TwelverShia.net Forum

Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #380 on: February 12, 2018, 10:09:25 AM »
A twelver belief would be from a twelver source.

You have failed to provide this yet claim authority on the 12er position.

Deluded.


And what would be a twelver source?

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #381 on: February 12, 2018, 11:55:46 AM »
And what would be a twelver source?

The Quran or a hadith from the Imams

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #382 on: February 12, 2018, 04:53:40 PM »
I don't think that's 100% correct. If one already has a Muslim wife and:
- wants to permanently marry and the wife doesn't consent, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.
- wants to permanently marry and the wife consents, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.
- wants to temporarily marry and the wife doesn't consent, this is haram without a doubt.
- wants to temporarily marry and the wife consents, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.

This is the way I understood Sistani's fatwa.

What is the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote?
محور المقاومة والممانعة

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #383 on: February 12, 2018, 10:19:30 PM »
The Quran or a hadith from the Imams

Ok, lets start off with the Qoran. What does the Qoran say about Mutah? Well it's obvious that when the Prophet made Mutah permissible then it must have been fine with Allah and the Qoran which is Allah's words. Now the difference between me and you lies with the Prophet . You believe that the Prophet prohibited Mutah and we believe he didn't. You haven't given me any explanation and reasoning to why the Prophet prohibited it to further the discussion. So this chapter is closed and done with.

Now any Sunni Scholar and what ever they say or have written, or any book written/put together by a Sunni regardless of how authentic it is, would it be reasonable and fair to say it would be part off the Sunni faith and belief? Should I automatically accept everything and anything from any Sunni scholar or book and believe that it is part of the Sunni belief and the view of the entire Sunni community? I am absolutely sure you understand where I am coming from. The same exactly applies to us. I rest this one with you.

Now when it comes to narrations or Hadiths, we do not accept anything and everything put forward to us and labelled by any Shia Imam or even the Prophet . It has to be examined and carefully looked at and the Qoran is the measuring device. Mujtahids, Ayatollahs/Scholars, their Fatwas and statements given need to be carefully understood. And the one who issues the Fatwa or gives the statement can only give a clear explanation and understanding about it. This is the same as narrations and hadiths. Just picking up and taking a hadith/narration/fatwa/statement and giving it your own explanation based on what you have understood has no ground.

There are two things here, Mutah is taboo within the Shia communitiy and Mutah is Mustahab [recomended] in the Jafferi [12r] sect. This is your belief and understanding. Is Mutah really taboo within the Shia communtiy or is it just not commonly and openly practiced? Which is it? Ask the Shias rather than jumping up and down yourself. According to Shia Scholar/s Mutah is Mustahab [recomended], what does this mean and how and in what way? Are there terms and conditions to it or what's the actual story? Ask the Scholars and get a full and up to date explanation and understanding rather than taking things out of context and giving them your own desired understanding and meaning.

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #384 on: February 12, 2018, 11:39:56 PM »
Ok, lets start off with the Qoran. What does the Qoran say about Mutah? Well it's obvious that when the Prophet made Mutah permissible then it must have been fine with Allah and the Qoran which is Allah's words. Now the difference between me and you lies with the Prophet . You believe that the Prophet prohibited Mutah and we believe he didn't. You haven't given me any explanation and reasoning to why the Prophet prohibited it to further the discussion. So this chapter is closed and done with.

Now any Sunni Scholar and what ever they say or have written, or any book written/put together by a Sunni regardless of how authentic it is, would it be reasonable and fair to say it would be part off the Sunni faith and belief? Should I automatically accept everything and anything from any Sunni scholar or book and believe that it is part of the Sunni belief and the view of the entire Sunni community? I am absolutely sure you understand where I am coming from. The same exactly applies to us. I rest this one with you.

Now when it comes to narrations or Hadiths, we do not accept anything and everything put forward to us and labelled by any Shia Imam or even the Prophet . It has to be examined and carefully looked at and the Qoran is the measuring device. Mujtahids, Ayatollahs/Scholars, their Fatwas and statements given need to be carefully understood. And the one who issues the Fatwa or gives the statement can only give a clear explanation and understanding about it. This is the same as narrations and hadiths. Just picking up and taking a hadith/narration/fatwa/statement and giving it your own explanation based on what you have understood has no ground.

There are two things here, Mutah is taboo within the Shia communitiy and Mutah is Mustahab [recomended] in the Jafferi [12r] sect. This is your belief and understanding. Is Mutah really taboo within the Shia communtiy or is it just not commonly and openly practiced? Which is it? Ask the Shias rather than jumping up and down yourself. According to Shia Scholar/s Mutah is Mustahab [recomended], what does this mean and how and in what way? Are there terms and conditions to it or what's the actual story? Ask the Scholars and get a full and up to date explanation and understanding rather than taking things out of context and giving them your own desired understanding and meaning.

Not a single verse from the Quran or a hadith from the Imams.

Just you waffling as usual.


iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #385 on: February 13, 2018, 08:39:14 AM »
Not a single verse from the Quran or a hadith from the Imams.

Just you waffling as usual.

I know this is an extremely lost argument for you.

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #386 on: February 13, 2018, 11:54:05 AM »
I know this is an extremely lost argument for you.

Trolling now are we.

You claim to follow Quran & Sunnah but can’t provide a single shred of evidence from the Quran or a hadith from your Imams.

Come on iceman. Not even one verse or hadith from the Imams?


iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #387 on: February 13, 2018, 12:31:47 PM »
Trolling now are we.

You claim to follow Quran & Sunnah but can’t provide a single shred of evidence from the Quran or a hadith from your Imams.

Come on iceman. Not even one verse or hadith from the Imams?

What is it that you want? What are you looking for? The Prophet (s) made Mutah permissible, he allowed it. And surely there must have been a reason and purpose for it. What are you running from? Why are you avoiding this?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 12:35:57 PM by iceman »

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #388 on: February 13, 2018, 12:42:10 PM »
Not a single verse from the Quran or a hadith from the Imams.

Just you waffling as usual.

Well it's obvious, you can't answer any question or ccomment 'on any point. So it has to be waffling to you.

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #389 on: February 13, 2018, 01:09:05 PM »
What is it that you want? What are you looking for? The Prophet (s) made Mutah permissible, he allowed it. And surely there must have been a reason and purpose for it. What are you running from? Why are you avoiding this?

I’m not running away. The topic is not whether the Prophet SAW made mutah permissable.
Rather it is mutah & its standing in 12er shi’ism.
You believe mutah is still permissable but only in certain circumstances.
You have failed to provide any hadiths from your Imams to back the latter claim.

Even if we both can say for arguments sake that mutah is permissable & was never banned.
Where is your proof its only permissable in certain extreme circumstances? Which of the 12 Imams said this in your hadiths?

The proof has been established that 12ers believe mutah is a recommended act & is praiseworthy without restricting it to extreme circumstances.
You have failed to provide one single hadith from the Imams to disprove this.
You & some modern shia scholars views that its for extreme circumstances is a new modern belief that is not supported by any hadith from your Imams.





« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 01:10:10 PM by zaid_ibn_ali »

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #390 on: February 13, 2018, 11:24:29 PM »
I’m not running away. The topic is not whether the Prophet SAW made mutah permissable.
Rather it is mutah & its standing in 12er shi’ism.
You believe mutah is still permissable but only in certain circumstances.
You have failed to provide any hadiths from your Imams to back the latter claim.

Even if we both can say for arguments sake that mutah is permissable & was never banned.
Where is your proof its only permissable in certain extreme circumstances? Which of the 12 Imams said this in your hadiths?

The proof has been established that 12ers believe mutah is a recommended act & is praiseworthy without restricting it to extreme circumstances.
You have failed to provide one single hadith from the Imams to disprove this.
You & some modern shia scholars views that its for extreme circumstances is a new modern belief that is not supported by any hadith from your Imams.

First of all you are among the accusers and you behave as the accused. Secondly the one who accuses should provide evidence and references to back their claim but you expect the accused to provide evidence of their innocence. The headline or title for this thread is, 'IS MUTAH REALLY HALAL FOR SHIA'. You're trying to prove that Mutah is considered halal but when it actually comes to doing it people frown and refrain from it. So therefore it is considered Taboo. I have already addressed this.

Then it has been claimed and you're trying to prove in this thread that according to Shia Scholars Mutah is a very virtuous and praiseworthy act by itself and on its own and is very rewarding like Umrah or Hajj. I have already said that you're taking things out of context and giving it your own desired explanation, understanding and meaning. You haven't provided any clear evidence from Shia Scholars regarding meaning, explanation and understanding about their Fatwas. It has to come from them and not you or anyone else.   

I have contributed a lot to this thread, not for you or anyone else but for the audience/viewers who are or will be  mislead about my community. Now your points in your present post, yes I most certainly do believe Mutah is permissible and I most certainly stand my ground. But not with arrogance and ignorance but with explanation and reasoning. You want references as evidence from me about my view from a Shia Scholar or one of the Shia Imams. I find this surprising that I give you evidence from a much more higher and superior authority and that is RASULULLAH but this doesn't satisfy you and doesn't sit well with you, but why?

If there is something clear and direct from the top man RASULULLAH himself then why should I turn to the Imams or Scholars who are well below and of a much lesser authority? You provide me with evidence that it is not as such. No proof has been established that Mutah is a virtuous and praiseworthy act on its own and by itself and will be highly rewarded like Umrah, Ziyaraath or Hajj according to the 12rs. You're putting forward views of certain Scholars and taking them out of context and giving them your own meaning, explanation and understanding.

By the way you have ended your post well by saying, "you and some modern Shia Scholars view that it's for extreme circumstances is a new modern belief" brother this is exactly what Fiqh is all about. Scholars hold different views be it Shia or Suni. Why take the view that suits you and your purpose and hold the entire Shia community at ransom over and because of that view? The 12r Madhab as you call it doesn't depend on the view of one or some Scholars. This is excatly what i have been trying to explain all along. And the same applies to Sunis.

If something is on offer or on sale or there is a benefit or comfort available/been given then surely and most certainly there will be terms and conditions attached to it and there will be a reason and purpose to it. What world do you guys live in, with adhab. Tell me or give me anything which isn't subject to terms and conditions and which doesn't have a reason and purpose? The Prophet made Mutah permissible and surely and most certainly there must have been a reason and purpose for it. And we all know by now what that is, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES and terms and conditions were attached to it. This is exactly the view of the 12r sect.

We stand firm and united with RASULULLAH and anything and everything that goes against it we do not accept. People have different views and opinion including you and I absolutely and completely understand that.

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #391 on: February 14, 2018, 12:29:54 AM »
First of all you are among the accusers and you behave as the accused. Secondly the one who accuses should provide evidence and references to back their claim but you expect the accused to provide evidence of their innocence. The headline or title for this thread is, 'IS MUTAH REALLY HALAL FOR SHIA'. You're trying to prove that Mutah is considered halal but when it actually comes to doing it people frown and refrain from it. So therefore it is considered Taboo. I have already addressed this.

Then it has been claimed and you're trying to prove in this thread that according to Shia Scholars Mutah is a very virtuous and praiseworthy act by itself and on its own and is very rewarding like Umrah or Hajj. I have already said that you're taking things out of context and giving it your own desired explanation, understanding and meaning. You haven't provided any clear evidence from Shia Scholars regarding meaning, explanation and understanding about their Fatwas. It has to come from them and not you or anyone else.   

I have contributed a lot to this thread, not for you or anyone else but for the audience/viewers who are or will be  mislead about my community. Now your points in your present post, yes I most certainly do believe Mutah is permissible and I most certainly stand my ground. But not with arrogance and ignorance but with explanation and reasoning. You want references as evidence from me about my view from a Shia Scholar or one of the Shia Imams. I find this surprising that I give you evidence from a much more higher and superior authority and that is RASULULLAH but this doesn't satisfy you and doesn't sit well with you, but why?

If there is something clear and direct from the top man RASULULLAH himself then why should I turn to the Imams or Scholars who are well below and of a much lesser authority? You provide me with evidence that it is not as such. No proof has been established that Mutah is a virtuous and praiseworthy act on its own and by itself and will be highly rewarded like Umrah, Ziyaraath or Hajj according to the 12rs. You're putting forward views of certain Scholars and taking them out of context and giving them your own meaning, explanation and understanding.

By the way you have ended your post well by saying, "you and some modern Shia Scholars view that it's for extreme circumstances is a new modern belief" brother this is exactly what Fiqh is all about. Scholars hold different views be it Shia or Suni. Why take the view that suits you and your purpose and hold the entire Shia community at ransom over and because of that view? The 12r Madhab as you call it doesn't depend on the view of one or some Scholars. This is excatly what i have been trying to explain all along. And the same applies to Sunis.

If something is on offer or on sale or there is a benefit or comfort available/been given then surely and most certainly there will be terms and conditions attached to it and there will be a reason and purpose to it. What world do you guys live in, with adhab. Tell me or give me anything which isn't subject to terms and conditions and which doesn't have a reason and purpose? The Prophet made Mutah permissible and surely and most certainly there must have been a reason and purpose for it. And we all know by now what that is, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES and terms and conditions were attached to it. This is exactly the view of the 12r sect.

We stand firm and united with RASULULLAH and anything and everything that goes against it we do not accept. People have different views and opinion including you and I absolutely and completely understand that.

So you admit you cannot provide anything from your Imams.
You claim you have provided proof from the Prophet SAW. What from sunni sources? Forget sunni sources. They are the followers of muawiya remember.
Where is this proof from the prophet SAW or his ahle bayt from your sources? Nothing in Quran, nothing in your hadith.

You have lost the plot.
You can’t find anything from your hadith books so you follow the sunni hadith books on this matter.

Are you a sunni 12er now?

« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 12:31:02 AM by zaid_ibn_ali »

Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #392 on: February 14, 2018, 06:06:45 PM »
Whoever says mut'ah is only halal under extreme circumstances is adopting a shadh view which does not represent the sayings of the greats amongst our fuqaha, whether they are dead or alive.

Mut'ah is halal and mustahab in and of itself, and it is a rewarding practice, but in some circumstances it can not be considered recommended. And there are proofs in our books to back that up.

I believe I posted this before, but these are some hadiths which can be used as proof to advise against mut'ah in some cases;

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031609-dr-farrokh-sekaleshfar-slams-mutah-obsessives/?do=findComment&comment=2824204
محور المقاومة والممانعة

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #393 on: February 14, 2018, 06:58:58 PM »
Whoever says mut'ah is only halal under extreme circumstances is adopting a shadh view which does not represent the sayings of the greats amongst our fuqaha, whether they are dead or alive.

Mut'ah is halal and mustahab in and of itself, and it is a rewarding practice, but in some circumstances it can not be considered recommended. And there are proofs in our books to back that up.

I believe I posted this before, but these are some hadiths which can be used as proof to advise against mut'ah in some cases;

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031609-dr-farrokh-sekaleshfar-slams-mutah-obsessives/?do=findComment&comment=2824204

Iceman what do you have to say about this?

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #394 on: February 14, 2018, 07:38:25 PM »
So you admit you cannot provide anything from your Imams.
You claim you have provided proof from the Prophet SAW. What from sunni sources? Forget sunni sources. They are the followers of muawiya remember.
Where is this proof from the prophet SAW or his ahle bayt from your sources? Nothing in Quran, nothing in your hadith.

You have lost the plot.
You can’t find anything from your hadith books so you follow the sunni hadith books on this matter.

Are you a sunni 12er now?

I admit that there is no need for me to provide anything from a lesser authority than Allah [Qoran] and Prophet [Sunah]. Those matters which are crystal clear from Qoran and Sunah do not need to be looked at further on grounds of evidence/proof. Those matters which are not obviously would be subject to such. For example a brother on another thread mentioned that as far as Ahle Sunah are concerned Allah [Qoran] and the Prophet [Sunah] are silent when it comes to the direct successor to Muhammad . Now such matters need to be looked at carefully.

I have mentioned this before but I will mention it again because it's important and related. You have the Messenger , when it comes to reality and facts and what is commonly agreed upon one does not need further  clarification/explanation or evidence/proof. The Prophet , not anyone else where one needs to look into but the Prophet himself made Mutah permissible, he allowed it.

BUT WHY? What was the reason and purpose? Surely there must be. Now was Mutah practiced openly and commonly during the Prophet's time? Was Mutah not practiced during the Prophet's time based on EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES? Were there not terms and conditions? This is the main point and argument which you're avoiding. This is what needs to be discussed and ironed out and only then we can get a clear picture.

Now the references you and other brothers have quoted from Shia Scholar/s and sources can they be examined and backed by Allah [Qoran] and or Prophet [Sunah]? This is what is vital and extremely important. And those references from Shia sources that have been quoted what exactly is their explanation and understanding? They need to be clarified.

You mentioned the name 'Moawiya'. What has this name and individual got to do with this thread and discussion. Please don't bring in any companions into the discussion who don't have anything to do with it. Reality and facts, what is agreed upon collectively has got nothing to do with Shia or Suni or doesn't require evidence/proof.

iceman

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #395 on: February 14, 2018, 07:56:56 PM »
Iceman what do you have to say about this?

This is to you and the one who forward it, to both brothers. Those references which have been quoted from Shia sources and be it Scholars or books are they above Allah [Qoran] and the Messenger [Sunah]? Secondly what has been quoted who can explain and clarify that and give the exact understanding and reason and purpose to and for it? You and I? What, us lot?

Thirdly and most importantly did or did not the Prophet himself made Mutah permissible? Yes or no? We all know the answer to this and WHO DISAGREES? ANYONE? Why and what for was Mutah made permissible? What was the reason and purpose? What did the Prophet exactly say about Mutah? Why and how was Mutah practiced during the Prophet's time?

This is excatly what needs to be looked at and discussed. I am not saying that Mutah needs to be practiced due to exceptional circumstances or based on terms and conditions due to extreme and urgent situations. What I am saying is what exactly was the situation of Mutah during the Prophet's time? This is what needs to be looked at and applied. This is what needs to be taken into account.

The rest is the opinion and point of view of Scholars. And be it Shia or Suni Scholars do disagree with each other some matters of Fiqh.

GreatChineseFall

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #396 on: February 19, 2018, 12:44:28 PM »
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.

So you were agreeing with me the whole time? So when you said something like "your example pertains to all muslims so i dont see it as a meaningful dispute and it can in fact be that both options are disliked", what were you responding to and what does example refer to and what do you mean with "both options are disliked"?

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.
I disagree, it might be disliked from a Sunni perspective(and even then I doubt it would), but for someone who argues that temporary marriage is acceptable, I don't see how marriage with intention of divorce is problematic if disclosed and agreed upon by both partners. Why do you think divorce is disliked in the first place?

By the way, there is no intention of divorce in the first place, because it is assumed that it will continue and there is divorce only under certain circumstances. A man may marry a wife who is probably incapable of conceiving and intent on divorcing her if he comes to know that she can't conceive. This is acceptable and there is no intention of divorce in this case, meaning an intention to divorce under almost all possible circumstances

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.

No I am asking you, so if your views do not match Sistani's, I can't judge or criticize your views without knowing them. It would be first of all necessary to know what your views are. This question came out of a earlier question regarding the permissibility of marrying Christians. You said it was allowed (makruh you said, even though that was not exactly correct). Since Sistani ruled that it is haram without a doubt to marry temporarily a wife, not just obligatory precaution, I assumed that this is something most scholars agree upon. If this is incorrect, I would like to see proof.

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.pdf


I 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-wife

You still haven't answered the question a non-Muslim might have regarding what other rights and obligations there are. I have read the links and didn't find anything. It is also considered a cop-out to just paste links to a book and say "read it, it is in there". You can simply quote the relevant part, it shouldn't be more than a couple of sentences.

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.
It would be as superfluous as adding that Muslims agree on something that is supposed to be true. By the way,it isn't superfluous as only trivial matters shouldn't be stated and it is not as trivial as you may think, even for Muslims, at least not to me. Also, if i dispute the first premise we would have to dissect it anyway as I might only dispute the second part or both parts or just the first part. It is preferable to state premises consisting of a single idea. It is simply unnecessary to do it this way and as I said, it would only complicate matters more.

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.

What? How did you get that I said that leeway must be given? I said the exact opposite, I wanted clarity. I dont care what considerations it doesn't necessarily preclude, I care about what it necessarily includes and excludes, your statements are too vague and if not made clear tyhey can't be discussed.

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.
I didn't question definitions, I said that it's not properly defined. Depending on your definitions, your argument may suffer from equivocation, premise might be false or the conclusion may simply be true by virtue of your definition or other premises, not because of your chosen premises and it would create a false impression if I agreed. So unless you make clear exactly what you mean, it can't even be discussed.

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 reject your proposal, I am disagreeing with you. Since you didn't even discuss the second premise, it becomes clear that your argument does not hold.

Neither of us approve of promiscuity. My opposition to it is that it entails acts done outside of Islamic boundaries; nothing more.
Which boundaries?

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.
That is incorrect, so your examples are not relevant.

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?
That is simply something you assert without proof.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2784 Views
Last post February 22, 2015, 07:23:14 PM
by Rationalist
1 Replies
697 Views
Last post February 23, 2015, 07:27:27 PM
by Hani
5 Replies
1265 Views
Last post May 23, 2015, 12:06:11 AM
by Farid
4 Replies
653 Views
Last post February 07, 2016, 04:47:47 PM
by Optimus Prime