Islam is a false religion per Quran itself.

[KWED]

the word ‘consent’ is irrelevant in marriages as consent and the right to sexual access IS AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED by marriage!

Do you believe that a husband can be guilty of raping his wife?

 

[KWED]

Don’t flatter yourself again and again.

I knew you couldn't give a straight answer.

First of all, having sex with someone who is NOT ‘what your right hands possessed’, that is, NOT your wife/husband is NOT only a sin but it is also immoral.

1. Why is two unmarried people in a long-term, monogamous relationship having sex "immoral"?
2. Why is a married man having sex with a female battlefield captive "moral"?

The issue of morality is something that atheists like you cannot understand as you don’t believe in a God. When you don’t believe in the existence of a God, then, sin is also non-existence, and ‘morality’ is what you said it is and you try to force your kind of ‘morality’ on others. Nice try!

Of course atheists understand morality. Ironically, we can understand it better than religionists because we understand its actual basis. Morality evolves and develops as a response to a variety of factors. The morality you have chosen is simply a snapshot of a developed morality in 7th century Arabia.

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

Ok. So you do believe it is morally acceptable to kill a woman for having adult, consensual, extra-marital sex.
Glad we sorted that out.

So, your question should be 2 folds –
1. Do you think it can ever be morally acceptable to consensual, extra-marital sex?

Of course.

2. Do you think the penalty for adultery/fornication should be death?
The answer is NO

Wait. So you think Muhammad was wrong to kill people as a punishment for adultery, and Islam is wrong to impose that penalty?
Crikey, you're half-way to being a murtad!

 

[JerryMyers]

IIt was not "rape" then, but it would be now. Muhammad's actions 1400 years ago would see him arrested on charges of war crimes today.

Like clockwork, you keep displaying your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally!!

It was not "rape" then and it would not be "rape" today because the women were “whom their right hands possessed”. Your inability to understand the phrase ‘what the right hands possessed’ doesn’t make sexual activity between a husband and his wife a rape.

IThis raises an important question. Which is the more moral system, the one that allows using female captives and slaves for sex, or the one that prohibits it?

Yes, this raises an important question – can an ignorant person with the inability to think logically and rationally ever present a logical and rational argument??

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

Another display of your inability to think logically and rationally?? I wonder where you got the idea that a husband does not ‘own’ his wife?? Of course, the husband ‘owns’ his wife, and the wife ‘owns’ her husband!! Why do you think when a husband introduces his wife to someone, he would say, “This is MY wife..” and NOT “This is wife…”??? Just because you consider your wife a public property as you don’t ‘own’ your wife does not mean everyone’s wife is the same.

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

Of course, else how can the husband and wife enjoy the sex experience if one party did not consent?? When was the last time you have consensual sex with your wife?? 30 years ago??

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

Only those who don’t believe in a God will say that.. so, believe me, I do understand where you are coming from when you said that.

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

Can you show me when and where did I ever point out to you that Islam permits slavery and using female slaves for sex?? Is this one of your unethical tactics, you know like the one where you change a word in my comment so that your response looks more legit?? I already knew you are not an ethical and honest man and that seems to form the basis of your arguments.

IYou seem confused.
1. The Quran clearly states that Muslim men may have sex with "those their right hand possess".
2. You have accepted that "those who your right hand posses" refers to slaves and battlefield captives.
3. Sahih hadith give explicit examples of Muhammad allowing his men to have sex with battlefield captives.
So, either you consider this acceptable or unacceptable in principle. You seem to think it is acceptable.

You are the one confused or you just want to remain ignorant and maybe both.

1. Your refusal to understand “those their right hands possessed” is what makes you ignorant and your ignorance is making you confused.

2. It refers to slaves and battlefield captives only in the context of the hadith/Quran passage.

3. Again, your refusal to understand “those their right hands\ possessed” is what makes you ignorant.

So, either you understand what “those their right hands possessed” means or choose not to understand and remain ignorant. You seem to have chosen to remain ignorant.

Nothing is "a concept in atheism" except the non existence of gods. (Atheism is not an ideology with doctrine and rules).

Yes, and that’s why the world of atheists is no different from the world of animals – no gods, no doctrines, no morals, no rules, and no nothing!!

IHowever, non-consensual sex is indeed a concept in civilised society, and it is prohibited.

Well, non-consensual sex would mean forced sex – I didn’t know that is a concept in a civilized society. Do you consider yourself civilized?? Hmm…

IWhy do you think there is no concept on non-consensual sex in Islam? (Hint: because consent is not regarded as necessary and the right to sexual access is granted by marriage or ownership - as you admitted earlier).

Err, because marriage in Islam is also about consensual sex?? (Hint: because the right to sexual access as granted by marriage or ownership does not mean non-consensual sex is permitted)

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

You seem to be ignorantly confused here. The right to sexual access is absolutely granted by marriage in any society – marriage is what makes the sexual relationships between a man and a woman lawful!!

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

I supposed trying to convince yourself that “a wife is not obliged to sleep with her husband” will make you feel better about your own sexual shortcomings – I understand and I feel for you, man!!

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

You mean like the animals’ world?? Got it!

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

Ooops, almost fell off my chair laughing there!! Your ignorance of Islam is so comical!!

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

In the context of that hadith, yes, it is a reference to the female captives but if you are talking about a sexual relationship between a female captive and her captor master, then “who the right hand possessed” carries a deeper meaning than just a reference to female captives. You are so ignorant of Islam and that’s why you really have no idea what is going on here, do you?

IOh dear...
Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery. Allaah says, describing the believers
“those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,__ for then, they are free from blame”
Not sure how much clearer it can be.
"Those your right hand possess" are "slaves"
Allah allows Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.

Oh dear… Not sure how much ignorant you can be.

You don’t understand contexts and you don’t understand what the phrase “their right hands possessed” mean is hilarious and even more so when you want to ‘educate’ the Muslims about their own books??? That’s like you trying to teach George Soros how to make money!! What a comedian!!!

So, go ahead, entertain me and give me another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally…1,2,3..GO!

 

[JerryMyers]

Do you believe that a husband can be guilty of raping his wife?

Of course guilty, marital rape is NOT allowed in Islam. Is marital rape common among the atheists?? After all, your world has no gods, no rules, no laws, no morals, and no nothing!! So who to tell you marital rape is wrong???

 

[JerryMyers]

1. Why is two unmarried people in a long-term, monogamous relationship having sex "immoral"?

Because they are unmarried and their sexual relationship is not only immoral but a great sin. You don’t believe in God, so I don’t expect you to understand that.

2. Why is a married man having sex with a female battlefield captive "moral"?

Who said that?? As far as I know, only you said that. You do have a dirty mind, don’t you??

Of course atheists understand morality. Ironically, we can understand it better than religionists because we understand its actual basis. Morality evolves and develops as a response to a variety of factors. The morality you have chosen is simply a snapshot of a developed morality in 7th century Arabia.

As I said, to an atheist, morality is what an atheist wants to understand it to be – that doesn’t make you understand or an authority on morality.

Ok. So you do believe it is morally acceptable to kill a woman for having adult, consensual, extra-marital sex.
Glad we sorted that out.

Well, you just confirmed apart from being ignorant. you don’t read well too which partly explained why you are so ignorant!! Glad we sorted that out.

Of course.

Of course.. and we know the real reason why you allow your wife to sleep around with other men.

Wait. So you think Muhammad was wrong to kill people as a punishment for adultery, and Islam is wrong to impose that penalty?
Crikey, you're half-way to being a murtad!

Wait. Here you go again editing my comment and presenting it to suit your response!!

My full comment to the question “Do you think the penalty for adultery/fornication should be death? was “The answer is NO because I believe in repentance for the forgiveness of sin and I fear God’s punishment far more than man’s penalty/punishment” and NOT just “The answer is NO”!

Which part of my comment makes you think that I think Muhammad was wrong??

Crikey, you are one hell of a dishonest and unethical human being I have ever come across in any forum! Really pity your wife for having to live with someone as dishonest and unethical as you!! No wonder she finds joy in other men!

 

[KWED]

Like clockwork, you keep displaying your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally!!

It was not "rape" then and it would not be "rape" today because the women were “whom their right hands possessed”. Your inability to understand the phrase ‘what the right hands possessed’ doesn’t make sexual activity between a husband and his wife a rape.


Yes, this raises an important question – can an ignorant person with the inability to think logically and rationally ever present a logical and rational argument??


Another display of your inability to think logically and rationally?? I wonder where you got the idea that a husband does not ‘own’ his wife?? Of course, the husband ‘owns’ his wife, and the wife ‘owns’ her husband!! Why do you think when a husband introduces his wife to someone, he would say, “This is MY wife..” and NOT “This is wife…”??? Just because you consider your wife a public property as you don’t ‘own’ your wife does not mean everyone’s wife is the same.


Of course, else how can the husband and wife enjoy the sex experience if one party did not consent?? When was the last time you have consensual sex with your wife?? 30 years ago??


Only those who don’t believe in a God will say that.. so, believe me, I do understand where you are coming from when you said that.


Can you show me when and where did I ever point out to you that Islam permits slavery and using female slaves for sex?? Is this one of your unethical tactics, you know like the one where you change a word in my comment so that your response looks more legit?? I already knew you are not an ethical and honest man and that seems to form the basis of your arguments.


You are the one confused or you just want to remain ignorant and maybe both.

1. Your refusal to understand “those their right hands possessed” is what makes you ignorant and your ignorance is making you confused.

2. It refers to slaves and battlefield captives only in the context of the hadith/Quran passage.

3. Again, your refusal to understand “those their right hands\ possessed” is what makes you ignorant.

So, either you understand what “those their right hands possessed” means or choose not to understand and remain ignorant. You seem to have chosen to remain ignorant.


Yes, and that’s why the world of atheists is no different from the world of animals – no gods, no doctrines, no morals, no rules, and no nothing!!


Well, non-consensual sex would mean forced sex – I didn’t know that is a concept in a civilized society. Do you consider yourself civilized?? Hmm…


Err, because marriage in Islam is also about consensual sex?? (Hint: because the right to sexual access as granted by marriage or ownership does not mean non-consensual sex is permitted)


You seem to be ignorantly confused here. The right to sexual access is absolutely granted by marriage in any society – marriage is what makes the sexual relationships between a man and a woman lawful!!


I supposed trying to convince yourself that “a wife is not obliged to sleep with her husband” will make you feel better about your own sexual shortcomings – I understand and I feel for you, man!!


You mean like the animals’ world?? Got it!


Ooops, almost fell off my chair laughing there!! Your ignorance of Islam is so comical!!


In the context of that hadith, yes, it is a reference to the female captives but if you are talking about a sexual relationship between a female captive and her captor master, then “who the right hand possessed” carries a deeper meaning than just a reference to female captives. You are so ignorant of Islam and that’s why you really have no idea what is going on here, do you?


Oh dear… Not sure how much ignorant you can be.

You don’t understand contexts and you don’t understand what the phrase “their right hands possessed” mean is hilarious and even more so when you want to ‘educate’ the Muslims about their own books??? That’s like you trying to teach George Soros how to make money!! What a comedian!!!

So, go ahead, entertain me and give me another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally…1,2,3..GO!

You're all over the place, so let's clarify a few things.
1. "Those your right hand posses" includes female battlefield captives and females slaves. Yes or no?
2. The Quran allows Muslim men to have sex with "those your right hand posses". Yes or no?
3. Marriage to or ownership of a female grants a Muslim man the right of sexual access to that female. Yes or no?
4. Consent is irrelevant in the context of sex within marriage or ownership. Yes or no?

 

[KWED]

Of course guilty, marital rape is NOT allowed in Islam.

So when you said...
"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!"
... you didn't mean it.
Or didn't you mean it when you said that consent is required?

As I said, you're all over the place.

 

[KWED]

Because they are unmarried and their sexual relationship is not only immoral but a great sin. Y

You just repeated the original assertion that it is wrong.
I asked you why it is wrong.

Who said that??

Allah and Muhammad.
So you believe that having sex with a female battlefield captive is immoral.

As I said, to an atheist, morality is what an atheist wants to understand it to be

That is the same for everyone, including you.
You merely claim that your subjective, contextual brand of morality is objective and universal.

Well, you just confirmed apart from being ignorant. you don’t read well too which partly explained why you are so ignorant!! Glad we sorted that out.

You said...
"[in Islam] the penalty for adultery and fornication is equivalent to the death penalty"
Therefore you consider the killing of a woman for having adult, consensual, extra-marital sex, to be morally acceptable.

Of course.. and we know the real reason why you allow your wife to sleep around with other men.

You seem weirdly obsessed with my imaginary wife and her sexual infidelities.
Projection, perhaps?
I can ask her for you if you like?

Wait. Here you go again editing my comment and presenting it to suit your response!!

My full comment to the question “Do you think the penalty for adultery/fornication should be death? was “The answer is NO because I believe in repentance for the forgiveness of sin and I fear God’s punishment far more than man’s penalty/punishment” and NOT just “The answer is NO”!

You seem confused, but as English is not your first language, you can be forgiven.
If you say "NO" and then explain why you answered no, your answer is still "NO". It doesn't make it "YES", or even "PERHAPS".
For example:
You: Will you have sex with me.
My imaginary wife: No, because I believe there should be some emotional attachment or sexual chemistry.

Which part of my comment makes you think that I think Muhammad was wrong??

The bit where you said the penalty for adultery should not be death. Muhammad had people killed for adultery. Therefore you think he was wrong. QED.

No wonder she finds joy in other men!

I did ask her for you. She said "NO".
But then, it seems that for you, NO does not really mean NO. Which is worrying.

 

[JerryMyers]

You're all over the place, so let's clarify a few things.
1. "Those your right hand posses" includes female battlefield captives and females slaves. Yes or no?
2. The Quran allows Muslim men to have sex with "those your right hand posses". Yes or no?
3. Marriage to or ownership of a female grants a Muslim man the right of sexual access to that female. Yes or no?
4. Consent is irrelevant in the context of sex within marriage or ownership. Yes or no?

Let me see, hmm… the first and second questions tell me that you still do NOT understand the meaning of “what the right hand possessed” and you will never understand because you chose to be ignorant.

The third and fourth questions tell me you cannot differentiate between “the right to sexual access” and “marital rape”. And you will never be able to differentiate them because you chose to ignore logical and rational thinking.

When you chose to be ignorant and you chose to ignore logical and rational thinking, then whatever you said is just nonsense and we can see that in all your comments all over the place!

 

[JerryMyers]

So when you said...
"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!"
... you didn't mean it.
Or didn't you mean it when you said that consent is required?
As I said, you're all over the place.

You mean like you didn’t mean what you mean and you mean what you didn’t mean? As I said your nonsense is all over in all your comments all over the place!

So, please humor me more and give me another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally…1,2,3..GO!

 

[JerryMyers]

You just repeated the original assertion that it is wrong.
I asked you why it is wrong.

I just told you why!! Just because your world is similar to the animals’ world, that is, does NOT have any morals, doctrines, laws… that does NOT mean everyone else must follow your world’s laws rules, and 'morals'!!

Allah and Muhammad.
So you believe that having sex with a female battlefield captive is immoral.

Didn’t Allah qualify that statement with “what the right hand possessed”? Your inability to understand simple statements is confusing you!!

That is the same for everyone, including you.
You merely claim that your subjective, contextual brand of morality is objective and universal.

No, it is not the same for everyone. I believe in God and therefore I have rules, the “do’s and the don’ts”, while you, on the other hand, do NOT believe in God, and therefore, you do NOT have any rules nor do you have any “do’s and don’ts”, and so, your “do’s and don’ts” on morality is what you want to understand it to be! It is that simple!!

You said...
"[in Islam] the penalty for adultery and fornication is equivalent to the death penalty"
Therefore you consider the killing of a woman for having adult, consensual, extra-marital sex, to be morally acceptable.

Apart from the inability to think logically and rationally, you don’t read well too, don’t you?? I said the penalty of adultery and fornication is equivalent to the death penalty because of the seriousness of the sin – no one will take the punishment for the sin of adultery and fornication seriously if the punishment for it is just merely a slap on the wrist!!

You seem weirdly obsessed with my imaginary wife and her sexual infidelities.
Projection, perhaps?
I can ask her for you if you like?

Imaginary wife?? You mean you only have an imaginary wife?? And you will ask your imaginary wife for me???? No wonder you sounded psychotic and talked nonsense! Is that because you are living in an imaginary world with an imaginary wife?? You need to see a psychiatrist real quick!!

You seem confused, but as English is not your first language, you can be forgiven.
If you say "NO" and then explain why you answered no, your answer is still "NO". It doesn't make it "YES", or even "PERHAPS".
For example:
You: Will you have sex with me.
My imaginary wife: No, because I believe there should be some emotional attachment or sexual chemistry.

Your inability to think logically and rationally is confusing you BUT since you live in an imaginary world with an imaginary wife, and you are unable to understand English (hard to believe you implied English is your first language!), you can be forgiven. Do you sleep with a doll and pretend that it’s your wife?? You poor lonely chap!!

The bit where you said the penalty for adultery should not be death. Muhammad had people killed for adultery. Therefore you think he was wrong. QED.

LOL, you asked for my personal opinion and I gave you one - it has nothing to do with Muhammad or the punishment meted out for adultery/fornication of that period. Can you show me which Quranic passage(s) said adulterers will be punished by death??

I never said the penalty for adultery is death, I said the penalty for adultery/fornication is equivalent to death because of the seriousness of the sin committed. Are you sure English is your first language??

Stoning was actually an inherent custom in the Mosaic law of Jewish communities living in the Medina at that time, so don’t be confused between traditional and customary punishments with God’s Punishments.

I did ask her for you. She said "NO".
But then, it seems that for you, NO does not really mean NO. Which is worrying.

You mean you asked your IMAGINARY wife and ‘she’ said ‘NO’??? Have you seen Alfred Hitchcock’s classic movie ‘Psycho’?? You know, about that Norman Bates guy who imagined his dead mother is still alive and so he ‘spoke’ to his dead mother and then mimic her voice to ‘talk' back to him?? Are you like ‘Norman Bates’ when you asked your IMAGINARY wife and then in a woman’s voice, you said “NO’ back to yourself?? NOW THAT is WORRYING!!

 

[KWED]

Let me see, hmm… the first and second questions tell me that you still do NOT understand the meaning of “what the right hand possessed” and you will never understand because you chose to be ignorant.

I have provided quotes from scholars showing that "those your right hand possess" refers to slaves and battlefield captives. Pretty much every translation of the Quran by fluently bilingual Islamic scholars translates it as "slave" or "captive" (why would they do that if it does not mean that?).

You claimed it means "wife", but that is obvious nonsense, as I demonstrated.

But you admit that the Quran allows Muslim men to have sex with the women that "their right hand possess".

The third and fourth questions tell me you cannot differentiate between “the right to sexual access” and “marital rape”. And you will never be able to differentiate them because you chose to ignore logical and rational thinking.

Ironically, it is you who clearly does not understand the issues here. The concept of marital rape relies on the concept of free and informed consent.
As you claim that a husband does not need the consent of his wife to have sex with her, you are therefore condoning marital rape.

 

[KWED]

You mean like you didn’t mean what you mean and you mean what you didn’t mean? As I said your nonsense is all over in all your comments all over the place!

So, please humor me more and give me another display of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally…1,2,3..GO!

You said...
"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!"

So, is a wife's consent needed by her husband for sex?
Yes or no?

 

[KWED]

I just told you why!! Just because your world is similar to the animals’ world, that is, does NOT have any morals, doctrines, laws… that does NOT mean everyone else must follow your world’s laws rules, and 'morals'!!

You merely stated that it is "a sin".
WHY is it a sin?

Didn’t Allah qualify that statement with “what the right hand possessed”? Your inability to understand simple statements is confusing you!!

So sex with a woman whom the man possess as property (a slave or captive) is considered morally acceptable in Islam.

Meaning of "those your right hand possess"...
"This term includes the slave girls and slaves in general". (Dr. ‘Abdullaah Al-Faqeeh) Slaves your right hands possess - Islamweb - Fatwas
"This term refers to a slave girl who is owned by her master." - (Shaykh Waseem Khan) One moment, please...
With regard to your question about it being permissible for a master to be intimate with his slave woman, the answer is that that is because Allaah has permitted it. (Shaykh Al-Munajjid) What is the ruling on intimacy with slave women? - Islam Question & Answer
"Right hand possessions from the captives, or slave girl". "The slave-girls whom you took from the war booty" (Ibn Kathir)

No, it is not the same for everyone. I believe in God and therefore I have rules, the “do’s and the don’ts”, while you, on the other hand, do NOT believe in God, and therefore, you do NOT have any rules nor do you have any “do’s and don’ts”, and so, your “do’s and don’ts” on morality is what you want to understand it to be! It is that simple!!

Of course I have standards of "right and wrong, do's and don'ts". The only difference between mine and yours is that you have blindly adopted the morals of 7th century Arab culture, while I take a more considered, rational approach (empathy, altruism, minimising harm, golden rule, etc).

Apart from the inability to think logically and rationally, you don’t read well too, don’t you?? I said the penalty of adultery and fornication is equivalent to the death penalty because of the seriousness of the sin – no one will take the punishment for the sin of adultery and fornication seriously if the punishment for it is just merely a slap on the wrist!!

Oh dear.
The punishment is death. What does "equivalent to death" even mean?

LOL, you asked for my personal opinion and I gave you one - it has nothing to do with Muhammad or the punishment meted out for adultery/fornication of that period. Can you show me which Quranic passage(s) said adulterers will be punished by death??

You clearly either do not understand how Islam works, or you are being deliberately dishonest.
1. As. Muslim you must consider Muhammad to be "the best of creation", the ultimate role model to aspire to.
2. The Quran is only part of the foundation of Islamic fiqh. The sunnah of Muhammad is the other essential element. There are several sahih hadith where Muhammad condemns adulterers to be killed.

Stoning was actually an inherent custom in the Mosaic law of Jewish communities living in the Medina at that time, so don’t be confused between traditional and customary punishments with God’s Punishments.

Circumcision, fasting, ritual ablutions before five daily prayers, pilgrimage to Mecca and circumambulating the Kaaba, prohibition on eating pork were all cultural customs predating Islam. Are all these also not "gods law"?

 

[JerryMyers]

I have provided quotes from scholars showing that "those your right hand possess" refers to slaves and battlefield captives. Pretty much every translation of the Quran by fluently bilingual Islamic scholars translates it as "slave" or "captive" (why would they do that if it does not mean that?)
You claimed it means "wife", but that is obvious nonsense, as I demonstrated.

Yes, as you have demonstrated many times, your comments are clearly nonsense.

In the context of those hadiths and Quran passages, the female captives ‘whom the right hand possessed’ means those female captives are believers and eligible for marriage – “And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls” – Quran 4:25

In other words, for the owners/masters to have an intimate relationship with their female captives, the female captives ‘whom their right hand possessed’ must be legally their wives. The sexual relationship between the unmarried couple is a big sin in Islam.

But you admit that the Quran allows Muslim men to have sex with the women that "their right hand possess".

Yet again demonstrating your ignorance and obvious inability to think logically and rationally.

Ironically, it is you who clearly does not understand the issues here. The concept of marital rape relies on the concept of free and informed consent.
As you claim that a husband does not need the consent of his wife to have sex with her, you are therefore condoning marital rape.

Oh dear… as usual talking nonsense and telling lies. We already know you are not a man of integrity, don’t me?? So, show me where and when did I ever claim that a husband does not need the consent of his wife to have sex with her??

I said the right to sexual access is automatically granted by marriage because marriage is what makes the sexual relationship between a man and a woman lawful!
Likewise, purchasing a flight ticket and receiving the boarding pass will automatically grant you the right to access the boarding area, BUT, you still need consent to enter the plane. You probably cannot understand that as highly likely you have never traveled by plane before!

So it is you who clearly does not understand the issues here. Your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally are confusing you.

Go ahead and give me another demonstration of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally.

 

[JerryMyers]

You said...
"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!"

So, is a wife's consent needed by her husband for sex?
Yes or no?

For someone who implied English is his first language, you seem unable to differentiate between ‘right to sexual access’ and ‘consent to sex’, but then again, that’s expected from someone who is ignorant and unable to think logically and rationally.

 

[JerryMyers]

You merely stated that it is "a sin".
WHY is it a sin?

Because God said so! You don’t believe in God, so to you, there’s no such thing as sin.

So sex with a woman whom the man possess as property (a slave or captive) is considered morally acceptable in Islam.
Meaning of "those your right hand possess"...
"This term includes the slave girls and slaves in general". (Dr. ‘Abdullaah Al-Faqeeh) Slaves your right hands possess - Islamweb - Fatwas
"This term refers to a slave girl who is owned by her master." - (Shaykh Waseem Khan) One moment, please...
With regard to your question about it being permissible for a master to be intimate with his slave woman, the answer is that that is because Allaah has permitted it. (Shaykh Al-Munajjid) What is the ruling on intimacy with slave women? - Islam Question & Answer
"Right hand possessions from the captives, or slave girl". "The slave-girls whom you took from the war booty" (Ibn Kathir)

And yet ANOTHER demonstration of your obvious ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally!!

Here’s the thing - if the phrase has no other meaning but just a reference to female captives of war, then why would Allah need to qualify the female captives of war (in the context of that Quranic passage) with the phrase “whom the right hand possessed”?? You add a qualifier statement/phrase to make an exception for the subject.

Consider this statement – ‘Immigrants with no proper papers will be detained by the authority'. Your understanding of the statement is ALL immigrants will be detained when what the statement is really saying only immigrants with no proper papers will be detained! Your inability to understand ‘qualifying phrases/statements’ is making you ignorant!!

Of course I have standards of "right and wrong, do's and don'ts". The only difference between mine and yours is that you have blindly adopted the morals of 7th century Arab culture, while I take a more considered, rational approach (empathy, altruism, minimising harm, golden rule, etc).

You mean like sleeping with anyone’s wife is ‘morally accepted’ as long as it is consensual??? Consensual doesn’t make it morally acceptable.
How is that ‘morally accepted’ when your lust and sex-romp with someone else wife can wreck a home, a marriage, a family and ruin a man’s life?? What ‘considered, rational approach (empathy, altruism, minimising harm, golden rule, etc) nonsense are you talking about?? As I said before - your so-called ‘golden rule’ and your standards of “right and wrong, do's and don'ts" are what you want them to be.

Oh dear. The punishment is death. What does "equivalent to death" even mean?

Oh dear. You mean you don’t know what ‘equivalent’ means??? You sure English is your first language??

You clearly either do not understand how Islam works, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

And you know how Islam works??? You must be really living in a world of imaginary…and before I forget, with an imaginary wife too!!!
LOL! What a comedian!! You need to stop making a fool of yourself, especially to the Muslims!!!

1. As Muslim you must consider Muhammad to be "the best of creation", the ultimate role model to aspire to.

Yes, as a role model to all Muslims, Muhammad will NOT go against God’s Words in the Quran. You CANNOT show me any Quranic passages that said adulterers will be punished by death, so that makes you “the nonsense of creation”.

2. The Quran is only part of the foundation of Islamic fiqh. The sunnah of Muhammad is the other essential element. There are several sahih hadith where Muhammad condemns adulterers to be killed.

The Quran IS the foundation of Islam, it’s NOT just the ‘only part’.

The hadiths are secondary to the Quran and therefore must adhere to the Quran, NOT the other way round. The hadiths are written by men and thus, more often than not, the hadiths reflect the traditions and the customary practices of the time.

Circumcision, fasting, ritual ablutions before five daily prayers, pilgrimage to Mecca and circumambulating the Kaaba, prohibition on eating pork were all cultural customs predating Islam. Are all these also not "gods law"?

We are talking about penalty/punishment such as stoning, we are NOT talking about God’s Laws.

‘Circumcision, fasting, ritual ablutions before five daily prayers, pilgrimage to Mecca and circumambulating the Kaaba, prohibition on eating pork’ are NOT penalties/punishments nor are they cultural customs.

You seem confused between God’s Laws/Commandments which do not change and penalties/punishments as meted out according to the traditional and customary practices of that society at that time.

So, yeah, give me another demonstration of your ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally. SNAP! Go..! Hihihi..

 

[KWED]

In the context of those hadiths and Quran passages, the female captives ‘whom the right hand possessed’ means those female captives are believers and eligible for marriage – “And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls” – Quran 4:25
In other words, for the owners/masters to have an intimate relationship with their female captives, the female captives ‘whom their right hand possessed’ must be legally their wives.

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.

The sexual relationship between the unmarried couple is a big sin in Islam.

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!

Yet again demonstrating your ignorance and obvious 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.

Oh dear… as usual talking nonsense and telling lies. We already know you are not a man of integrity, don’t me?? So, show me where and when did I ever claim that a husband does not need the consent of his wife to have sex with her??

"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).

I said the right to sexual access is automatically granted by marriage because marriage is what makes the sexual relationship between a man and a woman lawful!

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.

Likewise, purchasing a flight ticket and receiving the boarding pass will automatically grant you the right to access the boarding area, BUT, you still need consent to enter the plane.

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!

 

[KWED]

For someone who implied English is his first language, you seem unable to differentiate between ‘right to sexual access’ and ‘consent to sex’,

If someone has the right of access across a farmer's field, they do not need the farmer's consent to cross that field.

ignorant and unable to think logically and rationally.

 

[KWED]

Because God said so!

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?

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.

And yet ANOTHER demonstration of your obvious ignorance and inability to think logically and rationally!!

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

Here’s the thing - if the phrase has no other meaning but just a reference to female captives of war,

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

then why would Allah need to qualify the female captives of war (in the context of that Quranic passage) with the phrase “whom the right hand possessed”?? You add a qualifier statement/phrase to make an exception for the subject.

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.

Consider this statement – ‘Immigrants with no proper papers will be detained by the authority'. Your understanding of the statement is ALL immigrants will be detained when what the statement is really saying only immigrants with no proper papers will be detained! Your inability to understand ‘qualifying phrases/statements’ is making you ignorant!!

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

You mean like sleeping with anyone’s wife is ‘morally accepted’ as long as it is consensual??? Consensual doesn’t make it morally acceptable.

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

How is that ‘morally accepted’ when your lust and sex-romp with someone else wife can wreck a home, a marriage, a family and ruin a man’s life?? What ‘considered, rational approach (empathy, altruism, minimising harm, golden rule, etc) nonsense are you talking about?? As I said before - your so-called ‘golden rule’ and your standards of “right and wrong, do's and don'ts" are what you want them to be.

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".

Oh dear. You mean you don’t know what ‘equivalent’ means??? You sure English is your first language??

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?

Yes, as a role model to all Muslims, Muhammad will NOT go against God’s Words in the Quran. You CANNOT show me any Quranic passages that said adulterers will be punished by death, so that makes you “the nonsense of creation”.

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.

The Quran IS the foundation of Islam, it’s NOT just the ‘only part’.

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

The hadiths are secondary to the Quran

But also an essential part of Islam.

The hadiths are written by men and thus, more often than not, the hadiths reflect the traditions and the customary practices of the time.

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

We are talking about penalty/punishment such as stoning, we are NOT talking about God’s Laws.

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?

‘Circumcision, fasting, ritual ablutions before five daily prayers, pilgrimage to Mecca and circumambulating the Kaaba, prohibition on eating pork’ are NOT penalties/punishments nor are they cultural customs.

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

You seem confused

between God’s Laws/Commandments which do not change and penalties/punishments as meted out according to the traditional and customary practices of that society at that time.

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?

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