Anonymous wrote:The very fact there were people who had to live as concubines is inherently misogynistic and evil. No two ways about that. Period.

Agreed. But imagine and step back into that time. It was a brutal and uncivilized time. Religion tried to elevate the status of concubines. Its the frailty of human nature that is deplorable, but don't blame Allah or God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really starting to wonder what kind of mindset would argue that concubines should just "negotiate" their way to freedom, given the economic realities facing most concubines.

It almost sounds like you guys have drunk some sort of Koolaid that makes this sound even remotely reasonable.

You need to step out of your own world and ask how some of your claims sound to non-Muslims.

I think on some level you understand these explanations but you do not want to admit it. No matter. You don't need to convert to Islam. Nobody should pressure you to. You seem angry. It makes me wonder how much family pressure you have to convert. If so I sympathize. You should not convert under pressure.
Islam is rapidly growing and enough converts saw the justice in Islam.

I'm sorry, you must think you're speaking to me, the wife of an Arab Muslim, the mother of Muslim children.

My dear, not only no one is pressuring me to convert, but my husband would have a good giggle reading what you wrote.

I'm perfectly happy in my educated kaffirdom and see nothing appealing in Islam as a philosophy or a way of life. Not enough to join the club.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really starting to wonder what kind of mindset would argue that concubines should just "negotiate" their way to freedom, given the economic realities facing most concubines.

It almost sounds like you guys have drunk some sort of Koolaid that makes this sound even remotely reasonable.

You need to step out of your own world and ask how some of your claims sound to non-Muslims.

I think on some level you understand these explanations but you do not want to admit it. No matter. You don't need to convert to Islam. Nobody should pressure you to. You seem angry. It makes me wonder how much family pressure you have to convert. If so I sympathize. You should not convert under pressure.
Islam is rapidly growing and enough converts saw the justice in Islam.

Are you the person who said Islam in the U.S. is growing more by conversion than by immigration?

If so, how does it feel to be called on your nonsense?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really starting to wonder what kind of mindset would argue that concubines should just "negotiate" their way to freedom, given the economic realities facing most concubines.

It almost sounds like you guys have drunk some sort of Koolaid that makes this sound even remotely reasonable.

You need to step out of your own world and ask how some of your claims sound to non-Muslims.

I think on some level you understand these explanations but you do not want to admit it. No matter. You don't need to convert to Islam. Nobody should pressure you to. You seem angry. It makes me wonder how much family pressure you have to convert. If so I sympathize. You should not convert under pressure.
Islam is rapidly growing and enough converts saw the justice in Islam.

I'm not the person you're talking to. But are you the person who called anyone disagreeing with you yesterday an Islamophobe evangelicalchristiancrusader with a fat file at the Pentagon?

Who's angry now?

What makes you think she's under pressure to convert?

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."

The very fact there were people who had to live as concubines is inherently misogynistic and evil. No two ways about that. Period.

Anonymous wrote:I'm really starting to wonder what kind of mindset would argue that concubines should just "negotiate" their way to freedom, given the economic realities facing most concubines.

It almost sounds like you guys have drunk some sort of Koolaid that makes this sound even remotely reasonable.

You need to step out of your own world and ask how some of your claims sound to non-Muslims.

I think on some level you understand these explanations but you do not want to admit it. No matter. You don't need to convert to Islam. Nobody should pressure you to. You seem angry. It makes me wonder how much family pressure you have to convert. If so I sympathize. You should not convert under pressure.
Islam is rapidly growing and enough converts saw the justice in Islam.

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.

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.

God wanted owners to free them but not badly enough to command it.

It didn't say not eating pork would result in atonement of sins. It simply said don't do it.

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.

I'm really starting to wonder what kind of mindset would argue that concubines should just "negotiate" their way to freedom, given the economic realities facing most concubines.

It almost sounds like you guys have drunk some sort of Koolaid that makes this sound even remotely reasonable.

You need to step out of your own world and ask how some of your claims sound to non-Muslims.

Anonymous wrote: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.

You now find what Muslims do relevant? Well you said exactly the opposite to Jeff. See below where you persistently told Jeff that common muslim practice is irrelevant and his reply to you:

Jeff wrote:

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.

I think when someone picks a topic such as slavery or concubines and attempts to convey that this is an accepted and non-controversial practice that is unquestioned within the religion, when in fact very few adherents actually believe such a thing and there is quite a bit of debate among scholars, that poster is attempting to spread negative perceptions of Islam. If the poster was solely interested in providing broader perspective, the poster would not completely ignore common practice.

Islam, like any religion, is an easy target for criticism. It is fair to question its practices. But, just as I illustrated here with the example of Hagar, most posters here are not willing to subject mainstream Western religions to the same scrutiny. That suggests a certain basic lack of fairness.

And you wrote:
Common practice has nothing to do with the letter of religious law. Polygamy in Muslim countries isn't common practice, either. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a Muslim scholar who'd call it banned.

Mainstream Western religions contain as many vile bits as Islam. You'd get no argument from me. Start a thread on that, and I'll be your guest.


Jeff wrote:
You keep saying that common practice is irrelevant. I think differently. Each of us is allowed to make our points. I think it matters particularly because Islam has no "letter of religious law". As for polygamy, I don't know on what basis you believe it to be uncommon, but I have certainly encountered it in both the Middle East and Africa. Another poster in this thread who has lived in a Muslim country seems to have had the same experience. "

16:05. To be clear, I'm not 16:06. But obviously we're on the same page about how unrealistic it is for a concubine to "negotiate" her freedom.

PS: Negotiate? What exactly does a concubine have to negotiate WITH? You do this or what? Negotiation happens when both partners have something to give or take.

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.

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?

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.

"Granting freedom" is not the same as "do X for X years, then we'll see."

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

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.

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.

God wanted owners to free them but not badly enough to command it.

It didn't say not eating pork would result in atonement of sins. It simply said don't do it.