What does Islam say about concubines?

[Anonymous]

I'm fed up. Muslima and the other PP have put enough out there that DCUM readers can decide for themselves whether to trust these two as interpreters of Islam.

As readers decide whether Muslima and the other Muslim PPs are reliable sources on Islam, they can now bear in mind:

1. OP's very first post on this thread, where she claims that injunctions against selling your concubines into prostitution is somehow the same as an injunction against having your own concubines. Another PP had to come on and point out that prostitution and concubinage are not the same thing. (For simply making clarifications like this, that PP repeatedly gets called a christianevanagelicalwhatever by the Muslims and is accused of having an agenda by Jeff.)

2. All the cut-and-pastes from the New Testament. Not only is it impossible to read any support for polygamy into these passages, Christians actually use these very same quotes to support monogamy.

3. The attempt by the PP at 1:26, above, to mangle Jeff's post saying he "doesn't see" racism into saying he "does" see racism.

4. The many charges that anybody who provides alternative interpretations, alternatives that rooted in scholarly opinion no less, must be a christian-evangelical-whatever.

5. The nonsense about Islam growing faster by conversion than by immigration in the US.

So, readers, given these patent distortions of things you CAN verify for yourselves... would you trust these two to expound on something you know much less about--Islam?

Signed, angry Christian-evangelical-racist-Islamophobe who serves burnt food to her husband who is about to divorce her, who has an academically failing kid who is into drugs and porn, who is worried about the fat file the FBI maintains on her, and who is resisting conversion despite being overwhelmed by Muslim PP's stunning logic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm fed up. Muslima and the other PP have put enough out there that DCUM readers can decide for themselves whether to trust these two as interpreters of Islam.

As readers decide whether Muslima and the other Muslim PPs are reliable sources on Islam, they can now bear in mind:

1. OP's very first post on this thread, where she claims that injunctions against selling your concubines into prostitution is somehow the same as an injunction against having your own concubines. Another PP had to come on and point out that prostitution and concubinage are not the same thing. (For simply making clarifications like this, that PP repeatedly gets called a christianevanagelicalwhatever by the Muslims and is accused of having an agenda by Jeff.)

2. All the cut-and-pastes from the New Testament. Not only is it impossible to read any support for polygamy into these passages, Christians actually use these very same quotes to support monogamy.

3. The attempt by the PP at 1:26, above, to mangle Jeff's post saying he "doesn't see" racism into saying he "does" see racism.

4. The many charges that anybody who provides alternative interpretations, alternatives that rooted in scholarly opinion no less, must be a christian-evangelical-whatever.

5. The nonsense about Islam growing faster by conversion than by immigration in the US.

So, readers, given these patent distortions of things you CAN verify for yourselves... would you trust these two to expound on something you know much less about--Islam?

Signed, angry Christian-evangelical-racist-Islamophobe who serves burnt food to her husband who is about to divorce her, who has an academically failing kid who is into drugs and porn, who is worried about the fat file the FBI maintains on her, and who is resisting conversion despite being overwhelmed by Muslim PP's stunning logic

PS. To be very, very clear. Yes, these two are entitled to their own, personal interpretations of Islam. No, they are not entitled to claim that they represent all of Islam, that eminent scholars are wrong, that millions of Muslims are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fed up. Muslima and the other PP have put enough out there that DCUM readers can decide for themselves whether to trust these two as interpreters of Islam.

As readers decide whether Muslima and the other Muslim PPs are reliable sources on Islam, they can now bear in mind:

1. OP's very first post on this thread, where she claims that injunctions against selling your concubines into prostitution is somehow the same as an injunction against having your own concubines. Another PP had to come on and point out that prostitution and concubinage are not the same thing. (For simply making clarifications like this, that PP repeatedly gets called a christianevanagelicalwhatever by the Muslims and is accused of having an agenda by Jeff.)

2. All the cut-and-pastes from the New Testament. Not only is it impossible to read any support for polygamy into these passages, Christians actually use these very same quotes to support monogamy.

3. The attempt by the PP at 1:26, above, to mangle Jeff's post saying he "doesn't see" racism into saying he "does" see racism.

4. The many charges that anybody who provides alternative interpretations, alternatives that rooted in scholarly opinion no less, must be a christian-evangelical-whatever.

5. The nonsense about Islam growing faster by conversion than by immigration in the US.

So, readers, given these patent distortions of things you CAN verify for yourselves... would you trust these two to expound on something you know much less about--Islam?

Signed, angry Christian-evangelical-racist-Islamophobe who serves burnt food to her husband who is about to divorce her, who has an academically failing kid who is into drugs and porn, who is worried about the fat file the FBI maintains on her, and who is resisting conversion despite being overwhelmed by Muslim PP's stunning logic

PS. To be very, very clear. Yes, these two are entitled to their own, personal interpretations of Islam. No, they are not entitled to claim that they represent all of Islam, that eminent scholars are wrong, that millions of Muslims are wrong.

And these two are not entitled to suggest that anybody who brings a widely-accepted alternative view of Islam is offering negative views with an intent to denigrate Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it was far more ingenious and effective that Allah abolished it systematically by elevating the slaves and her children's status than outright banning it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote: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).

I was going to stay out of this discussion but since you have made direct allegations about me, I do have something to say. I have jumped in on behalf of both Catholics and Jews in previous discussions. The fact that you are unaware of such instances does not mean that they don't exist. The quotes above don't refer to general criticism of Islam, but to the continued reference to a practice that is not generally accepted by Muslims and the use of that practically-unknown practice as evidence of Islam's "brutality". In contrast, criticism of Catholicism here is almost always based on widespread accepted (if not always followed) practices of the religion. I'm sure someone could dig up an archaic Catholic practice that -- while technically still on the books -- is barely practiced anymore. If such a practice were used to denigrate Catholicism and such a post were brought to my attention, you can be sure that I would object.

I find it particularly indicative of prejudice when Islam is criticized for a practice that has been common in other religions. Similarly, the continued "stacking of the deck" in which biographical information about Muhammad, passages from the Quran, or the actual practices of today's Muslims are either said to be authoritative or irrelevant based on whether or not they further the poster's argument suggests a basic lack of fairness.

There was a statement made that Islam is brutal, being a Muslim means accepting the entire religion, so all Muslims embrace that brutality. I do not accept this logic. I do not understand why anyone with good intentions would make such an argument. And those posters who supported such an argument should not try to run and hide from it now, all the time acting like they are being prevented from a free and open discussion about Islam.

[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.

I think it was far more ingenious and effective that Allah abolished it systematically by elevating the slaves and her children's status than outright banning it.

How so? If Allah had outright banned slavery and concubinage, he could have spared millions of people from terrible suffering.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
1. OP's very first post on this thread, where she claims that injunctions against selling your concubines into prostitution is somehow the same as an injunction against having your own concubines. Another PP had to come on and point out that prostitution and concubinage are not the same thing. (For simply making clarifications like this, that PP repeatedly gets called a christianevanagelicalwhatever by the Muslims and is accused of having an agenda by Jeff.)

Because you appear to be a stickler for the facts and very committed to ensuring that no detail is misleadingly posted, let me clarify that the above point is factually wrong. I did not accuse anyone in this thread of having an agenda for pointing out that "prostitution and concubinage are not the same thing". In fact, I had avoided posting in this thread until you called me out by name.

You do appear to have an agenda and you are quite open about that agenda. As you have said, you are upset by what you consider to be an overly-positive presentation of Islam. You are therefore attempting to draw attention to what you consider negative aspects of the religion, perhaps in order to bring what you consider to be balance to the discussion. I have a hard time understanding that when you announce your agenda in no uncertain terms why you would consider it a problem that I point out that you have an agenda.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I have seen your posts about anti-Catholicism. They are rare.

Let's be very clear. The discussion about concubines started on page 2 of the "tell me about Islam" thread when Muslima stated baldly that "Islam offers asylum to captives." We both know that's not true, either in scripture or in present-day practice in some areas controlled by Muslims.

Do you really think that patently untrue statement should be allowed to go unchallenged? Yes, the discussion has taken quite a few twists and turns in the last three threads, but we always come back to that issue, which was raised by Muslina herself.

Similarly, the OP of this very thread is misleading. It almost appears deliberately misleading. Do you really think the other PP (not me) should have left that unchallenged?

Do you think the claim about converts vs. immigrants should have gone unchallenged? It took maybe 10 surreal pages to nail that one down--do you think nobody should have bothered to challenge it?

Do think the effort to distort your own statement about racism should have gone unchallenged?

If you're OK with this site being a place where anti-Catholic bigots can run (almost) free and where the only people who get challenged and intimidated are the ones who question misleading statements, then I really have nothing more to say.

But could I suggest that Muslima and the other poster listen to you. I think we all want them to present their religion in a positive, but open and truthful, light. You're in a position to encourage then to do so, and that doesn't start by enabling their bad behavior, instead it starts by encouraging free debate.

[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.

Whee! That is the sound of my point flying high above you...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I have seen your posts about anti-Catholicism. They are rare.

Let's be very clear. The discussion about concubines started on page 2 of the "tell me about Islam" thread when Muslima stated baldly that "Islam offers asylum to captives." We both know that's not true, either in scripture or in present-day practice in some areas controlled by Muslims.

Do you really think that patently untrue statement should be allowed to go unchallenged? Yes, the discussion has taken quite a few twists and turns in the last three threads, but we always come back to that issue, which was raised by Muslina herself.

Similarly, the OP of this very thread is misleading. It almost appears deliberately misleading. Do you really think the other PP (not me) should have left that unchallenged?

Do you think the claim about converts vs. immigrants should have gone unchallenged? It took maybe 10 surreal pages to nail that one down--do you think nobody should have bothered to challenge it?

Do think the effort to distort your own statement about racism should have gone unchallenged?

If you're OK with this site being a place where anti-Catholic bigots can run (almost) free and where the only people who get challenged and intimidated are the ones who question misleading statements, then I really have nothing more to say.

But could I suggest that Muslima and the other poster listen to you. I think we all want them to present their religion in a positive, but open and truthful, light. You're in a position to encourage then to do so, and that doesn't start by enabling their bad behavior, instead it starts by encouraging free debate.

I have no idea whether you are the same poster I addressed previously, but you really seem to be missing the forrest for the trees. Whether "Islam offers asylum to captives" is hardly on the same level as "Islam is brutal and all Muslims embrace the brutality". I don't really care if you disagree with the first. I would never post a response to such a disagreement. But, if you argue the second, you should not be surprised that respond. I don't think that I should have to object to every post criticizing Catholicism in order to be able to lodge my objection to the claim that all Muslims embrace brutality.

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

I absolutely don't care whether there are more converts versus immigrants. I can't believe you guys are wasting your time arguing the point. Really, it doesn't make a spit's worth of difference to the religion.

You are really being unfair -- and unfairness suggests a certain lack of integrity -- when you suggest that I allow rampant anti-Catholic bigotry but object to any "correction of misleading statements" regarding Islam. That is not what I am doing here. Suggesting such a thing is not conducive to reasoned debate.

But, I'm surprised that you posted such a comprehensive response without once addressing my primary complaints: that multiple posters claimed that Islam is brutal and all Muslims embrace that brutality; and that the poster to whom I responded clearly stated that his/her goal was to counter the positive view of Islam by providing a negative view.

[Anonymous]

Considering Muhammad wedded and consummated a 9 year old , not surprising

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I have seen your posts about anti-Catholicism. They are rare.

Let's be very clear. The discussion about concubines started on page 2 of the "tell me about Islam" thread when Muslima stated baldly that "Islam offers asylum to captives." We both know that's not true, either in scripture or in present-day practice in some areas controlled by Muslims.

Do you really think that patently untrue statement should be allowed to go unchallenged? Yes, the discussion has taken quite a few twists and turns in the last three threads, but we always come back to that issue, which was raised by Muslina herself.

Similarly, the OP of this very thread is misleading. It almost appears deliberately misleading. Do you really think the other PP (not me) should have left that unchallenged?

Do you think the claim about converts vs. immigrants should have gone unchallenged? It took maybe 10 surreal pages to nail that one down--do you think nobody should have bothered to challenge it?

Do think the effort to distort your own statement about racism should have gone unchallenged?

If you're OK with this site being a place where anti-Catholic bigots can run (almost) free and where the only people who get challenged and intimidated are the ones who question misleading statements, then I really have nothing more to say.

But could I suggest that Muslima and the other poster listen to you. I think we all want them to present their religion in a positive, but open and truthful, light. You're in a position to encourage then to do so, and that doesn't start by enabling their bad behavior, instead it starts by encouraging free debate.

I have no idea whether you are the same poster I addressed previously, but you really seem to be missing the forrest for the trees. Whether "Islam offers asylum to captives" is hardly on the same level as "Islam is brutal and all Muslims embrace the brutality". I don't really care if you disagree with the first. I would never post a response to such a disagreement. But, if you argue the second, you should not be surprised that respond. I don't think that I should have to object to every post criticizing Catholicism in order to be able to lodge my objection to the claim that all Muslims embrace brutality.

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

I absolutely don't care whether there are more converts versus immigrants. I can't believe you guys are wasting your time arguing the point. Really, it doesn't make a spit's worth of difference to the religion.

You are really being unfair -- and unfairness suggests a certain lack of integrity -- when you suggest that I allow rampant anti-Catholic bigotry but object to any "correction of misleading statements" regarding Islam. That is not what I am doing here. Suggesting such a thing is not conducive to reasoned debate.

But, I'm surprised that you posted such a comprehensive response without once addressing my primary complaints: that multiple posters claimed that Islam is brutal and all Muslims embrace that brutality; and that the poster to whom I responded clearly stated that his/her goal was to counter the positive view of Islam by providing a negative view.

I'm not the pp, but I see that statement coming from the fact that Muslims openly say/proclaim that Islam is perfect and that the Quran is perfect. Muslima has said this multiple times in her numerous posts. She says to read the Quran and not listen to the scholars. (But then challenges that with links to scholars) She said that interpretations are wrong, but that we are supposed to interpret and think and ponder.

The Quran obviously has many verses of brutality. To Muslims the Quran is perfect and timeless, meaning there is no evolving from the brutality that is mandated. It is this that the pp is referring to (I think). The fact that Muslims have to accept this because they must also accept that their religion is perfect and timeless.