What does Islam say about concubines?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

And yet, that's what you told us.

I'm done too. I have no illusions that DCUM will miss me. The question for me is whether it does me any good to be abused by the moderator for respectfully questioning some pretty dubious claims. My answer: nope. Also, ditching this site will free up my time. My only regret is leaving that other PP on her own. But, Sayonara!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote: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.

The bold part is complete and utter BS and I'm sure you know it.

Who used your name? The answer is, one of the Muslim posters who posted multiple links to cites from you she thinks (correctly) are defending her. Yet you're using that against the posters who are questioning the Muslim posts.

Do you want people to think you're reasonable and unbiased? Or you you really not give a fig?

[Anonymous]

Jeff, maybe you should just rename this forum the "Forum for Muslim Proselytizing-no Disagreement Allowed." Then at least people would know what they're getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because giving up pork is far easier than outright suddenly stopping slavery, which was institutionalized, and deeply entrenched in pagan Arab life and also throughout history among people of all religions. So Allah eradicated it in steps:
1) promised a great reward to owners who freed concubines or slaves
2) encouraged owners to marry believing concubines ( which would have effectively freed them)
3) equated children of slaves with the owners other children. Thus they could not be sold and received the same inheritance rights.

All these have the effect of eradicating slavery.

It still didn't give female slaves the option to not share their master's bed. It's ridiculous to say they were treated "just like wives."

In Islam concubines had these rights
-be fed same as wife
-be clothed same as wife
-not be given work that they were incapable of handling
-could get their freedom if they asked
-were encouraged to be freed
-were encouraged to be married to their owners
-if pregnant, had to be freed
-if had children, the children had same rights as other children in the house
Just seems a bit odd for Allah to say they had these rights but the owner could force himself on her if he liked.

No, freedom came only after the master died if the concubine had a child with him. Not "if pregnant." That's a lie. She had to wait until he died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm a Christian and I reject this as nonsense, as do most of the Christians that I know. We know that Christianity is an evolving religion that can't be practiced as it was practiced hundreds of years ago -- or even 100 years ago. I have no problem with that. Where do Muslims reject the parts of their religion that make them appear brutal and backward? I only know what I see in the media. I'd like to hear the good parts of this religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah, traditional marriage. We really should do everything in our power to preserve it.

Not recognizing Gay marriages falls in which category?

[Anonymous]

Another interesting point about the acceptance of concubines in Christianity. It was mentioned in the Old Testament and it was never prohibited in the New Testament.

I'm not Christian. I have read the Old Testament but that was ages ago. I have not read the New Testament. So I may be wrong about this, but this is from another Christian writer:

"The practise of a man having more than one wife or concubines continued into the Roman society of Jesus' day but although no single statement of Jesus or Paul completely barred this approach for Christians it starts to become clear that the practise is hardly consistent with the Christian life. A consideration of Jesus' comments in Matthew 5-7, Matthew 19:1-9 and perhaps especially Paul's comments on marital love in 1 Corinthians 7 tell us much more. Paul assumes either no marriage or monogamous marriage within the Christian life, although it is true that he never specifically refers to plural marriage or concubinage at all. Others have expressed surprise that in Acts 15 when the disciples made a decision – guided by the Holy Spirit – as to what new gentile Christian converts most urgently needed to be warned about as being inconsistent with the Christian life, neither plural marriage nor concubinage are mentioned, although 'sexual immorality' certainly is mentioned (Check out Acts 15:27-29)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm a Christian and I reject this as nonsense, as do most of the Christians that I know. We know that Christianity is an evolving religion that can't be practiced as it was practiced hundreds of years ago -- or even 100 years ago. I have no problem with that. Where do Muslims reject the parts of their religion that make them appear brutal and backward? I only know what I see in the media. I'd like to hear the good parts of this religion.

The vast majority of Muslims DO NOT HAVE CONCUBINES, EVEN IN WAR TIME. Thus, Muslims are like Christians in this regard. However, our Islamophobe poster said what people actually believe or do is irrelevant. She wanted to see proof in the scriptures that concubinage was prohibited. I'm showing here that it was neither explicitly prohibited in the Biblical or the Quranic scriptures. However, in the Quran it was indeed eradicated in stages by systematically raising the status of the concubine and / or her children and imposing restrictions on her and her children's treatment and care. Society has evolved, however.

The good parts of Islam are many. I believe I've shown in this thread that Islam was the first religion to systematically eradicate concubinage. It's a start. I will continue to post more information about Islam in other threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[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

I'm a Christian and I reject this as nonsense, as do most of the Christians that I know. We know that Christianity is an evolving religion that can't be practiced as it was practiced hundreds of years ago -- or even 100 years ago. I have no problem with that. Where do Muslims reject the parts of their religion that make them appear brutal and backward? I only know what I see in the media. I'd like to hear the good parts of this religion.

Are you kidding us? Your 3 passsages from Christianity were refuted one by one.

You don't even have the decency to tell us where this latest thing you're quoting comes from. Somebody in 600AD? An extreme and tiny sect of Christianity? I certainly don't recognize it, it's not from any part of the New Testament.

Yet Jeff, God love him, apparently finds your behavior completely acceptable. So go ahead. Quote from from completely random sources about Christianity. If anybody did this to Islam Jeff would immediately challenge their motives and agree that they're Islamophobes. But you can post any old cr@p you want, including the unsourced cr@ap directly above, about Christianity, and it's all hunky dory with our moderator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another interesting point about the acceptance of concubines in Christianity. It was mentioned in the Old Testament and it was never prohibited in the New Testament.

I'm not Christian. I have read the Old Testament but that was ages ago. I have not read the New Testament. So I may be wrong about this, but this is from another Christian writer:

"The practise of a man having more than one wife or concubines continued into the Roman society of Jesus' day but although no single statement of Jesus or Paul completely barred this approach for Christians it starts to become clear that the practise is hardly consistent with the Christian life. A consideration of Jesus' comments in Matthew 5-7, Matthew 19:1-9 and perhaps especially Paul's comments on marital love in 1 Corinthians 7 tell us much more. Paul assumes either no marriage or monogamous marriage within the Christian life, although it is true that he never specifically refers to plural marriage or concubinage at all. Others have expressed surprise that in Acts 15 when the disciples made a decision – guided by the Holy Spirit – as to what new gentile Christian converts most urgently needed to be warned about as being inconsistent with the Christian life, neither plural marriage nor concubinage are mentioned, although 'sexual immorality' certainly is mentioned (Check out Acts 15:27-29)."

OK, I guess we need to ask ourselves whether "sexual immorality" includes plural marriage or concubines. It seems it probably excludes sex outside of marriage, therefore, concubines. The jury is out on what he meant by "sexual morality," but I don't think you can say Paul didn't mean polygamy.

Also, Paul is not Jesus, in case that needed pointing out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The vast majority of Muslims DO NOT HAVE CONCUBINES, EVEN IN WAR TIME. Thus, Muslims are like Christians in this regard. However, our Islamophobe poster said what people actually believe or do is irrelevant. She wanted to see proof in the scriptures that concubinage was prohibited. I'm showing here that it was neither explicitly prohibited in the Biblical or the Quranic scriptures. However, in the Quran it was indeed eradicated in stages by systematically raising the status of the concubine and / or her children and imposing restrictions on her and her children's treatment and care. Society has evolved, however.

The good parts of Islam are many. I believe I've shown in this thread that Islam was the first religion to systematically eradicate concubinage. It's a start. I will continue to post more information about Islam in other threads.

You have not shown that Islam has systematically eradicated concubinage. What's your definition of systematically? The rulers of the Ottoman Empire, as recently as 19th century, were children of concubines. So as recently as 200 years ago, the empire was both procuring concubines and putting their loins to good use. I'd call that "taking my sweet time eradicating concubinage."

But it's good that you conceded that it was not explicitly prohibited in the Quran. That should put an end to claims like "Islam bans slavery."

Are you going to post a source for your prior claim that concubines were freed when they became pregnant? Or are you going to acknowledge that the freedom came, if it did, after the master's death?

Yes, the good parts of Islam are many. Its stance on slavery, including sexual slavery - because that's what concubinage is, let's admit that no one got female slaves to knit sweaters - is not one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm a Christian and I reject this as nonsense, as do most of the Christians that I know. We know that Christianity is an evolving religion that can't be practiced as it was practiced hundreds of years ago -- or even 100 years ago. I have no problem with that. Where do Muslims reject the parts of their religion that make them appear brutal and backward? I only know what I see in the media. I'd like to hear the good parts of this religion.

The vast majority of Muslims DO NOT HAVE CONCUBINES, EVEN IN WAR TIME. Thus, Muslims are like Christians in this regard. However, our Islamophobe poster said what people actually believe or do is irrelevant. She wanted to see proof in the scriptures that concubinage was prohibited. I'm showing here that it was neither explicitly prohibited in the Biblical or the Quranic scriptures. However, in the Quran it was indeed eradicated in stages by systematically raising the status of the concubine and / or her children and imposing restrictions on her and her children's treatment and care. Society has evolved, however.

The good parts of Islam are many. I believe I've shown in this thread that Islam was the first religion to systematically eradicate concubinage. It's a start. I will continue to post more information about Islam in other threads.

I guess what most of us are responding to is what we see on the news, happening today -- which is women and girls being kidnapped and "married" or kept as sex slaves. I get that that is probably extremists but what about the normal members of society who arrange for child brides and kill women who "shame" their families? Seems accepted by society.

[Anonymous]

Reposting for formatting.

Anonymous wrote: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

Are you kidding us? Your 3 passsages from Christianity were refuted one by one.

You don't even have the decency to tell us where this latest thing you're quoting comes from. Somebody in 600AD? An extreme and tiny sect of Christianity? Who the heck wrote this, some Christian convert to Islam? Where on earth did you find it? Links, please.

I love how non-Christians insist that Christians must, must, take the Old Testament literally. It was explained to you earlier that Jesus himself carefully discounted many Old Testament rules.

Yet Jeff, God love him, apparently finds your behavior completely acceptable. That's because you're Muslim, and we're not. So go ahead. Quote from from completely random sources about Christianity and you should never feel obligated to provide links or sources. If anybody did this to Islam Jeff would immediately challenge their motives and agree that they're Islamophobes. But you can post any old cr@p you want, including the unsourced cr@ap directly above, about Christianity, and it's all hunky dory with our moderator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I guess what most of us are responding to is what we see on the news, happening today -- which is women and girls being kidnapped and "married" or kept as sex slaves. I get that that is probably extremists but what about the normal members of society who arrange for child brides and kill women who "shame" their families? Seems accepted by society.

This is the educated kaffirah talking, not a Muslim poster.

Look, killing women who shame their families is all about tribal morals. Islam does not sanction it at all.

Child brides is trickier because explicitly banning what Muhammad did is a touchy area in Islam, but it IS true that most Muslim countries have instituted minimum age for marriage, and it's not nine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[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

I'm a Christian and I reject this as nonsense, as do most of the Christians that I know. We know that Christianity is an evolving religion that can't be practiced as it was practiced hundreds of years ago -- or even 100 years ago. I have no problem with that. Where do Muslims reject the parts of their religion that make them appear brutal and backward? I only know what I see in the media. I'd like to hear the good parts of this religion.

Are you kidding us? Your 3 passsages from Christianity were refuted one by one.

You don't even have the decency to tell us where this latest thing you're quoting comes from. Somebody in 600AD? An extreme and tiny sect of Christianity? I certainly don't recognize it, it's not from any part of the New Testament.

Yet Jeff, God love him, apparently finds your behavior completely acceptable. So go ahead. Quote from from completely random sources about Christianity. If anybody did this to Islam Jeff would immediately challenge their motives and agree that they're Islamophobes. But you can post any old cr@p you want, including the unsourced cr@ap directly above, about Christianity, and it's all hunky dory with our moderator.

Then just refer to the Biblical passages that were quoted. You and your friend are so full of it. It is so evident that you have an agenda against Islam. I have provided Quranic passages, Biblical passages, links, yet all you do is deny what they say. Concubines existed and were acknowledged in the Bible and the Quran. They were never explicitly prohibited but concubinage was regulated. Eventually Islam eradicated it. Thats the whole story.

You know, if I had serious issues with Christianity, I would seek out Christian scholars and priests and ask them for clarification. You have never done that and I expect you to never do so, because your objective isn't to seek clarification; its to vilify the whole religion.

God help you, girl.