The Quran never allowed “temporary marriage” read the verse you mentioned no where does it mention temporary marriages

"4:24 And forbidden to you are all married women other than those whom you rightfully possess through wedlock: this is God's ordinance, binding upon you. But lawful to you are all women beyond these, for you to seek out, offering them of your possessions, taking them in honest wedlock, and not in fornication. And unto those with whom you desire to enjoy marriage, you shall give the dowers due to them; but you will incur no sin if, after [having agreed upon] this lawful due, you freely agree with one another upon anything else: behold, God is indeed all-knowing, wise."

It’s basically saying you can’t marry someone who is married, unless it’s your wife. Otherwise marry a women who isn’t married and be just and don’t fornicate.

beside there is a system placed for marriage you can’t just go off having sex with any girl you please just because she isn’t marriage. That is you taking bits and pieces and interpreting them to your own wishing understanding. Let me show ya

"23:5 and who are mindful of their chastity,
23:6 not giving way to their desires with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock: for then, behold, they are free of all blame,"

How does that give it the ok to go around and have “sexual use” with whoever?

‘Sexual license of the Quran’ oh please grow up, clearly you know nothing of the religion.

This is getting annoying, seek knowledge from the people of the book not haters of myths and own theories. Also one account/story doesn’t give you the right to judge a whole community.

Steven

Yeh they should let her come with conditions, that everything she claims is backed up by proof (e.g. the things I stated earlier as being cultural) otherwise she is misrepresenting the group and people will believe her obliviously. Also by misrepresentation she lets guys like BOAZ hate muslims even more, become discriminatory and cause racism within the society for no necessary reasons which isn’t such a good thing in our country especially because it’s a multicultural country and there are so many varying beliefs.

Also if they let her in they should let others in who they have refused, it would only be fair otherwise why the double standards?

Though I highly doubt that if she did come in she would abide those conditions so then I would think her talks would be misrepresenting the community which isn’t fair.

Of that list above in this thread Howard is singled out for his name mentioned among religious figures.
He is not of course such and for me he wastes the air he breaths but the intent of the comment was not wrong.
We Australians have freedom to say mostly what we want too, and no religion should silence our freedoms.
A better world awaits us after we stop needing a God to face both life and death, pain and happiness.
And endless claims we are just the play things of a long list of Gods that want our endless attention and demands it.

CJ, me..black, the others technicolor :)

Dear misguided ABCD.. I'm going to get a little BUTTON..and when I press it, it will instantly type into my posts "No, I don't HATE MUSLIMS".. you are clearly a latecomer to this forum, because you had been here for some time, you will see that I am attacking
1/ Islam.
2/ Mohammad.
If I hate Nazism and Hitler, does that mean I automatically hate all Germans ? come mate..that little 'you hate us' thing is sooooo predictable and also sooooo wrong.

As a matter of fact, on my way back from our little Demo at VCAT, I noticed some Muslims in Swanston street.. a couple of men and some women in Hijabs. They looked Indonesian, so I went up to them and beat them all up.. right ? :) no, of course not, I approached them with a big smile and spoke welcomingly in Indonesian to them, at which their faces all beamed with joy. I feel SORRY for Muslims.

But back to your response. The sources.. are Islamic, except Wiki, which REFERS to Islamic sources... have a close look.

"It's a weak hadith" :) I was not born yesterday. Sahih... means.. checked, cross checked, verified and confirmed thats why they are in Bukhari and Muslim. Then, if you look wider at Tabari, Ishak, Hisham and a variety of later Islamic sources, you will quickly see that those later sources also refer to the early ones mentioned just now. So.. I'm confident of my position.

Shia DO regard 4:24 as justifying temporary marriage.... pleasure marriage.

Sunni's only say it is no longer applicable because OMAR forbade it, (I can give you chapter and verse for that also in hadith) Other hadith about Khaiber indicate that THAT is the point where Mohammad forbade it..which means:
a) It was practiced by the Muslims
b) It was approved by MOhammad to that point.

In any case.. Mohammad didn't need to worry, he could have ALLLL the women and sex he liked based on Surah 33:50
Enloy your reading. May you find in them the Lord Jesus.

Misguided? I don't believe so. I only joined the forum recently, so I wouldn't know much about you. Though from your posts here it shows that you are attacking Islam and Mohammed, which is the pretty much the same as attacking muslims. Also the part of mentioning banning muslims from coming here as a joke or a mock or whatever you want to call it of 'whatever God wills'.. well kinda makes me wonder too.

Well if you hated Nazism and Hitler it could mean many things, if you hate them for what they did and their followers then you'd hate the Germans that followed him and agree with him, doesn’t necessarily mean all. It's not predictable it's how you portray yourself and your character towards them. So if muslims follow the teachings of Mohammed wouldn't that make you hate them too?

Why feel sorry for muslims? lol what a joke. Besides the better thing would be to smile to anyone, be it a muslim or not or whatever ethnicity or religion they follow.

Like I said I didn’t read your links and wiki didn’t use all islamic sources, and the sources used are combined so you don't exactly know which is which.

Ever heard of muslims who reject sahih and bukhari hadiths? they exist. Besides you forgot something even though "sahih" means checked cross checked verified etc. you've got something missing what has been checked and cross referenced is the chain of narration. Not the content. So there are hadiths about the same issue, some came later which over rule other hadiths. So now that gets complicated. Even though one thing might be considered sahih there may be another hadith which is sahih that says something else which over rules the other one, get it?

Shia do regard it, though if you read the verse anyone could see that it doesn’t justify it. I don’t care what they say about temporary marriage anyway it doesn’t happen here.

When I get a chance I’ll read the links. BTW I did find the Lord though it wasn’t Jesus

Belly

You've captured my intent precisely. Muhammed, Jesus and the tooth fairy are as much legitimate targets of critique or scorn as John Howard, Kevin Rudd or Bob Brown. There are no "no-go-zones."

We dare not appease the religious censors.

abcd,

You wrote:

>>Yeh they should let her [Hirsi Ali] come with conditions, that everything she claims is backed up by proof>>

Who decides whether she has met the burden of proof?

What you are asking amounts to censorship.

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of all civil liberties. If we cannot discuss things freely all other civil liberties will vanish.

Freedom of speech is the right to say what you want. The only exceptions are explicit incitement to violence and libel.

No religion, ideology or opinion gets immunity from critique, satire or scorn. No book, be it a so-called holy book or Harry Potter, gets a free pass. No one's words are exempt from analysis and critique. Commentators are under no obligation to be "fair" or to spare the feelings of the religious faithful.

Of course freedom of speech means that if you think Hirsi Ali is economical with the truth you are at liberty to say so. You may dissect her writings and speeches and explain why you think they are wrong.

Freedom of speech specifically includes the right to say things that stevenlmeyer, abcd or BOAZ_David don’t like.

Freedom of speeches includes the right to attack a religion. Any religion.