GreatChineseFall, my apologies for the delayed response; I've been busy since returning and more to the point mentally preoccupied.
In my last post I tried to find common ground and to bring the discussion to a partial resolution. However, in your reply you appear to have overlooked all areas in which we could have found concurrence and instead focused on an argumentative approach with multiple quotation boxes.
I don't believe this format is helpful to either of us or to anyone viewing, as I stated when I first started posting here (post #168 on page 9). Nor do I believe it is the best response to the command of Allah(swt) in the Holy Qur'an:
ٱدْعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِٱلْحِكْمَةِ وَٱلْمَوْعِظَةِ ٱلْحَسَنَةِ ۖ وَجَٰدِلْهُم بِٱلَّتِى هِىَ أَحْسَنُ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِۦ ۖ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِٱلْمُهْتَدِينَ
Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice, and debate with them in the most dignified manner. Your Lord is aware of those who stray from His path, and He is aware of those who are guided. (16:125)
All the online discussions I've had which turned out to be productive (usually debating atheists or Christians, not other Muslims) were those in which common ground was sought - and indeed obtained; the likely alternative is endless argumentation.
Since you have required me to respond in your chosen fashion, I will oblige.
This is not addressing the issue. If I point out that what you believe is problematic, then there is no need to mention cases where it wouldn't be problematic. It is enough if there are cases (which aren't too unusal or fantastical) where it is problematic. A very simple example is if a man in a Christian marriage converts and fears his wife's influence on the children, he can either continue the marriage or divorce her. It can't be that both these options are disliked.
Your example pertains to all Muslims, so I don't see it as a meaningful point of dispute; and it can in fact be that both options are disliked, whereby we implement the principle of the lesser of two evils, which again is held by all Muslims:
https://daruliftaa.com/node/5909http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=360697Proof? How? And why? Because here it starts to get even more confusing for me. When I told you that a permanent marriage with a Christian is forbidden, you told me that it's possible but highly discouraged. However, a temporary marriage is totally fine if you are unmarried. I told you why, you told me, this gives the woman time to learn about Islam and eventually embrace Islam. So far so good.
Then we have married men, they are also as per obligatory precaution(Sistani) not allowed to marry a Christian. In addition, they are absolutely not allowed to temporarily marry a Christian without the consent of the first wife and even with her consent it is not allowed as per obligatory precaution(Sistani). The problem is that normally the first wife can't prevent the husband to marry a second Muslim wife permanently and if she consents there is no problem at all. But the whole idea of temporarily marrying a Christian according to you was to give her time to convert and marry her permanently as a Muslim wife, so how can the first wife stop this, even worse how can it be forbidden even with her consent? Especially if the husband is away from his first wife in a foreign country and especially if he stipulates that no intercourse will place, how can this effect the rights of his first wife?
I did not say that "the whole idea of marrying a Christan woman was to give her time to convert and marry her permanently as a Muslim wife". On the contrary, if you read the aforementioned post of mine (#168) I very clearly bring in an alternative relating to physical needs.
We are discussing a scholarly position and the "proof" of that position lies in the methodology the relevant scholars have used to arrive at their fatawa. To my understanding, reasons for the prohibition of a man with a Muslim wife taking a Christian wife include the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion.
Do you disagree with the last sentence? What rights and obligations are obtained besides these especially if contraceptives are used to prevent pregnancy?
Again I will say that a similar claim could be made against the Islamic concept of marriage on the whole. To recap, your contention is:
"Suffice to say that if one were to marry without stating any conditions, many rights and obligations would solidify due to absence of stating any conditions. Mut'ah on the other hand, if one were to contract that without stating any specific conditions it would result in hardly anything else besides conjugal rights and financial compensation.".
Since a large number of the actual Islamic (as opposed to cultural) rights of nikah are conjugal and financial in nature, you are taking issue here with something which applies to Islam itself. Your nebulous reference to what you believe would "solidify" under nikah may also be possible under mut'ah.
Yes, mut'ah generally does have different social allocations, though I believe that the way you're trying to articulate this is self-refuting.
None of these definitions of promiscuity are correct, it is not indiscriminate sexual behaviour ignoring religious duties or boundaries nor is it mere access to numerous sexual partners. Again, for the sake of not turning this in a semantic discussion, it doesn't even matter that much. I defined it clearly and asked you a question regarding it. As long as the question is clear then the correct definition is of minor concern.
First of all, I defined casual sex as intercourse for the sole purpose of satisfying sexual needs without any commitment or attachment to the other partner and then I defined promiscuity as frequent casual sex with different partners where you are indifferent on a personal level to the choice of your partner. My question to you regarding this is, does the fact that mut'ah is allowed according to you allow you to be promiscuous and do you have an issue with this?
I don't think that my definition of the word "promiscuity" is at fault. Perhaps we're from different English-speaking cultures and have different understandings of the connotations of the word.
My response to your question is that the permissibility of mut'ah does not correspond to an acceptance of promiscuity, because mut'ah necessarily involves respecting the rights and boundaries laid down by Allah(swt).
It neither takes place "without any commitment or attachment" nor with the participants being "indifferent on a personal level to the choice of your partner".
Your way of looking at this and the way in which you formulate your questions derives from your outlook. As I have suggested previously, it would be hard for any of us to claim that we have an outlook which is purely Islamic and untainted by culture, personal experience, personal desire, personal opinion and so on.
Can you be sure that your approach to this subject comes only from Islam? If not, isn't it perhaps better to simply refrain from mut'ah yourself if you disagree with it, rather than trying to find faults with its provision?
As stated, I tried to find ground for positive resolution between us in my last post and it seems I was unsuccessful.
As a different approach, I propose that we might find a way forward by framing a couple of key points as deductive syllogisms.
I will try to frame these syllogisms in a way that we can each agree to them without compromising our respective positions. There are two
premises and a
conclusion. If we can agree on the premises, the conclusion should be sound and an agreement can be reached. So as for the first one:
*All Muslims agree that the Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed to anything inherenty immoral*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed to mut'ah*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoralI have included the word "inherently" to mitigate the disparity between our schools of thought as to the current legality of mut'ah. If you can find a way in which the premises must necessarily be changed, then the syllogism will no longer hold. However, if we can agree that the premises are sound, then the conclusion should be sound and a large part of our dispute can be resolved.
I will form a second syllogism from your statement that you don't believe Muslims are embarrassed by their carnal desires - a statement in which I find both inaccuracy and the semblance of common ground, so I will opt for the latter:
*Carnal desire, in itself, isn't something we need be embarrassed by*A function of mut'ah is to provide a halal outlet for carnal desire*Therefore, this function of mut'ah isn't something we need be embarrassed byAgain, I have worded this so as to find ground for agreement. Note that the wording pertains to the issue of perceived embarrassment (which has been a recurring theme on this thread), not the halal nature of mut'ah, which we already know we disagree on.
And so again, point out anything in the premises you think must necessarily be changed; otherwise we have the basis for another significant point of concurrence.
This can then be built upon to provide a comprehensive framework within which to interpret our differing views on the subject.