TwelverShia.net Forum

Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #360 on: February 02, 2018, 09:08:58 PM »
IJTIHAD!

Ijtihad is an Islamic legal term referring to independent reasoning or the thorough exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in finding a solution to a legal question. It is contrasted with taqlid.

Mujtahid is someone qualified to exercise ijtihad, which literally means striving and technically means juridical endeavor and competence to infer expert legal rulings from foundational proofs within or without a particular school of law.

Requirements of a Mujtahid:

Firstly the Mujtahid must be a Muslim and a person of sound mind and intellectual competence.

*Knowledge of Arabic such than he can understand the Qur'an and Hadith correctly.

*Knowledge of the Qur'an which includes Makki/Madani; Occasions of Revelation; Incidences of Abrogation; LEGAL TEXTS (aayaatul ahkaam). (In short all the requisites of Tafsir)

*Knowledge of the Sunnah specifically the legal texts (ahaadeethal ahkaam). He most know where to find the Hadiths and be able to distinguish the reliable narrations from the weak.

*Knowledge of the substance of the Furu` works and the points on which there is Ijma`.

*Knowledge of Qiyas (Analogical Deduction)

*Knowledge of the Maqasid (objectives) of the Shari`ah

*Knowledge of the General Maxims of Fiqh. eg. Certainty prevails over Doubt.

The Mujtahid is he who possesses, together with complete soundness of mind and of Religion, three necessary traits:

1. Knowledge of the Arabic language and the ways in which its signifies meanings. This knowledge does not come except to one who has frequented its various disciplines and read much of the works of its masters of eloquence until he knows how to differentiate between the specific and the general, the literal and the figurative, the explicit and the ambiguous, and other aspects upon knowing which depends his ability to infer rulings.

2. Knowledge of Qur'an and Sunna and whatever is in them of rulings, those that were abrogated and those that were not, together with the linking up of the universal with its particulars, the absolute with its restricted sense, and the general with the specific. He does not, in this, have to have memorized all that is related.

It suffices that he has to be able to gather up all that is connected with the topic he is investigating and to know what the experts of hadith have said concerning sound or weak gradings as well as what they said concerning the narrators with regard to discreditation and commendation.

3. Knowledge of the objectives of the Law and of the living contexts of people as well as the customs they share and whatever harms or benefits them, and the ability to know the minute defects of legal rulings and to compare and contrast their similarities so as to better understand facts and infer the rulings that most precisely correspond to the objectives of the Lawgiver and implement the welfare of those under consideration.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 09:14:55 PM by iceman »

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #361 on: February 02, 2018, 09:21:33 PM »
Now Mujtahids, the following few are extremely well known;

Ali Khamenie, Ali Sistani, Muhammad Sadiq Shirazi, Nasir Makarim Shirazi, Waheed Khorasani etc.

Now one follows anyone of the above in the matter of Taqleed does this mean he or she is bound to believe in and accept every single thing that they say or write? Would this be necessary and obligatory?


Khaled

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #362 on: February 02, 2018, 10:00:35 PM »
Ya Iceman, first of all, madhhab does not mean religion.  Madhhab means
Quote
A madhhab (Arabic: مذهب‎ maḏhab, IPA: [ˈmaðhab], "way to act"; pl. مذاهب maḏāhib, [maˈðaːhɪb]) is a school of thought within fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). In the first 150 years of Islam, there were numerous madhahib, most of which have become extinct or merged with other schools. The Amman Message, which was endorsed in 2005 by prominent Islamic scholars around the world, recognized four Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali), two Shia schools (Ja'fari, Zaidi), the Ibadi school and the Zahiri school.

I'm amazed that you were able to copy and paste all that you did, but you didn't the one thing that would contradict your point, amazing level of deception.

Nevertheless, unless you can provide ONE Shi'i scholar who agrees with you, then what you are saying does not represent the Shi'i school/madhhab/sect, whatever you want to call it.  How are you not able to grasp this?  :o
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

Khaled

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #363 on: February 02, 2018, 10:09:03 PM »
Muslim720, Marriage in general is a "highly encouraged practice", not only temporary marriage, though in each case, it depends on circumstances.

So you feel it's hypocrisy if a sheikh talks about mut'ah but doesn't want it for his own daughter? Well naturally, none of us are immune from hypocrisy, but there are also genuine reasons.
Mut'ah which is consummated certainly isn't recommend for women who are virgins, and so the sheikh would rightly decline it for his unmarried daughter, like anyone else.
It's mainly divorced or widowed women who would be eligible for this, whereby parental consent isn't an issue.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

بارك الله فيك, but my problem with you have wrote is that it totally contradicts what I was told Mut'ah was for.  I was told Mut'ah was a type of "halal dating" because Muslims in the West are forced to get married later.  This level of contradictory answers towards Mut'ah has become pretty commonplace for those I discuss this with; its' as if the whole point of it is to defend Mut'ah at any cost; even if there isn't any practical application for it.

Quote
As for the Sahifa Sajjadiya, when I linked it to you I advised you not to underestimate its value.
From your response however - your link back to an anonymous short article on this site - I feel reasonably sure that you have not read so far as the introduction.

I think the problem is that you have gotten off-topic, this is a thread about Mut'ah, not about intra-Kalami polemics.

But I will say this, what exactly do you find so particularly special about this Sahifa?  You can't just link to an article and expect people to read it; we haven't established that you are any kind of authority that we would read anything you recommend, therefore, you should at least give a reason to read it.

And don't you think that haven't issues with its authenticity is something to take into consideration before reading it?  How can something be mutawatir that ends up going back to unknown people?  That doesn't make any sense.

Quote
If you will take no time to read and contemplate the Sahifa Sajjadiya before trying to contradict it, what makes you think that your contact with Shia Muslims on the whole isn't reflective of this?

Have you read in-depth each school of thoughts polemical works?  I have read Mufid's Irshad for example and found it very weak in comparison to other school of thoughts in Islam.

Quote
Much as I admire your inclination to dialogue, I would ask you to question if your overall approach is fair-minded enough to do justice to the efforts you make in your visits to your local masaajid.
For example, your accounts here scarcely mention anything therein which you find beautiful or inspiring. Yet when I visit masaajid, which I do all over the world, I find more that's beautiful and inspiring than I could ever hope to describe.

Is there any difference between you and me whereby our experiences could be so different? Or is it something else?

I can't speak for the brother's experience going to different Masaajid, but I feel the same way you do at every Masjid, except the 12er Shi'i ones.  I find unity at all the Masaajid all over the world, people from all kinds of sects, walks of life, backgrounds, cultures, except the 12er Shi'i Masaajid; ever wonder why?
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #364 on: February 02, 2018, 11:07:44 PM »
Ya Iceman, first of all, madhhab does not mean religion.  Madhhab means
I'm amazed that you were able to copy and paste all that you did, but you didn't the one thing that would contradict your point, amazing level of deception.

Nevertheless, unless you can provide ONE Shi'i scholar who agrees with you, then what you are saying does not represent the Shi'i school/madhhab/sect, whatever you want to call it.  How are you not able to grasp this?  :o

Give me one Shia Scholar who disagrees with me and my Messenger (s). Just one, and prove to me that this Shia Scholar, with all due respect, his verdict based on his thought, opinion and point of view and analysis is according to Qoran and Sunah. Just one. With all due respect towards you brother I am surprised at your level of ignorance and confrontational stance regarding this matter. With adab.

Ibrahim

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #365 on: February 03, 2018, 03:30:14 AM »
Quote
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

بارك الله فيك, but my problem with you have wrote is that it totally contradicts what I was told Mut'ah was for.  I was told Mut'ah was a type of "halal dating" because Muslims in the West are forced to get married later.  This level of contradictory answers towards Mut'ah has become pretty commonplace for those I discuss this with; its' as if the whole point of it is to defend Mut'ah at any cost; even if there isn't any practical application for it.

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته 
و حياك الله و جزاك اللهُ خيراً

Maybe it's better to perceive the varying answers you receive in a pluralistic framework rather than a contradictory one.
Brothers and sisters will give you their varying takes on mut'ah according to their capacity for understanding and the needs they face in their personal lives.

In an ever-changing social milieu, there will be a range of situations in which the mu'mineen may find temporary marriage is of benefit to them. The various opinions you hear will reflect this.

Quote
But I will say this, what exactly do you find so particularly special about this Sahifa?  You can't just link to an article and expect people to read it; we haven't established that you are any kind of authority that we would read anything you recommend, therefore, you should at least give a reason to read it.

And don't you think that haven't issues with its authenticity is something to take into consideration before reading it?  How can something be mutawatir that ends up going back to unknown people?  That doesn't make any sense.

Indeed, I cannot expect people to read what I link. If our good brother muslim720 doesn't wish to do so then of course that's his choice.
At the same time, it's not in the self-interest of any one of us that we should contradict something before we understand what it is. If we want to progress, surely we have to be open to new sources of knowledge unless there's a sound reason for rejecting them.
The introduction itself addresses issues of authenticity.

What do I find so special about the Sahifa? The depth of love of Allah(swt) contained therein; the heartfelt humility and taqwa through which the Imam(as) expresses his love for Allah(swt) and his complete submission to Him; the great range of supplications covering so many of the different aspects of life in which we want to make du'a; the way the Imam(as) shows us the correct and best way to call to Allah(swt), the kind of guidance without which we might find ourselves saying many vain or superficial things.

These are just a few of the qualities I find special about the Sahifa Sajjadiya.

Quote
I can't speak for the brother's experience going to different Masaajid, but I feel the same way you do at every Masjid, except the 12er Shi'i ones.  I find unity at all the Masaajid all over the world, people from all kinds of sects, walks of life, backgrounds, cultures, except the 12er Shi'i Masaajid; ever wonder why?

My own experience does not include this exception, so you'll have to elaborate.


iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #366 on: February 04, 2018, 04:49:10 AM »
Ya Iceman, first of all, madhhab does not mean religion.  Madhhab means
I'm amazed that you were able to copy and paste all that you did, but you didn't the one thing that would contradict your point, amazing level of deception.

Nevertheless, unless you can provide ONE Shi'i scholar who agrees with you, then what you are saying does not represent the Shi'i school/madhhab/sect, whatever you want to call it.  How are you not able to grasp this?  :o

In Arabic 'Madhab' means 'to act' and 'Deen' means religion. In Urdu 'Madhab' means 'religion'. Anyways, you guys bring in a lot of things which need to be addressed and then you accuse me of going off topic. You guys claim Mutah is Taboo within the Shia communtiy and i believe it isn't. Fact number 1, You guys aren't from the Shia community and I am. Fact number 2, You guys have been brought up by being told a lot of negative and false things about Shiaism and the Shia but obviuosly for you they were true. And I have been born and brought up in a Shia community, having first hand expierence and knowing what is true and what isn't about my community. It's like you seem to know more about my living room and back garden rather than me.

What Shia Scholars have said about Mutah, to explain and understand what they have said and mean needs to come from them and not from you guys. Unless you can get and give me a clear explanation from them, you're just giving their Fatwas and statements your own interpretation and meaning. No Shia Scholar has said that Mutah can be done openly and commonly without any circumstances or restrictions and it is Mustahab just as Umrah, Tahajjut, Ziyarath etc.

In the end and at the end Qoran and Sunah is and comes above any Scholar or book.

muslim720

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #367 on: February 04, 2018, 10:35:32 AM »
Muslim720, Marriage in general is a "highly encouraged practice", not only temporary marriage, though in each case, it depends on circumstances.

Yes, marriage (without an expiration date) is highly encouraged in Islam.  In Shia Islam, temporary marriage is also highly encouraged.  However, it is quite distasteful when it is recommended for the kith and kin of those who support it and highlight its blessings.

Quote
So you feel it's hypocrisy if a sheikh talks about mut'ah but doesn't want it for his own daughter?

Of course!  You cannot have people encourage male circumcision while having uncircumcised sons.

Quote
Mut'ah which is consummated certainly isn't recommend for women who are virgins, and so the sheikh would rightly decline it for his unmarried daughter, like anyone else.

What you say flies in the face of the following rulings and narrations that deem independent (female) virgins to not even require their guardians' permission before contracting mutah: http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/06/woman-doing-mutah-without-fathers.html

However, to be fair to you, here we see narrations declaring mutah with virgins "makrooh".

Imam Abu Abdullah asws said that a virgin girl who has a father, muta’a should not be done to her without permission of her father

Imam Raza asws said: do not do muta’a with a virgin except with permission of her father. 

https://ahlubait.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/mutaa-with-virgin-girls/

Now, the two above-quoted narrations contradict the other rulings found on the first link.  One says that guardian's consent is required; the other says it is not.

However, we have the following narration on the second link.

Ziyad bin abi Halal says that i heard Imam Abu Abdullah saying that there is no harm in doing muta’a with a virgin, but that virginity is not spoiled for the fear that it is defect for the family

Isn't the entire point of mutah to obtain sexual gratification without tying yourself down with a (unfixed-term) marriage contract?  Mutah without sex is pointless so doing mutah with a virgin, while not spoiling her virginity, is meaningless, in fact impractical, has no purpose, etc.

Quote
As for the Sahifa Sajjadiya, when I linked it to you I advised you not to underestimate its value.
From your response however - your link back to an anonymous short article on this site - I feel reasonably sure that you have not read so far as the introduction.

Trust me, I have!  However, if I had to take a lesson on Tawheed, I will read the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).  Unless there is anything outside those two, I think the Qur'an and Sunnah are sufficient.

Quote
For example, your accounts here scarcely mention anything therein which you find beautiful or inspiring.

Although it would require another topic, if you ask me, I have many beautiful or inspiring accounts of my visits to all masaajid, including the Shia ones.  Within the context of topics we disagree upon, of course I will narrate incidents of disagreements.  If you were to initiate a topic on how close the two branches are, I have a ton of positive stories to share.
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #368 on: February 04, 2018, 02:46:25 PM »


In the end and at the end Qoran and Sunah is and comes above any Scholar or book.

You keep saying this yet have not once provide a single proof from the Quran or shia sunnah.

So far you’ve relied on sunni sources & took the position of Ibn Abbas.

We’re not here to debate with those who support Ibn Abbas position.

Your belief is not the same of the classical 12er position here.

So its pointless debating eachother on this issue.




GreatChineseFall

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #369 on: February 04, 2018, 05:20:59 PM »
Quote
Since you have required me to respond in your chosen fashion, I will oblige.
I do not require you to respond in a certain fashion, I was quite fine the way you responded. I simply respond the way I feel most comfortable with and makes the most sense to me. I disagree with your view that we haven't found something we can both agree on and what may appear to you as something I have overlooked may simply be something we can not agree on.

In any case, finding common ground is not something I consider to be the goal of these kind of discussions in and of itself and the reason for useless argumentation is, as I have found in a lot of your comments, the fact that you misquote, misunderstand or distort what has been said. I will try to explain what I mean:

Quote
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/5909

http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=360697

It doesn't pertain to all Muslims, because as I(and others) have already told you, for more than three times now, that divorce is only disliked without a valid reason. Furthermore, in general, it is absolutely not possible that all your possible options are disliked.

I am extremely suprised that you are trying to maintain that if there are only two options, both options can be disliked, as it is logically speaking contradictory. When an act is disliked it means that it's better and you get a reward for NOT doing such an act, however you will neither incur a sin nor be rewarded for doing such an act. In the case of having two options exclusively, for example A and B, then not doing A means doing B and not doing B means doing A. However, if we say that A is disliked, then you get a reward for not doing A(ie doing B) and no reward for doing A. It is then absolutely impossible that B is also disliked, ie you get a reward for not doing B, ie doing A. This is simply a logical contradiction.

What you have mentioned regarding choosing between the lesser of two evils has got nothing to do with the fact that you can't have a situation where all options are disliked and I never argued that you can't choose. This is what I mean with responding in a way that doesn't address the issue and can cause useless argumentation. A simpler example is that it is absolutely impossible that all options are forbidden despite the fact of being possibly forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, that doesn't mean that all options are forbidden. Likewise, it can't be that all options are disliked either.

Quote
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.

You said "A temporary marriage serves the purpose of giving them time to learn about Islam and to embrace Islam before contracting permanent nikkah." and then "Of course in all these cases, mut'ah could also be to fulfill sexual needs, which in itself is a legitimate aspect of mut'ah.". First of all, this could be misleading because it can mean that the first purpose is primary and the second one is additional. You said it "serves the purpose" not that it "COULD serve the purpose" of letting her learn about Islam, meaning that sexual gratification is not an alternative, rather only additional and doesn't have to be a purpose at all.

Nevertheless, what I then don't understand if a Christian impinges on "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion" is that a permanent marriage is possible but discouraged and a temporary marriage is absolutely forbidden. So, it is then better to permanently marry such a Christian then to temporarily marry her! How does that make sense if it is against "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion"?

Quote
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.

How does this answer my question? I asked, what are the rights and obligations obtained besides the ones I mentioned? Again, an example of useless argumentation

Quote
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".

You see, we can find common ground. I agree that promiscuity does not respect the rights and boundaries laid down by Allah. However, I disagree from a Shi'i perspective which is the issue here. What rights and boundaries are transgressed if one has a desire to be promiscuous (in a halal way) from a Shi'i perspective? How is sexual gratification without commitment or attachment forbidden or disliked? Indifference on a personal level is the natural result of this if you do it frequently, which you will do if your desires are present frequently.

Here you are again too vague, you said "it neither takes place ...", do you mean it CAN'T take place, ie it is forbidden or disliked to take place or that it simply doesn't take place this way? I know for a fact that it does take place, however this can be because mut'ah is used or mut'ah is abused. The only way we can know if it is use or abuse of mut'ah is if we know whether or not it is ALLOWED to take place this way. So again, useless argumentation if you talk about how it is used, I am only interested in how it CAN be used, ie not being forbidden or disliked. Is it forbidden or disliked to do mut'ah without any commitment or attachment or not and what is your proof for this?

Quote
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 immoral

This is too vague and our possible agreement can create a false impression. First of all, the agreement of Muslims is irrelevant here and only complicates matters, so no reason to add it.

Second of all, no action is inherently immoral as an insane man or a dog for example can perform any action without it being considered immoral. Actions in and of themselves are not immoral, the intention and the conditions under which you do something is what makes an action immoral.

Third of all, it depends on what you define as immoral. If you mean by immoral something evil or harmful, you just brought up the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils, so the possibility of being instructed to do something evil or harmful because the only other alternative is more evil is present and your first premise would be doubtful. If you mean by immoral something that ought to be done, it is again too vague, because what ought to be done depends on the circumstances and the alternatives you have. If by immoral it is meant something that is not virtuous, then we know that things that are disliked are not virtuous as not doing them is what is considered to be virtuous instead.

Fourth, your assertion that he "instructed" people to do mut'ah is not proven to me yet. All I know is that he allowed it or permitted it which is different from instructing. If the Prophet(saws) instructs you to do something then you should do it, if the Prophet(saws) permits you to do something then you neither should do it nor should not do it. From the narrations I read it never was instructed, so your second premise would be false anyway and the first premise is way too vague.

Quote
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 by

The second premise is problematic, as mut'ah in and of itself isn't halal or haram and existed prior to the Prophethood of Our Prophet(saws) so any function of mut'ah can't be to provide a "halal" outlet for anything. You probably mean:

*Carnal desire, in itself, isn't something we need to be embarrassed by

*A function of mut'ah is to provide an outlet for carnal desires

*Therefore, this function of mut'ah isn't something we need to be embarrassed by

In this case, the conclusion would not follow.

Ibrahim

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #370 on: February 05, 2018, 07:41:54 PM »
Quote
I do not require you to respond in a certain fashion, I was quite fine the way you responded. I simply respond the way I feel most comfortable with and makes the most sense to me. I disagree with your view that we haven't found something we can both agree on and what may appear to you as something I have overlooked may simply be something we can not agree on.

In any case, finding common ground is not something I consider to be the goal of these kind of discussions in and of itself and the reason for useless argumentation is, as I have found in a lot of your comments, the fact that you misquote, misunderstand or distort what has been said. I will try to explain what I mean:

GreatChineseFall, Your penultimate sentence is a description of the way people tend to feel during debates in general. I think semantics is a large part of this, along with the fact that we often find it difficult to collect our fluid thoughts into prosaic expressions.

Since you are a clear and articulate communicator, your fear of being misunderstood is surely unfounded. Personally, I don’t feel misquoted, misunderstood or distorted. Rather, I think you simply disagree with me, for reasons which, so far, I respect.

I wouldn’t overlook the value of common ground. I came across this forum randomly a few weeks ago and decided to participate for a while. This is a public forum which anyone can view, including non-Muslims. We can only wonder how many non-Muslims must have come across this forum, observed Muslims mocking and insulting each other in some of the worst ways, and decided that Islam is not a religion they want anything to do with.

Common ground need entail nothing more than common understanding - a reasoned and respectful agreement to disagree. It’s not so much about unity of opinion as unity of attitude, and it’s becoming of us as Muslims that this attitude should be one which fosters conviviality.

Quote
It doesn't pertain to all Muslims, because as I(and others) have already told you, for more than three times now, that divorce is only disliked without a valid reason. Furthermore, in general, it is absolutely not possible that all your possible options are disliked.

I am extremely suprised that you are trying to maintain that if there are only two options, both options can be disliked, as it is logically speaking contradictory. When an act is disliked it means that it's better and you get a reward for NOT doing such an act, however you will neither incur a sin nor be rewarded for doing such an act. In the case of having two options exclusively, for example A and B, then not doing A means doing B and not doing B means doing A. However, if we say that A is disliked, then you get a reward for not doing A(ie doing B) and no reward for doing A. It is then absolutely impossible that B is also disliked, ie you get a reward for not doing B, ie doing A. This is simply a logical contradiction.

And this is precisely why I introduced the principle of the lesser of two evils, whereby a disliked option becomes acceptable due to necessity. The fact that I brought up this principle should make it perfectly clear to you that I have amply understood your oft-repeated statement about divorce, along with your other points.

So to return this to the original context, there is no inconsistency in the teachings of the school of Ahl al Bayt(as) concerning mut’ah with Kitabi women, nor are the principles different from those encountered by Sunni Muslims regarding permanent marriage with Kitabi women. In either case, there are a variety of viable options, and if a dilemma does arise involving two disliked options then the least disliked of the two will become acceptable.

Quote
Nevertheless, what I then don't understand if a Christian impinges on "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion" is that a permanent marriage is possible but discouraged and a temporary marriage is absolutely forbidden. So, it is then better to permanently marry such a Christian then to temporarily marry her! How does that make sense if it is against "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion"?

Apparently this is a simple misunderstanding. Permanent marriage with a Christian is likewise ‘’absolutely forbidden’’ for a man with a Muslim wife.

Quote
How does this answer my question? I asked, what are the rights and obligations obtained besides the ones I mentioned? Again, an example of useless argumentation

Please slow down, my friend. I don’t believe that my response was so oblique as to have been obscure: the actual rights and obligations in temporary marriage, beyond the ones you mentioned (conjugal rights and financial compensation) might well be regarded as few in number - I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this.

The point is that the same thing may be said of permanent marriage, so in order to criticise temporary marriage in this way, you have to criticise the Islamic concept of marriage on the whole. This is actually a very common way for non-Muslims to criticise Islamic marriage and I would suggest that this approach is highly inadvisable for a Muslim to adopt.

Quote
You see, we can find common ground. I agree that promiscuity does not respect the rights and boundaries laid down by Allah. However, I disagree from a Shi'i perspective which is the issue here. What rights and boundaries are transgressed if one has a desire to be promiscuous (in a halal way) from a Shi'i perspective? How is sexual gratification without commitment or attachment forbidden or disliked? Indifference on a personal level is the natural result of this if you do it frequently, which you will do if your desires are present frequently.

Promiscuous:

1. characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association,especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.

2. consisting of parts, elements, or individuals of different kinds brought together without order.

3. indiscriminate; without discrimination.

4. casual; irregular; haphazard.

Above is a dictionary definition of the word promiscuous, which closely corresponds with my own understanding of the word. Accordingly, there is no such thing as being ‘’promiscuous in a halal way’’ because in order for a relationship to be halal, certain Islamic rights and boundaries have to be observed, whereby it is no longer casual or indiscriminate.

Commitment and attachment are both present in mut’ah, albeit in different ways from permanent marriage and for a fixed, rather than indefinite, period of time.

Your implicit disapproval of the possibility that an individual may contract mut’ah on a number of occasions is opinionated and is not an opinion I or anyone else need feel compelled to share; nor do I feel it’s congruent with the overall Islamic view on human sexuality.

I find mut’ah completely at home in a religion which allows a man to marry four wives, which allows him to engage in sexual relations with ma malakat aymanukum and which contains vivid descriptions, both in the Holy Qur’an and the ahadith, of carnal rewards for the mu’mineen in Jannah.

It is anti-sexual attitudes which I suggest are hard to reconcile with Islam, not sexually-enabling ones. So long as the rights and obligations laid down by Allah(swt) and his Messenger(saws) are adhered to, mut’ah is a generous provision we should be thankful for. 

Quote
This is too vague and our possible agreement can create a false impression. First of all, the agreement of Muslims is irrelevant here and only complicates matters, so no reason to add it.

Second of all, no action is inherently immoral as an insane man or a dog for example can perform any action without it being considered immoral. Actions in and of themselves are not immoral, the intention and the conditions under which you do something is what makes an action immoral.

Third of all, it depends on what you define as immoral. If you mean by immoral something evil or harmful, you just brought up the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils, so the possibility of being instructed to do something evil or harmful because the only other alternative is more evil is present and your first premise would be doubtful. If you mean by immoral something that ought to be done, it is again too vague, because what ought to be done depends on the circumstances and the alternatives you have. If by immoral it is meant something that is not virtuous, then we know that things that are disliked are not virtuous as not doing them is what is considered to be virtuous instead.

Fourth, your assertion that he "instructed" people to do mut'ah is not proven to me yet. All I know is that he allowed it or permitted it which is different from instructing. If the Prophet(saws) instructs you to do something then you should do it, if the Prophet(saws) permits you to do something then you neither should do it nor should not do it. From the narrations I read it never was instructed, so your second premise would be false anyway and the first premise is way too vague.

This brings us to the two syllogisms. As to your first point I will say that just because you see no reason, it doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
The common agreement of Muslims is vital because it confirms not only the moral paradigm within which we’re operating, but also that there is a consensus on this particular issue. So whereas there’s disagreement between Muslims on the sinless nature of the Holy Prophet(saws), this doesn’t extend to questioning anything he taught. It is of paramount importance to affirm this consensus before progressing.

As to your second and third points, these focus on the agency of intention within morality. However the words ‘’moral’’ or ‘’immoral’’ don’t necessarily preclude intention, nor do they do so customarily. In colloquial speech, when we say someone has done something immoral, this clearly doesn’t refer to what has been done inadvertently or under compulsion.

I asked you to identify if there was anything in the premise which necessarily had to be changed, and since the definition of ‘’immoral’’ doesn’t necessarily, nor even usually, preclude either intention or circumstance, these cannot be adduced as reasons why the word should be rendered inoperative here.

As to your fourth point, here is the evidence you have asked for:
   
http://www.islamawareness.net/Marriage/Mutah/hadith_muslim.html

The very first hadith here, number 3243, shows the Holy Prophet(saws) actively encouraging the sahaaba to mut’ah and showing them how to perform it. This is well within the definition of the word ‘’instruct’’.
Of course you could question the authority of the hadith, but this is the evidence you requested.

Quote
The second premise is problematic, as mut'ah in and of itself isn't halal or haram and existed prior to the Prophethood of Our Prophet(saws) so any function of mut'ah can't be to provide a "halal" outlet for anything. You probably mean:

*Carnal desire, in itself, isn't something we need to be embarrassed by

*A function of mut'ah is to provide an outlet for carnal desires

*Therefore, this function of mut'ah isn't something we need to be embarrassed by

In this case, the conclusion would not follow.

There are many things in Islam which existed in some state during the Jahiliya, though when we discuss halal and haram, we are naturally referring to them in their Islamic form. It is with this understanding that the word ‘’halal’’ is included.

So far as I can see, there are no logical non-sequiturs nor incorrectly defined words, as yet presented, which require that the two syllogisms must necessarily be changed.

*All Muslims agree that the Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed to anything inherently immoral

*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed to mut'ah


*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral



*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 by

Furthermore, I would re-emphasise that neither of us need compromise on our respective positions in the acceptance of the above. It’s a matter of granting us the facility to disagree, without this engendering any fundamental rifts of principle.


Ibrahim

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #371 on: February 05, 2018, 10:20:38 PM »
Quote
Although it would require another topic, if you ask me, I have many beautiful or inspiring accounts of my visits to all masaajid, including the Shia ones.  Within the context of topics we disagree upon, of course I will narrate incidents of disagreements.  If you were to initiate a topic on how close the two branches are, I have a ton of positive stories to share.

Muslim 720, I find this intriguing, since there's nothing to dictate the course along which conversation should flow here in the first place.

You had a blank canvas to say anything you liked about your visits to those masaajid, especially since it's a topic of your own introduction. You've chosen to relate the experiences negatively even though there's no compulsion for you to do so.

I've also related my experiences visiting different masaajid - one of my first posts on here was about my time in the Sultan Ahmet Camii (Blue Mosque) in Istanbul. Neither did I find anything there which caused me upset, nor would I fixate upon it if I did.

So I'll ask you again: is there any difference between us whereby our experiences are so diverse? If you say you've had good experiences in masaajid frequented by Shia Muslims, why not describe them here? Are those experiences not a valid part of the discussion? Do you feel that you will lose credibility on this site by speaking about Shia Muslims in a complimentary way?


As for your points about mut'ah with virgins, there's a consensus among Shia scholars regarding the father's permission. If you wish to undermine this consensus, it would be necessary for you to bring your evidence to those scholars in an attempt to change their minds, though needless to say this wouldn't prove successful.
The scholars would already have taken any genuine ahadith into account when deriving their opinions and fatawa.

muslim720

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #372 on: February 05, 2018, 11:30:00 PM »
Muslim 720, I find this intriguing

I, too, find this intriguing.  Side-stepping the crux of my post, you are clutching on to this one straw.  I remind you that mutah (without sexual gratification) is pointless; the reason why it was made permissible was for the Companions (ra) to derive sexual pleasure without committing the sin of zina.  I would like to return to that.

Quote
You had a blank canvas to say anything you liked about your visits to those masaajid, especially since it's a topic of your own introduction. You've chosen to relate the experiences negatively even though there's no compulsion for you to do so.

A blank canvas affords me (and you) the opportunity to freestyle.  If we are talking about the status of Imams (ra) in Shia Islam, I have to narrate what I (witnessed and) heard from a Shia imam.  If you find his statement to be troublesome, and I commend you if you do, you should take it up with your own scholars, not me.  The way you speak in regards to this matter proves that you are uncomfortable with what the imam said or it could be that you are not too pleased that I have related it to everyone.  While I let you decide which one is the case, I pray that it is the former.

Quote
I've also related my experiences visiting different masaajid - one of my first posts on here was about my time in the Sultan Ahmet Camii (Blue Mosque) in Istanbul. Neither did I find anything there which caused me upset, nor would I fixate upon it if I did.

The Blue Mosque, aside from being a mosque, is pretty much a tourist site, as much as I plan to visit it someday, insha'Allah.  The type of aqeedah lesson you receive from a local mosque, like I did, is not what you would experience there.

Quote
So I'll ask you again: is there any difference between us whereby our experiences are so diverse? If you say you've had good experiences in masaajid frequented by Shia Muslims, why not describe them here? Are those experiences not a valid part of the discussion? Do you feel that you will lose credibility on this site by speaking about Shia Muslims in a complimentary way?

You, obviously, have not been here long enough to read all of my posts.  As I said before, if you wish to have such a discussion, whereby you want me to highlight all the positives I have experienced at Shia mosques, please open a new topic and I will outmatch your experiences. 

Open a new topic!  Do not use this point here as straws to clutch on.


Quote
As for your points about mut'ah with virgins, there's a consensus among Shia scholars regarding the father's permission. If you wish to undermine this consensus, it would be necessary for you to bring your evidence to those scholars in an attempt to change their minds, though needless to say this wouldn't prove successful.
The scholars would already have taken any genuine ahadith into account when deriving their opinions and fatawa.

Now we are talking and I am totally okay with there being a consensus (that virgins require their guardians' permission).  The issue, however, are the traditions which say that you can take virgins in mutah so long as their virginity are not spoiled.  The very purpose of mutah, as I stated earlier, was sexual gratification.  Without sex, mutah is pointless.  Now you have one more problem if you adhere to the oft-repeated mantra that mutah allows one to be mahram so couples can interact freely before they are married.  Mutah was not made permissible except for sexual needs.  So now your problem is two-folds:

1.  You support mutah but will not accept it for your own kith and kin.

2.  You have violated the very premise of mutah (by providing it as a solution in various circumstances when it was only made permissible to address the sexual needs of those who were in dire circumstances).
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 11:31:57 PM by muslim720 »
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

GreatChineseFall

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #373 on: February 06, 2018, 01:20:22 PM »
Quote
GreatChineseFall, Your penultimate sentence is a description of the way people tend to feel during debates in general. I think semantics is a large part of this, along with the fact that we often find it difficult to collect our fluid thoughts into prosaic expressions.

Since you are a clear and articulate communicator, your fear of being misunderstood is surely unfounded. Personally, I don’t feel misquoted, misunderstood or distorted. Rather, I think you simply disagree with me, for reasons which, so far, I respect.

Being articulate is no guarantee against being misunderstood or distorted, especially if there is a desire to prove something. The Prophet(saws) was very articulate, however misunderstandings and distortions occurred regarding his words.

I understand your comments about common understanding and I agree it's very desirable, however I still consider it secondary.

Quote
And this is precisely why I introduced the principle of the lesser of two evils, whereby a disliked option becomes acceptable due to necessity. The fact that I brought up this principle should make it perfectly clear to you that I have amply understood your oft-repeated statement about divorce, along with your other points.

So to return this to the original context, there is no inconsistency in the teachings of the school of Ahl al Bayt(as) concerning mut’ah with Kitabi women, nor are the principles different from those encountered by Sunni Muslims regarding permanent marriage with Kitabi women. In either case, there are a variety of viable options, and if a dilemma does arise involving two disliked options then the least disliked of the two will become acceptable.

How is it perfectly clear to me if you appear to agree with me but describe this issue as a point of dispute and explicitly negate what I just said? Surely, you didn't understand from me negating divorce being disliked as being a negation in general cases?

To return this to the original context, I suggested permanent marriage as a better alternative for the purposes you mentioned and you responded that deciding to permanently marry may eventually result in forcing you to do a disliked act, ie divorce. I told you that it wouldn't be disliked in that case, so since you agree with me, how is temporary marriage a solution for a problem that already has a solution and is much better in my opinion as it is optimistic in its intention and optimistic about a positive result?

Quote
Apparently this is a simple misunderstanding. Permanent marriage with a Christian is likewise ‘’absolutely forbidden’’ for a man with a Muslim wife.
Proof? The fatwa I read didn't make a clear distinction between unmarried and married men.

Quote
Please slow down, my friend. I don’t believe that my response was so oblique as to have been obscure: the actual rights and obligations in temporary marriage, beyond the ones you mentioned (conjugal rights and financial compensation) might well be regarded as few in number - I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this.

The point is that the same thing may be said of permanent marriage, so in order to criticise temporary marriage in this way, you have to criticise the Islamic concept of marriage on the whole. This is actually a very common way for non-Muslims to criticise Islamic marriage and I would suggest that this approach is highly inadvisable for a Muslim to adopt.

Your continuous reference to the similarity with a permanent marriage is a diversion from the issue. I believe it's not similar and I would provide proof to refute your possible allegations regarding marriage, however this just prolongs the discussion unnecessarily. Since you pointed me to the fact that there may be Non-Muslims reading, why don't you simply respond by defending temporary marriage without referencing to permanent marriage as you will automatically also defend permanent marriage, killing two birds with one stone?

Quote
Accordingly, there is no such thing as being ‘’promiscuous in a halal way’’ because in order for a relationship to be halal, certain Islamic rights and boundaries have to be observed, whereby it is no longer casual or indiscriminate.

Commitment and attachment are both present in mut’ah, albeit in different ways from permanent marriage and for a fixed, rather than indefinite, period of time.

I don't really see the need to discuss the definition of promiscuity more than we already have, as long as there is clarity. I use the word promiscuity to avoid typing a very long definition. If you insist and want to make my life harder, I will avoid using the word promiscuity and type that definition. Otherwise, I don't really see how being promiscuous in a halal way is a contradiction in terms from the Shi'i perspective. What rights and boundaries? You have mentioned them a bunch of times now, but which rights and boundaries exactly prevent you from being promiscuous? Please quote the necessary material.

I have mentioned commitment without defining it clearly, because one might say that a neighbour is committed to his other neighbour or any person is committed to any other person. Commitment is simply dedication to achieve something. When we talk about commitment in the context of a sexual relationship, what is meant(or rather how I define it here, before you start a whole different discussion. As long as there is clarity we should be fine with any definition I come up with) any dedication in addition to any dedication one reasonably already has towards other people and to the exclusion of a commitment to achieve sexual gratification, to the exclusion of a commitment to financially compensate for trying to achieve that and to the exclusion of of a commitment not to have any other sexual partners. In this way we can say that a prostitute is not committed towards her client, which makes sense. There are actually others that should be excluded but for now, this is fine. In this case, I don't really see how someone NEEDS to be committed towards the other partner in a mut'ah marriage according to Shi'i scholars.

Quote
This brings us to the two syllogisms. As to your first point I will say that just because you see no reason, it doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
The common agreement of Muslims is vital because it confirms not only the moral paradigm within which we’re operating, but also that there is a consensus on this particular issue. So whereas there’s disagreement between Muslims on the sinless nature of the Holy Prophet(saws), this doesn’t extend to questioning anything he taught. It is of paramount importance to affirm this consensus before progressing.

You misunderstand, I am speaking from the perspective of a logician. The argument isn't valid unless we state that what all Muslims agree to is always true. This only brings further premises to the table and it would look something like:

*What all Muslims agree to is always true.

*All Muslims agree that the Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed to anything inherently immoral

*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed to mut'ah

*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral

Instead of simply:

*The Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed anyone to do anything inherently immoral

*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed some to do mut'ah

*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral

It would be easier and bring clarity to your argument, because to be honest, I find your attempts to use deductive reasoning lacking in meticulousness or at the very least confusing. For example:
Quote
As to your second and third points, these focus on the agency of intention within morality. However the words ‘’moral’’ or ‘’immoral’’ don’t necessarily preclude intention, nor do they do so customarily. In colloquial speech, when we say someone has done something immoral, this clearly doesn’t refer to what has been done inadvertently or under compulsion.

I asked you to identify if there was anything in the premise which necessarily had to be changed, and since the definition of ‘’immoral’’ doesn’t necessarily, nor even usually, preclude either intention or circumstance, these cannot be adduced as reasons why the word should be rendered inoperative here.

Ah, but here is the problem, because the notion of an inherently immoral act becomes ill defined then. I assumed that with "something inherent in something else" it was meant a quality or an attribute that is automatically or permanently present in something else. Meaning, I would be able to say:

- If an insane man performs an inherently immoral act it is not immoral
- If a man performs an inherently immoral act due to compulsion or overpowering circumstances it is not immoral.

If I would generalize it would be:

- If a man performs an inherently immoral act it is not inherently immoral.

This last sentence is utter nonsense for any random reader, unless it is explained that there are actually two different meanings to inherent, your meaning and my meaning. I am fine with your definition or usage, as I said as long as things are clear there should be no problem, but it should be very clear. However, this reveals the problem with your syllogism. If we say that an inherently immoral act is an act that is always and automatically immoral if done by a concious agent, capable of assessing the morality of such act, without compulsion, then the first premise is false or at least not necessarily true. It has to be changed:

*The Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed anyone to do any act that is immoral under the circumstances he instructs you to do it.

*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed some to do mut'ah

*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral

In this case, the argument is not valid

Quote
As to your fourth point, here is the evidence you have asked for:
   
http://www.islamawareness.net/Marriage/Mutah/hadith_muslim.html

The very first hadith here, number 3243, shows the Holy Prophet(saws) actively encouraging the sahaaba to mut’ah and showing them how to perform it. This is well within the definition of the word ‘’instruct’’.
There is no encouragement let alone active encouragement proven from the first narration. And encouragement is not instruction anyway, if the Prophet(saws) instructs something it is obligatory and you would sin if you would not do it as opposed to encouragement where there is no sin.

Quote
There are many things in Islam which existed in some state during the Jahiliya, though when we discuss halal and haram, we are naturally referring to them in their Islamic form. It is with this understanding that the word ‘’halal’’ is included.

It wouldn't be a valid argument regardless even if you insist on halal. Secondly I disagree, we are talking about mut'ah itsself or a marriage itsself. Such a function can never be to provide a halal outlet for anything.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2018, 01:25:07 PM by GreatChineseFall »

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #374 on: February 06, 2018, 03:34:08 PM »
@GreatChineseFall you may have read the fatwa the wrong way.

Permanent or temporary marriage with a Christian woman - if one already has a Muslim wife - is not allowed based on obligatory precaution for Sistani, even if the Muslim wife consents to it.
محور المقاومة والممانعة

GreatChineseFall

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #375 on: February 07, 2018, 04:11:28 AM »
@GreatChineseFall you may have read the fatwa the wrong way.

Permanent or temporary marriage with a Christian woman - if one already has a Muslim wife - is not allowed based on obligatory precaution for Sistani, even if the Muslim wife consents to it.

I don't think that's 100% correct. If one already has a Muslim wife and:
- wants to permanently marry and the wife doesn't consent, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.
- wants to permanently marry and the wife consents, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.
- wants to temporarily marry and the wife doesn't consent, this is haram without a doubt.
- wants to temporarily marry and the wife consents, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.

This is the way I understood Sistani's fatwa.

Ibrahim

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #376 on: February 10, 2018, 12:50:47 PM »
Quote
I, too, find this intriguing.  Side-stepping the crux of my post, you are clutching on to this one straw.  I remind you that mutah (without sexual gratification) is pointless; the reason why it was made permissible was for the Companions (ra) to derive sexual pleasure without committing the sin of zina.  I would like to return to that.

Muslim 720 I have not side-stepped anything but rather chosen what to answer. I believe that doing so is part of what moves a discussion forward.

For example, you compared a sheikh rejecting temporary marriage for his unmarried daughter to a sheikh rejecting circumcision for his son, despite the former (except with a non-sexual stipulation) being recommended and the latter being forbidden.
Since I saw no way in which such a comparison could be valid, and since the point isn't related to anything of long-standing discussion between us, I chose not to address it.

A similar thing takes place in your above quotation. You "remind" me that mut'ah without sexual gratification is pointless, despite the fact that this is in complete contradiction to the opinions and rulings of Shi'i scholars (number 2430):

https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2350/

People tend to use threads and forums to argue back and forth rather than to discuss constructively, so as a general rule I select what I see as being most likely to lead to the latter.

This is the main reason why I may not comment on certain parts of certain posts. It doesn't mean that I haven't read those parts or that I can't answer them, but rather that I'm prioritising what I think would be most fruitful.

Quote
The Blue Mosque, aside from being a mosque, is pretty much a tourist site, as much as I plan to visit it someday, insha'Allah.  The type of aqeedah lesson you receive from a local mosque, like I did, is not what you would experience there.

I see this differently and I will discuss it at some point in the other thread, insha'Allah.

Quote
Now we are talking and I am totally okay with there being a consensus (that virgins require their guardians' permission).  The issue, however, are the traditions which say that you can take virgins in mutah so long as their virginity are not spoiled.  The very purpose of mutah, as I stated earlier, was sexual gratification.  Without sex, mutah is pointless.  Now you have one more problem if you adhere to the oft-repeated mantra that mutah allows one to be mahram so couples can interact freely before they are married.  Mutah was not made permissible except for sexual needs.  So now your problem is two-folds:

1.  You support mutah but will not accept it for your own kith and kin.

2.  You have violated the very premise of mutah (by providing it as a solution in various circumstances when it was only made permissible to address the sexual needs of those who were in dire circumstances).

As I've said above, point 2 is not valid except according to your own interpretation, so it leaves me little room to comment other than to point this out.

Regarding point 1, if one's own kith and kin (by which I assume you refer to female relatives) were to contract temporary marriage, it would likely be due to them being divorced or widowed, in which case the consent or acceptance of family members would not be required, though it may be desirable.

Ibrahim

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #377 on: February 11, 2018, 01:15:38 AM »
Quote
How is it perfectly clear to me if you appear to agree with me but describe this issue as a point of dispute and explicitly negate what I just said? Surely, you didn't understand from me negating divorce being disliked as being a negation in general cases?

To return this to the original context, I suggested permanent marriage as a better alternative for the purposes you mentioned and you responded that deciding to permanently marry may eventually result in forcing you to do a disliked act, ie divorce. I told you that it wouldn't be disliked in that case, so since you agree with me, how is temporary marriage a solution for a problem that already has a solution and is much better in my opinion as it is optimistic in its intention and optimistic about a positive result?

GreatChineseFall, I haven't described this issue as a point of dispute, quite the opposite, as evidenced by my comments under the first quotation box in post #349 on page 18.
Your negation of divorce as disliked was not interpreted by me as a negation in general cases and did indeed appear to reference cases where there was a pressing consideration of some description. My introduction of the principle of the lesser of two evils, as explained in the first paragraph under the second quotation box of post #370 on this current page 19, is a clarification that I have neither misunderstood you nor do I perceive this issue on the whole as one of meaningful dispute for us.

What I do believe to be of meaningful dispute (as opposed to multiple points under multiple quotation boxes, which can become both pedantic and confusing) is the wider conceptual framework of this subject. Insha'Allah I will expand on this a bit later.

Marriage with intent to divorce, as implied by the better alternative to temporary marriage suggested by you earlier, surely would not constitute an acceptable case for divorce not being disliked, so you have not undermined the viability or practicality of temporary marriage in the original context under discussion.   

Quote
Proof? The fatwa I read didn't make a clear distinction between unmarried and married men.

It seems you are already familiar with the fatawa of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Al Sistani on this subject. You questioned why permanent marriage with Kitabi women should be allowed to a man with a Muslim wife while temporary marriage isn't, despite the fact that neither Ayatollah Sistani nor any other scholar I'm aware of allows this scenario.
However, you qualified your statement with "Nevertheless, what I then don't understand..." which, being interrogative, granted you plausible deniability; so I think this is something we can safely move on from.

Quote
Your continuous reference to the similarity with a permanent marriage is a diversion from the issue. I believe it's not similar and I would provide proof to refute your possible allegations regarding marriage, however this just prolongs the discussion unnecessarily. Since you pointed me to the fact that there may be Non-Muslims reading, why don't you simply respond by defending temporary marriage without referencing to permanent marriage as you will automatically also defend permanent marriage, killing two birds with one stone?

When asked in this way, as opposed to the definitive critical statements with which you initiated this line of enquiry, I find myself able to oblige.

Temporary marriage has been defined by Shi'i scholars as being the same as permanent marriage in all areas other than where there's a stipulated difference, such as in fixed duration, maintenance, inheritance and so on (page 495 of the following link). It is therefore appropriate to comprehend the rights of marriage on the whole, and then adjust this where necessary to those areas of specific difference.
In the link these can be found from page 473 through to page 481 and onward, though I would advise reading from page 465:


http://www.english.shirazi.ir/books/Islamic_Law_2013_SecondEdition.pdf


I will also present you with this link, which covers these rights and obligations from a less legalistic and more empathic angle:


https://www.al-islam.org/divine-perspective-on-rights-a-commentary-of-imam-sajjads-treatise-of-rights/right-n-20-right-wife


Quote
You misunderstand, I am speaking from the perspective of a logician. The argument isn't valid unless we state that what all Muslims agree to is always true. This only brings further premises to the table and it would look something like:

*What all Muslims agree to is always true.

*All Muslims agree that the Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed to anything inherently immoral

*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed to mut'ah

*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral

Instead of simply:

*The Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed anyone to do anything inherently immoral

*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed some to do mut'ah

*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral

It would be easier and bring clarity to your argument, because to be honest, I find your attempts to use deductive reasoning lacking in meticulousness or at the very least confusing. For example:

If you were to add an extra premise it wouldn't be problematic. I'd see your added premise as superfluous rather than incorrect, since if all Muslims agreed on something which wasn't true, it would mean that there aren't any groups or individuals in Islam who are on haqq - which Islam itself contradicts. Thus, the premise would only be needed for non-Muslims, which is superfluous to my aforementioned goal of finding a syllogism which you and I can agree on.

Quote
Ah, but here is the problem, because the notion of an inherently immoral act becomes ill defined then. I assumed that with "something inherent in something else" it was meant a quality or an attribute that is automatically or permanently present in something else. Meaning, I would be able to say:

- If an insane man performs an inherently immoral act it is not immoral
- If a man performs an inherently immoral act due to compulsion or overpowering circumstances it is not immoral.

If I would generalize it would be:

- If a man performs an inherently immoral act it is not inherently immoral.

This last sentence is utter nonsense for any random reader, unless it is explained that there are actually two different meanings to inherent, your meaning and my meaning. I am fine with your definition or usage, as I said as long as things are clear there should be no problem, but it should be very clear. However, this reveals the problem with your syllogism. If we say that an inherently immoral act is an act that is always and automatically immoral if done by a concious agent, capable of assessing the morality of such act, without compulsion, then the first premise is false or at least not necessarily true. It has to be changed:

*The Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed anyone to do any act that is immoral under the circumstances he instructs you to do it.

*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed some to do mut'ah

*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral

In this case, the argument is not valid

I agree that leeway must be given in definitions. To clarify, I explained at the outset that my introduction of the word "inherently" was to mitigate the chronological factor in our respective views. You believe that mut'ah was halal in the time of the Holy Prophet(saws) but that it's haram now, thus implying that either the circumstances, or the intrinsic morality of mut'ah itself, have changed.

To speak of "inherent morality" is not to differentiate it from morality sans qualifier, but rather to render the premises impervious to potential claims of a fluid moral substrate. The word "morality" by itself neither necessarily nor colloquially precludes considerations of sanity and circumstance.

Accordingly, "inherently immoral" represents a tautology which is only necessary for those who would, in this instance, assert that mut'ah was changed from halal into haram because its underlying moral nature somehow changed. For those who wouldn't assert this, and I presume you're one of them, "inherently immoral" and "immoral" may be regarded as synonymous.

If our disagreement on the Islamic ruling for the current legality of mut'ah need not correspond to a discrepancy in our views on the nature of mut'ah itself, it leaves you free as a Sunni to refrain from it and hold that it's no longer valid without having to condemn its practice among the Shi'a. It's an open opportunity to find common ground without undermining your own principles, but for reasons I am as yet still trying to discern, you seem resolute on resisting this and criticising mut'ah itself as if it weren't an Islamic teaching, which it indisputably was and arguably still is.

Your rewriting of the above syllogism is not logically required, because what's immoral doesn't necessarily preclude considerations of sanity and circumstance.
So in your first demonstration above, " - If an insane man performs an inherently immoral act it is not immoral", I hold that it wouldn't be valid to consider him a moral agent in the first place if he's truly insane. An insane man, in degree commensurate with that of his insanity, is incapable of performing an act which has a moral dimension to it. A moral or an immoral act generally involves the subject, the predicate and the object, so the states of each of these represent acceptable modifying agents in the concept of morality.

With the premise *All Muslims agree that the Holy Prophet never instructed to anything inherently immoral, this cannot be rendered logically incoherent by a subjective questioning of definitions. You have to demonstrate where there is a clear violation of definitions, or where there is a clear non-sequitur, or where there is a clear false clause, and so on.

If you're intent on rejecting my proposal for taking this discussion forward, perhaps you have your own suggestions on how this may be best achieved.

Quote
I don't really see the need to discuss the definition of promiscuity more than we already have, as long as there is clarity. I use the word promiscuity to avoid typing a very long definition. If you insist and want to make my life harder, I will avoid using the word promiscuity and type that definition. Otherwise, I don't really see how being promiscuous in a halal way is a contradiction in terms from the Shi'i perspective. What rights and boundaries? You have mentioned them a bunch of times now, but which rights and boundaries exactly prevent you from being promiscuous? Please quote the necessary material.

I have mentioned commitment without defining it clearly, because one might say that a neighbour is committed to his other neighbour or any person is committed to any other person. Commitment is simply dedication to achieve something. When we talk about commitment in the context of a sexual relationship, what is meant(or rather how I define it here, before you start a whole different discussion. As long as there is clarity we should be fine with any definition I come up with) any dedication in addition to any dedication one reasonably already has towards other people and to the exclusion of a commitment to achieve sexual gratification, to the exclusion of a commitment to financially compensate for trying to achieve that and to the exclusion of of a commitment not to have any other sexual partners. In this way we can say that a prostitute is not committed towards her client, which makes sense. There are actually others that should be excluded but for now, this is fine. In this case, I don't really see how someone NEEDS to be committed towards the other partner in a mut'ah marriage according to Shi'i scholars.

I will try not to make your life harder while reminding you that this discussion represents a crescendo of your own initial choice to debate statements I had made.

Your questions in the second paragraph on commitment in mut'ah - beyond mundane or platonic commitment but exclusive of financial or sexual considerations - are similar to your earlier question and will be covered by the provided links.

On promiscuity I see less a problem of definition as of wider concept, as I alluded to earlier. It's clear that Islam does not have the same concepts of sexuality as Christianity and I put it to you that whatever negative things you have in mind when you think of the word "promiscuity" may be as much derived from the Christian worldview as the Islamic one.


Neither of us approve of promiscuity. My opposition to it is that it entails acts done outside of Islamic boundaries; nothing more.

Your opposition to it appears to be that it entails the access of a man to multiple or impermanent sexual partners; yet this is allowable in Islam regardless of Shi'i - Sunni differences.

What becomes of your views on "promiscuity" in light of the lives of Nabi Dawood(as) and Nabi Sulaiman(as)?


http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=99511


What becomes of your views on "promiscuity" in light of the fact that the number of the Holy Prophet's(saws) wives is generally given as 11-15?

What becomes of your views on "promiscuity" in light of the lives of the Ottoman Sultans? Those who, from the reign of Sultan Selim l onward, were your legitimate Sunni Caliphs:


 http://www.theottomans.org/english/family/harem3.asp


http://www.turkishculture.org/architecture/harem-1013.htm


Your own Caliphs, in accordance with your interpretation of Islam, had literally hundreds of women sexually available to them at any one time; yet you're trying to criticise temporary marriage according to an ostensibly puritanical ethos for which I'm yet to see any Islamic validation.

I repeat that it's not so much your definition at question here as the source of your conceptual outlook, because it's evident that an outlook which attempts to stigmatise a man having numerous or impermanent sexual partners certainly isn't rooted in Islam.

A Roman Catholic who believes that celibacy is an ideal and that "pleasures of the flesh", even within marriage, are fundamentally negative and shameful, might be better qualified to represent the conceptual outlook you seem to have adopted.
In Islam however, where sexual relations with a legitimate partner may be regarded as an act of worship, your outlook appears to be eminently out of place.

Where does your outlook come from?

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #378 on: February 11, 2018, 10:21:27 PM »
You keep saying this yet have not once provide a single proof from the Quran or shia sunnah.

So far you’ve relied on sunni sources & took the position of Ibn Abbas.

We’re not here to debate with those who support Ibn Abbas position.

Your belief is not the same of the classical 12er position here.

So its pointless debating eachother on this issue.

Iv'e provided you with the ultimate proof over and over again. That what ever the Prophet's position was, that is exactly what the 12rs is. Now if my belief isn't the same as the 12rs, then what exactly is the 12r position? What you put forward and the meaning and explanation that you give? You can't even clarify your own position that why did the Prophet made Mutah permissible, what was the reason and purpose? And why did the Prophet suddenly prohibit Mutah, what was the reason and purpose? You know us and our sect better than us and you aren't even familiar with yourselves and your own position.

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #379 on: February 12, 2018, 12:54:10 AM »
Iv'e provided you with the ultimate proof over and over again. That what ever the Prophet's position was, that is exactly what the 12rs is. Now if my belief isn't the same as the 12rs, then what exactly is the 12r position? What you put forward and the meaning and explanation that you give? You can't even clarify your own position that why did the Prophet made Mutah permissible, what was the reason and purpose? And why did the Prophet suddenly prohibit Mutah, what was the reason and purpose? You know us and our sect better than us and you aren't even familiar with yourselves and your own position.

A twelver belief would be from a twelver source.

You have failed to provide this yet claim authority on the 12er position.

Deluded.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5554 Views
Last post February 22, 2015, 07:23:14 PM
by Rationalist
1 Replies
1746 Views
Last post February 23, 2015, 07:27:27 PM
by Hani
4 Replies
2470 Views
Last post February 07, 2016, 04:47:47 PM
by Optimus Prime
3 Replies
2325 Views
Last post January 08, 2020, 02:23:31 PM
by MuslimK