Islam & concubines

A Muslim woman is calling for the legalization of sex slavery–which she describes as the temporary marriage of concubines–on the grounds that Islam permits it and that it is a cure for adultery.  From the International Business Times:

Sex slaves are OK in Islam, according to a former candidate for the Kuwaiti parliament, who is advocating for the legalization of sex slavery. . . .

In a video posted on YouTube earlier this year [see below], Salwa Al-Mutairi proclaimed that a sex slave trade would prevent Kuwait’s Muslim men from extramarital sexual activity, explaining that a purchase transaction for a sex partner would be tantamount to marriage.

“We want our youth to be protected from adultery,” she said.

Mutairi claimed that on a recent trip to Mecca, she spoke with several muftis, or Muslim religious scholars, who believe that there is a basis for the purchase of concubines in the shariah, or Islamic holy law.

She gave the example of Haroun al-Rashid, the third caliph or head of state of the Islamic Abbasid Empire, is rumored to have had some 2,000 concubines.

Appropriate candidates for the sex trade would be Muslim women from war-torn countries like Chechnya, Mutairi suggested.

In an earlier post, we talked about “living together” as a kind of revival of concubinage; that is, “marriage lite.” Islam apparently has a specific provision for it. The description of the “purchase transaction” is also something we blogged about: The woman is paid a sum, which is construed as a bride price. The man says something like, “I marry you.” Then, after having sex, he says, “I divorce you.” Given the acceptability in Islam of polygamy, that is all anyone needs for valid marriages and divorces. Thus we have prostitution without adultery, all of which is religiously-sanctioned and oh-so-moral.

This may be the perfect religion for our time: One that is legalistic–giving the pleasure of self-righteousness–while also, at the same time, allowing immorality! How can Christianity compete against that?

HT: Mary

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • larry

    It does show, real time, how in reality legalism AND antinomianism are at the end of the day two sides of the exact same coin. This gets to Paul’s point about the Law via the conscience accusing or else EXCUSING it. Or the lowering of the Law that allows for legalism, “I’m pulling it off, this is proof I’m saved” is precisely the same spirit (false) that says “no law”. The Pharisee and the prostitute are cut from the same cloth. It’s also why Luther said that one should be aware of the fact that when the Law comes and commands one to do (or not do) something, one should realize that without doing or not doing what it says, one has ALREADY fallen into damnable sin…the internal dialog itself is to be fallen already and sinning (under the law). This is what begets the “accusing” or “excusing”.

  • larry

    It does show, real time, how in reality legalism AND antinomianism are at the end of the day two sides of the exact same coin. This gets to Paul’s point about the Law via the conscience accusing or else EXCUSING it. Or the lowering of the Law that allows for legalism, “I’m pulling it off, this is proof I’m saved” is precisely the same spirit (false) that says “no law”. The Pharisee and the prostitute are cut from the same cloth. It’s also why Luther said that one should be aware of the fact that when the Law comes and commands one to do (or not do) something, one should realize that without doing or not doing what it says, one has ALREADY fallen into damnable sin…the internal dialog itself is to be fallen already and sinning (under the law). This is what begets the “accusing” or “excusing”.

  • Dennis Peskey

    There is no sin which Christ has not already conquered. I believe Jesus addressed this particular topic in Matthew 19:9. We are not judged by the Koran, Islamic unholy law nor Mohammad. On judgment day, this abomination will cease and they will be rewarded according to their deeds. Going down anyone? (oh ya – we should mention there is immortality [without divorce] in Hell as well.)
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    There is no sin which Christ has not already conquered. I believe Jesus addressed this particular topic in Matthew 19:9. We are not judged by the Koran, Islamic unholy law nor Mohammad. On judgment day, this abomination will cease and they will be rewarded according to their deeds. Going down anyone? (oh ya – we should mention there is immortality [without divorce] in Hell as well.)
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    How does Christianity compete with this? Well, suffice it to say that if things aren’t so great for the women, and the men who don’t have a chance to marry a chaste woman, you’ve got any number of people who can be persuaded that this version of Islam isn’t exactly a good deal.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    How does Christianity compete with this? Well, suffice it to say that if things aren’t so great for the women, and the men who don’t have a chance to marry a chaste woman, you’ve got any number of people who can be persuaded that this version of Islam isn’t exactly a good deal.

  • mendicus

    Anyone know where to find support for this in the quran, sunnah and/or sirah?

  • mendicus

    Anyone know where to find support for this in the quran, sunnah and/or sirah?

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    People sure have funny definitions of adultery. I guess when you are a society/religion of law you get pretty good at legal word wrangling.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    People sure have funny definitions of adultery. I guess when you are a society/religion of law you get pretty good at legal word wrangling.

  • Cincinnatus

    Surah 4:25. Koran 23:5-8.

  • Cincinnatus

    Surah 4:25. Koran 23:5-8.

  • larry

    The larger picture is this, they are trying to “do the law” with albeit “crazy” law and “redefinition”, but that’s precisely the point. That is what ALL law redefinitions do that are “simul” legalistic “et” antinomian.

    We laugh at this one because of its overt exchange of one kind of sin for another while subtly redefining the law in order “to make it all stick together and “work””. But in reality ALL forms of “law reuse, redevelopment, redefinition” do this. For example when a denomination in its doctrine and teaching lowers the law “juuuust” enough to make it viable for one to prove “I’m saved” (without objective Word and sacrament), they’ve done exactly the same thing as this more crass Islamic version has done. We laugh at them because its simply so crass, but in reality this is not one wit different other than its subtlety. When someone says in essence, “I know I’m saved/elect because I believe these things”, it’s the same tomfoolery with the law and ignores the Law Word that says, “the heart is desperately wicked above all things, who can know it”. One has alter that verse in order to get away with such foolishness no less than what they are doing here.

    This is the primary reason the sacraments are fled for if people didn’t “excuse” themselves via the law redefinitions in all these ways, they’d flee to the sacraments with all due speed. But because men fool themselves with the Law, they eschew them. That’s how the bondage of the will really works.

  • larry

    The larger picture is this, they are trying to “do the law” with albeit “crazy” law and “redefinition”, but that’s precisely the point. That is what ALL law redefinitions do that are “simul” legalistic “et” antinomian.

    We laugh at this one because of its overt exchange of one kind of sin for another while subtly redefining the law in order “to make it all stick together and “work””. But in reality ALL forms of “law reuse, redevelopment, redefinition” do this. For example when a denomination in its doctrine and teaching lowers the law “juuuust” enough to make it viable for one to prove “I’m saved” (without objective Word and sacrament), they’ve done exactly the same thing as this more crass Islamic version has done. We laugh at them because its simply so crass, but in reality this is not one wit different other than its subtlety. When someone says in essence, “I know I’m saved/elect because I believe these things”, it’s the same tomfoolery with the law and ignores the Law Word that says, “the heart is desperately wicked above all things, who can know it”. One has alter that verse in order to get away with such foolishness no less than what they are doing here.

    This is the primary reason the sacraments are fled for if people didn’t “excuse” themselves via the law redefinitions in all these ways, they’d flee to the sacraments with all due speed. But because men fool themselves with the Law, they eschew them. That’s how the bondage of the will really works.

  • Helen F

    Veith said: “How can Christianity compete against that?”

    By continuing to preach Law and Gospel and Christians being bold enough to tell Muslims what we, “Beelieve, teach and confess”!

  • Helen F

    Veith said: “How can Christianity compete against that?”

    By continuing to preach Law and Gospel and Christians being bold enough to tell Muslims what we, “Beelieve, teach and confess”!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bike Bubba said (@3):

    How does Christianity compete with this? Well, suffice it to say that if things aren’t so great for the women, and the men who don’t have a chance to marry a chaste woman, you’ve got any number of people who can be persuaded that this version of Islam isn’t exactly a good deal.

    Really? So you’re going to tempt them to Christianity by pointing out how much better we are? You’re going to tout the chastity of Christians over that of Muslims? You’re, in short, going to point to the Law and the works of man?

    Man, that is the exact wrong thing to do. Don’t you think Muslims have their own sects they can flee to if this particular libertine brand of legalism won’t do? A hyper-legalistic sect, perhaps, that looks down on concubine marriage? If that’s all Christianity has to offer, surely the Muslims can whip up something equally as good.

    But that’s not what Christianity has to offer.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bike Bubba said (@3):

    How does Christianity compete with this? Well, suffice it to say that if things aren’t so great for the women, and the men who don’t have a chance to marry a chaste woman, you’ve got any number of people who can be persuaded that this version of Islam isn’t exactly a good deal.

    Really? So you’re going to tempt them to Christianity by pointing out how much better we are? You’re going to tout the chastity of Christians over that of Muslims? You’re, in short, going to point to the Law and the works of man?

    Man, that is the exact wrong thing to do. Don’t you think Muslims have their own sects they can flee to if this particular libertine brand of legalism won’t do? A hyper-legalistic sect, perhaps, that looks down on concubine marriage? If that’s all Christianity has to offer, surely the Muslims can whip up something equally as good.

    But that’s not what Christianity has to offer.

  • NavyMom

    This has to be the goofiest religion of all time.

  • NavyMom

    This has to be the goofiest religion of all time.

  • mendicus

    Thanks, Cincy. While we’re on a roll, I’ve never found authority for the popular notion of 72 virgins for martyrs. Plenty of support for there being virgins in paradise, but nothing that I’ve found in the quran or in sahih muslim or sahih bukhari that specifically says martyrs get 72 of them. Do you (or does anyone else) know where this comes from?

    BTW, I would add that the Cross neither can nor needs to compete with this or any other belief system.

  • mendicus

    Thanks, Cincy. While we’re on a roll, I’ve never found authority for the popular notion of 72 virgins for martyrs. Plenty of support for there being virgins in paradise, but nothing that I’ve found in the quran or in sahih muslim or sahih bukhari that specifically says martyrs get 72 of them. Do you (or does anyone else) know where this comes from?

    BTW, I would add that the Cross neither can nor needs to compete with this or any other belief system.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus, pardon my ignorance here, but I don’t get your citation (@6). I know how to look up Surah 4:25. But when you say “Koran 23:5-8″, are you also referring to Surah 23? Because the latter somewhat echoes the words of 4:25. But 4:25 seems to be the main one, of the two.

    Of course, my ignorant, contextless reading of 4:25 seems to find some holes in the interpretation at hand. Here is the Sahih International English translation:

    And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

    Seems to me that they’re supposed to be slave girls you already own. Though I suppose the argument being made would involve how, with the money you pay for the sex slavery/prostitution/concubinage, you’re temporarily owning them. Does that same money also provide “due compensation” to the woman’s “people”?

    And then, of course, there’s the stipulation that the slave girl you marry (aka the prostitute) be “chaste”, not “committing unlawful intercourse randomly”, nor having “secret lovers”. All of which can be dealt with semantically, I suppose. If one presupposes this whole temporary concubinage is legit, then the prostitute is, ipso facto, chaste, committing lawful intercourse, etc.

    But there’s the rub. If 4:25 is the main basis for the claim that temporary concubinage is legit … well, it all seems quite circular.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus, pardon my ignorance here, but I don’t get your citation (@6). I know how to look up Surah 4:25. But when you say “Koran 23:5-8″, are you also referring to Surah 23? Because the latter somewhat echoes the words of 4:25. But 4:25 seems to be the main one, of the two.

    Of course, my ignorant, contextless reading of 4:25 seems to find some holes in the interpretation at hand. Here is the Sahih International English translation:

    And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

    Seems to me that they’re supposed to be slave girls you already own. Though I suppose the argument being made would involve how, with the money you pay for the sex slavery/prostitution/concubinage, you’re temporarily owning them. Does that same money also provide “due compensation” to the woman’s “people”?

    And then, of course, there’s the stipulation that the slave girl you marry (aka the prostitute) be “chaste”, not “committing unlawful intercourse randomly”, nor having “secret lovers”. All of which can be dealt with semantically, I suppose. If one presupposes this whole temporary concubinage is legit, then the prostitute is, ipso facto, chaste, committing lawful intercourse, etc.

    But there’s the rub. If 4:25 is the main basis for the claim that temporary concubinage is legit … well, it all seems quite circular.

  • Cincinnatus

    mendicus@11: I’ve no idea where “scriptural” support for 72 virgins is found, and I’m too lazy to Google it. Nonetheless, I wonder if this question is even relevant. Islam is an extraordinarily diverse religion, much like Christianity, when considered from a sociological standpoint. It has many sects, ranging from moderate to insanely legalistic and radical. Obviously, one or some of these sects profess a belief in a certain number of virgins to be awarded to martyrs after death, and presumably there is some support somewhere for this claim. No doubt other sects consider this claim heterodox, but that doesn’t really help us in the present situation. Apparently, some Muslims with some validity claim that a form of concubinage/prostitution is perfectly acceptable. What they need isn’t another Muslim sect that preaches otherwise but the Gospel. And in response to NavyMom, there’s nothing terribly goofy about it: combine a traditionally Muslim subjection of women with hyper-legalism–the same hyper-legalism that can/could be found in Judaism and certain strains of medieval Catholic scholasticism–and the outcome we see here is perfectly natural.

    By the way, Sufi Islam is actually pretty cool, if we’re comparing favorite Islamic sects. Were we not doing that?

  • Cincinnatus

    mendicus@11: I’ve no idea where “scriptural” support for 72 virgins is found, and I’m too lazy to Google it. Nonetheless, I wonder if this question is even relevant. Islam is an extraordinarily diverse religion, much like Christianity, when considered from a sociological standpoint. It has many sects, ranging from moderate to insanely legalistic and radical. Obviously, one or some of these sects profess a belief in a certain number of virgins to be awarded to martyrs after death, and presumably there is some support somewhere for this claim. No doubt other sects consider this claim heterodox, but that doesn’t really help us in the present situation. Apparently, some Muslims with some validity claim that a form of concubinage/prostitution is perfectly acceptable. What they need isn’t another Muslim sect that preaches otherwise but the Gospel. And in response to NavyMom, there’s nothing terribly goofy about it: combine a traditionally Muslim subjection of women with hyper-legalism–the same hyper-legalism that can/could be found in Judaism and certain strains of medieval Catholic scholasticism–and the outcome we see here is perfectly natural.

    By the way, Sufi Islam is actually pretty cool, if we’re comparing favorite Islamic sects. Were we not doing that?

  • larry

    Tempting them over with better law:

    That kind of reminds me of the folly back in my atheist college days when the local university “christian witness group” would invite me and my friends to play on their intramural basketball team. We loved b-ball and played a lot so they’d invite us subtly, so they thought, we all knew what they were doing, to play basketball with them. Now as I said we loved hoops back then and “pretended to take the bait” just to play some full court round ball during the gym time they procured.

    But after a while we just didn’t feel “free enough” to play with them. Because every time we’d screw up a shot, pass or move we had a few more, shall we say, true to color expressive adjectives for messing up. When they’d do the same thing and get just as mad at themselves as we did they had other phrases that somehow expressed the same angry emotion more “sanctified” one might say. We loved the game but at length we couldn’t fit into that mold…somehow “sugar” and “fiddlesticks” didn’t quite express the frustration when one blew a good easy fast break shot.

  • larry

    Tempting them over with better law:

    That kind of reminds me of the folly back in my atheist college days when the local university “christian witness group” would invite me and my friends to play on their intramural basketball team. We loved b-ball and played a lot so they’d invite us subtly, so they thought, we all knew what they were doing, to play basketball with them. Now as I said we loved hoops back then and “pretended to take the bait” just to play some full court round ball during the gym time they procured.

    But after a while we just didn’t feel “free enough” to play with them. Because every time we’d screw up a shot, pass or move we had a few more, shall we say, true to color expressive adjectives for messing up. When they’d do the same thing and get just as mad at themselves as we did they had other phrases that somehow expressed the same angry emotion more “sanctified” one might say. We loved the game but at length we couldn’t fit into that mold…somehow “sugar” and “fiddlesticks” didn’t quite express the frustration when one blew a good easy fast break shot.

  • mendicus

    Cincinnatus@13: Relevant to what? This thread? Clearly only tangentially. Understanding Islam? Certainly it IS relevant. Writing it off as just an aspect of diversity leaves one in ignorance. How have the sects come about? How do they rationalize themselves? Which sect remains the most true to the sacred texts? These are important questions in our current geopolitical context.

    So I binged it myself and found that apparently it comes from a lesser hadith collection (al-Tirmidhi, not the quran or one of the two most “trustworthy” hadith collections), and that it isn’t limited to martyrs but is actually for the least of the inhabitants of paradise. That helps us understand why it’s a fringe belief.

  • mendicus

    Cincinnatus@13: Relevant to what? This thread? Clearly only tangentially. Understanding Islam? Certainly it IS relevant. Writing it off as just an aspect of diversity leaves one in ignorance. How have the sects come about? How do they rationalize themselves? Which sect remains the most true to the sacred texts? These are important questions in our current geopolitical context.

    So I binged it myself and found that apparently it comes from a lesser hadith collection (al-Tirmidhi, not the quran or one of the two most “trustworthy” hadith collections), and that it isn’t limited to martyrs but is actually for the least of the inhabitants of paradise. That helps us understand why it’s a fringe belief.

  • Carl Vehse

    What’s Salwa Al-Mutairi’s alternative? A terror campaign of rapes and beatings of girls like her cohorts have done in Sweden and Norway and now they’ve bombed an Oslo government building and shot up a children’s summer camp.

    Yeah, we’re all eager to hear what Salwa has to offer. /sarc

    “Islam is an extraordinarily diverse religion”

    Islam is a form of terrorism.

  • Carl Vehse

    What’s Salwa Al-Mutairi’s alternative? A terror campaign of rapes and beatings of girls like her cohorts have done in Sweden and Norway and now they’ve bombed an Oslo government building and shot up a children’s summer camp.

    Yeah, we’re all eager to hear what Salwa has to offer. /sarc

    “Islam is an extraordinarily diverse religion”

    Islam is a form of terrorism.

  • Joanne

    “In my opinion, all the Turks at the present time are bastards.”

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html

    Here is a link to a rather well done consideration of Luther’s “fall-down-the-stairs” with polygamy, which if you think about it would include several quotes about the awful things the Turks do with their wiving.

    Of course my favorite Luther polygamy tete a tete is with Katie as found in the Tischreden: Martin Luther said, “The time will come when a man will take more than one wife.” [Katharina] responded, “Let the devil believe that!” The doctor said, “The reason, Katie, is that a woman can bear a child only once a year while her husband can beget many.” Katie responded, “Paul said that each man should have his own wife.” To this the doctor replied, “Yes, ‘his own wife’ and not ‘only one wife,’ for the latter isn’t what Paul wrote.” The doctor kidded for a long time and finally the doctor’s wife said, “Before I put up with this, I’d rather go back to the convent and leave you and all our children.”[14]

    Isn’t that fun? The Tabletalk is unreliable, but I can imagine a jocular, tongue-in-cheek, something like this happening.

  • Joanne

    “In my opinion, all the Turks at the present time are bastards.”

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html

    Here is a link to a rather well done consideration of Luther’s “fall-down-the-stairs” with polygamy, which if you think about it would include several quotes about the awful things the Turks do with their wiving.

    Of course my favorite Luther polygamy tete a tete is with Katie as found in the Tischreden: Martin Luther said, “The time will come when a man will take more than one wife.” [Katharina] responded, “Let the devil believe that!” The doctor said, “The reason, Katie, is that a woman can bear a child only once a year while her husband can beget many.” Katie responded, “Paul said that each man should have his own wife.” To this the doctor replied, “Yes, ‘his own wife’ and not ‘only one wife,’ for the latter isn’t what Paul wrote.” The doctor kidded for a long time and finally the doctor’s wife said, “Before I put up with this, I’d rather go back to the convent and leave you and all our children.”[14]

    Isn’t that fun? The Tabletalk is unreliable, but I can imagine a jocular, tongue-in-cheek, something like this happening.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Larry, you are a genius: simul legalism and anti-nomianism.

  • http://thoughts-brigitte.blogspot.com Brigitte

    Larry, you are a genius: simul legalism and anti-nomianism.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “This may be the perfect religion for our time: One that is legalistic–giving the pleasure of self-righteousness–while also, at the same time, allowing immorality! How can Christianity compete against that?”

    I am not sure this scenario is that attractive to women. So, I don’t know how it could compete with the love of Christ or the dignity of Christian ethics.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “This may be the perfect religion for our time: One that is legalistic–giving the pleasure of self-righteousness–while also, at the same time, allowing immorality! How can Christianity compete against that?”

    I am not sure this scenario is that attractive to women. So, I don’t know how it could compete with the love of Christ or the dignity of Christian ethics.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    tODD, not pointing to works of the law, but the law itself established by God.

    The law of the Muslim, as your reading of the sura shows, allows Muslim men to take multiple wives from slaves–slaves that historically come from captured peoples, with the men who would have been their husbands either castrated and used as harem attendants or killed. This was the case throughout the Ottoman empire, and clerics of both Sunni and Shi’a affirm this.

    The Word of God does not allow this. So yes, I’d suggest that the fact that the Law is good–as Paul affirms–and the Koran is not will indeed draw men to Christ.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    tODD, not pointing to works of the law, but the law itself established by God.

    The law of the Muslim, as your reading of the sura shows, allows Muslim men to take multiple wives from slaves–slaves that historically come from captured peoples, with the men who would have been their husbands either castrated and used as harem attendants or killed. This was the case throughout the Ottoman empire, and clerics of both Sunni and Shi’a affirm this.

    The Word of God does not allow this. So yes, I’d suggest that the fact that the Law is good–as Paul affirms–and the Koran is not will indeed draw men to Christ.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba (@20), you said, “The Word of God does not allow this.” This … what? Multiple wives? Slaves?

    Besides, again, Islam is not monolithic. Do you think that all Muslims agree with this concubinage/prostitution idea? If a stricter or better moral ethic is all you’re trying to entice Muslims with, why shouldn’t they just find a branch of Islam with stricter or better moral ethics? Is there some way in which Muslim morality cannot be the equal of Christian morality?

    I’d suggest that the fact that the Law is good–as Paul affirms–and the Koran is not will indeed draw men to Christ.

    Paul affirms (in Romans 7) that the Law is good not in the context of confirming the superiority of Christian behavior, but the opposite. Paul admits that “nothing good dwells” in him, and calls himself “wretched” — and says that it is the Law that tells him that. He doesn’t tout his superior morals, much less his adherence to them.

    I mean, really, Bubba, do you not think the Gospel is significant in Christianity? Read your hypothetical responses to Muslims again (@3, 20). Where, exactly, is Christ in them? Why is Christ so attractive to us — that is, to sinners? Because he offers us a superior ethical system? Because his followers are more chaste?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Bubba (@20), you said, “The Word of God does not allow this.” This … what? Multiple wives? Slaves?

    Besides, again, Islam is not monolithic. Do you think that all Muslims agree with this concubinage/prostitution idea? If a stricter or better moral ethic is all you’re trying to entice Muslims with, why shouldn’t they just find a branch of Islam with stricter or better moral ethics? Is there some way in which Muslim morality cannot be the equal of Christian morality?

    I’d suggest that the fact that the Law is good–as Paul affirms–and the Koran is not will indeed draw men to Christ.

    Paul affirms (in Romans 7) that the Law is good not in the context of confirming the superiority of Christian behavior, but the opposite. Paul admits that “nothing good dwells” in him, and calls himself “wretched” — and says that it is the Law that tells him that. He doesn’t tout his superior morals, much less his adherence to them.

    I mean, really, Bubba, do you not think the Gospel is significant in Christianity? Read your hypothetical responses to Muslims again (@3, 20). Where, exactly, is Christ in them? Why is Christ so attractive to us — that is, to sinners? Because he offers us a superior ethical system? Because his followers are more chaste?

  • Dan Kempin
  • Dan Kempin
  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl Vehse (@16), talking about Muslims, said:

    Now they’ve bombed an Oslo government building and shot up a children’s summer camp.

    Presumably, Carl knows at this point that his statement was rather erroneous. The Norwegian terrorist was, in fact, a Norwegian. A rather right-wing Norwegian. Who hated Muslims, as a matter of fact. And actually guest posted on popular American right-wing blogs such as Atlas Shrugged and Jihad Watch, among others.

    Does this mean that right-wing ideology is also a “form of terrorism”?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl Vehse (@16), talking about Muslims, said:

    Now they’ve bombed an Oslo government building and shot up a children’s summer camp.

    Presumably, Carl knows at this point that his statement was rather erroneous. The Norwegian terrorist was, in fact, a Norwegian. A rather right-wing Norwegian. Who hated Muslims, as a matter of fact. And actually guest posted on popular American right-wing blogs such as Atlas Shrugged and Jihad Watch, among others.

    Does this mean that right-wing ideology is also a “form of terrorism”?

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    “This may be the perfect religion for our time: One that is legalistic–giving the pleasure of self-righteousness–while also, at the same time, allowing immorality! How can Christianity compete against that? “

    Pffft. Baptists have been doing this for years ;-)

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    “This may be the perfect religion for our time: One that is legalistic–giving the pleasure of self-righteousness–while also, at the same time, allowing immorality! How can Christianity compete against that? “

    Pffft. Baptists have been doing this for years ;-)

  • Jugggernaught

    To those of you who begs the question, How can Christianity compete against that?” Apparently you don’t understand Christianity and what Jesus did for us on the cross.

  • Jugggernaught

    To those of you who begs the question, How can Christianity compete against that?” Apparently you don’t understand Christianity and what Jesus did for us on the cross.

  • Rafael

    i have critticaly proclaimed myself as a leader in Istan bul. have you ever heard of me Iread the kng i dictionary oh ND NO ONES ALOUD TO DO THE UNGOD PEOPLE SATAN i GOT HIM OUT TOO. ANY – I MADE THE POWDER SENT TO MY BRAIN AND READ THE WORD FROM THE MOTHER DICTIONARY . MY NAMES ALISSA.

  • Rafael

    i have critticaly proclaimed myself as a leader in Istan bul. have you ever heard of me Iread the kng i dictionary oh ND NO ONES ALOUD TO DO THE UNGOD PEOPLE SATAN i GOT HIM OUT TOO. ANY – I MADE THE POWDER SENT TO MY BRAIN AND READ THE WORD FROM THE MOTHER DICTIONARY . MY NAMES ALISSA.

  • ALISSA

    I READ THE WORD CONCUBINE INTHE BOOKS TIME ZONE FIRST ON EARTH. ANy lookers

  • ALISSA

    I READ THE WORD CONCUBINE INTHE BOOKS TIME ZONE FIRST ON EARTH. ANy lookers


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X