What does Islam say about concubines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Islam didn't eventually eradicate it. The abolition of Ottoman slavery came under serious pressure from the European authorities who were also guilty as sin with their slave trade. The first decree of the Ottoman Sultan banning slavery came in 1830, and that was to free WHITE slaves.

If your argument is that it should take 12 centuries to eradicate something...well...didn't need a revelation for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dismissing your utter BS about Christianity does not mean anyone has an agenda against Islam.

I absolutely did refer to the New Testament passages you quoted. These same passages are used by many Christians to DENY the possibility of polygamy and concubines.

If you think you know better than 2 millenia of Christian interpreters, if you think quoting some random unsource nutcase proves your point, then you're the one who is completely and absolutely full of it.

[Anonymous]

Hey PP quoting the one Christian who apparently contracts two millenia of Christian support for monogamy: can we see a link, please?

Otherwise, how do we know you didn't make that supposed quote up yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dismissing your utter BS about Christianity does not mean anyone has an agenda against Islam.

I absolutely did refer to the New Testament passages you quoted. These same passages are used by many Christians to DENY the possibility of polygamy and concubines.

If you think you know better than 2 millenia of Christian interpreters, if you think quoting some random unsource nutcase proves your point, then you're the one who is completely and absolutely full of it.

You obviously have nothing better to do than to sit on DCUM all day waiting for my replies. I, however, have a family to care of and part time work. I am happy to provide the sources this evening AFTER I play with my kids, after I make my family dinner, and after I help them with homework and put them to bed.
However, I'm interested in what you have to say about the passages this is quoting. Do they not exist in the Bible? What do you have to say about them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then show me the quote where Jesus prohibited slavery or concubines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then show me the quote where Jesus prohibited slavery or concubines.

You quoted them yourself. These are the quotes that talk about a man leaving his parents and becoming one with his wife. Wife, in the singular, not wives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then show me the quote where Jesus prohibited slavery or concubines.

You quoted them yourself. These are the quotes that talk about a man leaving his parents and becoming one with his wife. Wife, in the singular, not wives.

These very same quotes have been used by Christians for two thousand years to support monogamy.

But, by all means, do go ahead and make up additional cr@p about Christianity! Please, I even beg you! Christians are, and should be, fair game. I totally, absolutely, agree that anybody challenging a Muslim should be shamed on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You obviously have nothing better to do than to sit on DCUM all day waiting for my replies. I, however, have a family to care of and part time work. I am happy to provide the sources this evening AFTER I play with my kids, after I make my family dinner, and after I help them with homework and put them to bed.
However, I'm interested in what you have to say about the passages this is quoting. Do they not exist in the Bible? What do you have to say about them?

I get it. Now that the moderator has confirmed he will NEVER call you on all your insults about other peoples' families and faiths, you've started up again. Jesus, literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is a complete abomination for families to engage in honor killings. However, they exist in tribal areas or areas deeply influenced by culture. Many of the girls or young women that were killed had engaged in fornication or adultery but even the Quran does not prescribe death (by stoning or any other method) for fornication or adultery.

As for arranging child brides, however - engagement is permitted at a very early age. Girls may be engaged to a boy from another family through their parents but the actual marriage does not and should not take place until the girl is much older. I have Hindu friends who were engaged via families at the age of 4 but they did not marry until they were 22 years. Often times this happens between families that are close, or families that want to unite their children to form a closer bond with one another. However, when they are older, they may not be forced into marriage against their will. Islam requires the consent of both parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You obviously have nothing better to do than to sit on DCUM all day waiting for my replies. I, however, have a family to care of and part time work. I am happy to provide the sources this evening AFTER I play with my kids, after I make my family dinner, and after I help them with homework and put them to bed.
However, I'm interested in what you have to say about the passages this is quoting. Do they not exist in the Bible? What do you have to say about them?

You are a truly nasty piece of work. You obviously heard Jeff's message about how you're free to abuse Christians and Jews, and of course nobody is supposed to touch Muslims. So look at you now, you're taking full advantage. Congratulations on being an awful person.

The New Testament passages have been shown to say the exact opposite of what you think, in fact it's pretty amazing anybody with a modicum of reading comprehension would think they support polygamy. You need to go back and read the responses again, or maybe for the first time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.



Here:
"Slave rights to freedom

Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid, a female slave who had borne her owner a child" from http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

Moreover, from this verse in the Quran below (in bold) we can extrapolate that tremendous justice and compassion were commanded by Allah toward an owner's concubines, unusual for that time:
Translation: Pickthall:
"And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

So if a concubine gave birth to the owner's child, and the child was free, would keeping the mother of the free child in bondage be in accordance with the degree of compassion and justice commanded in the verse above? It would mean the mother could be sold but not the child, and therefore, the mother and child would be separated. Would such a result be in accordance with the kindness the Quran demands owners have for their concubines?

Think about it. Try not to limit your learning to literal reading only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then show me the quote where Jesus prohibited slavery or concubines.

You quoted them yourself. These are the quotes that talk about a man leaving his parents and becoming one with his wife. Wife, in the singular, not wives.

These very same quotes have been used by Christians for two thousand years to support monogamy.

But, by all means, do go ahead and make up additional cr@p about Christianity! Please, I even beg you! Christians are, and should be, fair game. I totally, absolutely, agree that anybody challenging a Muslim should be shamed on DCUM.

Since you couldn't find your own proof, I'll help you out. Is this what you meant?

"...5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:5-9

Why can't Matthew 19:5-9 be read to be about the importance of heterosexual unification and the avoidance of divorce? What has this got to do with concubines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Islam didn't eventually eradicate it. The abolition of Ottoman slavery came under serious pressure from the European authorities who were also guilty as sin with their slave trade. The first decree of the Ottoman Sultan banning slavery came in 1830, and that was to free WHITE slaves.

If your argument is that it should take 12 centuries to eradicate something...well...didn't need a revelation for that.

Yes, but remember you said you don't put much relevance in what Muslim people DO, you said you like to see scriptural evidence. I believe you told Jeff that. So why now are you using what Muslim people do as authority to support your claim. Dodging target again. The Ottoman ruling existence was hardly a role model of good Islamic behavior as they even sold their own children, sold their young boys to be used for sex in bathhouses, etc..No wonder you want to use it to support your claim. Pfft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You obviously have nothing better to do than to sit on DCUM all day waiting for my replies. I, however, have a family to care of and part time work. I am happy to provide the sources this evening AFTER I play with my kids, after I make my family dinner, and after I help them with homework and put them to bed.
However, I'm interested in what you have to say about the passages this is quoting. Do they not exist in the Bible? What do you have to say about them?

You are a truly nasty piece of work. You obviously heard Jeff's message about how you're free to abuse Christians and Jews, and of course nobody is supposed to touch Muslims. So look at you now, you're taking full advantage. Congratulations on being an awful person.

The New Testament passages have been shown to say the exact opposite of what you think, in fact it's pretty amazing anybody with a modicum of reading comprehension would think they support polygamy. You need to go back and read the responses again, or maybe for the first time.

Quite the contrary. As a Muslim, I love Christians and Jews. For any Muslim, they are the People of the Book and we must respect and love them. I have been to churches to do charitable work. I have supported Christian charities. BUT -- If I exposed the acceptance and tolerance of concubinage in the Bible and Hebrew scriptures, the acceptance of early marriages also, or used Mary's pregnancy outside of marriage to illustrate the lunacy of your own argument that Muhammad was a pedophile (or whoever that pp was that called him a pedophile), it was to get you to stop vilifying Islam's history alone.

As for the New Testament -- The Old Testament spoke of concubinage. The New Testament could have outright prohibited it, but it did not. The Matthew 19 verses you quoted do not expressly prohibit concubinage. It doesn't even prohibit it indirectly. It speaks only about the heterosexual unification and importance of avoiding frivolous divorce.

I have no problem with reading comprehension. If I make mistakes in reading comprehension I'll admit to it. My ego isn't as big as yours. You just got exposed by a third party, who happened to be the moderator, for being terribly unfair in your assertions about Islam being a barbaric religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Since you couldn't find your own proof, I'll help you out. Is this what you meant?

"...5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:5-9

Why can't Matthew 19:5-9 be read to be about the importance of heterosexual unification and the avoidance of divorce? What has this got to do with concubines?

I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you, Muslima, or how to make you understand.

Look at the the last 5 words, where Jesus says polygamy = adultery. Jesus is saying that if you marry a second woman, then because divorce is now impossible, you now have two wives. And having two wives is the same as committing adultery.

The word "wife" is different from the word 'wives." One is singular, the other is plural. The word "two" is different from the words "three" and "four." Verse 8 refers to "wives" and many would read this as a reference to the fact that there was more than one married man in Moses' day and in Jesus' audience, although I'm sure you read it as polygamy; but however you read it, the whole point is that Jesus is drawing a sharp distinction between the practice of Moses' time and his own day.

Christianity has been monogamous since Day One, because early Christians understood that polygamy=adultery, and they also understood the difference between "wife" and "wives" and between "two" and "three or more," even if you can't.

You're right, this has nothing to do with concubines. You need to ask the PP who first posted it, who said she's not Christian, why she posted it here.