Anonymous wrote:
When we found scholars to disprove some of your assertions, you refused to rely on their word because you wanted proof from the Quran itself. Now we show you passage(s) from the Quran, and you want proof from scholars again. Dodging target. You clearly have an agenda and it seems to be to vilify Islam.

No worries. Slavery, concubinage and polygamy clearly exist both
1. In the Quran, and
2. In various Muslim countries (e.g., slavery in Mauritania today).

No agenda, just facts. Who says you can't have it all?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

When we found scholars to disprove some of your assertions, you refused to rely on their word because you wanted proof from the Quran itself. Now we show you passage(s) from the Quran, and you want proof from scholars again. Dodging target. You clearly have an agenda and it seems to be to vilify Islam.

The Quran asks owners to treat slave well and encourages manumission but it does not ban slavery nor concubinage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an excellent explanation of slaves and concubines and how Islam required they be treated.

Remember, slavery and having concubines was accepted practice throughout history. Islam systematically eradicated it.

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html?m=1

Then why were Muslim countries the last to outlaw slavery?

Mauretania still has slavery. There's a good piece in this week's New Yorker about it: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/freedom-fighter.

The problem is that nobody can find a Mauritanian Islamic jurist who will say that slavery actually goes against the Quran.

Oh, so now its not proof from the Quran that you seek. Its an Islamic scholar. And not just any scholar. Only a Mauretanien Islamic scholar will suffice. You are full of shit.

The post you're quoting clearly says both that:
(A) there is ample support for slavery in the Quran ... since you missed it and didn't read the article, this is why no Mauritanian scholar will come out against it,
(B) slavery still exists in MAURITANIA today.... Again, since you missed it, this is why the article's MAURITANIAN anti-slavery Muslim hero says HE wants a MAURITANIAN scholar to condemn slavery. Not me--the Muslim dude wants a MAURITANIAN scholar to condemn slavery.

So no reason for you to get all scatological and abusive. And talk about not reading other peoples' links, you clearly haven't read the New Yorker article about slavery in MAURITANIA.

Signed, a PP you called a Christian-evangelical-racist-Islamophobe who serves burnt food to her husband who is about to divorce her, and with an academically failing kid who is into drugs and porn (see the other Islam thread for these gems). And counting....

I find what the Muslims do relevant. I find the talk about the Quran irrelevant. All that really matters is what religions mean to the people who practice them and the effect the have on their lives and the lives of those who share the planet with them. That's what ultimately matters. Religions should help us be better people than we would be without them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an excellent explanation of slaves and concubines and how Islam required they be treated.

Remember, slavery and having concubines was accepted practice throughout history. Islam systematically eradicated it.

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html?m=1

Then why were Muslim countries the last to outlaw slavery?

Mauretania still has slavery. There's a good piece in this week's New Yorker about it: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/freedom-fighter.

The problem is that nobody can find a Mauritanian Islamic jurist who will say that slavery actually goes against the Quran.

Oh, so now its not proof from the Quran that you seek. Its an Islamic scholar. And not just any scholar. Only a Mauretanien Islamic scholar will suffice. You are full of shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an excellent explanation of slaves and concubines and how Islam required they be treated.

Remember, slavery and having concubines was accepted practice throughout history. Islam systematically eradicated it.

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html?m=1

Then why were Muslim countries the last to outlaw slavery?

Mauretania still has slavery. There's a good piece in this week's New Yorker about it: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/freedom-fighter.

The problem is that nobody can find a Mauritanian Islamic jurist who will say that slavery actually goes against the Quran.

Weren't you the one who said what Muslims believe or do is not important and you were seeking proof in the Quran itself? Now you find what the Muslims do in Mauretania relevant?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an excellent explanation of slaves and concubines and how Islam required they be treated.

Remember, slavery and having concubines was accepted practice throughout history. Islam systematically eradicated it.

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html?m=1

Then why were Muslim countries the last to outlaw slavery?

Mauretania still has slavery. There's a good piece in this week's New Yorker about it: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/freedom-fighter.

The problem is that nobody can find a Mauritanian Islamic jurist who will say that slavery actually goes against the Quran.

Because slavery is mentioned so many times in the Quran, and because the Quran is God's word, it's impossible to say that God definitively bans slavery.

When we found scholars to disprove some of your assertions, you refused to rely on their word because you wanted proof from the Quran itself. Now we show you passage(s) from the Quran, and you want proof from scholars again. Dodging target. You clearly have an agenda and it seems to be to vilify Islam.

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.

Just a pedantic point of correction that in Islam it isn't actually possible to marry a slavewoman. I mean you can, but she has to be manumitted first. Only free women could be married. One couldn't be married to a slavewoman who remained a slavewoman.

Yes, and Islam said freedom of slaves would result in atonement of sins, which clearly shows God wanted owners to free them..contrary to your belief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an excellent explanation of slaves and concubines and how Islam required they be treated.

Remember, slavery and having concubines was accepted practice throughout history. Islam systematically eradicated it.

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html?m=1

Then why were Muslim countries the last to outlaw slavery?

Mauretania still has slavery. There's a good piece in this week's New Yorker about it: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/freedom-fighter.

The problem is that nobody can find a Mauritanian Islamic jurist who will say that slavery actually goes against the Quran.

Because slavery is mentioned so many times in the Quran, and because the Quran is God's word, it's impossible to say that God definitively bans slavery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an excellent explanation of slaves and concubines and how Islam required they be treated.

Remember, slavery and having concubines was accepted practice throughout history. Islam systematically eradicated it.

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html?m=1

Then why were Muslim countries the last to outlaw slavery?

Mauretania still has slavery. There's a good piece in this week's New Yorker about it: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/freedom-fighter.

The problem is that nobody can find a Mauritanian Islamic jurist who will say that slavery actually goes against the Quran.

Personally, I'm more interested in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. As we all know, Jesus eliminated many of the rules from the Old Testament, particularly with respect to what you eat ("It doesn't matter what goes into your mouth, what matters is what comes out of your mouth" and so on) and instead Jesus focused on the foundational rules of loving God, loving your neighbor, and loving your enemy. Hagar and Abraham leave me a little cold, frankly.

So, let's whittle your cut-and-paste to what comes from the New Testament.

Anonymous wrote:
Luke 16:18 ESV. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

This passage argues that because Jesus said divorce is impossible (context is important!), therefore divorcing is equivalent to taking a second wife, and *taking a second wife is the same as adultery.* The only possible conclusion: polygamy is as bad adultery.

==> actually refutes your claim that Christianity supports polygamy. Says Christianity considers it to be equivalent to adultery. Says nothing about concubinage/slavery.

Anonymous wrote:
1 Timothy 3:2 ESV. "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...."

Arguing that those who are "above reproach" do not take a second wife. Again, context is important. In the very early days of Christianity when Timothy was writing, Christians were a small minority. There were plenty of non-Christians who were candidates to be overseers. The point Timothy is making is that monogamy is a criteria for being "above reproach," whether the overseer candidates are Christians (monogamy is assumed) or non-Christian monogamists.

==> no support for concubinage/polygamy/slavery here.

Anonymous wrote:
Acts 16:1-40 ESV. Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

==> A mystery quote that says nothing about concubinage/polygamy/slavery. Why did you even post this? Unless you think "disciple" means "slave" or "polygamist" or something (hint: "disciple" means "follower").

You've just demonstrated the hazards of cutting and pasting from a proselytizing Islamic site.... I'd criticize your reading comprehension for giving us the Timothy quote, but it's clear from the Acts verse that you didn't even bother to read any of these.

For your reading pleasure, here's a site with quotes from the New Testament that support monogamy over polygamy: http://www.openbible.info/topics/monogamy. I'll leave you to peruse the many, many quotes supporting monogamy from writers Paul, Timothy, and the like. Interestingly, this source actually uses the exact some of the same quotes you used (Luke and Timothy, above), but n support of monogamy. I'll just leave you with a few quotes from the gospels (recordings of Jesus' sayings).

Mark 10:8 ESV. And the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Mark 10:7 ESV. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife....

Matthew 19:3-6 ESV. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

And there's more, so much more. Go ahead, here's the link again: http://www.openbible.info/topics/monogamy.

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.

Just a pedantic point of correction that in Islam it isn't actually possible to marry a slavewoman. I mean you can, but she has to be manumitted first. Only free women could be married. One couldn't be married to a slavewoman who remained a slavewoman.

Anonymous wrote:This is an excellent explanation of slaves and concubines and how Islam required they be treated.

Remember, slavery and having concubines was accepted practice throughout history. Islam systematically eradicated it.

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/islam-on-slave-girlsconcubines.html?m=1

Then why were Muslim countries the last to outlaw slavery?

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.