Islam: Sex slave?

[happyday]

In the OT, and since you mentioned it, a slave was no sex toy but an official wife. In Islam a man can have 4 wives IN ADDITION to right hand POSSESSIONS.

 

[planten]

inJESUS;4041025:

Just to comment on this notion “In the OT, …, a slave was no sex toy but an official wife.”, what would you say about Hagar?
Was she then an “official wife of Abraham” and not a sex toy?

While responding please keep in mind the following excerpt from a Christian Website:

"The phrase “to be his wife” in verse 3 [of Genesis 16] is merely a euphemism for sexual intercourse. That is clear from the phrase that immediately follows it as well as from the original request (v.2). The context makes it clear that Hagar remained the slave not of Abraham, but of Sarai."

answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen16-3.html

That last para was a bad way of diverting the meaning of the word “Wife”. Why do you have many meanings? If Sarah was the wife of Abraham. That was a wife. If Hagar was said to be a wife then you apply the brakes and start looking for some excuse. That is not fair.

Also remember that it was due to the good work of Sarah that she agreed to hagar being a wife to Abraham that later Sarah was also blessed with a son, Issac. That was the second son of Abraham. The first born was Ishmael who was sacrificed and Allah accepted the sacrifice, was pleased with Abraham and granted him another son from the barren wife i.e. Sarah.

It is just a bad habit to deprive some one of its just rights. The church has many of these problems to solve. There are many words being used in a bad way, such as the word “son”. The other one is the word “begotten”… Please do not make a new dictionary of words now.

More about slaves. Hagar was an Egyptian. She was not a slave at all. At the most she may be a servant or helper in the house. And she served well and helped Abraham and Sarah with a son when they were totally dismayed and hopeless and in old age. She brought light and happiness in the house. She could never be a slave.

Just think of the thousands of real slaves who were kept in captivity in Egypt for many years. They were the real slaves of the Egyptians. It is mentioned in the Bible OT.

 

[inJESUS]

Abraham lived before the Mosaic law?

 

[Angelos]

That last para was a bad way of diverting the meaning of the word “Wife”. Why do you have many meanings? If Sarah was the wife of Abraham. That was a wife. If Hagar was said to be a wife then you apply the brakes and start looking for some excuse. That is not fair.

Also remember that it was due to the good work of Sarah that she agreed to hagar being a wife to Abraham that later Sarah was also blessed with a son, Issac. That was the second son of Abraham. The first born was Ishmael who was sacrificed and Allah accepted the sacrifice, was pleased with Abraham and granted him another son from the barren wife i.e. Sarah.

Unfortunately, the authors of the Koran were unaware of this so-called fact (Ishmael’s being sacrificed) and forgot to give the name of the son that Abraham wanted to offer.

Further, the ones writing the Koran mistakenly presumed that the names of Abraham’s two sons were Isaac and Jacob, respectively. Ishmael was abruptly included into Abraham’s family at a later period of the supposed revelation.

It is just a bad habit to deprive some one of its just rights. The church has many of these problems to solve. There are many words being used in a bad way, such as the word “son”. The other one is the word “begotten”… Please do not make a new dictionary of words now.

Actually, it is you who is trying to devise a new dictionary of words based on your faulty presumptions and condemned prejudice. You seem to have lots of problems to solve before having a sound discussion here.

More about slaves. Hagar was an Egyptian. She was not a slave at all. At the most she may be a servant or helper in the house. And she served well and helped Abraham and Sarah with a son when they were totally dismayed and hopeless and in old age. She brought light and happiness in the house. She could never be a slave.

You mean Egyptians cannot be slaves? I hope you are not a historian or do not teach history at school.

Being a good person cannot change one’s social status. Hagar was a slave no matter how good she was. Who tells you to deny this fact? As far as I know, that good Hagar (Ishmael’s mother) is mysteriously missing from your Koran. This is probably because Mohammad’s scribes were ashamed of her status as a slave!

Just think of the thousands of real slaves who were kept in captivity in Egypt for many years. They were the real slaves of the Egyptians. It is mentioned in the Bible OT.

So what? Your faulty comparison is dead-ended. How can you claim that Hagar was not a slave because Israelietes were slaves in Egypt? No logical association here.

 

[happyday]

Then before the Mosaic Law, “In the OT", …, a slave was actually a sex toy and not an official wife.”???

 

[inJESUS]

inJESUS;4067583:

Then before the Mosaic Law, "In the OT"

, …, a slave was actually a sex toy and not an official wife."???

please rationalize a bit…Hagar was not a war slave so your comparison is poor…it was the Mosaic Law that put rules on the nation of Israel, including the topic in hand where a war slave is either a legal wife or is freed…not a sexual possession, nor could be sold…Muhammad came after Moses AND Jesus, yet opposed both Mosaic covenant and Messianic one.

 

[happyday]

happyday;4068307:

inJESUS;4067583:

please rationalize a bit…Hagar was not a war slave so your comparison is poor…it was the Mosaic Law that put rules on the nation of Israel, including the topic in hand where a war slave is either a legal wife or is freed…not a sexual possession, nor could be sold…Muhammad came after Moses AND Jesus, yet opposed both Mosaic covenant and Messianic one.

Please read back your own claim first.

Your claim was "“In the OT, …, a slave was no sex toy but an official wife.”.

And obviously Genesis ( with the story of Abraham and Hagar) is part of the OT, as such Hagar should not be a sex toy for Abraham but an official wife. Then you know better, what happens next if your claim is taken valid. It goes too far.

You see, you try to fix something but it bounced back on your head like a heavy stone. Why? because there are so many contradictions and half-told stories and omissions and alterations in the books of OT and NT. And when you try to fix and reconcile them, it creates new unrepairable unsolved mysteries.

lol

 

[Angelos]

Then before the Mosaic Law, “In the OT", …, a slave was actually a sex toy and not an official wife.”???

Do you really believe that whom God promised to make a great nation was the son of a sex toy?

Where were Abraham’s other sex toys then? Why was Hagar singled out in that story?

 

[happyday]

happyday;4068307:

inJESUS;4067583:

…it was the Mosaic Law that put rules on the nation of Israel, including the topic in hand where a war slave is either a legal wife or is freed…not a sexual possession, nor could be sold…Muhammad came after Moses AND Jesus, yet opposed both Mosaic covenant and Messianic one.

And do you know what is Islamic Law/rule for war slaves (male and females)?

Did “Muhammad who] came after Moses AND Jesus, yet opposed both Mosaic covenant and Messianic one.”?

I think you need to consult a knowledgeable Muslim scholar.

 

[Angelos]

inJESUS;4068372:

happyday;4068307:

Please read back your own claim first.

Your claim was "“In the OT, …, a slave was no sex toy but an official wife.”.

And obviously Genesis ( with the story of Abraham and Hagar) is part of the OT, as such Hagar should not be a sex toy for Abraham but an official wife. Then you know better, what happens next if your claim is taken valid. It goes too far.

You see, you try to fix something but it bounced back on your head like a heavy stone. Why? because there are so many contradictions and half-told stories and omissions and alterations in the books of OT and NT. And when you try to fix and reconcile them, it creates new unrepairable unsolved mysteries.

lol

Your argument makes no sense because Abraham was not bound by the Mosaic Law, which was given to Israel through Moses. It was impossible for Abraham to observe the Law, which came many centuries after him. LOL

I see that your mode of thinking is highly influenced by the Koran, which pathetically strives to efface history in order to make its fabricated stories pass as true history.

 

[inJESUS]

my mistake, i forgot that with Muslims one must be very precise otherwise they mix eras and prophets and laws. When one says a war slave is a legal wife or to be freed, not a possession beside a wife nor to be sold, people who have read the Bible know am talking about the Mosaic Law…those who do not know this must read the Bible first before discrediting themselves don’t you think?

 

[happyday]

Do you really believe that whom God promised to make a great nation was the son of a sex toy?

LOL

You better ask this question to inJESUS. Because it was inJESUS who was claiming something new and strange to his own [Christian] concocted pointview with regards to Abraham and Hagar.

Now, the same quetion to you: Do you, as a Christian/Catholic, believe Ishamael was the son of a sex toy or an official wife?

A simple yes or no would be suffice, for now.

 

[inJESUS]

inJESUS;4068372:

happyday;4068307:

And do you know what is Islamic Law/rule for war slaves (male and females)?

Did “Muhammad who] came after Moses AND Jesus, yet opposed both Mosaic covenant and Messianic one.”?

I think you need to consult a knowledgeable Muslim scholar.

i did consult…marry until 4 in addition to right hand POSSESSIONS…not wives unless Muslims can sell their wives as well…

Tafsir of this ayat take from Mawdudi’s The Meaning of the Qur’an:

Book 10, page 137, footnote no. 94
“This verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa:3; Al-Mu’minun:6; and Al-Ma’arij:30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: ‘It is no more lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful.’ This shows no restriction has been imposed in respect of slave-girls.

Tafsir on this ayat refers you to Tafsir of Surah 23:6

“Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess,–for then, they are free from blame;” Surah 23:6

“(1) Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately……

Did *you *consult?

 

[CTA1967]

“Happyday”, you don’t sound so very happy. And I thought this topic was about Islam, not Catholicism…

 

[inJESUS]

LOL

You better ask this question to inJESUS. Because it was inJESUS who was claiming something new and strange to his own [Christian] concocted pointview with regards to Abraham and Hagar.

 

[Angelos]

LOL

You better ask this question to inJESUS. Because it was inJESUS who was claiming something new and strange to his own [Christian] concocted pointview with regards to Abraham and Hagar.

Now, the same quetion to you: Do you, as a Christian/Catholic, believe Ishamael was the son of a sex toy or an official wife?

A simple yes or no would be suffice, for now.

The answer is so simple: Ishmael was Hagar’s son. Hagar has such a significant place in Abraham’s story that she cannot be called a sex toy.

You seem to be a person basing one’s arguments on dilemmas. Who tells you that Hagar will automatically be a sex toy if not an official wife? You should raise your head and look at other options/possibilities. LOL

Which of Mohammad’s female slaves are named in the Koran? What do you know about them? What theological significance did they have in Mohammad’s life when their only function was to provide Mohammad with sexual pleasure?

 

[happyday]

happyday;4068442:

inJESUS;4068372:

i did consult…marry until 4 in addition to right hand POSSESSIONS…not wives unless Muslims can sell their wives as well…

Tafsir of this ayat take from Mawdudi’s The Meaning of the Qur’an:

Book 10, page 137, footnote no. 94
“This verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives

, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa:3; Al-Mu’minun:6; and Al-Ma’arij:30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: ‘It is no more lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful.’ This shows no restriction has been imposed in respect of slave-girls.

Tafsir on this ayat refers you to Tafsir of Surah 23:6

“Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess,–for then, they are free from blame;” Surah 23:6

“(1) Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately……

Did *you *consult?

I think what you are quoting is just by reading some commentries/translations of the Koran. and not even paying attention what is really being said even in them.

Keep in mind that when it is said: something is Halal or Kosher for you, does not mean “you MUST have it otherwise you are an enemy of God”.

Marriage is allowed for men (in Islam) with [upto] 4 women ( with a condition of doing justice). If you cannot do justice then ONE woman, then do you think all muslims MUST marry four women, simply because it is allowed? Is it same like ‘you MUST Pray’?

In your Catholicism too, marriage is allowed for all God-fearing Catholics but if the very His/Her Holiness Pope doesn’t want to marry a free or war salve girl/man; or a sister of His/Her Holiness Pope wants to become a nun, then what happens? Are they to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church?
Ansd who will excommunicate them? The magisterium? or His/her Pope him/herself?

Now tell me what is the Mosaic Law on War Slaves (male/female) and also what is NT’s position on them? Is there any hint (in the NT) what to do or what is allowed and what is better with the War Female Salves if their masters like to do something with their slaves under “critical situation”?

 

[inJESUS]

Happyday, your whole reply is irrelevant. Please provide your source which says right hand possessions are legal wives and hence Muslims can marry an unlimited number of wives.

 

[Angelos]

inJESUS;4068469:

happyday;4068442:

I think what you are quoting is just by reading some commentries/translations of the Koran. and not even paying attention what is really being said even in them.

Keep in mind that when it is said: something is Halal or Kosher for you, does not mean “you MUST have it otherwise you are an enemy of God”.

Marriage is allowed for men (in Islam) with [upto] 4 women ( with a condition of doing justice). If you cannot do justice then ONE woman, then do you think all muslims MUST marry four women, simply because it is allowed? Is it same like ‘you MUST Pray’?

In your Catholicism too, marriage is allowed for all

God-fearing Catholics but if the very His/Her Holiness Pope doesn’t want to marry a free or war salve girl/man; or a sister of His/Her Holiness Pope wants to become a nun, then what happens? Are they to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church?
Ansd who will excommunicate them? The magisterium? or His/her Pope him/herself?

Now tell me what is the Mosaic Law on War Slaves (male/female) and also what is NT’s position on them? Is there any hint (in the NT) what to do or what is allowed and what is better with the War Female Salves if their masters like to do something with their slaves under “critical situation”?

We are not here to discuss whether Islam commands or allows Muslim men to marry up to four women. No Christian claims that Muslim men MUST marry four women. The problem we discuss is that Islam allows polygamy and encourages it. There is not a single verse in the Koran to support or praise monogamy over polygamy.

Your interpretation of the Koran verse is misleading. There is no verse in Surah four that even implicitly stipulates that a Muslim man MUST marry one single woman if he fails to be just to multiple wives. What the Koran actually does is to give men another way out of monogamy by allowing them to have many slaves for sex, which is actually and dramatically another form of polygamy.

Besides, the Koran later concedes that no Muslim man is able to be fair to all his wives as a natural result of human frailty. Since no one can be fair no matter how he tries, no one should be afraid of practicing injustice, which cannot be considered a sin in the sight of the Koran’s god. This big problem is solved (!) by the writers of the Koran, who ask Muslim men with multiple women to keep being moderate at least and balancing their love.

 

[happyday]

happyday;4068442:

inJESUS;4068372:

i did consult…marry until 4 in addition to right hand POSSESSIONS…not wives unless Muslims can sell their wives as well…

Tafsir of this ayat take from Mawdudi’s The Meaning of the Qur’an:

Book 10, page 137, footnote no. 94
“This verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives

, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa:3; Al-Mu’minun:6; and Al-Ma’arij:30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: ‘It is no more lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful.’ This shows no restriction has been imposed in respect of slave-girls.

Did *you *consult?

LOL
You just copied and pasted from an anti-islam website whose job is to deceive people like you.

The funny thing is even in the quoted commentry of Maududi, that website deliberately omitted a great part of it. The whole footnote# 94 is as follows:

*94 This verse explains why one is pemitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa’: 3, AI-Mu’minun: b, and AI-Ma’arij: 30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa’ lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls, in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: “It is no more lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful.” This shows that no restriction has been imposed in respect of the slavegirls.

This, however, does not mean that the Divine Law has provided the rich an opportunity to purchase as many slave-girls as they tike for their carnal indulgence. This is in fact how the self-seeking people have exploited and abused tire Law. The Law had been made for the convenience of the people; it had not been made to be abused. One could, for instance, similarly abuse the Law concerning marriage. The Shari’ah permits a man to marry up to four wives and also gives him the right to divorce his wife and take another one. This law had been made in view of man’s requirements and needs. Now, if a person, merely for the sake of sensual enjoyment, were to adopt the practice of keeping four wives for a time and then divorcing them to be replaced by another company of them, it would be abusing the provisions of the law, for which the person himself would be responsible and not the Shari`ah. Likewise the Shari’ah has allowed that the women who are captured in war and whose people do not exchange them for Muslim prisoners of war nor ransom them, may be kept as slave-girls, and gave the persons to whom they are assigned by the government the right to have conjugal relations with them so that they do not become a moral hazard for the society.

Then, as it was not possible to determine the number of the prisoners of war, legally also it could nor be determined how many slave girls a person could keep at a time. The sale of the slaves and slave-girls was also allowed for the reason that if a slave or a slave-girl could not pull on well with a master, he or she could be transferred to another person so that the same person’s permanent ownership did not become a cause of unending torture for both the master and the captive. The Shari`ah made aII these laws keeping in view human conditions and requirements for the convenience of men. If these have been made a means of sexual enjoyment and luxury by the rich, it is they who are to blame for this and not the Shari’ah .

tafheem.net/main.html

inJEUS, you just blindly quoted a half-quote from an anti-Islam website who decieved you and then you tried to deceived others. Is this what Jesus (or faith in Jesus) or Catholic church taught you?