Omar hit a slave woman with a stick for putting on Hijab and would not allow any slave woman to put it on.

[Vacelere]

Stop with the deification

Not deification it's a fact Allah SWT said it and his prophet pbuh

 

[Inquisitive_]

I actually didn’t. I shortened it as I didn’t think you’d read a long essay. I’ve never changed the essence of the post. That’s another lie you’ve been caught in.

I brought up Islamic golden age, The Ottomans and Adalusia.

That is besides the point? What’s wrong you? Are you challenged mentally?

The Prophet s.a.w had a child with a concubine according to the Majority. Many Sahabas were also said to have had children with them as well.

Because they had less rights to a full wife. That’s obvious, but what does that have to do with male desire?

The prophet s.a.w also warned the Ummah about treating free wives correctly before his death as well! It was part of his last sermon?

No it does not, Inquisitive, I will not debate with you with something that is well known. Children with concubine mothers had full rights. Nearly all of the mothers of Emirs and Sultans had concubine mothers. Stop debating for the sake of it.

Because disgusting and unscrupulous men used to prostitute them! Also what does that have to do with men not desiring them? !

Of course and historically men used to prostitute them and put them in positions in which it was easier for them to commit Zina. I know all of this, so what now? How does that go against the idea of men not desiring them? What on earth are you talking about?

It doesn’t matter if they were looked down upon. Men still desired them, men still bought them for sex, men still had children with them. We are talking about male desire here.

Men still desired them. Men will not sleep with women they’re not attracted to and when concubines flooded the market elite men even stopped marrying which is why most of the mothers of the Sultans were indeed concubines.

I know this.

I know this, but we are talking about History and men’s desires here.

You’re very stupid and I don’t know if you’re trolling me at this point.

You claimed that the reason for no hijab is because men don’t desire them. Please explain in a rational way, which you won’t be able to:

1. Why did men sleep with them?
2. Why did Sultans shun marriage at one point?
3. Why did they have free born offspring with them?

I think I know were you confusion stems from and its understandable, its inconceivable for a female to envisage that a male could have sex with a female without having any feelings for her or attractions towards her, that's just how we are wired.

In fact the male can have sex with a women while finding her repugnant and repulsive at the same time having no desire for her, especially if he has a high testosterone, For God's sake you find them mounting Donkeys.

The context I am talking about here is marriage and her becoming a wife, the part you keep quoting refutes your claim, I said the highest she could rise was concubinage, its right there in the text

The desire I am referencing in the post is the desire for marriage, that's how a man honoured a women, noble man would not marry some concubine slave of the streets even if he owned her, this is a fact, they don't rise higher then being a concubine to the status of a wife.

You are so fixated with gotchas you missed the entire point of my post but I am not surprised since you are predisposed for this.

 

[Angelina]

I think I know were you confusion stems from and its understandable, its inconceivable for a female to envisage that a male could have sex with a female without having any feelings for her or attractions towards her, that's just how we are wired.

No, we women know that many men will sleep with anything if the opportunity presents itself even if they dislike the woman, but we aren’t talking about like or dislike we are talking about about sexual lust and attraction. Do not explain male nature because I probably have a better understanding of human nature than you. This conversation has shown how out of sink and wacky you are.

Men will not make long term purchases of a woman he is repulsed by. Slave women weren’t cheap you fool. A man will not go out of his way to purchase a smelly, older and repulsive woman. They used to go out of their way to find young and beautiful woman and the pretty ones were more expensive. We know all of this due to
Historical records. Furthermore, many were in fact more attracted to physically to their concubines since these were women they took on based on pure looks whilst free wives were married via arranged marriage, sometimes not even seeing the bride before marriage whilst concubines were inspected.

In fact the male can have sex with a women while finding her repugnant and repulsive at the same time having no desire for her, especially if he has a high testosterone, For God's sake you find them mounting Donkeys.

No, they would not spend their hard earned cash for that, you’re talking about a situation in which a man find an opportunity and takes it even if he’s repulsed. What are you not understanding is that bought these women like objects and would check them for defects and wouldn’t purchase the ones they found repulsive. As horrendous as this is, they literally unfortunately had slave manuals based on beauty rankings ect. We have the historical evidence as Arabs would write these things. Furthermore, your point betrays even your understanding of male nature and your man which is laughable. Men do not tie attraction to social status. If a woman is beautiful even if a low class woman, men will still find them beautiful. Many low class women are more beautiful than upper class women. To tie attraction with class especially in the light of male nature is ridiculous.

Hence, what isn’t clicking with you?

The context I am talking about here is marriage and her becoming a wife, the part you keep quoting refutes your claim, I said the highest she could rise was concubinage, its right there in the text

That was never my point. We are talking about lust and sexual attraction and we both know a man won’t purchase or go after something he has no sexual lust towards. The whole discussion was about hijab and concubinage, therefore why the hell are you bringing up marriage? Also why are you lying and saying the highest she should rise is concubine? They started of as concubines, most were purchased for that reason and many were freed and married by these men that purchased them since they fell in love with them?! We have records of this?! We literally know Sultanas who rose to power via concubinage for being their masters favorite. Again, why are you lying about history?

The desire I am referencing in the post is the desire for marriage, that's how a man honoured a women, noble man would not marry some concubine slave of the streets even if he owned her, this is a fact, they don't rise higher then being a concubine to the status of a wife.

My point was never about the desire for marriage. You have missed the point entirely. The hijab and modesty is about lessening immodesty and men’s lust which is entirely different to marriage as well since Zina is the end result as well and as you’ve mentioned men will still sleep with or be tempted by women they don’t want to marry, hence again a very dumb point

You are so fixated with gotchas you missed the entire point of my post but I am not surprised since you are predisposed for this.

Stop being dumb. They literally went out of their way to purchase beautiful women and even wrote manuals based on which region had the most beautiful women. We have the historical evidence. Wanting a beautiful woman is part of being attracted.

This is my issue with you. You argue for the sake of it. We have enough historical records to know that men bought concubines for their beauty. Wanting a beautiful woman is based on attraction or are you slow enough to suggest that isn’t the case?

Word of advice, do not insult people’s intelligence and your own just to debate for the sake of it.

 

[Angelina]

@Inquisitive_

I will break down why I have issues with you.

1. ‘The most they can attain is being a concubine’.

False, many actually freed these women and married them afterwards because they fell in love with them. Also, after the birth of children, as per Islamic law, they couldn’t be sold or given away and after the death of their master, they were free women due to being mothers of free children.

2. Furthermore, most well known consorts of Sultans started off as concubines. In fact the most beloved and powerful woman in the Golden age of the Abbasids are Khayzuran, Umm al-Hassan, Shaghab and the list continues. How can you say that concubinage is the most they can aspire to when we literally look at Islamically history and it’s littered with concubines who climbed the ranks to be more powerful than the women from free families? What you need to understand is that this is a great example
Of men not caring about a woman’s lineage if they’re attracted to or fall in love. Actual Islamic history disputes your strange claims.

3. ‘ Men can still sleep with women they’re not attracted to’

What does that have to do with the conversation? What makes you think that if a man had money and purchased a concubine he would specifically go for one he found unattractive? Let’s use our common sense. What would he go for? One he found repulsive or one he found beautiful? Why are you acting like these men were not choosing who they wanted to be with long term?



4. You unwittingly score an own goal. If you admit that men will feel lust for anything and everything and we have both established that noble Elite men did have children with concubines and did actually go near them, why wouldn’t hijab be even more recommended for them if men still wanted to sleep with them?

5. What does status have to do with attraction? Men are attracted to beauty and femininity and how is that defined by a woman’s social status? If a woman is physically beautiful, would a man find her not beautiful if she’s lower class? Of course not.


It’s so easy to debunk everything you’ve written and it’s frustrating how you have 0 sense of humbleness. Again read history.

 

[Angelina]

@Inquisitive_

Another thing I need to quiz you on, is since when was hijab and modesty based on whether a man would marry a woman? It is interpreted as being a preventer of immodesty. Even you admitted it yourself, men will try and be with and annoy women they don’t even like or want to marry.

Look at society, half of the women dressed in provocative ways couldn’t get many men to marry them, but men will still be tempted to sleep with them and that sort of temptation is seen as immoral and bad for society. Therefore, why are you looking at modesty based on whether a man would marry a woman? The whole point is to prevent degeneracy and all forms of intimacy that can occur outside of marriage.

Even when we scrutinize your point about marriage, it falls short.