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.
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.
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.pdfI 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-wifeYou 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.
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.
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=99511What 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.asphttp://www.turkishculture.org/architecture/harem-1013.htmYour 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?
404 Replies
57171 Views
February 22, 2015, 07:23:14 PM