What does Islam say about concubines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Nope. There was no denigration. There was simply clarification to you that the scholars you refer to are from regions of the world where tribal culture is still pervasive. Every Muslim organization condemned ISIS yet the beheadings continue. ISIS justifies itself and I am sure they can find scholars somewhere out there to support them. That doesn't make their actions legitimate. Stoning still exists for adultery and some Muslims will be quick to pull put some hadith. But it directly goes against the Quran which never mentions stoning. So of course there are those that have a harsher perspective but its often not backed up by the Quran, which is the ONLY true word of Allah.

When you are trying to determine if a scholar is correct or if a hadith is correct the best thing you can do is look for validation in the Quran.

Most Muslim-majority countries qualify as "regions of the world where tribal culture is still pervasive." Does it mean you are single-handedly rejecting the totality of Muslim scholarship that came from Muslim-majority countries? Whatever, as I said, Islam did before Hamza Yusuf showed up!

Secondly, Jamal Badawi lives in Canada. Yusuf Qaradawi heads the European Council on Fatwa and Research. Is tribal culture pervasive in both Canada and Europe? Do they know about that?

Thirdly, you MUST know that your wholesale rejection of ahadith and the body of Shariah places you firmly outside of Islamic scholarly consensus on the subject of what acceptable sources are for interpreting Islam. Praying five times isn't in the Quran either, does it mean you reject that part as well?

But then again, if you're the poster who believes that somewhere in Saudi Arabia, locked up in a secret vault, there's a collection of the only authentic hadith in the world that hasn't yet been distributed to the world (why?), then we're venturing into a whole 'nother territory of crazy. I mentioned that claim to my husband, and "crazy" were his exact words.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I'm the PP you're attacking today. I'm the soon-to-be-divorcee (and thanks for defending me on that one) Christian-evangelist (and thanks for defending everyone here on that one).

You are lumping multiple posters together and then stating that ALL of us are wrong to challenge Islam because of the actions of a few. I am not the poster who said Islam is brutal. I am not the poster who called Mohammed a pedophile or who is referring to pedophilia above. I am not the poster who told Muslima to go back to her own country. In fact, I regret that others did this. There, I apologized for those other posters.

My point is: using the bad behavior of a few to lump us all together as Islamophobes is intimidating and unfair.

BTW, I remember a thread where someone came on to accuse the Catholic Church of sponsoring whorehouses in the Middle Ages. You did not raise a single objection along the lines you're raising here, i.e. that it's not reasonable to talk about the Middle Ages, or to suggest that all Catholics run whorehouses. You're going to answer that you can't know what everybody is saying. My point is, yes, of course the attacks on Catholics are so frequent you can't stay on top of them all, and the result is that DCUM seems like open season on Catholics, Christians and Jews, while you charge in on every one of the much rarer threads on Islam.

I'm actually surprised you "can't believe we're wasting our time" about the immigrants point, or that you wonder why we're chasing down Muslima's initial statement that "Islam offers asylum to prisoners of war." The other PP and I care about facts, so shoot us. We both have an intellectual interest in Islam, so shoot us. Do you make similar challenges to posters who write about bird-watching, Sidwell Friends or whatever goes on in the Explicit forum? If you don't care about facts where Islam is concerned, then that's totally your prerogative. But do you really think it's fair to use the excuse that one different PP used the word "brutal" to try to impugn the rest of us? That's intimidating and almost sounds like you're trying to stop us from posting.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm the PP you're attacking today. I'm the soon-to-be-divorcee (and thanks for defending me on that one) Christian-evangelist (and thanks for defending everyone here on that one).

You are lumping multiple posters together and then stating that ALL of us are wrong to challenge Islam because of the actions of a few. I am not the poster who said Islam is brutal. I am not the poster who called Mohammed a pedophile or who is referring to pedophilia above. I am not the poster who told Muslima to go back to her own country. In fact, I regret that others did this. There, I apologized for those other posters.

My point is: using the bad behavior of a few to lump us all together as Islamophobes is intimidating and unfair.

BTW, I remember a thread where someone came on to accuse the Catholic Church of sponsoring whorehouses in the Middle Ages. You did not raise a single objection along the lines you're raising here, i.e. that it's not reasonable to talk about the Middle Ages, or to suggest that all Catholics run whorehouses. You're going to answer that you can't know what everybody is saying. My point is, yes, of course the attacks on Catholics are so frequent you can't stay on top of them all, and the result is that DCUM seems like open season on Catholics, Christians and Jews, while you charge in on every one of the much rarer threads on Islam.

I'm actually surprised you "can't believe we're wasting our time" about the immigrants point, or that you wonder why we're chasing down Muslima's initial statement that "Islam offers asylum to prisoners of war." The other PP and I care about facts, so shoot us. We both have an intellectual interest in Islam, so shoot us. Do you make similar challenges to posters who write about bird-watching, Sidwell Friends or whatever goes on in the Explicit forum? If you don't care about facts where Islam is concerned, then that's totally your prerogative. But do you really think it's fair to use the excuse that one different PP used the word "brutal" to try to impugn the rest of us? That's intimidating and almost sounds like you're trying to stop us from posting.

If you weren't one of the posters saying that all Muslims embrace brutality, then my remarks about that were not directed to you. I believe that every response I've made has quoted the post to which I am responding. If my remarks were not made in response to your message, then you have no basis on which to assume my post had anything to do with you at all.

In every case I qualified the behavior that I considered aimed at spreading a negative image of Islam. At no point did I say that "arguing about conversion vs immigration is attempting to spread a negative image of Islam". I was very specific about which behaviors I thought were doing such a thing. If you were engaging in such behaviors, then the shoe fit, so wear it. If you were not, then you are unnecessarily and inaccurately considering yourself a target of my remarks.

I really get sick and tired of posters turning into instant crybabies just because I post something with which they disagree. I am not lumping you all together other than accidentally based on an inability to tell all the anonymous posters apart. If you are bothered that you are confused with other anonymous posters, perhaps you should take steps to help other posters distinguish you?

As for the whorehouse thing, what makes you think that I even knew about that message, let alone condoned it? Did you report the message to me? I got involved with the previous thread only after it was reported to me. The poster actually posted saying that she had reported the thread and I had refused to remove messages from it. You guys even argued about her post.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Similarly, I think the issue of concubines is practically a non-issue. Concubines have existed in all Western religions. All of these religions have evolved in how they dealt with the issue. I don't think the OP should have posted this thread because it gives the issue of concubines far more attention than it deserves. I don't have have a problem with anyone arguing about Islam's position regarding concubines, but only when Islam is singled out as if it were worse than other religions. I was particularly bothered when concubines were used as a justification for the alleged brutality of Islam that all Muslims were said to embrace.

Jeff, the bolder part is one place where you and I are in complete agreement. OP and Muslima should not raise issues they're not willing to discuss.

Where we part ways is where you suggest that anybody who responds to OP must be "singling" out Islam or is even anti-Islam. This begs the question: Is it even possible to respond to OP without referring to Islam? Or is the point that nobody should respond to OP, because this can't be done without reference to Islamic-specific tenets on prostitution vs. concubines, so it shouldn't be done at all?

You seem to be suggesting that the other PP and I are laying traps for poor Muslima and the other PP. Once again, Muslima herself introduced the subject of concubines when she claimed that Islam offers "asylum" to prisoners of war, period, no elaboration. The other PP first claimed that converts are increasing faster than immigrants in the US. The fact that it took 10 pages or so to pin down the facts is something I blame on that PP's debating style.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm the PP you're attacking today. I'm the soon-to-be-divorcee (and thanks for defending me on that one) Christian-evangelist (and thanks for defending everyone here on that one).

You are lumping multiple posters together and then stating that ALL of us are wrong to challenge Islam because of the actions of a few. I am not the poster who said Islam is brutal. I am not the poster who called Mohammed a pedophile or who is referring to pedophilia above. I am not the poster who told Muslima to go back to her own country. In fact, I regret that others did this. There, I apologized for those other posters.

My point is: using the bad behavior of a few to lump us all together as Islamophobes is intimidating and unfair.

BTW, I remember a thread where someone came on to accuse the Catholic Church of sponsoring whorehouses in the Middle Ages. You did not raise a single objection along the lines you're raising here, i.e. that it's not reasonable to talk about the Middle Ages, or to suggest that all Catholics run whorehouses. You're going to answer that you can't know what everybody is saying. My point is, yes, of course the attacks on Catholics are so frequent you can't stay on top of them all, and the result is that DCUM seems like open season on Catholics, Christians and Jews, while you charge in on every one of the much rarer threads on Islam.

I'm actually surprised you "can't believe we're wasting our time" about the immigrants point, or that you wonder why we're chasing down Muslima's initial statement that "Islam offers asylum to prisoners of war." The other PP and I care about facts, so shoot us. We both have an intellectual interest in Islam, so shoot us. Do you make similar challenges to posters who write about bird-watching, Sidwell Friends or whatever goes on in the Explicit forum? If you don't care about facts where Islam is concerned, then that's totally your prerogative. But do you really think it's fair to use the excuse that one different PP used the word "brutal" to try to impugn the rest of us? That's intimidating and almost sounds like you're trying to stop us from posting.

If you weren't one of the posters saying that all Muslims embrace brutality, then my remarks about that were not directed to you. I believe that every response I've made has quoted the post to which I am responding. If my remarks were not made in response to your message, then you have no basis on which to assume my post had anything to do with you at all.

In every case I qualified the behavior that I considered aimed at spreading a negative image of Islam. At no point did I say that "arguing about conversion vs immigration is attempting to spread a negative image of Islam". I was very specific about which behaviors I thought were doing such a thing. If you were engaging in such behaviors, then the shoe fit, so wear it. If you were not, then you are unnecessarily and inaccurately considering yourself a target of my remarks.

I really get sick and tired of posters turning into instant crybabies just because I post something with which they disagree.

And yet this seems to be what you are doing.

I'm just curious, and obviously you don't have to answer, but I had the same observation myself (that posters are free to bash Christians and Jews without your intervention) -- what is your particular interest? Since you said you don't know what goes on on all the other threads where people rip apart Jews and Christians, it must be because you aren't interested in them. Are you Muslim? I ask so I can understand your position regarding how you monitor these threads. Again, it's none of my business otherwise and you are free (of course) to not answer. Just curious.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Where we part ways is where you suggest that anybody who responds to OP must be "singling" out Islam or is even anti-Islam. This begs the question: Is it even possible to respond to OP without referring to Islam? Or is the point that nobody should respond to OP, because this can't be done without reference to Islamic-specific tenets on prostitution vs. concubines, so it shouldn't be done at all?

Of course you can reference Islam when replying to the OP. What I am referring to is the (this is oversimplified for the sake of discussion) argument that goes something like "An example of Islam's brutality is the acceptance of concubines" and then when the existence and acceptance of concubines in other religions is pointed out the response is to move the goal posts or brush off the examples from other religions. I don't know how the issue of concubines was introduced in the other thread. I only know that I objected to a poster's contention that Islam was brutal and all Muslims embraced that brutality. This point was made in somewhat different manners by two different posters. When I disputed that contention, the issue of concubines suddenly came up. My argument in response to that has been to say that if a historical acceptance of concubines is an indication of brutality, then Christians and Jews also embrace brutality. I think the opposite argument: that concubines are only an indication of brutality where Muslims are concerned, is discriminatory and justifies suspicions of the poster's motives.

As to your point about Muslima and asylum, I might suggest a different approach. Instead of attempting to demonstrate that she is wrong, ask her to provide examples of prisoners being provided asylum, or to give further context to her contention. As I have said repeatedly, there is no "one true Islam". So, "wrong" and "right" and not useful concepts in discussing the topic. Muslima may be right in one context and wrong in another. I think it is more useful to define the parameters of the context about which she is speaking.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm just curious, and obviously you don't have to answer, but I had the same observation myself (that posters are free to bash Christians and Jews without your intervention) -- what is your particular interest? Since you said you don't know what goes on on all the other threads where people rip apart Jews and Christians, it must be because you aren't interested in them. Are you Muslim? I ask so I can understand your position regarding how you monitor these threads. Again, it's none of my business otherwise and you are free (of course) to not answer. Just curious.

No. I am not Muslim. I was raised as a protestant Christian but stopped practicing a long time ago. I have studied Islam and lived in the Middle East. By personality, I am drawn to underdogs. There is a huge amount of prejudice against Arabs and Muslims. Just as I once protested against Apartheid, though I am not black or South African, and supported gay rights even though I am not gay, and stand for the rights of a host of other groups of which I am not a member, I will stand up for Muslims and Arabs.

I got involved in the other thread only after it was reported to me (and I declined to do anything) and another poster specifically asked for my thoughts. I did not get involved in this thread until a poster specifically called me out by name. I guarantee that if similar things were happening in threads involving other religions, I would react similarly (and I have). However, it also must be said that the other religions have many much more able defenders than me. Not that Muslima and the other poster do a bad job, but there are only two of them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I'm the PP you're attacking today. I'm the soon-to-be-divorcee (and thanks for defending me on that one) Christian-evangelist (and thanks for defending everyone here on that one).

You are lumping multiple posters together and then stating that ALL of us are wrong to challenge Islam because of the actions of a few. I am not the poster who said Islam is brutal. I am not the poster who called Mohammed a pedophile or who is referring to pedophilia above. I am not the poster who told Muslima to go back to her own country. In fact, I regret that others did this. There, I apologized for those other posters.

My point is: using the bad behavior of a few to lump us all together as Islamophobes is intimidating and unfair.

BTW, I remember a thread where someone came on to accuse the Catholic Church of sponsoring whorehouses in the Middle Ages. You did not raise a single objection along the lines you're raising here, i.e. that it's not reasonable to talk about the Middle Ages, or to suggest that all Catholics run whorehouses. You're going to answer that you can't know what everybody is saying. My point is, yes, of course the attacks on Catholics are so frequent you can't stay on top of them all, and the result is that DCUM seems like open season on Catholics, Christians and Jews, while you charge in on every one of the much rarer threads on Islam.

I'm actually surprised you "can't believe we're wasting our time" about the immigrants point, or that you wonder why we're chasing down Muslima's initial statement that "Islam offers asylum to prisoners of war." The other PP and I care about facts, so shoot us. We both have an intellectual interest in Islam, so shoot us. Do you make similar challenges to posters who write about bird-watching, Sidwell Friends or whatever goes on in the Explicit forum? If you don't care about facts where Islam is concerned, then that's totally your prerogative. But do you really think it's fair to use the excuse that one different PP used the word "brutal" to try to impugn the rest of us? That's intimidating and almost sounds like you're trying to stop us from posting.

If you weren't one of the posters saying that all Muslims embrace brutality, then my remarks about that were not directed to you. I believe that every response I've made has quoted the post to which I am responding. If my remarks were not made in response to your message, then you have no basis on which to assume my post had anything to do with you at all.

In every case I qualified the behavior that I considered aimed at spreading a negative image of Islam. At no point did I say that "arguing about conversion vs immigration is attempting to spread a negative image of Islam". I was very specific about which behaviors I thought were doing such a thing. If you were engaging in such behaviors, then the shoe fit, so wear it. If you were not, then you are unnecessarily and inaccurately considering yourself a target of my remarks.

I really get sick and tired of posters turning into instant crybabies just because I post something with which they disagree. I am not lumping you all together other than accidentally based on an inability to tell all the anonymous posters apart. If you are bothered that you are confused with other anonymous posters, perhaps you should take steps to help other posters distinguish you?

As for the whorehouse thing, what makes you think that I even knew about that message, let alone condoned it? Did you report the message to me? I got involved with the previous thread only after it was reported to me. The poster actually posted saying that she had reported the thread and I had refused to remove messages from it. You guys even argued about her post.

Jeff, you have impugned our motives for even responding to Muslima and the other PP's claims about asylum, concubines, and immigration. You have suggested that we have nefarious motives for even being interested in these things, instead of just letting the original statements sit unquestioned.

Who's the crybaby here? Muslima and her friend reported these threads. I'm guessing nobody reported the Muslim PP for calling us christianevangelicwhatevers, right? I'm certain I never reported to you their attacks on my kid, my husband, or my cooking skills. I can defend myself, thanks, against all their insults. In fact I find both the attacks and your unwillingness to criticize them sort of hilarious, and that's the real reason I keep referring to them.

Re the whorehouses: you missed the point. Yes, there are so many anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish posts that you can't possibly keep on top of them (we agree on that!). The result is that bigotry against these groups is rampant here. But you can't argue in the same breath that Islam is "singled out" for criticism.

I'm as PC as they come. But there's a real issue here about balance and bias.

[Anonymous]

OK, thanks for the explanation. I tend to root for the underdogs, too.

[Anonymous]

Another vote for the underdogs. My whole family marched against the Iraq war, and more.

But that doesn't mean I let distortions stand in other cases. In fact, it's probably my sense of justice, combined with the importance I place on facts, that keeps me on this thread.

Signed, PP with the drug-addled kid and the bad cooking skills.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you have impugned our motives for even responding to Muslima and the other PP's claims about asylum, concubines, and immigration. You have suggested that we have nefarious motives for even being interested in these things, instead of just letting the original statements sit unquestioned.

Who's the crybaby here? Muslima and her friend reported these threads. I'm guessing nobody reported the Muslim PP for calling us christianevangelicwhatevers, right? I'm certain I never reported to you their attacks on my kid, my husband, or my cooking skills. I can defend myself, thanks, against all their insults. In fact I find both the attacks and your unwillingness to criticize them sort of hilarious, and that's the real reason I keep referring to them.

Re the whorehouses: you missed the point. Yes, there are so many anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish posts that you can't possibly keep on top of them (we agree on that!). The result is that bigotry against these groups is rampant here. But you can't argue in the same breath that Islam is "singled out" for criticism.

I'm as PC as they come. But there's a real issue here about balance and bias.

This complete post is hogwash beginning with the fact that I have no idea which poster you are. Are you even the poster to whom I was replying?

I simply have not impugned "our" (whoever that is) motives for even responding to Muslima. As I said, I described very specific actions which I regarded as nefarious. If your behavior didn't include those actions, then you were not a target of my remarks.

You either did not read or did not understand my repeated explanations about what I meant by "singling out". Please go back and read them. The previous thread was reported to me as a result of insults directed toward Muslima. I declined to act on that report. So, my failure to do anything about the "christianevangelicwhatevers" issue that seems to bother you so much is simply me being consistent.

Again, if there is bigotry against other groups that is not reported to me, that does mean anything other than that I probably didn't know about it. The previous thread about Islam was reported to me. Otherwise I would never have read it. When I did read it, I found a message specifically asking for me by name to comment. If you want me to be involved in a thread, report the thread. If you don't want me to be involved in a thread, don't ask me for a comment or make a factually inaccurate allegation about me (using my name). It's unbelievable that you guys ignore the obvious -- that I got involved via reports and my name being used -- and come up with a "Jeff's a Muslim who thinks Catholics run whorehouses" theory.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
As to your point about Muslima and asylum, I might suggest a different approach. Instead of attempting to demonstrate that she is wrong, ask her to provide examples of prisoners being provided asylum, or to give further context to her contention. As I have said repeatedly, there is no "one true Islam". So, "wrong" and "right" and not useful concepts in discussing the topic. Muslima may be right in one context and wrong in another. I think it is more useful to define the parameters of the context about which she is speaking.

So we may ask Muslima to explain what she means. We might even be able to ask leading questions, to an obviously limited extent.

But if Muslima fails to come out with anything relevant to, I dunno, Boko Haram today--and we all know Muslima never would--then tough tootsies, right? You're telling us to not point out that Boko Haram and many scholars take a different position. DCUM is not a marketplace of ideas. For all any of DCUMs readers will know, the version of Islam that's true to Muslima is shared by every other Muslim, including by Al Azhar.

Got it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
As to your point about Muslima and asylum, I might suggest a different approach. Instead of attempting to demonstrate that she is wrong, ask her to provide examples of prisoners being provided asylum, or to give further context to her contention. As I have said repeatedly, there is no "one true Islam". So, "wrong" and "right" and not useful concepts in discussing the topic. Muslima may be right in one context and wrong in another. I think it is more useful to define the parameters of the context about which she is speaking.

So we may ask Muslima to explain what she means. We might even be able to ask leading questions, to an obviously limited extent.

But if Muslima fails to come out with anything relevant to, I dunno, Boko Haram today--and we all know Muslima never would--then tough tootsies, right? You're telling us to not point out that Boko Haram and many scholars take a different position. DCUM is not a marketplace of ideas. For all any of DCUMs readers will know, the version of Islam that's true to Muslima is shared by every other Muslim, including by Al Azhar.

Got it.

Alright. I'm done. If this is the level of discussion in which you are interested, have at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
- to consent to "marriage"
If she had the right to ask to negotiate her freedom, why would she not have the right to refuse consent to marriage also?

Several people had asked you: what did she, a slavewoman, had to negotiate with? Free women can refuse marriage, can a concubine refuse concubinage? Can she say to an Ameer who's handing out her and her sisters to the soldiers, "sorry, I don't want to be his concubine. There's a chick on DCUM who says I can. I'll be on my way then." Is there any scriptural support, in the Quran/ahadith that any female captive ever walked out on her owner? Stop saying she could refuse consent to marriage, concubines had to be freed first to be married, one couldn't marry a concubine who would remain a concubine.

Anonymous wrote:
- to receive a dowry
If the owner married her, yes, he did have to give her a dowry.

If her owner married her, she would no longer be a concubine - irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:
- to ask for "divorce"
If the owner married his concubine, yes, she could seek a divorce through the court.

If the owner married his concubine, she would have been a free woman at that point. Could a concubine walk out on her master?

Anonymous wrote:
- pregnancy didn't set them free, the death of the owner to whom they've born a child did. You're tripping here. If they had to be free upon pregnancy, their masters would have lost the right to intercourse with them (since they would no longer be owned by that particular man) and would have to marry them to continue to enjoy that right. The concubine who had children by her owner would be set free but only after her master died.

If the concubine had the owner's child, she could no longer be sold. That means she acquired a different, elevated status, and was a permanent member of his household. Her child would be free.

But her pregnancy - as you mentioned first - didn't make her free. Lying isn't very nice. That she could no longer be sold doesn't mean she became free.

Show me where you read that she was NOT free after having a child.

Show me where you read that she WAS free upon delivery of a child.

Well, I was going to wait till you brought your sources. But being an inquisitive sort, here you are:

Early Maliki Law: Ibn 'Abd Al-Hakam and His Compendium of Jurisprudence, Chapter "The Umm Walad", a common name in Arabic for the concubine who had a child by her master. Literally means "mother of child."

http://books.google.com/books?id=ciSskcBCi3EC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=%22umm+walad%22+and+islam&source=bl&ots=E57hlRP7Ot&sig=GotTXAB-94yWToPp93XUH0Lw8fs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y9ENVMWjI4_bsAST84GoDQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22umm%20walad%22%20and%20islam&f=false

Wish could cut and paste, but here's a summary: "umm walad" was freed only upon death of her master, and sometimes her children would have to wait for the master's death, too.

Now please, bring your evidence that a concubine is freed immediately upon pregnancy or delivery.

And if you are the poster who rejects the validity of Shariah as manmade, then I will find it very amusing that you will have to go to the source you despise for references on what exactly it proposed to do with umm walad's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually Allah said if a concubine asks for her freedom, the owner should negotiate it. So it would seem odd that Allah would ask for owners to grant concubines freedom but simultaneously permit owners to have forcible sex with them. A God compassionate enough to encourage her freedom is not going to also be callous enough to permit an owner to treat a concubine as a chair or table.

There is no scriptural support for the concubine having an option to say, no Abdullah, I don't think I want to be your concubine, thanks very much.

But the absence of scriptural support does not negate that possibility. We know from the passages that do exist in the Quran that fair and just treatment was ordered by owners toward their concubines. We can infer from those passages that such treatment should be extended to all aspects of the relationship.

"Granting freedom" is not the same as "do X for X years, then we'll see."
The granting of freedom is the end result of negotiation.

Being allotted to men by their leader does sound very much like being treated like furniture.

They were slaves and, like I said before, you can not possibly understand how Islam dealt with concubinage without first accepting how different life was at the time. It was likely inconceivable for people to imagine life without slavery and concubinage. As I stated before also, concubinage pre-dated Islam. It was mentioned in the Bible.

And as several of us mentioned, you failed to prove your point about concubinage and slavery in the New Testament. Not a single one of your 3 New Testament quotes proved your point and, in fact, 2 of your 3 New Testament quotes actually disproved your point and are used by Christians to support monogamy. The irony!

More important, we're talking about God/Allah here, and s/he could have done anything, including banning slavery and concubinage - that's the whole point.

It was provided. You chose to gloss over it though. So here's another writeup from another Christian writer:

"Concubines are married to a True Christian man. Concubine is a woman living in a lawful marriage arrangement with a man, but whose status is regarded as being less than a wife. A concubine is especially recommended by the Bible if the wife is unable to have children (e.g. Sarah suggested that her husband Abraham take Hagar as a concubine i.e. Genesis 16:1-3).
We True Christians have a simpler, quicker marriage for adding concubines to a man. The concubine is expected to be equally chaste, submissive, and loyal to the man as any true wife! However, concubines are not actual wives, so they can be released from service, or traded to another concubine with another True Christian man (not just anyone!) if so desired.
A woman who wants a True Christian husband but is not a virgin has the option to become a concubine. Of course, health check and STD tests are required.
The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Ex. 21:7; Deut. 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Gen. 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household government.
There are no passages in the Bible that condemn concubines. God was displeased with Solomon's approximately 1,000 wives and concubines. But it was not because of the polygynous arrangement. God was concerned that many of the women were foreigners, and worshiped foreign Gods. They eventually lead Solomon to stray from worshipping Yahweh. (1 King 11:1-6).
There is no indication that Jesus indicated disapproval of any other forms of marriage. He never criticized polygnyous marriages, levirate marriages, or any of the other marriage types mentioned in the bible.
John the Baptist criticized Herod's polygynous marriage to Herodias. (Matthew 14:3). But the criticism was based on the inappropriate choice of Heodias, since she was the wife of his brother Philip. John did not criticize the fact that it was a polygynous marriage.
Some interpret Jesus' comments on divorce in (Mark 10:2 & Matthew 19:3) as proof that Jesus supported only the usual "one man, one woman" type of marriage. But his response "So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" was in answer to a specific question from the Pharisees: whether "a man" was allowed to divorce "his wife." (Matthew 19:3). Jesus' response, which denied a man the right of a man to divorce his wife, does shows that at least Jesus acknowledged the nuclear, one-man-one-woman marriage. But it does not exclude support for the other types of family structure, listed above. Polygyny was less common during the 1st century CE than it was in earlier times, but it was still practiced. For example, Herod the Great had nine wives."


If you are a Christian, then you accept the Old Testament too. Here's a Bible lesson that explains the truth about how and why the Bible did permit slavery, polygamy, and concubines.
http://www.biblestudylessons.net/faqs/polygamy1.htm