GreatChineseFall, Obligatory precaution does not necessarily mean "not allowed":
https://www.al-islam.org/the-basics-of-islamic-jurisprudence-hassan-al-ridai/jurisprudence-jargon
Here 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/marriage
https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/marriage
In the second link, please go to number 2406.
I didn't say not allowed, I said as per obligatory precaution it is not allowed(according to Sistani). And that is not the same as makruh and neither does recommended precaution mean that, but fair enough. However, there is a different judgment compared to mutah, which brings me to the following:
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.
As has been said before, divorce is only disliked without a valid reason. You can not have being in a marriage with a Christian disliked(or even forbidden) and ending a marriage with a Christian also being disliked. That would mean that no matter what you do, you would be doing something that is disliked. This is not possible.
In a permanent marriage you can also express hope that a conversion will take place and a lifelong commitment can be conditional. That would mean that a man can't commit to a wife who is not wearing her hijab or a woman can't marry a man who drinks for example until that behaviour has changed.
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.
So what about the married men? What if they are away in a Christian country or land with only Christian women. What is the solution to their situation and why can't they contract mut'ah and try to convert them? Why is it only allowed for unmarried men?
https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2349/See 2427. So you can't be away for more than four months.
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.
Fair enough, however the connotation that you are trying to push by stating that the Prophet(saws) "positively instructed" the companions to do mut'ah. He(saws) permitted it under very specific circumstances and for a short period of time. That would be the same as saying that the Prophet(saws) positively instructed the wife of Abu Juhayfa to breastfeed Salim, an adult companion. You might say that the period of allowing mut'ah was longer or that more companions did it, however that is of no relevance.
Secondly, something I forgot to mention before is the difference in what was allowed and what is currently considered to be allowed. Mut'ah was as I said was permitted under very specific circumstances where the choice was between castration and mut'ah. The same scenario applies to taqiyya for example. Sunni's believe that the circumstances under which it is allowed are very strict and find the concept of taqiyya in Shi'i thought extremely problematic and a license to deceive and lie.
So no, I disagree, people can critize and even ridicule the promotion of the unrestricted and recommended practice of breastfeeding adults as a license to promiscuity and the almost unrestricted and recommended practice of taqiyya as a license to deceive and lie just as much as they can do that for the almost unrestricted and recommended practice of mut'ah.
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.
I am not restricting its use in any way. Use mut'ah for whatever you like, it doesn't change the intended purpose of it though. A simple example would be the use of a screwdriver. Obviously, the intended use of a screwdriver is to unscrew things. You can then point out that with screwdrivers you can pick your nose with it or use them as chopsticks to eat your noodles or not do anything with it, you just want to observe it. That's all fine and do that if you want, as I am not restricting anything. It doesn't change the fact that the intended usage of a screwdriver is to unscrew things.
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?
I don't think you understand completely, refer again to my comment regarding unrestricted and recommended practice of adult breastfeeding. Maybe another example will help. This is what the late Fadhlallah declared with respect to pornography:
Q: Is it permissible for a frigid wife or husband to watch pornographic scenes?
A: I don’t think it has been scientifically proven that watching pornographic films is a reliable treatment for frigidity; on the contrary, it often has negative results. Also, morally speaking, this weakens moral immunity, and attaches people, even couples, to a mood of dissolution which makes man feel alienated from his wife when she fails to imitate the woman who plays the sexual role in the film, and makes the wife alienated from her husband if he fails to imitate the male figure.
Similarly, the same thing happens upon fornication. When a man fornicates with an experienced [Edited Out], he feels disappointed when his wife fails to offer moves similar to the ones offered by the [Edited Out], who has provided him with all elements of excitement. Perhaps this is one among the reasons that have led some jurists to forbid temporary marriage (mutaa) to common prostitutes. So, we believe that the x-rated movies and pornography have a negative impact on the spiritual, moral and family sides of a person; thus, I forbid it for spouses.
But, if a husband or a wife, or both suffer frigidity in the absence of any means of treatment, whether natural- through mutual excitation -or through medication, and if the only treatment is watching pornographic scenes, then this will be permissible, only because this is the only means, keeping in mind that this should be done apart from any excess, just like taking the proper dosage of the medicine prescribed, provided that this passive situation may threaten their matrimonial life.
You don't have to point out that Fadhlallah is not the Prophet(saws) or that such a situation hasn't occurred yet or that he is simply wrong, as it is not relevant for this point. All that matters is if someone would agree with him, does that mean that such a person would not feel embarrassed regarding unrestricted and recommended pornography or that Fadhlallah himself wasn't embarrassed regarding unrestricted and recommended pornography.
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.
Irrelevant
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?
No, because as you correctly stated it is "ONE OF THE primary rights" as there are many rights and also many obligations. We can't dissmiss them as peripheral because they are NOT peripheral, it's that simple. In the case of mut'ah, they are peripheral or totally absent and left to the discretion and mutual consent of the two engaged in it. 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.
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.
I have not much to comment here. Long story short, you have no problem with casual sex in general and no issue with being promiscuous?
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.
Embarrassement or rather shame is intrinsically connnected to the value, stature and honour of a person and one feels shame if their honour is attacked or their stature and value is perceived to be lowered. Basically, embarrassement or shame can be of three types. One can feel embarrassed because they feel inadequate or even worthless due to their situation in general, for example a person may have a deformity or consider himself unattractive. One can feel shame because they have been wronged and this wronging is humiliating and an attack on their honour, like a person who has been raped. These two types are not problematic because the person himself is not actively participating in any wrongdoing. The last one is feeling embarrassement because you are doing something wrong that attacks the honour of someone, possibly yourself, like doing zina.
However, the first two types can't apply to mut'ah because you are an active participant in this. What about embarrassement regarding carnal desires? People, at least Muslims(I can't speak for Christians) are not embarrassed by their carnal desires, as no one feels that it makes them inadequate or less of a man if they have those desires(maybe Christians do) and they are not actively doing something and no one is doing something to them. What they feel is shame to talk about their carnal desires in public and they feel this because it is considered a form of promiscuity to talk about this in public as they make listeners some kind of participants in the act. Therefore, they consider this promiscuous and wrong causing the honour of people to be attacked and the value of them to be lowered and ultimately corruption of morals. However, if you see no problem with promiscuity in its more direct form, I fail to see why its lesser kind should be problematic to you.
Another less direct form of promiscuity is pornography for example or using video connections to expose the awrah of people as it makes observers more or less participating in this. As far as I can tell, Shi'i scholars have no issue with mut'ah being contracted over the internet. Therefore, using a webcam for example, men and women can then also satisfy their sexual needs. There is no consummation either so women don't have to observe iddah and can switch from one partner to the next in a matter of minutes. Would this also not be problematic to you? This doesn't attack the honour of the participants according to you?
404 Replies
59759 Views
February 22, 2015, 07:23:14 PM