind a married couple”, meaning we are talking about a relationship in a marriage.
So, yes, I find nothing immoral about such a relationship based on love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc.

I don't oppose marriage. Where on earth did you get that ridiculous straw man? I'm perfectly happy for people to marry. I would be prepared to get married myself in the right circumstances.

So now you are saying you would be prepared to get married yourself?? Good, and what would ‘in the right circumstances’ that be???

The rights that are laid down in law concerning parental and financial responsibility in the case of a separation. Fathers have a financial obligation in law, even if they aren't married. You seem woefully ill-informed.

Well, that’s the least of all my concerns as I am happily married.
Responsibility, accountability, loving, caring, and commitment are what I am all about and what I believe in, so much so that I am willing to sign that ‘piece of paper’ to symbolize my sincerity in that relationship – something you find hard to do.

You are trying to explain why a long-term, committed, monogamous relationship based on love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc - is "immoral". Had you forgotten.
You didn't explain why an unmarried relationship that was loving, responsible, monogamous, committed, responsible, etc is immoral. You merely asserted that there are no such unmarried relationships - which is obvious nonsense.

I said there’s no such thing as commitment, responsibility, and accountability in an unmarried relationship, meaning those are just words that you are NOT willing to sign over it (like a marriage cert) as a symbol of your sincerity. What moral is there if you are not willing to stamp your sincerity??

You claimed that unmarried couples cannot exhibit the "moral" behaviour of married couples. I was trying "obviously in vain" to explain that you are wrong.

You really need to stop making “you claimed….” statements unless you are 110% sure.

Now that you have said it, can you show me where and when did I ever claim “unmarried couples cannot exhibit the "moral" behavior of married couples”???

Ok, fine. I was wrong.

Yes, you are wrong but more importantly how sincere are you in saying you are wrong??

You agree with me that unmarried couples can exhibit "moral" relationship behaviour, not just married ones.

I only agree with you if you also believe that behavior morality is a question of the individual’s character rather than a question of relationship.

 

[KWED]

I was responding to your comment – “And their love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc. You know, all the things that bind a married couple”, meaning we are talking about a relationship in a marriage.
So, yes, I find nothing immoral about such a relationship based on love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc.


So now you are saying you would be prepared to get married yourself?? Good, and what would ‘in the right circumstances’ that be???


Well, that’s the least of all my concerns as I am happily married.
Responsibility, accountability, loving, caring, and commitment are what I am all about and what I believe in, so much so that I am willing to sign that ‘piece of paper’ to symbolize my sincerity in that relationship – something you find hard to do.


I said there’s no such thing as commitment, responsibility, and accountability in an unmarried relationship, meaning those are just words that you are NOT willing to sign over it (like a marriage cert) as a symbol of your sincerity. What moral is there if you are not willing to stamp your sincerity??


You really need to stop making “you claimed….” statements unless you are 110% sure.

Now that you have said it, can you show me where and when did I ever claim “unmarried couples cannot exhibit the "moral" behavior of married couples”???


Yes, you are wrong but more importantly how sincere are you in saying you are wrong??


I only agree with you if you also believe that behavior morality is a question of the individual’s character rather than a question of relationship.

Like so many discussions with you, this is pointless.

You keep agreeing with me that long-term, stable, monogamous relationships based on love, responsibility, commitment, etc are not immoral.
But then you flip flop and claim that such relationships are immoral when you realise that it refutes your initial position.

This is because your position is based on dogma rather than reason.

 

[JerryMyers]

Like so many discussions with you, this is pointless.

You keep agreeing with me that long-term, stable, monogamous relationships based on love, responsibility, commitment, etc are not immoral.
But then you flip flop and claim that such relationships are immoral when you realise that it refutes your initial position.

This is because your position is based on dogma rather than reason.

Yes, you are right - like so many discussions with you, this is pointless. You keep proving again and again that you are incapable to understand what you read!!! Unbelievable!!!

I TOLD you I only agree with you if you also believe that behavior morality is a question of the individual’s character rather than a question of relationship. Which part of that statement that you cannot understand??

Or are you trying to tell me behavior morality is dependent on whether the couple is married or not, and if that is so, then what’s your reasoning for that??

 

[KWED]

I only agree with you if you also believe that behavior morality is a question of the individual’s character rather than a question of relationship.

Therefore, you do not see an unmarried relationship that is faithful, monogamous, long-term and based on commitment, love, responsibility, etc, as immoral.

Or are you trying to tell me behavior morality is dependent on whether the couple is married or not, and if that is so, then what’s your reasoning for that??

That has been your argument from the beginning!
You have been claiming that the behaviour of the people in the relationship is irrelevant. If they are not married, it is immoral.
I am the one who has been saying that it is down to the behaviour of the individuals, not the label put on the relationship.

Glad to see you have finally come round to my point of view.

 

[JerryMyers]

Therefore, you do not see an unmarried relationship that is faithful, monogamous, long-term and based on commitment, love, responsibility, etc, as immoral.

Therefore, not only you cannot understand what you read, but you also cannot follow an argument very well.

Go and read back your post #284 where you wrote, “And their love, commitment, sense of responsibility, loyalty, etc. You know, all the things that bind a married couple”. Obviously, you are NOT referring to unmarried couples in that post. THEREFORE, all my responses relating to “faithful, monogamous, long-term and based on commitment, love, responsibility, etc” after your post #284 are in the context of relationships based on marriage!! If you think I have changed my position on fornication somewhere along the way, then, kindly show me in which post of mine did that happen!!

That has been your argument from the beginning!
You have been claiming that the behaviour of the people in the relationship is irrelevant. If they are not married, it is immoral.I am the one who has been saying that it is down to the behaviour of the individuals, not the label put on the relationship.
Glad to see you have finally come round to my point of view.

Nope, can you show where and when did I ever claim the behavior of the people in the relationship is irrelevant???

Show me and if you can’t, then just admit that you are a man of zero integrity and no one should take your words seriously!!

 

[questfortruth]

We didn't hold our scholars and their leadership accountable to Quran similarly how Christians followed their scholars without holding them accountable.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" Galatians 2:11-14

 

[RAYYAN]

There is no verse that there is no more Messengers. There is a verse that there is no more Anbiya.

Yes
Quran 33:40

 

[Link]

Yes
Quran 33:40

Salam

Yeah, that means no more Anbiya, it doesn't say end to Messengers. If Messengers were all Anbiya, then it would be an end of them. But they are two different roles that often intersect but don't always.

 

[RAYYAN]

Salam

Yeah, that means no more Anbiya, it doesn't say end to Messengers. If Messengers were all Anbiya, then it would be an end of them. But they are two different roles that often intersect but don't always.

That shows you don't know Arabic. Yes?
In arabic, when Anbiya is mentioned without specification, that includes both

 

[Link]

That shows you don't know Arabic. Yes?
In arabic, when Anbiya is mentioned without specification, that includes both

Salam

Not true, I know enough Arabic to call you out that you are wrong on this. Rasool has to do with having message and conveying it, while Nabi has to do with receiving revelation and channeling it. Mursal is what includes both and can be any of the two or both. If God wanted to include both and say there is no more sent ones, he could've just used the words "Khatamal mursaleen".

It's assumed what is meant by "message" is Quran, but Quran shows this is not the case, for example 5:67. In 5:67, it doesn't make sense to say convey Quran, if you don't convey Quran, you have not conveyed Quran. That is meaningless speech.

The message is what is upon the Messenger to deliver, the Quran is not something that is upon the Messenger but it's him rather channeling it from God.

The Message is the words of Mohammad (s) (Sunnah). Nubuwa is the Quran at various stages of light and understanding and perception of it and reception of it at all levels of the mind and heart.

Nubuwa (Quran) has a message, but it's not the message upon Mohammad (s) to deliver. What is upon Mohammad (s) to do is the Sunnah, while Quran is him channeling God's words, and is more on the side of reception and being given news from God to channel to the people.

Of course, both Nubuwa and Resalah is upon Mohammad (s), but Nubuwa is more the role of God and hence we never seen it's said "only the Nubuwa is upon you", and Resalah is more the role of Mohammad (s), and hence we do see "only the Resalah is upon you".

There is no more holy scripture from God (end of Nubuwa), but there is sent ones and if they become messengers is contingent if people need to be reminded of the message and clear truth of his religion.

 

[Link]

Salam

Of course, from another perspective, the message that is Mohammad's (s) Sunnah, is conveying on behalf of God and is God's message as well since it interprets the Quran and compliments it in a way that accords to God's will and glory.

And of course, Quran can be seen as "the message", since Sunnah interprets it and all of Sunnah is found in the Quran.

But these are none the less, in Quran, two different roles.

Musa (a) and Haroun (a) were two Messengers arguing on behalf of God to people of Pharaoh, before they received Tablets and before they channeled scripture from God to humanity.

 

[RAYYAN]

Salam

Not true, I know enough Arabic to call you out that you are wrong on this. Rasool has to do with having message and conveying it, while Nabi has to do with receiving revelation and channeling it. Mursal is what includes both and can be any of the two or both. If God wanted to include both and say there is no more sent ones, he could've just used the words "Khatamal mursaleen".

Ok let's try it this way
Every messenger is a prophet, but not every prophet is a messenger. This is a fact
When the verse says, Mohammed is the last prophet, that means he is the last messenger too. Because you can't have a messenger without him being a prophet.
It is a simple conclusion

It's assumed what is meant by "message" is Quran, but Quran shows this is not the case, for example 5:67. In 5:67, it doesn't make sense to say convey Quran, if you don't convey Quran, you have not conveyed Quran. That is meaningless speech.

No, the message is the total message that the prophet was sent with, some are in the Quran, some in hadeeth, and some in both
So, if the prophet doesn't convey the Quran, then he doesn't convey the whole message

 

[Link]

Ok let's try it this way
Every messenger is a prophet, but not every prophet is a messenger. This is a fact

Only to people who want to deny more Messengers.

 

[Link]

Ok let's try it this way
No, the message is the total message that the prophet was sent with, some are in the Quran, some in hadeeth, and some in both

The truth is there is three as far Nabi and Rasool.

Rasool that is a Nabi.
Rasool that is not a Nabi.
A Nabi that is not a Rasool.

Most of the time it's that they are both.

The reason why is because conveying the clear message in their own words is needed by the Messenger usually when scripture is revealed (Nubuwa). And scripture is beneficial reinforcement from God and way to leave a legacy from God through a person.

A Nabi that is not a Rasool, in which society the Nabi revealing scripture accepts the message, so no need of revival of the truth. The only one I can think of this was the case is Dul-Kifl (a) who revealed the truth of Gog and Magog and how they lead astray bani-Israel to a people who already believed in the Message.

The case a Rasool is not a Nabi, is when Allah (swt) is reviving a message or truth, but doesn't want there to be scripture from that person (for a reason). I think Talut (a) is an example of Non-Nabi Messenger although some hadiths say Nubuwa was where Tabut was, Talut (a) can be an exception to the norm.