My goal was clearly laid out from the start of this discussion. The OP stated that the embarrassment of Shi'is regarding mutah is an indication of how immoral they themselves consider it without knowing, a statement I agree with. You attempted to explain this and additionally tried to defend mutah by stating that mutah is not a license to promiscuity. I challenged that statement and above that, I stated that the very fact that you feel compelled to state this is an indication of how embarrassed you are regarding the matter. As I said earlier "A greater sign of insecurity is when people are dishonest about what they believe because they are too embarrassed to openly stand for their beliefs. Why is almost every Shia dishonest about mut'ah?"
This resulted in a discussion regarding a couple of questions that were intended to show that one of the results of mut'ah, with the regulations and restrictions in Shi'i theology, is in fact a license to promiscuity. You chose to respond in a manner that only confirmed what I initially thought, namely you chose time and again to come up with examples that showed that even though the contract is temporary, the intention and the goal in that particular example was to have a permanent relationship. Whether this was mut'ah for the sake of the conversion of a Christian woman (the contract is temporary to give her time to convert, but the intention was to marry her permanently as a Muslim wife) or mut'ah for the sake of "halal dating" (the contract is temporary to give them time to know each other, but the goal was to marry permanently). The very fact that you feel compelled to do it this way, leads me to think that you yourself are embarrassed without realizing it.
In any case, I think it is beneficial to discuss whether or not the following things are requirements for a valid mut'ah marriage (and yes, also this time evidence is appreciated and yes, also this time the questions are rhetorical as I do not believe them to be requirements nor have I seen evidence to suggest this):
- Is it required for a temporary marriage to form an intention to attempt to establish a relationship that is indefinite or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?
- Is it required for a temporary marriage that the partners are committed (in the context of a sexual relationship) towards each other or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?
- Is it required for a temporary marriage that there is a fear of falling into sin or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?
I think these answers will help us in partially answering the question whether or not mut'ah, with the conditions and restrictions in Shi'i theology, is a license to promiscuity or not. I will remind you however that simply shrugging this off by stating that an absence of one of these things causes one to transgress the boundaries of Allah(swt), will not cut it. It is important to prove this claim and show which boundaries exactly we are talking about. (Also a link with with more than a paragraph to read is not appreciated and relevant portions can be quoted as it may turn out to be irrelevant)
GreatChineseFall, thank you for your post, which enables me to reflect on my own position in the process of responding.
I have touched on the subject of embarrassment before (I will not number the relevant posts, since your reply has been less argumentative in spirit, thus enabling me to respond without the burden of excessive formality) and I will further clarify.
First of all I will say that I've noticed that you have personality traits which seem fairly different from my own, so I feel this precludes the possibility of your being able to say of me that you "think that you yourself are embarrassed without realizing it."
Such an observation may well involve self-projection on your behalf and assumes that you've been able to successfully figure out that aspect of my character. I would advise you that this is not so.
It's actually quite an accomplishment within a friendship when individuals reach the level where they've developed an intuitive perspicacity for the other's mental moorings; it's unrealistic to think that this would be replicated here.
We all have life experiences which may affect us deeply but which we're unable to communicate effectively to other people.
This is partly what I referred to several posts back when I spoke of how the feeling of being misunderstood is common during debates due to the inability of prosaic expression to encapsulate the myriad thoughts, feelings and experiences of the individual interlocutors.
I can assure you that you have not seen all there is to see, as is true for us all.
May we all take this into account when considering the level of confidence we have in our opinions on matters in which there's much new understanding still awaiting us.
The OP's original question is a perceptive one, since it touches on something many Shi'a themselves find mystifying, namely the existence of negative attitudes within the community to something which is permitted and recommended.
Suffice to say I'm not embarrassed by this subject as can be inferred by my willingness to discuss it, though since others are, I have to navigate through the common concerns of the prevailing milieu.
Embarrassment is a sentiment many of us feel in relation to anything sexual and potentially anything corporeal.
This sentiment may often lead us to withdraw from things which are completely acceptable and halal and I gave the example of celibacy and monasticism in Christianity.
Other examples may include the stigma within the wider Muslim world that a man should marry more than one wife, or the question of sexual relations with ma malakat aymanukum.
Within the wider social sphere, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, we find that there are wives who feel shy and uncomfortable engaging sexually with their own husbands - a common reason cited by men who have extra-marital affairs.
This aspect of human nature is well-recognised and so it's not surprising that we find it in the Shi'a community in relation to mut'ah.
I will indeed, as you have kindly permitted, treat your three questions above as rhetorical. This is not only because I believe you're familiar enough with Shi'a sources to derive the answers yourself, but because I believe you already know the answers.
I have already referred the function of mut'ah whereby it's a facility for diverse situations, contingencies and exigencies and whereby it's a generous provision we should be thankful for. This is not something we need be embarrassed by nor is it a licence to promiscuity.
I appreciate your introduction of these three questions as means for resolution, though I believe, based on my deliberations on the last few exchanges, that resolution has largely been achieved and that there are superficial factors extending this dialogue. In a different environment or on a different site, I believe we would have found happier grounds for progress.
The only source of meaningful dispute I now see remaining is that we're having difficulty agreeing on what constitutes "promiscuity", which I will return to later.
Before that I will deal as concisely as possible with the multiple side-issues under multiple quotation boxes, a format which I continue to assert will be of no avail to anyone concerned.
I simply stated that I didn't fing anything that I consider relevant and I asked you to quote what was relevant. My dismissal in a few words can be easily addressed and even prevented by quoting a few words. I guess you spent several minutes (at the very least) to find this so spending a few seconds to quote what is relevant shouldn't be a major concern and it would prevent me spending several minutes to read something that may eventually turn out to be not so relevant.
You seem to be unaware that to demand "proof" or "evidence" is to introduce a formality. It means that what's provided as evidence must be of a scholarly standard, it must be relevant, it must be thorough and it must be comprehensive, among other things. The failure to meet any one of these criteria will leave the evidence open to being branded as weak or insufficient.
For you to make frequent demands for evidence (in many cases about things which it seems you already know) but to then object to the extensive nature of the evidence provided, is not what I would consider to be a reasonable attitude, though I don't find this reflective of your attitude on the whole, which I find admirable.
The provided links were fully and directly relevant to your enquiry and if you don't want to take the time to read through the kind of material I'm compelled to present, please don't request it.
Refer to my earlier comment regarding your change of stance regarding what obligatory precaution means where once it "doesn't necessarily mean "not allowed"" and later on it is "absolutely forbidden". If I made a mistake, I have no problem admitting it if you admit this mistake is caused by your misinformation, I can hardly be blamed for this.
In any case, whether we can move on or not doesn't necessarily depend on this possible mistake. There is difference in ruling between a permanent marriage and a temporary one regardless of what obligatory precaution exactly means. So I can simply ask again:
"‘’What I 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 only not allowed as per obligatory precaution and a temporary marriage is absolutely forbidden without a doubt. 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"?’’"
I certainly did not change my stance and your assertion to the contrary is errant. I clearly put "absolutely forbidden" in inverted commas and did so since they were your own words I was quoting back to you. For you to claim that your own quoted words have somehow become my own views on account of my having quoted them is incomprehensible, especially since their inaccuracy is the very reason I quoted them in inverted commas to begin with.
This is precisely the kind of thing I was referring to when I said that the multiple quotation box format has the capacity to generate more heat than light. I'm very conscientious of what I say and I'm sure you have the best of intentions, so please be more careful.
Again, how can it be an agreement where you quote me saying "It can't be that both options are disliked" and you respond by saying "and it can in fact be that both options are disliked"?
This is where I introduced the principle of the lesser of two evils and showed its validity according to your own Sunni interpretation of Islam; thus I'm affirming that we hold this principle in common.
Our "dispute" here was revealed to be semantic differences rather than divergent views, since your "It can't be that both options are disliked" doesn't appear to be an apt choice of words for someone who recognises the principle of the lesser of two evils.
Is this kind of dispute of any help or benefit to anyone? Shall we move on?
Yes, I point out two problems with your argument, one related to your first premise and the other with your second premise. So to make it even clearer for you to understand, (Assuming the second premise is true), the argument can't even be discussed due to the ambiguity of the first premise and (assuming the first premise is true), the argument does not hold as the second premise was not shown to be true and you chose not to comment further. How is pointing out two problems with two premises proof that unwilling to accept premises regardless what they contain?
And not discussing the second premise because it was clear that I would not accept your premises regardless of what they contain while discussing the first premise doesn't make sense. If that was the case, then there is no point in discussing further the first premise either so in light of that I will maintain that you were simply unable to prove the second premise as the reason why you didn't discuss it anymore.
You didn't "point out" anything but rather you voiced subjective objections to my premises which showed why they should, for you, preferentially be changed.
You did not find ways in which they must necessarily be changed, which would have been required of you were your objections to have been binding.
Latterly, you questioned my use of the word "inherently" which I then spent several paragraphs clarifying, though this seemed to remain a stumbling block for us.
Ultimately you didn't accept what I introduced as a means to bring about an amicable resolution, which was perhaps of more significance in itself than anything discussed.
Please keep track of what is being discussed. This wasn't about what is wrong with temporary marriage, this was about the question how temporary marriage is a better alternative to a permanent marriage and planning a divorce. You can claim it is better and I can claim it is not which is indeed an opinion of both you and me. However, claiming that the reason for it being better is because the latter may force you to do something that is disliked, ie divorce, is something that can be discussed whether or not is factually correct. I have shown you that divorce is not disliked with a legitimate reason. You have yet to show why this will not apply.
As for what the Prophet(saws) taught, the rules and regulations is what makes a practice worthy condemnation and since I do not believe that the Prophet taught the same sules with the same restrictions as Shi'i scholars do, this statement is simply irrelevant. Ibn 'Abbas might have been able to say this, Shi'is on the other hand, unfortunately not.
I will endeavour to keep track, as I'm sure you will too. It remains to be seen that marrying while "planning a divorce" could constitute a viable example of divorce not being disliked, though I will not require you to prove this.
It also remains to be proven that mut'ah in the time of the Holy Prophet(saws) was different from what is taught by Shi'a scholars, though again this proof is not something I require to be forthcoming from you, since I have stated my intention to focus on what I see as the core issues under discussion.
I don't think this is necessary, you have admitted that promiscuity is a transgression of the boundaries of Allah(swt) and I have mentioned this as the reason why people condemn mut'ah. You have not shown how our outlooks differ, rather you have confirmed that they are the same in this regard. The only difference is that you claim that mut'ah is not a license to promiscuity and I believe it is and this is what should be discussed. It is only natural and you should actually admire that I and others take a stand against mut'ah if what we believe is true and consider it a confirmation that our outlooks are not different from what you claim. And if you are a truth seeker and consistent, once you find out that mut'ah with its restrictions and conditions in Shi'i theology is in fact a license to promiscuity you should condemn it as well.
Are you implying that the Prophets(as) were promiscuous? If not, what is the relation between promiscuity and having halal access to numerous women? (I thought you were not going to make my life harder and understood what promiscuity is supposed to mean.)
It seems we have genuinely different understandings of "promiscuity", not so much in definition perhaps as in the extent to which its pejorative connotations overlap with Islamic marital concepts. This is the part of our discussion I'd like us to focus on, if you'd be so kind.
Am I implying that the Prophets(as) were promiscuous (na'udhubillah)? No, naturally I'm not implying this. The Anbiyaa(as) weren't considered promiscuous despite having, in some cases, many hundreds of wives and ma malakat aymanukum available to them according to our accounts. This is the point in itself.
Having halal access to numerous women does not make a man promiscuous or immoral, as demonstrated by the Anbiyaa(as). So, where does your objection come from? What does the word "promiscuous" even mean in this context?
The Ottoman Sultans, your Caliphs, had hundreds of women sexually available to them at any one time. They were able to do this within the boundaries of Shari'ah - halal relations according to your own interpretation of Islam.
Would you criticise your own Caliphs and call them promiscuous? What does the word "promiscuous" even mean in this context?
Since a man having numerous sexual partners is evidently not unacceptable in Islam, the pejorative word "promiscuity" has no application here. It can only apply to those engaging in relations outside of Islamic boundaries.
A chief difference is that outside Islamic boundaries, there are no pertaining rights, considerations or obligations which must be observed. Inside Islamic boundaries, be it temporary marriage, permanent marriage or relations with ma malakat aymanukum, there are always rights, considerations and obligations which must be observed.
This for me is what marks the boundary between halal sexual relations and "promiscuity". Promiscuity isn't merely about a man having numerous partners, since this is clearly halal in Islam and has been practiced and exemplified by the Anbiyaa(as). Rather, promiscuity is about people engaging in sexual relations outside of the boundaries laid down by Allah(swt).
Now we come to your own definition and your objections to mut'ah. It can hardly be imagined that you're merely objecting because you don't see mut'ah as being halal, since we've both known this since the beginning of the discussion and so there would've been nothing to discuss.
Therefore, if your objection to mut'ah derives from an underlying Islamic principle you believe mut'ah violates, what is it? Do you object to mut'ah in principle because you feel it's wrong in itself that a man can have access to numerous women? Is this your "promiscuity"?
If so then as stated, your objection is disqualified by the examples of the Anbiyaa(as) and by your own Sunni Caliphs. It means you have introduced a puritanical ethic which is not part of Islam.
Can you demonstrate an underlying Islamic principle which mut'ah violates? If not, then why not do as I've suggested: simply refrain from mut'ah yourself if you don't believe it's halal, rather than trying to question the morality of a known and recognised teaching of the Holy Prophet(saws).
404 Replies
59537 Views
February 22, 2015, 07:23:14 PM