HA! I love it. DCUM has an advertisement for Muslima.com, a matrimonial service on the bottom of this religion page. I'm chuckling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

We're talking about God/Allah here. He can do ANYTHING he wants, including eradicating slavery in 630 AD. That would have saved centuries of slavery.

Meanwhile, I disagree that "eradication" follows from merely offering incentives to free and marry your believing concubines and slaves. So a Muslim dude frees 1 of his 100 concubines, is that really progress? And about the concubines who don't want to convert to Islam? I mean, obviously Islam got a gazillion converts via concubines who didn't want to service their owners (and this really brings into question the issue of "no compulsion" in conversion), but what about those who refused to convert?

^^^ 100 slaves. I meant, if a Muslim dude frees 1 of his 100 slaves....

It's a misconception that it was enough to accept Islam to become freed. There were a ton of Muslim slaves as recently as in the 20th century. The rule is that you can't ENSLAVE Muslims who are already Muslims. But if a slave converts, does it mean he/she become free? Nope. Would have been too easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

We're talking about God/Allah here. He can do ANYTHING he wants, including eradicating slavery in 630 AD. That would have saved centuries of slavery.

Meanwhile, I disagree that "eradication" follows from merely offering incentives to free and marry your believing concubines and slaves. So a Muslim dude frees 1 of his 100 concubines, is that really progress? And about the concubines who don't want to convert to Islam? I mean, obviously Islam got a gazillion converts via concubines who didn't want to service their owners (and this really brings into question the issue of "no compulsion" in conversion), but what about those who refused to convert?

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.

I find it very peculiar that christiancrusaderevangelical is your insult of choice even when you don't know anything about the religion of the person you're talking to. You must assume everyone who disagrees with you is Christian.

Do I have to be Christian to be racist?

Was it you who said Islam grows in the US by conversion, not immigration? Did you enjoy being called out on your nonsense?

Clearly she frequents Christian evangelical sites about conversions to Islam, because she's posted several links to those sites. What a weird little bubble she must live in.

Let's do a tally, shall we? ONE person told Muslima to go back to her country, ONE SINGLE TIME. By contrast, how many times has this PP called everyone christiancrusaderevangelicals? I've lost count, but it's probably in the dozens by now.

Also, "racist" by her definition apparently means pointing out that many US converts to Islam were African Americans, but even Jeff agrees that this isn't "racism." Meanwhile, she herself has been gloating over the wealth of Muslim immigrants to the US. Isn't that racist under her definition?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Wow! I'm the 1st PP, wondering about mindset, and I go away for 2 hours and the Muslim PP seem to have completely lost it! Now, in addition to being 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, I'm also:
- angry,
- I think her explanations somehow have actual merit, and
- I'm resisting my own impulse to convert.

And the new charges of my alleged anger and resisting conversion are because... I merely said that your argument that "concubines should negotiate their freedom" is "unrealistic" and questioned how you could think it was possibly realistic. OK, I did mention Koolaid, but in qualified way, as in "It almost sounds like you guys have drunk some sort of Koolaid...."

Good grief! If that was "vilifying" anyone (and the word "vilify" is a complete exaggeration) it isn't actually vilifying Islam as you claim, instead it's vilifying you.

Let me ask you this: does "concubines should negotiate their freedom" seem in any way realistic to you, Muslim PP?

Let me ask you another question: if you think (completely erroneously) that I'm feeling any pressure to convert, where would that pressure be coming from? It definitely sounds like you're saying you're pressuring people to convert. No?

Signed, angry 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, and who is resisting conversion despite being overwhelmed by Muslim PP's stunning logic

Anonymous wrote:And I think as far as the subject of concubines go, you were wrong in your claims.

What claims?

And I think as far as the subject of concubines go, you were wrong in your claims.

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.

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.

I find it very peculiar that christiancrusaderevangelical is your insult of choice even when you don't know anything about the religion of the person you're talking to. You must assume everyone who disagrees with you is Christian.

Do I have to be Christian to be racist?

Was it you who said Islam grows in the US by conversion, not immigration? Did you enjoy being called out on your nonsense?

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"
- to receive a dowry
- to ask for "divorce"
- 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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.