Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The title is Slavery in Islam, but in fact the whole paper is on women, wives, slaves, concubines in Islam, history and today.
Very well balanced treatment.
------------------------
I will still say that though I am a Christian, the plural wives in Islam and also possibility today to have concubines (even though slavery has already been abolished today in Islamic countries in terms of civil law as distinct to Islamic religious law) is a better arrangement of meeting the sex urge of men, and at the same time providing a decent status for women as plural wives or concubines of Muslim men who are thereby under the religious and legal obligation to render to all his women equal justice.
And also better for the children from the women which children like all of mankind are children of women.
That is the original biblical system, though Christianism took the direction of monogamic marriage, one man one woman, leaving thereby many a woman without a husband wherefore no decent social status and also prey to the sex urge of men -- and theeby women almost have to accordingly sell their bodies also for economic need to stay alive and also support their ascendant family by that oldest of trade.
Why do I say that even though there are no slaves today in Islamic countries because slavery has been abolished, concubines are still present who are not slaves but what in the West are called mistresses, with this very important distinction, a concubine in Islam today is a bed partner to only one man and the same man for life.
So, in effect, a concubine in Islam today is a secondary wife, and not a mistress, and she enjoys several of the distinctions of a wife, I imagine one of them is that her children from her man carry the name of the man.
How does a Islamic woman get to become a concubine of an Islamic man?
If an Islamic man wants to have a woman to be his lover and bring her to his home, then I guess he just have to ask the woman, and if the woman is willing, that is it.
That is why rich Islamic men like the fabulously rich Arabs in Saudi Arabia can have so many women who are their mistresses but actually should be called concubines or most correctly secondary wives.
What about women in Islam today who want to be independent and behave and act and live like women in the West today?
They should work for it and then they will also have all the problems and heartaches of independent women in the West, living in with guys who are not bound to them except for romantic love or whatever, but when the romance is over, I tend to see that the woman ends up more the loser than the winner.
I will leave this subject now on wives and concubines in Islam, but I will say this, it is in the big picture a better arrangement than in Christianity.
Do I want to be a Muslim man? So that if I should command fabulous wealth I could convince a lot of beautiful women to be my in-house mistresses, err, concubines, what I mean, secondary wives?
No, I am a Christian and I am happy with my one wife and my two kids with her, and without self-commendation, I observe strict monogamy and no complaint about it, not at all.
Yes, I still see that in Islam the religion and the culture, in regard to women, they women have a better bargain as women, wives, and concubines (mistresses), most correctly secondary wives.
Ryrge
Peace Ryrge,
Marriage in Islam is a contract that is agreed upon by all parties. In Islam a man is forbidden to be alone with a woman or look directly at her until after marriage. There is no courtship in the Western sense. A man hears about a woman he may be interested in. He addresses the woman through a third party, the woman's walli, who is usually her Father or Brother. The woman if interested asks to learn more about him. the man sends her a brief introduction, if she is still interested she replies back telling a bit about herself. this will continue until it is apparant marriage is an intent for both. At which time they will meet with the wali present and discuss what ever they desire to discuss. If they both decide that marriage is desired they will begin writing their Nikkah(Marriage contract) the man will write what he is able to contribute to the marriage and what he seeks in a wife. the woman will do the same writing what she can contribute and what she desires in the marriage. If they still desire to continue, the actual contract is written stating their expectations and what they can promise to the other. Once the contract is agreed upon they both sign it in front of witnesses usually 2 witnesses chosen by the man and 2 chosen by the woman. A minimum of 2 copies are written and signed, a copy for each the man and the woman. At that point they are married and the next step is the Walimah, a large gathering in which the marriage is made known publicly.
It can be a long process for a Marriage to be completed and at no time before the marriage will the man and woman be together alone.
Of course that is the way it is supposed to be, we do have those who do not always do as they are supposed to do.
As a side note Islam is the only Abrahamic Religion whose scriptures limit the number of wives a man can have. There is no written limitation in the OT or NT
Even when the LDS Church practiced polygamy (the practice ended in 1890), there was no limit on the number of wives a man had, but it was certainly never a free-for-all. A man would not be able to marry more women than he could support. Women entered into the practice of their own accord. Incestuous relationships were strictly forbidden. Even at its heighth, only about 5% of all LDS men had more than one wife. If you include all people (i.e. not only the men but the women and children who lived in polygamous families during that time), only 20% of Mormons were involved. The other 80% were living in monogamous relationships. At any rate, the practice served a purpose, was strictly governed and was not abusive. That's hardly the case in today's offshoot fundamentalist sects.
Even when the LDS Church practiced polygamy (the practice ended in 1890), there was no limit on the number of wives a man had, but it was certainly never a free-for-all. A man would not be able to marry more women than he could support. Women entered into the practice of their own accord. Incestuous relationships were strictly forbidden. Even at its heighth, only about 5% of all LDS men had more than one wife. If you include all people (i.e. not only the men but the women and children who lived in polygamous families during that time), only 20% of Mormons were involved. The other 80% were living in monogamous relationships. At any rate, the practice served a purpose, was strictly governed and was not abusive. That's hardly the case in today's offshoot fundamentalist sects.
How true that is. With those who at one time practiced polygamy in regards to their religion there was little if any abuse and the majority did not practice it as they could not meet the requirements.
Those who wrongfully practice it do so for self serving needs. Which is what you see in the offshoot sects. there will always be people who will find a way to use a religion to justify evil.
And I will add that there are always people who will kill in the name of religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI
there will always be people who will find a way to use a religion to justify evil.
As you and I both know only too well.
And I will add that there are always people who will kill in the name of religion.
Moreover, there are always people who will vituperate a religion which is in fact an aspiration of mankind toward the good and the holy and the unity of mankind and an inspiration to mankind to seek goodness, holiness, one-ness in mankind, and above all transcendence in and with God, when they should just go after the evil men who use a religion as a means for their own greed and power obsession, and yes, lust.
Well, I am impressed, a member here who reads the Fathers of the Church!
I am what I might call myself a liberal Christian but attend Sunday service in an evangelical church.
Are you sir by chance or by choice an atheist?
But why read the Fathers of the Church?
Shouldn't you be reading instead the best sellers from the iconic mentors today of US atheists?
Ryrge
Well, you need to read the Fathers of the Church to get the idea of what Christianity was like from the beginning.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm leaning towards atheism. I'm in the process of analyzing my faith in the hope of finding God.
I was born in a fundamentalist Christian home in the former Soviet Union, where religion was the opium of the mind and where atheists would laugh at Christians and religious folks in general.
I've spent several years getting Christianity right, getting the Gospel right. As a matter of fact, if you search my earlier posts (anything prior 2011) you'll find that I was arguing pro-protestant Christianity on these very forums.
But my views are now shifting as I realize that the Christianity is likely a Hellenized invention and Jesus as we know him is likely an invented personage, based losely on historical persons, such as John the Baptist and others. This is not too far fetched.
Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
While I'm searching for answers, I remain a member in good standing of a local, Evangelical Baptist Church
Well, you need to read the Fathers of the Church to get the idea of what Christianity was like from the beginning.
I'm not an atheist, but I'm leaning towards atheism. I'm in the process of analyzing my faith in the hope of finding God.
I was born in a fundamentalist Christian home in the former Soviet Union, where religion was the opium of the mind and where atheists would laugh at Christians and religious folks in general.
I've spent several years getting Christianity right, getting the Gospel right. As a matter of fact, if you search my earlier posts (anything prior 2011) you'll find that I was arguing pro-protestant Christianity on these very forums.
But my views are now shifting as I realize that the Christianity is likely a Hellenized invention and Jesus as we know him is likely an invented personage, based losely on historical persons, such as John the Baptist and others. This is not too far fetched.
Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
While I'm searching for answers, I remain a member in good standing of a local, Evangelical Baptist Church
Here I think one needs to determine what Messiah means to the Semitic people and those Who understand the Semitic languages. It is a bit different than the Greek concept of Messiah. Us Muslims acknowledge Jesus(as) as the Messiah and often refer to him as Hazrat Isa (Masih) (Blessed Jesus the Messiah)
Forgive me, but atheists thinking on no God is all into mockery, parody, and misdirection.
Dear BigV and Wood, we are here all three interested in God or no God.
You BigV are thinking of going the way of atheists who tell mankind that they just lack belief in any God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, etc.
I am not into proselytizing anyone here, but just into exchange of thoughts among ourselves for us all to detect what is the cognitive drive giving movement to us each toward God or toward atheists' lack of belief in any God, etc.
Why would I want to know what is the cognitive drive moving people to God or to atheists' lack of belief in God, etc.
Because when I find someone who is in agreement with what I see to be of rational weight in my thoughts on God or no God I am happy, and happiness in this respect is really most satisfying to myself.
Now, about you BigV, you are thinking of going the way of what I would describe as the attitude of militant atheists, you know and that is my own conclusion, they are bereft of any systematic learning, just ask them to produce a systematic exposition of atheism and see if they can get anywhere.
Now, in the case of Christianism and Islamism, these two camps have been in the big grand enterprise to found a systematic exposition of theism and they have succeeded.
In Christianism and in Islamism there is a continuous uninterupted chain of learning on God or no God, more into the direction of God as a certainty insofar as man's reason can penetrate into the concept and thus also existence of God, than into no God, continuous from the times of the Greek thinkers to the present day.
What we have among militant atheists is nothing of any continuous uninterrupted learning if you would call it that, they just keep on repeating the same slogans from since the ancient Greek thinkers, as though these conundrums have not been solved already more than two thousand years back, like who made God if God made everything, and also the concept and existence of the necessary being.
And all because they don't have any link to the ancient and up to the present chain of learning on God the concept and the object, and they care absolutely nothing of the heritage of scholarship from the past to the present, but they are to my impression (no offense intended) into mockery, parody, and misdirection to prove that they are justified in insisting that there is no God, period.
I will stop here.
But wait, I was saying that I want to locate the driving impetus moving atheists into such a position as they themselves describe of themselves, they just lack any belief in God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, etc.
That is in the field of psychology of human thinking and behaving and talking, I wished psycho-analysts would take up what is the driving impetus of militant atheists, I have my own conjectures.
But as I said, I will stop here.
Ryrge
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I will add that there are always people who will kill in the name of religion.
