This doesn't prove anything. It says "A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim, and a male Muslim also cannot marry a non-Muslim woman who are not Ahlul Kitab. However, there is no harm in contracting temporary marriage with Jewish and Christians women, but the obligatory precaution is that a Muslim should not take them in permanent marriage." So as per obligatory precaution it is not allowed, that is different from makruh. Who are those other scholars?
Regardless of it being makruh, why is it different from mut'ah if conversion is sought? A Kitabi woman can convert due to a permanent marriage just as well as due to a temporary one. As far as the permanent one is concerned, you can always divorce after the same period of a potential temporary one if things don't work out
GreatChineseFall, Obligatory precaution does not necessarily mean "not allowed":
https://www.al-islam.org/the-basics-of-islamic-jurisprudence-hassan-al-ridai/jurisprudence-jargonHere are the links you requested to scholars who allow (recommended precaution as opposed to obligatory precaution) permanent marriage with Kitabi women:
http://www.english.shirazi.ir/topics/marriagehttps://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/marriageIn the second link, please go to number 2406.
As for the similarities you suggest between temporary and permanent marriage where conversion is sought, I believe you've partially answered your own question with reference to divorce. Divorce is a highly makruh act which temporary marriage avoids.
We also have to consider the differences in niyyah and in practical application: a temporary marriage, with the expressed hope that conversion will take place, is a lot different from a permanent marriage in which the wife has been offered a lifelong commitment while still being Jewish or Christian.
If it is unlikely, then all the more reason not to allow more than four women, permanently and temporary in order to avoid abuse. Additionally, as per Shi'i scholars, it is not allowed to stay away for that long from one's wife and maybe he should divorce his wives so that his wives can move on instead of being neither married nor unmarried.
On the contrary, surely it's better to have halal options for diverse contingencies and exigencies.
One of the things that separates Islam from other religions is that it is universal and provides for us in whatever state or situation we may find ourselves in.
If you're aware of a consensus among Shi'i scholars of a particular time limit for absence from one's wives, please elucidate if you feel it pertains to the discussion.
Marrying siblings was made halal for the children of Adam(as), alcohol was halal during the time of our Prophet(saws), that doesn't take away one's right to critize the practice once it is forbidden
The alcohol example is inadmissable because the Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed anyone to drink alcohol - a dissolute practice which was forbidden in stages; whereas he positively instructed the Muslims to do mut'ah.
While your example of Nabi Adam(as) is more apposite, that was a different time, with a different state of humanity and a different Shari'ah.
Mut'ah however was made halal under our current Prophet(saws) whose Shari'ah is valid for our current humanity until the Yawm-ul-Qiyamah.
Taking this into account, then even if you believe mut'ah has been abolished, surely it's inappropriate to refer to it disparagingly.
Irrelevant, Muslim women may earn a living from this practice, that doesn't mean that that is the intended purpose of mut'ah. What the consequences are or what it is used for, is irrelevant as to the reason why mut'ah is allowed. Mut'ah isn't allowed so that people have an extra da'wah tool to use. And why is it forbidden for married men? Are unmarried men the only ones who are suitable to show good akhlaq and convert them?
Here you are defining mut'ah on your own terms. You have definitively stated that "mut'ah isn't allowed so that people have an extra da'wah tool to use.".
What authority do you have to restrict the applications of mut'ah to those you yourself perceive?
Please refer to 2430 in the above link.
This is what you don't seem to understand or are unwilling to understand. All those examples are convenient from an apologetic point of view. You may try to convert a Kitabi woman, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You may try to get to know each other, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
It is perfectly fine to contract a mut'ah marriage for the sole purpose of satisfying one's sexual needs and this is what you are unwilling to defend. As I said, a greater sign of insecurity is if people are dishonest about what they believe because they are too embarrassed to openly stand for what they believe.
You've made yourself clear and I understand you very well as I did in the previous post.
According to your own narrations, the Holy Prophet(saws) instructed the sahaaba to do mut'ah for "the sole purpose of satisfying one's sexual needs", so why would you expect me to feel "embarrassed" about this?
Just as it can be contracted for sexual needs to be met in a halal way, it can also be contracted for other reasons with the stipulation that no sexual contact will take place.
Your insistence on the primacy of the sexual aspect is of no ultimate consequence, since Allah(saws) has blessed us with a Deen which addresses all our needs, both spiritual and temporal.
The word "mut'ah" is derived from an Arabic root which connotes pleasure, while the word "nikah" is derived from an Arabic root which connotes sexual intercourse. Since one of the primary rights of a man in nikah, according to all Muslims, is sexual intercourse, can we therefore dismiss as peripheral all the other aspects of nikah and say that marriage itself is essentially just a sexual arrangement?
My reference to promiscuity was on account of the negative connotations the word has in the English language.
It is within these cultural parentheses that I have also brought attention to the differences between Islamic teachings and Christian attitudes; and this in turn is demonstrative of the wider reality that many people are embarrassed about sexuality in general and often close off legal avenues. For example Allah(swt) has stated in the Holy Qur'an:
ثُمَّ قَفَّينا عَلىٰ آثارِهِم بِرُسُلِنا وَقَفَّينا بِعيسَى ابنِ مَريَمَ وَآتَيناهُ الإِنجيلَ وَجَعَلنا في قُلوبِ الَّذينَ اتَّبَعوهُ رَأفَةً وَرَحمَةً وَرَهبانِيَّةً ابتَدَعوها ما كَتَبناها عَلَيهِم إِلَّا ابتِغاءَ رِضوانِ اللَّهِ فَما رَعَوها حَقَّ رِعايَتِها ۖ فَآتَينَا الَّذينَ آمَنوا مِنهُم أَجرَهُم ۖ وَكَثيرٌ مِنهُم فاسِقونَ
Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented. We ordained it not for them. Only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers. (Holy Qur'an 57:27)
From Christan history we know that monasticism involved them enforcing celibacy upon themselves and closing off what Allah(swt) had permitted for them.
There's no apparent reason why the "embarrassment" you speak of with regard to mut'ah is different from the common human embarrassment pertaining to carnal desires in general, the same embarrassment which caused monks and priests to impose celibacy on themselves or which causes modern Westerners to criticise the marriages of the Holy Prophet(saws).
Since there's no Islamic sanction for these attitudes, they're not something we as Muslims need consider ourselves fettered by.
I hope I have hereby clarified any lingering ambiguities.