"Right hand possessions" vs. Adultery in Islam

[inJESUS]

Right hand possessions…Muhammad called these slave women possessions …they are no wives…they have some rights but they are no wives, just possessions . In other words, Muhammad told men they can have sex with up till 4 wives and stilll can have sex with as much sexual slaves as they can and who are not wives, then to top it all he extanded it to paradise. Think of temporary marriages as well…all adultry in disguise in the name of Allah.

 

[Steven_John]

The difference is that Jesus is assured in Quran that he is a prophet while Muhammed is not mentioned in the Bible.

So surely Yahooshua can’t be a false prophet based on that.

Dot get how Muhammed (pbuh) not being mentioned in the bible as any connection.

If people commit bad acts in the name of Islam that they are fruits attributed to Muhammed (pbuh).

This standard then applys that all bad things done in the name of Christianity are fruits of Yahooshua (pbwh).

I reckon i have missed some thing so dont get the Muhammed (pbuh) not being mentioned in the bible, but if you ask some Muslims they will tell you he is mentioned, when Yahooshua (pbwh) says we will be given the comforter they claim this 2b Muhammed (pbuh).

 

[Jay53]

I reckon i have missed some thing so dont get the Muhammed (pbuh) not being mentioned in the bible, but if you ask some Muslims they will tell you he is mentioned, when Yahooshua (pbwh) says we will be given the comforter they claim this 2b Muhammed (pbuh).

And they would be wrong. The “comforter” is the Holy Spirit (God - NOT the Angel Gabriel) whom God sent to His disciples on Pentecost.

Acts 2:1-4
And when the days of Pentecost were drawing to a close, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a violent wind blowing, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as of fire, which settled upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in foreign tongues, even as the Holy Spirit prompted them to speak.

This happened in fulfillment of Jesus’ Words before He ascended into Heaven:
Acts 1:4-5
And while eating with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, “of which you have heard” said he, “by my mouth; for John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.”

Although I guess I should apologize for addressing an off-topic post in my own thread - since none of this has anything to do with the doctrine in question in the Quran.

 

[Jay53]

This doesn’t address the Quran or Islam specifically, but I found it interesting. It is from Pope John Paul II regarding adultery, particularly in the Old Testament and then how Jesus addressed adultery in His ministry.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb34.htm

 

[katy]

i only heard about misiyar marriage

for those who dont know,misiyar is when you have a marraige just for the sex…after that you get a divorce,and it all happens in one night most muslims dont support that,i think its disgusting,but you can practice it,its not forbidden.I heard its popular in wahhabi saudia,but they are perverse in any way so im not surprised

When a lady I know in the military was in Baghdad, some Iraqi men offered the guys she was working with several camels if they would let them “marry” her for a couple of hours. Talk about disgusting!!! Her coworkers thought it was funny, but not really. I shudder to think of the lives of actual Iraqi Muslim women.
OK back to the thread.

 

[emma411]

When a lady I know in the military was in Baghdad, some Iraqi men offered the guys she was working with several camels if they would let them “marry” her for a couple of hours. Talk about disgusting!!! Her coworkers thought it was funny, but not really. I shudder to think of the lives of actual Iraqi Muslim women.
OK back to the thread.

The fact that her coworkers thought it was funny is just sad. You are talking about someones rights being really violated here. Thanks be to God that she remained safe and away from those individuals. I am really amazed more and more at the differences in cultures. For us it’s till death do you part. For them what till 8 hours due you part? How frightening.

May God Bless you

 

[Steven_John]

And they would be wrong. The “comforter” is the Holy Spirit (God - NOT the Angel Gabriel) whom God sent to His disciples on Pentecost.

What give Jay, this is no way relevant to what i posted on? i qualified they statement with “they” not jay.

Why not offer an opinion on what i was posting about or do you believe that all bad acts in the name of Christianity are fruits of Yahooshua (pbwh). I don’t think you do so why derail the point.

Are you comfortable to let Sams reasoning stand knowing the sword hath two edges?

 

[Steven_John]

if they would let them “marry” her for a couple of hours. Talk about disgusting!!! Her coworkers thought it was funny, but not really

I am really amazed more and more at the differences in cultures.

I dont like this as it mocks marriage. leaving that aside it is not much different to my own country.

Men and women proposition each other here for sex in work, clubs and pubs etc and lots of places.

Our construction workers dont ask to marry 4 a couple of hours but say “how about it baby”

No real difference, people think sex is for pleasure rather than reprocriation.

Its true there are even some women in my parish that take the pill, shhh.

For Catholics my understanding
If think sex is for pleasure is not doing best for YHWH.

My understanding is that in Islam it is not the same and Allah allows pleasure in lawful marriage.

 

[ZAKI]

When a lady I know in the military was in Baghdad, some Iraqi men offered the guys she was working with several camels if they would let them “marry” her for a couple of hours. Talk about disgusting!!! Her coworkers thought it was funny, but not really. I shudder to think of the lives of actual Iraqi Muslim women.
OK back to the thread.

I do not consider mutah a muslim practise.
It is a shi’ite practise

 

[Jay53]

What give Jay, this is no way relevant to what i posted on? i qualified they statement with “they” not jay.

Why not offer an opinion on what i was posting about or do you believe that all bad acts in the name of Christianity are fruits of Yahooshua (pbwh). I don’t think you do so why derail the point.

Are you comfortable to let Sams reasoning stand knowing the sword hath two edges?

How is it not relevant? I quoted you the appropriate verses refuting what you claimed in your post some Muslims believe, lest you think they might be correct. If you would prefer to remain ignorant so be it.

Obviously I don’t believe people acting against Christianity are “fruits of Jesus”. I think Sam’s argument was that some bad acts in Islam are in emulation of Muhammad and what he proclaimed and thus are his “fruits”, but I would prefer to let Sam speak for himself as to what he meant.

 

[Sam_777]

but if you ask some Muslims they will tell you he is mentioned, when Yahooshua (pbwh) says we will be given the comforter they claim this 2b Muhammed (pbuh).

And do you personally believes so, if some Muslims are misguided and brainwashed by their clerics, does that mean you should believe them !!!

However, let us assume that Muhammed = The Comforter, then how do you explain the massive amount of contradictions between the two faiths, if they were identical then I would agree with that claim.

My point is if Muslims do bad things then it would be because they are the fruit of Muhammed and following his Sunah (because Islam has many bad teachings and few good ones), but on the other hand if Christians are doing bad things then its not because of Jesus but because they are bad (because Christianity has heavenly teachings and not a single bad one).

 

[Steven_John]

I think Sam’s argument was that some bad acts in Islam are in emulation of Muhammad and what he proclaimed

yes but it is not emulation it is exploitation.

i thought discussion had established that mutah is unsupported as suhna.
and thus is not a fruit of Muhammad (pbuh).

I do agree it is a fruit of the Islamic rulers / law makers.

As it is their fruit and you say because Muhammad (pbuh) started Islam so it is his fruit then

All wrongs by Christian leaders would be fruits of Yahooshua.

And do you personally believes so

well obviously not i said

ask some Muslims they

not I

My point is if Muslims do bad things then it would be because they are the fruit of Muhammed and following his Sunah (because Islam has many bad teachings and few good ones), but on the other hand if Christians are doing bad things then its not because of Jesus but because they are bad (because Christianity has heavenly teachings and not a single bad one).

Thats flawed now you must concede Muslims can also do bad things because they are bad or because they follow the sunah.

given that mutah is not supposed to be sunah we have Christians and Muslims doing bad things because they are bad.

 

[jakasaki]

Jay ~ I was reading some of my file records on islam and perhaps this may be of interest to you.

This “firdaw” thing is the highest paradise that can be attained in afterlife in islamic/muslim belief.

Now, whether **all **muslims believe this, I do not know…

Who shall inherit Firdaws?

1-10 Verses of Al-Momin Surah

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

It was recorded in the Two Sahihs that the Messenger of Allah said: (If you ask Allah for Paradise, then ask him for Al-Firdaws, for it is the highest part of Paradise, in the middle of Paradise, and from it spring the rivers of Paradise, and above it is the (Mighty) Throne of the Most Merciful.)

Who shall inherit Firdaws? (1-10 Verses of Al-Monin Surah)

Successful indeed are the believers.
Those who with their Salah are Khashiun (with fear and with tranquillity). And those who turn away from Al-Laghw. And those who pay the Zakah. And those who guard their private parts. Except from their wives **or their right hand possessions, for then, they are free from blame.** But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors. Those who are faithfully true to their Amanat and to their covenants are Raun.
And those who strictly guard their Salawat.
These are indeed the heirs.

…

In order not to clutter up the post, I’ll supply the link for futher reading but I will post this interesting paragraph for your review …

(And those who guard their private parts. Except from their wives and their right hand possessions, for then, they are free from blame. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors.)

**It means, those who protect their private parts from unlawful actions and do not do that which Allah has forbidden; fornication and homosexuality, and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives. **

**One who seeks what Allah has made permissible for him is not to be blamed and there is no sin on him. **

Allah says: (they are free from blame. But whoever seeks beyond that) meaning, other than a wife or slave girl, (then those are the transgressors.) meaning , aggressors.

Who shall inherit Firdaws. They shall dwell therein forever.

abdurrahman.org/finaljourney/whoshallinheritfirdaus.html

So, the way I understand this is that if you have sex with your slave, allah has permitted that therefore there is no penalty of sin.

To you and me and many others, it is adultery but to islam/muslims it is not.

The koran allah has made this permissible.

 

[Jay53]

yes but it is not emulation it is exploitation.

In this case (my thread topic), it IS emulation of Muhammad and following what he proclaimed because Muhammad is the one who said God authorized sex with women who are not wives and made it OK.

I suppose a corollary to this question would be: how much culpability would these men have for their sins if they sincerely believed that Muhammad’s revelations were from God. If their conscience told them otherwise and they did it anyway have they sinned? Is Muhammad the one responsible for causing any of these men to sin by committing adultery?

 

[planten]

**
In order to decide whether sex with other than wife is adultery in all cases, it would be necessary to look into the Mosaic law too. What do the Jews say?

Then see in the Jewish sacred scripture about the status of slave girls.Do they have anything in their books about slave girls?

Last of all, we will look into anything that Jesus may have said about slave girls. This discussion can come to a useful conclusion by checking:

1. What is the advice / command in BibleOT about slave girls?
2. Did Jesus say anything about slave girls? (Look into the bibleNT).
3. What was the practice amongst Jews at the time of Jesus, about slave trade and slave girls?

If any one can provide information then please do it now. Reply to all the three questions above will be necessary before proceeding further on this subject/ topic…**

 

[Steven_John]

In this case (my thread topic), it IS emulation of Muhammad and following what he proclaimed because Muhammad is the one who said God authorized sex with women who are not wives and made it OK.

I suppose a corollary to this question would be: how much culpability would these men have for their sins if they sincerely believed that Muhammad’s revelations were from God. If their conscience told them otherwise and they did it anyway have they sinned? Is Muhammad the one responsible for causing any of these men to sin by committing adultery?

Hi Jay,
i see where you say you were coming from but i had responded to Sam fruit application following the laws on temporary marriage.

How much culpability would these men have? i dont think opinions deny responsibility especially in positions of authority.

I offer this most so for followers of Quran, it offers images of judgement day when people say i followed his way and he says i never taught that.

We need to be real careful following our conscience believing it a fair guide.
My experience of Catholic teaching is it is not the b all and end all of judgement, for Catholics it is the leaders in the Church.
You obey church not conscience.
Now for those men who authority can lead others away from their conscience the burden becomes huge, one of the reasons we pray so much so hard for them.

These men who make laws according to their conscience of what Mahomed (pbuh) would have done, if wrong will maybe bear greater sin for the sins of those who follow.
The intention of our debate here in CAF is to get to the truth not to prove a religion false, if the latter was the case we would write books not enter discussion. If the former is the case entering into discussion to prove a religion false would not be discussion and we would bear false witness to our own selves.

IMO This works both in Christian and Islamic communities for My Fathers laws are constant, only His mercy varies.

I often see people here at CAF spout second hand words as their own and it pains me much for i see the love in the intent but we all especially me need to stand for truth in any religion Truth is of My Father.

Love ya Jay B blessed and B guided

 

[elwill]

My point is the fact that your religion alleges that God explicitly went back on His Word (Thou shalt not commit adultery) and made adultery permissable because of the “norms” of the culture due to slavery.

All of the other aspects of Islam that worked to abolish slavery could still have been in place and worked for the betterment of lives of slaves without **the sex issue and permitting adultery. Sex, in general, is not necessary to abolish slavery. If the Quran was truly from God, God would have upheld “Thou shalt not commit adultery” while still putting into place all the wonderful aspects you say Islam has with regard to slaves. That is where I am stuck. ** Why would God go back on His Law to accomodate the “norms” of society? Has He ever done this before or since?

And it doesn’t matter if slavery is done with now. The fact would still remain that even for that time period, God went back on His Word/Law.

hi jay , actually islam hold the the commandment " thou shalt not commit adultry" actually quran not hold the situation of sex relation with salve with some conditions to be adultery , so the common concept of adultery which muslims and christians hold are prohihbited in islam
for more understanding what i mean , in islam we can marry up to 4 women in the same time , but in your sight of view , islam allow adultery with 3 women beside the first one , did you got my point ?

can you see the conflicts , you will consider it adultery but we don’t , so firstly we have to start our discussion with common concepts to understand each other​

Let’s first agree that speaking about something that does not exist in the modern world is troubling our minds with things that are not socially constructive or needed nowadays.
Speaking about slavery in this era of technology seems to be off the track or outdated

You ask how sex with slaves was viewed and why

Basically, Islam came while slavery was an inherited tradition, very deep-rooted in the heart of the Arab society. Children born from a relation between a master and his slave woman were not recognized as free children. On the contrary, they were to follow the hard track of their mothers and lead a tough life of slavery and humiliation.

A master had the right to have sexual relations with his slave woman with no rights due to her. Such a relation was not socially frowned upon because it was normal in that society, but what was really awful is that the slave woman had no rights, making her simply a sex object.

Since Islam came to liberate people from the chains of being socially neglected or humiliated, Islam said that such a relationship must have certain rights. It must mark a change in the life of that slave woman and the outcome of the relation, namely the child. The child was considered free and recognized as the child of the master and no more his slave.

Coming to the point of considering a sexual relationship with a female slave as zina ( adultery), I would like to say that it was never considered so for several reasons:

1. A female slave was under the right hand of her master and he was allowed to sleep only with whoever was under his ownership. This was considered like an indirect or special wedlock.
2. The relationship itself was within boundaries and involved rights and responsibilities like the issue of umm al-walad and the freedom of the child, for example. This meant that it was, by no means, similar to adultery, which incurs no rights and establishes no responsibilities. In adultery, any passerby can sleep with a woman and just flee without taking any responsibility for any resulting child or for the woman, which is obviously not the case here.

One remaining point here is that masters did not have to sleep with their female slaves. It was something allowable but not obligatory. Yet it presented, to some extent and in certain times, one glowing way to freedom for many people who suffered slavery.

 

[Jay53]

hi jay , actually islam hold the the commandment " thou shalt not commit adultry" actually quran not hold the situation of sex relation with salve with some conditions to be adultery , so the common concept of adultery which muslims and christians hold are prohihbited in islam
for more understanding what i mean , in islam we can marry up to 4 women in the same time , but in your sight of view , islam allow adultery with 3 women beside the first one , did you got my point ?

can you see the conflicts , you will consider it adultery but we don’t , so firstly we have to start our discussion with common concepts to understand each other​

Let’s first agree that speaking about something that does not exist in the modern world is troubling our minds with things that are not socially constructive or needed nowadays.
Speaking about slavery in this era of technology seems to be off the track or outdated

You ask how sex with slaves was viewed and why

Basically, Islam came while slavery was an inherited tradition, very deep-rooted in the heart of the Arab society. Children born from a relation between a master and his slave woman were not recognized as free children. On the contrary, they were to follow the hard track of their mothers and lead a tough life of slavery and humiliation.

A master had the right to have sexual relations with his slave woman with no rights due to her. Such a relation was not socially frowned upon because it was normal in that society, but what was really awful is that the slave woman had no rights, making her simply a sex object.

Since Islam came to liberate people from the chains of being socially neglected or humiliated, Islam said that such a relationship must have certain rights. It must mark a change in the life of that slave woman and the outcome of the relation, namely the child. The child was considered free and recognized as the child of the master and no more his slave.

Coming to the point of considering a sexual relationship with a female slave as zina ( adultery), I would like to say that it was never considered so for several reasons:

1. A female slave was under the right hand of her master and he was allowed to sleep only with whoever was under his ownership. This was considered like an indirect or special wedlock.
2. The relationship itself was within boundaries and involved rights and responsibilities like the issue of umm al-walad and the freedom of the child, for example. This meant that it was, by no means, similar to adultery, which incurs no rights and establishes no responsibilities. In adultery, any passerby can sleep with a woman and just flee without taking any responsibility for any resulting child or for the woman, which is obviously not the case here.

One remaining point here is that masters did not have to sleep with their female slaves. It was something allowable but not obligatory. Yet it presented, to some extent and in certain times, one glowing way to freedom for many people who suffered slavery.

I fear that you are not understanding my point in this. You are approaching this from the perspective of man-made laws regarding slavery and how Islam made life better for slaves.

I am approaching this from the perspective that God did not invent slavery - and would find it an abomination that His creations would do this do each other. Therefore, I cannot and will not believe that God would specifically instruct men (as He allegedly does in the Quran) to have sex outside of wedlock with captive women. God gave all of us free will, so I believe that He would “tolerate” such laws that men created - similar to how He allowed divorce under Mosaic Law. But, as Jesus pointed out, that was not how God designed it in the beginning. Therefore, I just cannot believe that God would make instructions for us and specifically say that sex with captive women is permissable.

And I realize that for the most part slavery does not exist in the form it did then (although I am aware that it does exist still - just not government sanctioned as it once was), but if you read my OP, you will see that Islam legislates the conditions under which women may be taken captive (i.e. there has to be a legitimate jihad, the woman has to be taken to an Islamic country to nullify her marriage etc.). I can only conclude from that that it would only be difficult, but not impossible for such a situation to arise again. And once again, I cannot and will not believe that this is what God wants for His people.

I also cannot fathom why anyone would think it is acceptable to nullify a non-Muslim marriage simply by separating the husband and wife. Jesus specifically says “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Mark 10:9) Islam specifically rejects this teaching of Jesus in making it acceptable to nullify the marriage of a non-Muslim woman by taking her to an Islamic country and separating her from her husband. This is certainly man-made and NOT from God.

Perhaps I will never clarify my point enough to make anyone understand how wrong this is and how, in my mind, this makes it unequivocally clear that the Quran is not from God, but hopefully I have at least made someone think about this issue a little bit.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread.

 

[planten]

** Please leave adultery alone. Discuss the matter of slave girls first before adultery. Also my post of 8 Sept be seen. There is no reply. I reproduce it below;

In order to decide whether sex with other than wife is adultery in all cases, it would be necessary to look into the Mosaic law too. What do the Jews say?

Then see in the Jewish sacred scripture about the status of slave girls.Do they have anything in their books about slave girls?

Last of all, we will look into anything that Jesus may have said about slave girls. This discussion can come to a useful conclusion by checking:

1. What is the advice / command in BibleOT about slave girls?
2. Did Jesus say anything about slave girls? (Look into the bibleNT).
3. What was the practice amongst Jews at the time of Jesus, about slave trade and slave girls?

If any one can provide information then please do it now. Reply to all the three questions above will be necessary before proceeding further on this subject/ topic… **

It appears that there may be nothing in bibleOt and NT about slave girls.

 

[Jay53]

---

It appears that there may be nothing in bibleOt and NT about slave girls.

Probably because God does not approve of slavery and as such does not legislate it. Giving us the commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and creating marriage between one man and one woman as He did with Adam and Eve is sufficient for us to understand that actions such as having sex with captive women is wrong.

Feel free to comment on Mosaic Law regarding this topic. I have no information on that. Perhaps it was acceptable then, perhaps not. Under Mosaic Law divorce was permissable/tolerated for a time - legislated by men NOT God. Jesus explained that divorce is not created by God. Muhammad ignored that teaching of Jesus as well.

My point is that the laws surrounding sex with captive women are MAN-MADE Laws - NOT laws given to us by God.

P.S. Planten - I’m still waiting for your response in the other thread about why you don’t hate St. Peter, St. John and the rest of the apostles as you hate St. Paul.