Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Let me requote this section:

...
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!

It appears that the article could be describing you - don't you think?

Cheers,
Shafique

(Just so I could get the last word )

Thank you for giving me the oppurtunity to expose the spin of Berrin's article. In reality, Raymond Ibrahim is certainly qualified to speak about matters on Islam, while Armstrong's qualifications are rather flimsy.

Oh - and do you have a response to the passage in the Koran that allows masters to expose their private parts to their slaves?

Do you think this passage refers to all slaves a master owns or just his 'slave-girls'?

You're quite welcome.

The fact that you consider Ibrahim to be a scholar despite his credentials speaks volumes.

As I said, the description of Ibrahim seems to fit your tactics to a 't':

...
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!

'tired canaries' indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

The fact that you consider Ibrahim to be a scholar despite his credentials speaks volumes.

More lies, I see.

I see that you're going to have to follow rule number one if you wish for me to bother responding to your posts.

BTW, are you having difficulty answering the question that I repeatedly asked you on this thread?

Koran 23:1-6

Prosperous are the believers

who in their prayers are humble

and from idle talk turn away

and at almsgiving are active

and guard their private parts

save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy

Shafique, any comment on why Muslim men can expose themselves in front of their wives *and* their slaves? Kind of difficult to reconcile unless Islam and the Koran does indeed allow for Muslim men to have concubines.

Or perhaps the author of the Koran had a voyeurism streak in him that he couldn't openly express in seventh century Arabia. What do you think?

Really eh - what is this obsession with men's private parts?

Ponder on the description quoted above that describes the only way you can raise your 'tired canaries':

shafique wrote:As I said, the description of Ibrahim seems to fit your tactics to a 't':

...
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!

'tired canaries' indeed.

Let me know how this does not apply to you (especially given that you've cited Ibrahim in your defence).

But let's not forget - you contend that Islam allows adultery - but I've consistently said that Islam does not allow s.ex outside of marriage. God is pretty clear on this point - and I suggest you follow your own advice about what God says in scripture and read all the relevant verses.

In the mean time, let's see if you are still justifying the cold blooded murder of children and the enslavement of 32,000 virgins! (Can't you see how hypocritical it is to accuse Islam of condoning adultery when you condone the enslavement and probable rape by Israelites of 32,000 virgins whose families were all slaughtered in cold blood)

Cheers,
Shafique

I compared concubinage and polygamy to adultery by saying that Islam 'institutionalizes' adultery by allowing both.

I'm not sure why you would disagree with me on that - to me, seeing more than one person in a relationship is adultery.

but I've consistently said that Islam does not allow s.ex outside of marriage.

Yet Islam allows husbands to expose their private parts to people they're not married to. Funny that.

(Can't you see how hypocritical it is to accuse Islam of condoning adultery when you condone the enslavement and probable rape by Israelites of 32,000 virgins whose families were all slaughtered in cold blood)

Changing the subject - interesting tactic.

Do you have any comment on the passage I quoted that allows married men to expose their private parts to slaves they are not married to?

Why does the Koran allow such a thing?

I thought I did comment on your strange obsession with men's private parts - I called it a weird fantasy.

You even said, ' 'nuff said' '

As for the rest of the arguments - I've asked you why you think you aren't employing the same tactics as Ibrahim when he reels out his 'tired canaries'?

Cheers,
Shafique

Here's another passage in the Koran allowing Muslim men to have relations with women who they aren't married to:

“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]

shafique wrote:
As for the rest of the arguments - I've asked you why you think you aren't employing the same tactics as Ibrahim when he reels out his 'tired canaries'?

Hint - look back at what the first 'tactic' described was.

Cheers,
Shafique

The passages have been quoted, it's your turn to address them.

Addressed them - they are your weird fantasies, and all rely on the 'tired canary' tactic described above.

The plain fact is that you have been unable to back up your claim that Islam allows s.ex outside of marriage. So, yet another case of AMNT. (At best you're arguing men can 'let it hang out' in front of slaves...!)

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I have:

“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 Koran is quite clear in allowing husbands to let loose on their slave girls.

Again with your fantasies.

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

Fail.

Cheers,
Shafique

Are you having trouble reading the 'clear' Koran?

Here's another one:

“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammaat (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khaal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khaalaat (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Ahzaab 33:50]

Wives and slaves are enjoined upon Muslim men.

Wives and slaves are lawful to Muslim men.

Couldn't get any clearer than that, now could it?

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?