Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Not clear to me at all.

Where does God say it is ok to have s.ex outside of marriage?

God does say that men can marry their slaves when he lists the women men can legally marry (and lists those who we can't - sisters, mothers etc)

Your contention that Islam allows adultery is yet to be proven though.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Again with your fantasies.

I simply asked you to back up your claim that Islam allows s.ex outside of marriage.

Fail.

Cheers,
Shafique

What are you having trouble with, again?

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

The passage is saying that Muslim men can have relations with their wives *or* their slave girls.

Your question has been answered - the Koran allows Muslim men to have relations with concubines - women to whom they are not married to.

shafique wrote:Not clear to me at all.

Where does God say it is ok to have s.ex outside of marriage?

God does say that men can marry their slaves when he lists the women men can legally marry (and lists those who we can't - sisters, mothers etc)

Your contention that Islam allows adultery is yet to be proven though.

Cheers,
Shafique

Verse 70:29-30 is very clear - Muslim men do not have to guard their chastity for either their wives or their slave girls.

Therefore, men can have sex outside of marriage as long as it is with slave women (the passage says their wives and their slaves, so Muslims are not married to their slaves in this passage).

No it doesn't.

You really shouldn't take Ibrahim's word for these things. Tut tut.

See previous reference to 'tired canaries'.

BTW, how many Muslims do you know who have slave girls today?

Cheers,
Shafique

Here's another angle you could pursue 'eh' - why don't you quote what God has to say about s.ex outside marriage. You have to agree He addresses the topic head on in the Quran, doesn't He?

Cheers,
Shafique

Why don't you quote what 'God' has to say in the Koran about modesty and to whom men and women can expose themselves to?

Why beat about the bush? - God has issued clear instructions regarding adultery. Why don't you quote those verses?

Is it because the 'tired canary' arguments rely on quotes out of context?

Cheers
Shafique

I've already quoted a passage that clearly says that men do not have to guard their chastity around their wives or their slaves.

Why are you avoiding what the passage says?

When I said you were using Ibrahim's technique of quoting Quranic verses out of context, to what verse did you think I was referring to?

If you contend that Islam allows adultery, why don't you quote the verses where God talks about adultery?

Could it be because it would show you're taking verses out of context?

Cheers,
Shafique

Care to address to address this passage:

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

Any views on the meaning of this verse?

Yes.

It does not contradict what God says about adultery - and your contentiion that gos allows s.ex outside marriage reqiures you to ignore what god says about adultery and fantastically extrapolate from this verse.

All mouth, no trousers. Again.

Sorry, but I didn't see anything where you gave your own explanation of the passage.

What do you think the following means, again:

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

Guard chastity? What does that mean?

What is confusing about my observation that to test you fantasy that Islam allows s.ex outside marriage should be tested by quoting what God says about adultery - confused you?

Your refusal to quote what God says speaks volumes.

The fact no Muslim agrees that this verse allows adultery should have given you a clue that your fantasy is not a valid interpretain- but you like to think everyone else is wrong don't you.

All mouth, no trousers on the allegation that Islam condones adultery.

I also note you aren't answering the quesions on your condoning of massacres etc

Cheers
Shafique

So Muslims don't believe in polygamy now. Ok.

In any event, are you having trouble with the question?

What does telling husbands that they do not need to guard their chastity around their wives *or* their slaves mean to you?

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

Is the passage difficult for you to understand - like much of the Koran?

Have you even read what God says about adultery?

If so, why do you refuse to quote Him and justify your fantastic interpretation that God allows s.ex outside of marriage.

I really can't help you if you refuse to look at the verses relating adultery when making a ludicrous claim that God allows s.ex outside marriage.

Cheers
Shafique

Maybe it's a contradiction?

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

what is it exactly that you don't understand about this verse? You're perfectly capable to search and read all about the history of slaves during or before the propethic era. And how islam gradually abolished it all, during the life time of Prophet mohammad.

Berrin wrote:what is it exactly that you don't understand about this verse? You're perfectly capable to search and read all about the history of slaves during or before the propethic era. And how islam gradually abolished it all, during the life time of Prophet mohammad.

Do you agree or disagree that the Koran allows for concubinage?

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

Haven't you read what I wrote. Tell us exactly what you don't understand.

To me, you were saying that the Koran does indeed allow concubinage but, because concubines/slaves are treated well in Islam, you followed your tacit admission up by mentioning that slaves are treated 'ok'.

what is it exactly that you don't understand about this verse? You're perfectly capable to search and read all about the history of slaves during or before the propethic era. And how islam gradually abolished it all, during the life time of Prophet mohammad.

Unless you had some other point in telling me to read 'all about the history of slaves' during Muhammad's lifetime and under the reign of the rightly guided caliphs.

That last sentence does seem to say that Islam abolished slavery - not exactly historically accurate (the West abolished the institution), but that doesn't address whether or not Muslims are allowed to have concubines, if other conditions are met (such as whether or not the slave girls were enslaved through legal means).

But you are the only person we know that condones the Biblical war crime of the Israelites where they enslaved and raped 32,000 virgins after slaughtering in cold blood their families and friends (of the virgins). You are more extreme than the mad mullahs!!

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

No, I don't support the killing of virgins - and the passage you quoted doesn't say or imply that virgins were raped, that's just a se.xually frustrated mind going into overdrive.

Yes - it is clear you only support the slaughter of non-virgins and the enslavement of virgins. That's what makes you more extreme a religious fanatic than Al Qaeda.

You both justify slaughter in the name of religion - but you agree with keeping the vigins for the use of the Israelites (those who slaughtered)m

What is fascinating is that you seem to think you can convince non-fanatics that you are right!

Bump for eh - on March 1 he posted the same extract from Raymond Ibrahim's writings that he's used to start a new thread on the same topic.

eh - did you think that after a few months Ray's words have gained any more credibility?

But leaving aside Ibrahim's credentials (see article quoted in full in this thread), the issue about Islam and s.ex outside of marriage has been covered in the other posts of this thread.

But let me repeat a pertinent part of a description of Ibrahim's tactics:

And, mind you, you don't need to be an expert on the subject matter, just make sure to quote verses from the Qur'an out of context, cite Osama Bin Laden as the role model of Muslim behavior, bank on tired canaries like "Islam oppresses women," and "Islam was spread by the sword," and other washed out cliches, and voila!

You're a celebrity, a famous author (a rich, famous author, mind you), a Good Samaritan defending the civilized world from the evils of Islam.

Meet Raymond Ibrahim, the latest client of the "Islamophobia cash cow industry."

Cheers,
Shafique

Sigh.

Snowball, the point of posting the article about Raymond Ibrahim is to address the linguistic evidence that slave women are on par with animals.

You can continue regurgitating your weirdo beliefs of the Koran (funny that most Muslims disagree with you), but this is a new aspect and one that has never been discussed before.

Yes, when you can find a credible expert who agrees with Mr cash cow, let us know.

Why would you think the response to the quotes from Ibrahim would be different if you posted the same extract in a different thread? You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

I suggest you also read the comments to the expose of Ibrahim:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/raymond-ibrahim-and-the-islamophobic-cash-cow/

Cheers,
Shafique