What does Islam say about concubines?

[Anonymous]

Ahem: did a woman at that point in time have a right to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband if she was married? Did young women have any say in their marriage? Nope. Seems odd that slaves would be given those rights before wives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ahem: did a woman at that point in time have a right to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband if she was married? Did young women have any say in their marriage? Nope. Seems odd that slaves would be given those rights before wives.

Wives were similar to slaves back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Either shes angry because shes being pressured to convert or she simply hates God and religion. She clearly has an agenda to vilify Islam. I think even Jeff called her out on it.

And somebody who vilifies Islam is an islamophobe.

But lets not digress. Lets stick to the subject of slavery/concubines.

I see that you have at least agreed to drop the evangelicalchristiancrusader bit. That's good. Islam is a religion of graduate change, they tell us, perhaps step by step you will lose the rest of your name-calling habit.

My agenda is, quite simply, to correct the rose-tinted version of Islam that you've put on your agenda to present to the rest of the DCUM.

You and another PP made racist statements. Muslima was told to go back to her country. You're lucky christiancrusader/evangelical/islamophobe is all I said. I love Islam but I'm not as patient as Muslima with racist attacks.

Actually, not that I think Jeff is an authority on the intent of the posters, but he said pointing out that many converts to Islam were African-American isn't really racist.

You should really read some of Umar Lee's writings. It may open your eyes on some of your religion's history in the U.S. I bet you never even knew these Muslims existed. Reading is a wonderful thing.

There were TWO racist comments made by you and your friend. The first one came from you and pointed out as we were discussing the immigration/conversion/rate of growth issue. You pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims were African Americans and / or from ghettos. Race or economic status was not being discussed, only the growth rate of Islam was. In the heat of the moment, you were quick to point out Muslims' race and economic status though it had no relevance to the discussion. My belief is that it was intended as a criticism, as if to point out that the rapid conversion rate or the rapid growth rate of Islam was offset by the fact that the low quality of people drawn to it. You tried to backpedal by saying you simply brought up race and economic status to show who proselytizers marketed Islam to. You still refused to explain WHY this was relevant. Was it to show Muslim readers that proselytizers' typical target audience is the downtrodden, uneducated black man or woman who isn't intelligent enough to realize when he's being tricked into converting to Islam? Or was it to show Muslim readers that proselytizers' target audience was ghetto folk, who also are relatively uneducated and less likely to be able to escape their clutches? Either way, pointing out Muslim race and socioeconomic status was bad and you knew it.

The other racist comment was from your friend, who told Muslima she should move back to her country. She assumed that Muslima could not have been a born American simply because she was so devout in her faith. Total ignorance.

As for what Jeff said, you can bullshit all you want, but I have a good memory and also the time to show the DCUM audience you waffle between twisting the truth and outright lying. Jeff said plenty to you and your friend about how utterly offensive you were as evidenced by the comments below. He stopped short of saying the African American comments were racist because he hadn't gone back to read every single page of that thread carefully. What he did say was bad enough:


Thread: Be Wary of Racism and Islamophoes
JSteele 9/6/2014 16:33

“..But, today's standards are not equally applied to past practices or teachings of other religions. Singling out Islam in such a manner is discriminatory and the motives of those who do it can be justifiably questioned.”


JSteele 9/6/2014 16:33

“I really don't know what you expect from the average Muslim. Very few would agree that taking concubines is acceptable. Is your intent to demonstrate to them that they are not properly following their religion? Do you want them to suddenly agree with your that Islam is barbaric and stop being Muslims? Do you not understand how insulting your approach is to most people -- Muslim or otherwise?”


JSteele 9/6/2014 20:34

“It looks to me that your only interest is spreading a negative perception of Islam despite the fact that your effort is based on something that is practically unknown among Muslims.”


JSteele 9/6/2014 20:34

“I don't know you are directing this post to me. I have not called you a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. There are a lot of posters in this thread and it's a bit to tell one anonymous poster from another. But, there are clearly posters here who appear primarily committed to spreading negative information about Islam. “


JSteele 9/6/2104

“I haven't read the entire other thread, just enough to know that I didn't want to waste my time reading it, but as far as I know, many Muslims in America are African American. However, I don't know how many are "converts" as opposed to those born into the religion. I believe conversion was much more common during the 1960s, but I haven't seen any data on this. I don't know how any discussion of the topic would be considered racist unless that was being argued in order to somehow tarnish the religion (eg. "it's only a religion for black people which means it's inferior" and I don't thing that was happening).”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the pp asked where in the Bible does it permit concubinage. That has now been shown. And here's the story of Abraham's concubine, Hagar in www.womenofthebible.com. It looks like as concubine, her status was elevated to that of a secondary wife. But did she have much choice in having sex with Abraham? I do not think rape is permissible in any of the three great religions, but women who were concubines were expected to have sex and they did. They were taken care of the same way a secondary wife would be taken care of. Islam actually asked owners to either free them or marry them. Here, the Bible says children of concubines could be sold. But I believe Islam forbid this, as children of concubines had to be treated the same as one's own children.

There is no such thing (in Islam) as a "secondary wife." There is no wife numbering in Islam. All legal wives have equal status.

Islam didn't command owners to free them (although it made clear that it's nice.) It doesn't say anywhere in the Quran that you are required to free your slaves.

It also didn't command owners to marry their slavewomen, it simply made it an option. This was an outlet for those who could not afford a dowry payable to a regular wife.

Rape of free women is not permitted, correct, but concubines are not presumed to have any choice in the matter and so raping a concubine - like raping a chair or a table - isn't actually possible.

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.

Negotiation almost always requires money, which concubines don't have much of, so whatever Allah was intending there it's by no means a route to freedom for most concubines.

You need to do a better job of studying Islam. You need to speak with scholars to learn about this topic. You speak with incredible authority but there are gaping holes in your understanding about Islam. Negotiation may require money, but not necessarily. Slaves may be exchanged for slaves, prisoners of war may be exchanged for prisoners of war, services may be exchanged for freedom.

Then, there are multiple verses in the Quran about how "women of your right hand" (concubines) taken in war or born to slaves are allowable to Muslim men. Do you really want me to provide a link? Because you know I can. Is Allah contradicting himself?

Islam didn't create concubinage. It dealt with it. It systematically eradicated it. Prisoners of war and concubinage was a very common practice in those time and in all cultures and religions. I posted verses from the Bible that mentioned concubinage also. You can not understand Islam's way of dealing with the problem of slavery if you can't imagine what life was like back then. It was a brutal, uncivilized time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not "given" freedom. Negotiated (although what could they possibly have to negotiate with?)

Here are the rights they did not have:

- 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?
- to receive a dowry
If the owner married her, yes, he did have to give her a dowry.
- to ask for "divorce"
If the owner married his concubine, yes, she could seek a divorce through the court.
- 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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ahem: did a woman at that point in time have a right to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband if she was married? Did young women have any say in their marriage? Nope. Seems odd that slaves would be given those rights before wives.

This is a ridiculous point. There are arranged marriages that are still happening. But in Islam, women should not be forced into marriage against their will. I know in my marriage ceremony, the Imam asked me directly if I consented to marrying.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
JSteele 9/6/2104

“I haven't read the entire other thread, just enough to know that I didn't want to waste my time reading it, but as far as I know, many Muslims in America are African American. However, I don't know how many are "converts" as opposed to those born into the religion. I believe conversion was much more common during the 1960s, but I haven't seen any data on this. I don't know how any discussion of the topic would be considered racist unless that was being argued in order to somehow tarnish the religion (eg. "it's only a religion for black people which means it's inferior" and I don't thing that was happening).”

Fixed it for you, by moving the bolding to where Jeff says he "doesn't think" the converts' race was being used in order to somehow tarnish the religion.

Look, we are concerned about bias in your presentation. We are concerned that you appear to be claiming your views are the "only" truth. Yet, your views are very often out of step not only with the Quran, but you are also out of step with many eminent Muslim scholars, and you are also out of step with practice of millions of Muslims today. You are of course entitled to your personal interpretation of Islam. However, why is it "Islamophobia" or "tarnishing Islam" simply to point out that your views diverge from Muslim scholars and from widespread practice in Islamic countries today?

We don't know the reason why you're presenting a very one-sided view of Islam: maybe you're trying to convert people, or maybe this really how you're comfortable with your religion. Whatever the reason, another PP called your explanations "rose tinted." Having taken college-level courses in Islam (from a guy who went on to run the American University in Lebanon) and knowing many Muslims, I have to say that I agree completely that your views are "rose-tinted."

Think of it this way: The eminent Islamic scholars you denigrate would probably be GRATEFUL to have their views presented here as AUTHENTIC Islam. The millions of Muslims who practice a different Islam from yours would probably be GRATEFUL to have their practices added to this conversation as widely practiced and AUTHENTIC Islam. Yes, of course your version of Islam is perfectly authentic too. But every time you refuse to include these widely held alternative views in your arguments; every time you wait for somebody else to point out that these other widely held views do exist; and, every time you attack somebody else as "Islamophobic" for pointing out that these widely held views are held by millions of other Muslims, YOU are the one who is actually DENIGRATING Muslim scholars and millions of other Muslims.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

It was likely inconceivable for people to live without pork and alcohol and yet the Quran dealt with these swiftly (not with alcohol, Quranically). Pork and alcohol both predated Islam. I'm sure they were mentioned in the Bible. That didn't stop Muhammad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahem: did a woman at that point in time have a right to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband if she was married? Did young women have any say in their marriage? Nope. Seems odd that slaves would be given those rights before wives.

This is a ridiculous point. There are arranged marriages that are still happening. But in Islam, women should not be forced into marriage against their will. I know in my marriage ceremony, the Imam asked me directly if I consented to marrying.

She is right. Despite cultural practices, Islam actually does forbid forcing girls into marriage. Consent is mandatory.

[Anonymous]

Let's review what Jeff said.

Anonymous wrote:
JSteele 9/6/2014 20:34

“I don't know you are directing this post to me. I have not called you a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. There are a lot of posters in this thread and it's a bit to tell one anonymous poster from another. But, there are clearly posters here who appear primarily committed to spreading negative information about Islam. “

You still haven't said, curiously, why is it Christian-Evangelist-Crusader is your go-to insult, even when you don't know anything about the faith of the person you're dealing with.

anonymous wrote:
JSteele 9/6/2104

“I haven't read the entire other thread, just enough to know that I didn't want to waste my time reading it, but as far as I know, many Muslims in America are African American. However, I don't know how many are "converts" as opposed to those born into the religion. I believe conversion was much more common during the 1960s, but I haven't seen any data on this. I don't know how any discussion of the topic would be considered racist unless that was being argued in order to somehow tarnish the religion (eg. "it's only a religion for black people which means it's inferior" and I don't thing that was happening).”

Thank you

I didn't tell Muslima, or anyone, to go back to their country. You can take that elsewhere. You still didn't apologize for calling me or anyone christianevangelicalcrusader, for accusing the other poster of neglecting her family or her son of having porn in his room.

I don't care that you consider what I wrote racist. I will repeat it here again, just so that you don't claim I'm backpedaling. The rise and fall of Salafi Islam in the ghettos and prisons of great East Coast cities - Chicago, Philly, Washington - is a part of your religion's history in this country. The history you probably knew nothing about before I mentioned it. You should thank me for educating you. Read some Umar Lee, read some Syraaj. These are your people. You should want to get to know them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There were TWO racist comments made by you and your friend. The first one came from you and pointed out as we were discussing the immigration/conversion/rate of growth issue. You pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims were African Americans and / or from ghettos. Race or economic status was not being discussed, only the growth rate of Islam was. In the heat of the moment, you were quick to point out Muslims' race and economic status though it had no relevance to the discussion. My belief is that it was intended as a criticism, as if to point out that the rapid conversion rate or the rapid growth rate of Islam was offset by the fact that the low quality of people drawn to it. You tried to backpedal by saying you simply brought up race and economic status to show who proselytizers marketed Islam to. You still refused to explain WHY this was relevant. Was it to show Muslim readers that proselytizers' typical target audience is the downtrodden, uneducated black man or woman who isn't intelligent enough to realize when he's being tricked into converting to Islam? Or was it to show Muslim readers that proselytizers' target audience was ghetto folk, who also are relatively uneducated and less likely to be able to escape their clutches? Either way, pointing out Muslim race and socioeconomic status was bad and you knew it.

I didn't say that at the heat of the moment. My pulse on DCUM never races. Discussions can veer anywhere they like. It's good that you say "my belief was" because clearly, this is your interpretation of my comment. If that's what you think, that's your right. Read into it what you wish. If you want to call ghetto folk "not intelligent enough", that's on you. Race and status is completely relevant when discussing conversions. I don't think it's bad, and I will continue doing it. What I think is regrettable is your reluctance to explore this part of your religion's history in the U.S., or to pretend that Muslims in the U.S. consist exclusively of wealthy immigrants. You're doing exactly what CAIR and their ilk do - disenfranchise the native Muslims and shape the Muslim discourse in America around the interests of the new immigrants rather than actual American Muslims who have been Muslim for generations by now. Black American Muslims never really had a voice in shaping the American Muslim discourse, and by denying they exist, you continue to deny them the right to be included into the rainbow of Muslim voices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
Thread: Be Wary of Racism and Islamophoes
JSteele 9/6/2014 16:33
“..But, today's standards are not equally applied to past practices or teachings of other religions. Singling out Islam in such a manner is discriminatory and the motives of those who do it can be justifiably questioned.”

JSteele 9/6/2014 16:33
“I really don't know what you expect from the average Muslim. Very few would agree that taking concubines is acceptable. Is your intent to demonstrate to them that they are not properly following their religion? Do you want them to suddenly agree with your that Islam is barbaric and stop being Muslims? ]Do you not understand how insulting your approach is to most people -- Muslim or otherwise?”


JSteele 9/6/2014 20:34
“It looks to me that your only interest is spreading a negative perception of Islam despite the fact that your effort is based on something that is practically unknown among Muslims.”

JSteele 9/6/2014 20:34
“I don't know you are directing this post to me. I have not called you a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. There are a lot of posters in this thread and it's a bit to tell one anonymous poster from another. But, there are clearly posters here who appear primarily committed to spreading negative information about Islam. “

JSteele 9/6/2104
“I haven't read the entire other thread, just enough to know that I didn't want to waste my time reading it, but as far as I know, many Muslims in America are African American. However, I don't know how many are "converts" as opposed to those born into the religion. I believe conversion was much more common during the 1960s, but I haven't seen any data on this. I don't know how any discussion of the topic would be considered racist unless that was being argued in order to somehow tarnish the religion (eg. "it's only a religion for black people which means it's inferior" and I don't thing that was happening).”

The top 3 are questioning the right of posters to say things that are different from what you say. The bottom quote is the only one that deals with racism per se, and you tried to mangle it, but Jeff said he *didn't* see racism. I don't think any of these were addressed to me, although I'm one of the other frequent posters here.

All I can say is... "singling out Islam"? Catholics, other Christians, and Jews are "singled out" EVERY.SINGLE.DAY for abuse on DCUM. I would not be at all surprised if some these Muslim posters don't participate in the abuse of Christians. Would that Jeff expressed similar concern for these other religions. I'm not Catholic, but Catholics are abused here at least once a week. Would that Jeff would jump in, just once, to accuse somebody of "singling out" Catholicism, or to challenge somebody on whether they are trying to "demonstrate to them that they are practicing their religion wrong," or to claim that other posters are "trying to spread negative information about Catholicism." Again, I'm not Catholic (or evangelical, for that matter).

Also, I disagree that pointing out what eminent scholars say, and what millions of Muslims actually do, is tantamount to "spreading negative information about Islam." I wonder if millions of Muslims who DO practice polygamy, or who think it's OK to kill apostates, think this is simply a cabal spreading "negative" information about them. 95% of the discussion here has involved respectfully suggesting that Muslima and pal are painting a rosy colored (and that's generous) picture. If pointing out alternative views that are held by eminent scholars and millions of practicing muslims is "negative," then somebody has something to hide.