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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.