What does Islam say about concubines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, you love Christians and Jews. Nobody here has noticed your obsession with converting them, or the way you use "christianevangelicalcrusader" as your go-to insult. (And let me remind you that you're not posting as Muslima, so you must be the other poster who uses "christianevangelicalcrusader" constantly.)

Yes, Jeff has given you license to insult everybody else, and he's told everybody else they can't insult you back. We agree on that. So congrats on your fast work, your insults of other PPs' supposed family lives and supposed egos. I bet you will really come into your own now that you have a pass to insult everybody with impunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 Corinthians 7:2 says that marriage exists to prevent fornication (this would include prostitutes, obviously) outside marriage. "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each wife should have her own husband."

Then there is the whole Christian tradition of celibacy, so that you can focus on God's work. That's why Catholic monks, priests and nuns are celibate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I don't think anyone argued that she still could be sold. The source I posted said she could no longer be sold (so says the consensus) but her freedom came only after the owner died. You said concubines were freed if they got pregnant, and that's incorrect. I will be magnanimous and say it's an error of lack of knowledge, not a lie on your part. There were degrees of bondage, and a concubine who could no longer be sold was still property of her owner.

Presumably, you weren't the only one equipped with thinking facilities, so I'm comfortable that scholars who wrote major madhabs have done quite a bit of thinking themselves. You didn't bring evidence. Your brought your ideas. I brought scholarly evidence, which you clearly consider lacking. Well, that's your thing. But you didn't bring any evidence.

The paragraph you posted, exhorting owners to write deeds of emancipation (in exchange for god knows what) for their slaves, doesn't refer to immediate manumission. It refers to contractual manumission in exchange for whatever slaves could deliver, usually years of service. The kindest thing to do to slaves would have been not to enslave them at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 Corinthians 7:2 says that marriage exists to prevent fornication (this would include prostitutes, obviously) outside marriage. "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each wife should have her own husband."

Then there is the whole Christian tradition of celibacy, so that you can focus on God's work. That's why Catholic monks, priests and nuns are celibate.

1. The New Testament says that sex outside marriage is fornication (see the passage above, for example, among others).
2. Concubinage falls outside marriage.
3. The New Testament doesn't have any form of legally sanctioned concubinage, unlike the Quran (you seem to agree in that, Muslim PP).

Therefore, concubinage falls into the category of fornication. And fornication is a sin. So concubinage is a sin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 adcultery." 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.

I'm not Muslima!! The type of unification spoken of is MARRIAGE, and the warning or restriction issued is divorcing for frivolous reasons. Nowhere does it expressly prohibit or even indirectly state concubine relationships are prohibited. In fact, in reading this, a man may have a concubine so long as he doesn't divorce his wife for frivolous reasons.

[Anonymous]

Reporting this post on concubinage, because apparently you missed it or didn't bother to read it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 Corinthians 7:2 says that marriage exists to prevent fornication (this would include prostitutes, obviously) outside marriage. "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each wife should have her own husband."

Then there is the whole Christian tradition of celibacy, so that you can focus on God's work. That's why Catholic monks, priests and nuns are celibate.

1. The New Testament says that sex outside marriage is fornication (see the passage above, for example, among others).
2. Concubinage falls outside marriage.
3. The New Testament doesn't have any form of legally sanctioned concubinage, unlike the Quran (you seem to agree in that, Muslim PP).

Therefore, concubinage falls into the category of fornication. And fornication is a sin. So concubinage is a sin.

[Anonymous]

To the Muslim PP: I am making a special effort to repost this post on how Christianity forbids concubinage, because apparently you missed it or didn't bother to read it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 Corinthians 7:2 says that marriage exists to prevent fornication (this would include prostitutes, obviously) outside marriage. "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each wife should have her own husband."

Then there is the whole Christian tradition of celibacy, so that you can focus on God's work. That's why Catholic monks, priests and nuns are celibate.

1. The New Testament says that sex outside marriage is fornication (see the passage above, for example, among others).
2. Concubinage falls outside marriage.
3. The New Testament doesn't have any form of legally sanctioned concubinage, unlike the Quran (you seem to agree in that, Muslim PP).

Therefore, concubinage falls into the category of fornication. And fornication is a sin. So concubinage is a sin.

[Anonymous]

Are we done here?

* Christianity says that polygamy is equivalent to adultery, which is a sin. In the Matthew passage Muslim PP keeps bringing up, the whole argument against divorce hinges on the impossibility of having two wives in Christianity.
* Christianity says that sex outside marriage is fornication, which is a sin (that passage from Corinthians again, and others). There's no way to argue that sex outside marriage could possibly include concubines, because Christianity does not set up a separate legal framework for concubinage outside marriage, unlike Islam.

So now can we go back to discussing Islam and concubines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, you love Christians and Jews. Nobody here has noticed your obsession with converting them, or the way you use "christianevangelicalcrusader" as your go-to insult. (And let me remind you that you're not posting as Muslima, so you must be the other poster who uses "christianevangelicalcrusader" constantly.)

Yes, Jeff has given you license to insult everybody else, and he's told everybody else they can't insult you back. We agree on that. So congrats on your fast work, your insults of other PPs' supposed family lives and supposed egos. I bet you will really come into your own now that you have a pass to insult everybody with impunity.

Jeff hasn't given me license. I said you must be a lousy cook who isn't taking the time to help her kid with homework. Thats a dig, and only in response to your unfair biased portrayal of my religion. The islamophobe label, well if the shoe fits. You are following me from thread to thread to paint Islam as a barbaric religion, whereas I have shown you that other religions have similar histories. You were hoping to rally support from other Islam haters to bully Muslims off this thread, and you're just pissed off that few people wanted to join your hate campaign.

Regardless of how much animosity you hope to foster between Muslims, Jews, and Christians you will never succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, you love Christians and Jews. Nobody here has noticed your obsession with converting them, or the way you use "christianevangelicalcrusader" as your go-to insult. (And let me remind you that you're not posting as Muslima, so you must be the other poster who uses "christianevangelicalcrusader" constantly.)

Yes, Jeff has given you license to insult everybody else, and he's told everybody else they can't insult you back. We agree on that. So congrats on your fast work, your insults of other PPs' supposed family lives and supposed egos. I bet you will really come into your own now that you have a pass to insult everybody with impunity.

Jeff hasn't given me license. I said you must be a lousy cook who isn't taking the time to help her kid with homework. Thats a dig, and only in response to your unfair biased portrayal of my religion. The islamophobe label, well if the shoe fits. You are following me from thread to thread to paint Islam as a barbaric religion, whereas I have shown you that other religions have similar histories. You were hoping to rally support from other Islam haters to bully Muslims off this thread, and you're just pissed off that few people wanted to join your hate campaign.

Regardless of how much animosity you hope to foster between Muslims, Jews, and Christians you will never succeed.

Unfair biased portrayal of your religion is grounds for personal insults?

Like great cooks can't dislike Islam?

You don't understand how childish you are being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
I .

Jeff hasn't given me license. I said you must be a lousy cook who isn't taking the time to help her kid with homework. Thats a dig, and only in response to your unfair biased portrayal of my religion. The islamophobe label, well if the shoe fits. You are following me from thread to thread to paint Islam as a barbaric religion, whereas I have shown you that other religions have similar histories. You were hoping to rally support from other Islam haters to bully Muslims off this thread, and you're just pissed off that few people wanted to join your hate campaign.

Regardless of how much animosity you hope to foster between Muslims, Jews, and Christians you will never succeed.

I don't know who you think you're talking to. Most (all?) of my posts--and of all the posts--on this thread have been aimed at rebutting your assertions that Christianity allows polygamy and concubines. I have never used the word "barbaric", maybe 1 poster who is not me used that word once or twice on another thread, but on this thread you're the only one using words like "barbaric."

I also don't know why you think defending Christianity against your erroneous accusations is the same as "following you around" in order to "paint" Islam as a barbaric religion." Perhaps you're actually arguing that trying to correct you on Christianity is anti-Islam, too, and therefore we should allow anything you say on Christianity to stand unchallenged, too.

You're the one trying to foment inter-religion strife with your nonsense about Christianity and concubines, not me. You and Muslima brought up Christianity and concubines, nobody else did that. You're the one calling everyone you disagree with a ChristIan-evangelical-Islamophobe. The moderator may have said it's fine for you to do this. But several of us don't actually think it's fine, we still think it's pretty darn insulting.

I'm not the PP who has shown that you're wrong about concubines and emancipation after the master's death. I admire her, though, for not being intimidated by you and the moderator. She, not you, is helping people understand why ISIS is doing what it's doing.

[Anonymous]

I am not able to distinguish you from the islamophobe poster, so if you expect me to please use a name and stop being anonymous.

I do have replies to your recent posts, but as I said, I am a busy mom and my family comes first. I will respond later...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff hasn't given me license. I said you must be a lousy cook who isn't taking the time to help her kid with homework. Thats a dig, and only in response to your unfair biased portrayal of my religion. The islamophobe label, well if the shoe fits. You are following me from thread to thread to paint Islam as a barbaric religion, whereas I have shown you that other religions have similar histories. You were hoping to rally support from other Islam haters to bully Muslims off this thread, and you're just pissed off that few people wanted to join your hate campaign.

Regardless of how much animosity you hope to foster between Muslims, Jews, and Christians you will never succeed.

Unfair biased portrayal of your religion is grounds for personal insults?

Like great cooks can't dislike Islam?

You don't understand how childish you are being.

+1000. You must have no idea, but these digs really do make you look childish and unreliable.

If you don't like how the thread is going--and I bet that's true--then your next step shouldn't be to show everybody you have the mentality of a 10-year-old. Your next step should be to refrain from posting any more, and let the thread die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, the Ottoman ruling was bad in some ways, and good in some ways. Their treatment of religious minorities, for instance, was quite good.

Your argument was that Islam has "eventually eradicated slavery." The revelation of Islam occurred within a very short period of time. The word "eventually" implies something that happens over time. As such, eradication of slavery depended on Muslims, not on Islam, because the revelation (what you call revelation) was time-bound and the new verses didn't keep appearing throughout centuries. If you want to say that Islam tried to put conditions in place that were intended to eventually eradicate slavery, well, that's at least a somewhat valid argument, but I think we can all agree that Islam's efforts in this regard were not supported by Muslims, and instead of eradicating it, it has instead institutionalized slavery - slavery that was very different from what Europeans practiced but slavery nevertheless - and it took over 10 centuries to be done with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff hasn't given me license. I said you must be a lousy cook who isn't taking the time to help her kid with homework. Thats a dig, and only in response to your unfair biased portrayal of my religion. The islamophobe label, well if the shoe fits. You are following me from thread to thread to paint Islam as a barbaric religion, whereas I have shown you that other religions have similar histories. You were hoping to rally support from other Islam haters to bully Muslims[b] off this thread, and you're just pissed off that few people wanted to join your hate campaign.

Regardless of how much animosity you hope to foster between Muslims, Jews, and Christians you will never succeed.

Unfair biased portrayal of your religion is grounds for personal insults?

Like great cooks can't dislike Islam?

You don't understand how childish you are being.

+1000. You must have no idea, but these digs really do make you look childish and unreliable.

If you don't like how the thread is going--and I bet that's true--then your next step shouldn't be to show everybody you have the mentality of a 10-year-old. Your next step should be to refrain from posting any more, and let the thread die.

Re the bold stuff, you've shown nothing of the sort. Your claims that Christianity allows polygamy or concubines were demonstrated to be ridiculous. Repeatedly.

Claiming it doesn't make it true. I don't think it's an insult to say you're being untruthful here, when anybody can go back and see the truth for themselves.