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.
Friendship is definitely not necessary. A bully's behaviour can be recognized as the projection of insecurities, he doesn't have to realize it, he probably will not realize it even if you point it out to him and still you can be pretty confident that is the case. So far you have mentioned several things that are interesting to observe:
- first you provide observable objective facts by stating that young couples contract mut'ah with the stipulation of no sexual intercourse in order to show that "This reality is in stark contrast to the ideas of those who try to paint mut'ah as some sort of licence for promiscuity." When challenged about that, it suddenly became about the "association of the word promiscuity" and objective facts didn't matter that much anymore
- at the same time you referred to sunni's forcing themselves into "celibacy" even though celibacy is by definition the voluntary abstinence from intimacy, never really caring about the association then.
- by merely mentioning that Imam al Hassan married frequently and divorced frequently, you slandered me by accused me of slandering him, rejecting any notion of him doing that for valid reasons.
- in the same breath you mentioned that "If we feel secure in what we are following, we don't feel the need to slander others and bring them down; instead we reach out to pull them up."
- you mentioned that the madhab of the Shia does not revolve around "denigrating Abu Bakr and 'Umar, so even if every hadith in favour of them were authentic, there would be no contradiction with our beliefs."
- you question the accounts of Imam al Hassan and his marriages on the basis of logistics while at the same time seeing no problem with mentioning over 30 million people gathering in a city that is in its entirety no larger than 45 km2.
- you have no trouble coming up with a reason as to why a person with 4 wives may be in need of mut'ah saying that he may do this because those women may be in need of financial support (while again not even able to fathom how Imam al Hassan could have married frequently and divorced frequently for valid reasons)
- you reject the example of the children of Adam(as) due to possibly different needs and different laws, yet you feel it necessary when discussing previous Anbiyaa(as) when discussing promiscuity.
- you reject shia ahadeeth on the basis of being inauthentic and even say that al Majlisi didn't authenticate it and when proven wrong and in fact shown that the entire purpose of writing the book was to provide gradings for all the narrations, you chose to remain silent on the matter
- you claim consensus on the marriages of Imam al Hassan among Shia and when challenged to prove that you chose to remain silent on the matter.
- you were asked to call all the shia scholars, who believed in the narrative of Imam al Hassan's multiple marriages and divorces, wrong in slandering him and going against the word of the Prophet(saws), you chose again to remain silent on the matter.
- you mentioned that mut'ah with Kitabi women is permissible as opposed to the obligatory or recommended precaution of not permanently marrying them, yet it is disliked to have children with them.
- you mentioned that mut'ah was practised in much more than just pressing situations, when asked to substantiate that claim and even proven wrong you chose to ignore that.
- you mentioned the Prophet(saws) "instructing" people to do mutah and even "showed them how to do it", when asked to prove that you can't do more than come up with a couple of narrations that aren't even close to instruction and you chose to reject that as "subjective objection"
- you find yourself unable to address a question regarding the use of webcams without any specific fatwa allowing it and in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH you mention the principle of "permissibility in the absence of prohibition, not the other way round."
This is just a few of the things you have done, as there are many more things you state. Perhaps your statement regarding the madhab of the Shia and their view of Abu Bakr and Umar is most telling. I think you underestimate how much one can observe from one's writing. In any case, if I am unable to conclude anything, it's my lack of capabilities, rather than lack of opportunity. You should realize many Shi'a have come to this forum and you would be surprised how similar many are
At the same time, I don't think that you are capable of "noticing personality traits" better than noticing emotional feelings as the former is usually much harder than the latter.
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.
I doubt many Shia find it mystifying, most have an idea regarding where these negative attitudes come from, whether they agree with that or not. I also have my doubts regarding your lack of embarrassment as there is not much discussion if questions are answered evasively.
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.
First of all, shyness and uncomfortability is not the same as embarrassment. Second of all, you attempt to show that the reason for embarrassment regarding mut'ah stems from an embarrassment regarding anything sexual. I doubt this is the case, as if that were the case, the same would apply regarding marriage, however that is not true.
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.
I will treat your comments here as an admission in the affirmative to my questions, because I believe you also already know the answers.
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.
I don't object to the extensive nature of evidence, I object to your unwillingness to clarify something that to my understanding is neither evidence nor relevant (but still extensive). If you read what I said, I said that I did read it and didn't find it at all relevant to my question, so if you don't want to take the time to clarify the material you present, please don't provide it.
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.
Your statements are misleading whether that is intentionally or unintentionally as they create the false impression of invalidating something I previously said or asked. What could you possibly mean by "not allowed" and "absolutely forbidden" where obligatory precaution is "absolutely forbidden" and doesn't necessarily mean "not allowed"
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?
It does not make sense to me to explicitly negate what was said previously because of a mere semantic difference, perhaps that was not an apt choice of words. It also does not make sense to me to describe something as a false dilemma by mentioning a third option, creating the impression that if there is no third option, it would be a true dilemma.
Furthermore, if we agree on the terms used and don't disagree regarding what is meant, then there can't be a semantic difference. For example, if you say disliked doesn't mean that you receive a reward for not doing an act but don't incur a sin for doing an act, then there might be a reason for disagreeing semantically. If that is not the case, then you can't simply decide what to state or what not to state as being an apt choice of words because it suits you. Perhaps you would like to argue that saying "it's not possible that all your options are forbidden" is also not an apt choice of words. Perhaps, if you stuck more to the true meaning of the words, you would not conclude so easily that one who marries and divorces frequently can not have a valid reason for this and claiming such would not be an attack on his character.
Also, if this is the reason why we disagree on the word promiscuity, then things have become clearer for me as well.
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.
Your assertion that I didn't point out anything is what is subjective here. Secondly, I don't ask you to change anything essentially. I merely asked you to replace your terms by their definitions. This isn't anymore a change as asking you to translate it in French, as the truth that is contained should still be preserved exactly. I proposed a definition and showed how it was suffering from a fallacy, you rejected my definition and didn't provide another one. Therefore, it remains unclear whether or not it suffers from a fallacy.
The use of the word "inherently" remained a stumbling block, because you didn't clarify what it meant only what it could mean, which is not helpful.
As for me not accepting, you can't really accept something that you don't understand. Whether this was due to you not clarifying enough or me simply not understanding well, it's only logical that I can't accept it. Perhaps it's merely a "semantic difference" and your assertion that mut'ah is not immoral whether inherently or not, is for someone who believes in its prohibition, not an apt choice of words.
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.
Of course honoring an agreement would be a valid reason. Not only would it be a valid reason, there would be valid grounds for the wife to demand divorce based upon that agreement. You can't use the opinions of Sunni scholars who forbid this or the moral paradigm upon which their rulings are based. The prohibition of such an agreement stems from its similarity to mut'ah and because of the deception involved. You can't say "This is forbidden because it resembles mut'ah, I have something better for you, just do mut'ah". That doesn't make any sense, it has to be discussed from a moral paradigm where mut'ah is encouraged and there is no problem with a temporary relationship.
Also, of course I don't need to prove anything to you nor do you need to prove anything to me, especially if it's not the main dispute of this discussion, however if you want to give me advice and if you want that advice to be taken seriously and be considered meaningful, then you have to make sure the advice is not based upon facts that are disputed, otherwise you have to prove them. So your advice that what Shia scholars teach was the teaching of the Prophet(saws) is as meaningful to me as my advice to you that you permit something the Prophet(saws) has prohibited.
As for the current teaching of Shia scholars, I have already given proof that even when mut'ah was allowed, it was due to necessity and that even Ibn Abbas who didn't believe in its prohibition argued this which is different from the current teaching of Shia scholars. As a matter of fact, I have no reason to believe it was the same teaching of early Shia scholars as there is historical evidence there was no waiting period for example, let alone a teaching from the Prophet(saws) himself.
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.
Here is the issue, at first you state "It's not unusual for mut'ah to be contracted, with the stipulation that no intercourse will take place, in order for young couples to see if they're compatible before committing to permanent nikah. This reality is in stark contrast to the ideas of those who try to paint mut'ah as some sort of licence for promiscuity." So you are bringing observable and objectively assessable facts on the ground (ie "halal dating" with no intercourse) to show that promiscuity is not allowed. This gives the impression there is an objective understanding of the word promiscuity which can be discussed objectively.
Next, you say promiscuity by definition is immoral, where it wouldn't make sense to show that halal dating is done and describe this as "in stark contrast" with the idea of promiscuity being allowed.
Now you say that it's perhaps not so much a disagreement regarding the definition, rather the connotations that one has, where it would also not make sense to show "good" examples for what mut'ah could be used for.
So the question still remains, what kind of reality should be presented to show that it's perfectly in line with the idea of a licence for promiscuity? If you say none, then it's misleading to state what you state.
As for your pejorative connotations, that stems from the Christian moral paradigm that has influenced the English language, so if you want to argue that one should get rid of himself of the unlawful puritanical Christian attitude, you start by embracing a word that describes what is allowed according to you. For example, if slavery has negative connotations in a secular liberal moral paradigm, it would be very misleading to deny that Islam permits slavery, as it obviously does. You can point out the necessary conditions for slavery to be acceptable etc. but any denial would be a clear indicator of embarrassment on the denier's part.
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.
Again, the negative connotation is a result from a certain moral attitude, so if you find that attitude puritanical, you shouldn't be bothered or embarrassed by it. Perhaps you are suffering from the Christian puritanical attitude more than you realize.
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.
The problem is that we differ on what Islamic boundaries are. If Shia scholars for example argue that a father of a child from a mut'ah marriage is not responsible for his food and clothing but he has an obligation to give him a proper Islamic name, it would still be considered neglect of the child and such obligations would be considered insignificant and not worthy of consideration at all.
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).
This can't possibly be a valid understanding of the word promiscuity. Incest is not necessarily promiscuous, just as pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality, even though all of them are not permissible in Islam. Promiscuity clearly has a more specific meaning as an English word that can be used by atheists, Christians and Muslims without referring to Islamic morals.
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).
Again, promiscuity isn't merely having access to numerous women, nor was it ever argued that that was the problem. If a farmer in Africa has hundreds of women because he wants to have as many children as possible, it's not promiscuous. Promiscuity isn't just about being able to engage in a relationship with many women, it's about being able to engage and disengage in a relationship. Perhaps you described it quite well when you objected to the notion of Imam al Hassan's many marriages and divorces when you said "that they were married and divorced frivolously and according to whim". So promiscuity is engaing and disengaging in a sexual relationship frivolously and according to whim where the stability of a relationship becomes dependent on whims and desires.
First of all, this is definitely not allowed for women in Islam, as a woman can't divorce without a valid reason, a female master can't have any relationships with her servants and a female slave doesn't get to decide who she can have a relationship with. This already is an important difference despite what men are allowed to do because it removes the possibility of a lot of problems arising. On the other hand, women can be promiscuous according to Shia scholars.
As for men, they should not divorce without a valid reason especially if children are involved and slaves can't be sold ever again if they bear a child, so this also prevents promiscuity if children are involved, not to mention that it is encouraged to free them and marry them. This is in line with the underlying moral principle to have stable families and letting children be raised in such families, something the teaching of Shia scholars clearly contradicts.
404 Replies
57127 Views
February 22, 2015, 07:23:14 PM