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.

Ibrahim

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #397 on: February 28, 2018, 07:38:08 PM »
GreatChineseFall, Thank you for your post.
I think we have to identify what you would like to achieve from this dialogue. It’s a dialogue of your own initiation following on from a number of questions you chose to raise.

So far you've been advancing various reasons as to why you personally disagree with temporary marriage, some of which are quite inventive; but what this doesn’t do is to successfully undermine those teachings from a scholarly perspective if that’s somehow your goal, and I’m sure you’re aware of this.
In a similar vein, since it’s evident that you’re familiar and conversant with the teachings of Shi’i scholars on this subject, a didactic impulse for dialogue seems unlikely to be your motivation.

Your frequent requests for ‘’proof’’ appear to be rhetorical devices rather than genuine requests for elucidation. I say this due to the way you have responded to such evidence when given. For example, at the top of post #235 on page 12, I provided you with precisely the evidence you had requested in previous posts.
In your response #252 on page 13, you had the decency to say ‘’fair enough’’, yet not without hemming this in with objections in the preceding and succeeding sentences.

Similarly, under the third quotation box in my post #377 on page 19, I provided you with precisely the evidence you had requested about the rights of the wife in temporary marriage. Aside from the considerable time involved in finding suitable evidence to match your specific enquiry, I made the effort to read through it so as to be able to tell you the segments you might want to start reading from.
The two links provided not only contain the requested evidence, but do so from two different angles, one legalistic and the other empathic and philosophical. Your response was to dismiss them both in a few words.

If you’re going to regularly demand ‘’proof’’, which is your right, then the corollary response on your behalf is to gracefully accept it when provided.

Once again, I will endeavour to deal briefly with what I see as peripheral issues in order to focus on what I consider to be of substance.

Quote
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"?

You can call it agreement if you like. I was pointing out that your counter-examples don’t provide any perceivable benefit over the teachings you set out to oppose.

Quote
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

Here you express your various opinions, which is fair enough. However, again, this personal stance of yours has no contradictory value to the teaching of temporary marriage, a teaching which I will continue to remind you is a teaching of the Holy Prophet(saws).

Quote
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.

‘’Nevertheless, what I then don't understand if a Christian impinges on "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion" is that a permanent marriage is possible but discouraged and a temporary marriage is absolutely forbidden. So, it is then better to permanently marry such a Christian then to temporarily marry her! How does that make sense if it is against "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion"?’’

Above are your words, verbatim. You question a teaching which doesn’t in fact exist. It’s clearly a mistake, and since we all make mistakes, shall we move on?

Quote
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

Here you say the "argument does not hold", whereas in your previous paragraph you say "it can’t even be discussed". I think it’s clear that you will not accept my premises regardless of what they contain, and this itself is why I didn’t "discuss the second premise".   


I would've appreciated a considered response from you regarding the overall conceptual outlook behind your views. This discussion being of your own initiation, there is yet one insight I’d hoped to garner from it for my own understanding and I will express it, or re-express it, in this simple question:

Why do some Muslims hold puritanical views, when Islam does not teach a puritanical moral outlook?

I’ve been hoping that you’ll provide me some insight into your own way of thinking on this but you’ve chosen not to elaborate on it in any of your posts, and so the question remains unanswered and thus gives way to the assumed conclusion.

This conclusion is that Sunni brothers who criticise mut’ah do so in heedlessness of the realities surrounding the fact that the Holy Prophet(saws) himself  taught mut’ah.

Sunni brothers who try to paint mut’ah as allowing promiscuity and licentiousness are unaware of the realities of the lives of the Anbiyaa(as), in that there’s nothing un-Islamic about a man having halal access to numerous women.

These Sunni brothers are unaware of the realities of the lives of their own Caliphs, such as the Ottoman Caliphs who had literally hundreds of women sexually available to them at any one time.

In light of the above, and in light of the numerous ahadith and the numerous ayaat of the Holy Qur’an promising carnal rewards for the mu’mineen in Jannah, it’s clear that puritanical attitudes do not belong in Islam and are derived from elsewhere.

Shi’a Muslims are thus fully justified in accepting mut’ah as part of deen, not only in maintaining that it was banned by no higher an authority than ‘Umar, but also due to its complete compatibility with the overall moral outlook taught by Islam.

GreatChineseFall

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #398 on: March 02, 2018, 08:53:25 AM »
Quote
GreatChineseFall, Thank you for your post.
I think we have to identify what you would like to achieve from this dialogue. It’s a dialogue of your own initiation following on from a number of questions you chose to raise.

My goal was clearly laid out from the start of this discussion. The OP stated that the embarrassment of Shi'is regarding mutah is an indication of how immoral they themselves consider it without knowing, a statement I agree with. You attempted to explain this and additionally tried to defend mutah by stating that mutah is not a license to promiscuity. I challenged that statement and above that, I stated that the very fact that you feel compelled to state this is an indication of how embarrassed you are regarding the matter. As I said earlier "A greater sign of insecurity is when people are dishonest about what they believe because they are too embarrassed to openly stand for their beliefs. Why is almost every Shia dishonest about mut'ah?"

This resulted in a discussion regarding a couple of questions that were intended to show that one of the results of mut'ah, with the regulations and restrictions in Shi'i theology, is in fact a license to promiscuity. You chose to respond in a manner that only confirmed what I initially thought, namely you chose time and again to come up with examples that showed that even though the contract is temporary, the intention and the goal in that particular example was to have a permanent relationship. Whether this was mut'ah for the sake of the conversion of a Christian woman (the contract is temporary to give her time to convert, but the intention was to marry her permanently as a Muslim wife) or mut'ah for the sake of "halal dating" (the contract is temporary to give them time to know each other, but the goal was to marry permanently). The very fact that you feel compelled to do it this way, leads me to think that you yourself are embarrassed without realizing it.

In any case, I think it is beneficial to discuss whether or not the following things are requirements for a valid mut'ah marriage (and yes, also this time evidence is appreciated and yes, also this time the questions are rhetorical as I do not believe them to be requirements nor have I seen evidence to suggest this):

- Is it required for a temporary marriage to form an intention to attempt to establish a relationship that is indefinite or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?

- Is it required for a temporary marriage that the partners are committed (in the context of a sexual relationship) towards each other or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?

- Is it required for a temporary marriage that there is a fear of falling into sin or, if not,  does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?

I think these answers will help us in partially answering the question whether or not mut'ah, with the conditions and restrictions in Shi'i theology, is a license to promiscuity or not. I will remind you however that simply shrugging this off by stating that an absence of one of these things causes one to transgress the boundaries of Allah(swt), will not cut it. It is important to prove this claim and show which boundaries exactly we are talking about. (Also a link with with more than a paragraph to read is not appreciated and relevant portions can be quoted as it may turn out to be irrelevant)

Quote
Your frequent requests for ‘’proof’’ appear to be rhetorical devices rather than genuine requests for elucidation. I say this due to the way you have responded to such evidence when given. For example, at the top of post #235 on page 12, I provided you with precisely the evidence you had requested in previous posts.
In your response #252 on page 13, you had the decency to say ‘’fair enough’’, yet not without hemming this in with objections in the preceding and succeeding sentences.

The reason why I feel further questions are necessary is because first of all, my question may only be dealing partially with what I consider to be objectionable but more importantly because you seem to make up answers and defend as you go along and my further questioning clearly shows this. For example, first you provide me with some proof and try to convince me that "Obligatory precaution does not necessarily mean "not allowed"" and then later on when discussing the difference between permanent and temporary marriage with a Kitabi woman in the presence of a Muslim wife who doesn't consent you try to convince me a few posts later after I told you "Then we have married men, they are also as per obligatory precaution(Sistani) not allowed to marry a Christian. In addition, they are absolutely not allowed to temporarily marry a Christian ..." that "Apparently this is a simple misunderstanding. Permanent marriage with a Christian is likewise ‘’absolutely forbidden’’ for a man with a Muslim wife." even though one is haram without a doubt and one is not allowed as per obligatory precaution. So what is going on here?

Quote
Similarly, under the third quotation box in my post #377 on page 19, I provided you with precisely the evidence you had requested about the rights of the wife in temporary marriage. Aside from the considerable time involved in finding suitable evidence to match your specific enquiry, I made the effort to read through it so as to be able to tell you the segments you might want to start reading from.
The two links provided not only contain the requested evidence, but do so from two different angles, one legalistic and the other empathic and philosophical. Your response was to dismiss them both in a few words.

I simply stated that I didn't fing anything that I consider relevant and I asked you to quote what was relevant. My dismissal in a few words can be easily addressed and even prevented by quoting a few words. I guess you spent several minutes (at the very least) to find this so spending a few seconds to quote what is relevant shouldn't be a major concern and it would prevent me spending several minutes to read something that may eventually turn out to be not so relevant.

Quote
You can call it agreement if you like. I was pointing out that your counter-examples don’t provide any perceivable benefit over the teachings you set out to oppose.

Again, how can it be an agreement where you quote me saying "It can't be that both options are disliked" and you respond by saying "and it can in fact be that both options are disliked"?

Quote
Here you express your various opinions, which is fair enough. However, again, this personal stance of yours has no contradictory value to the teaching of temporary marriage, a teaching which I will continue to remind you is a teaching of the Holy Prophet(saws).

Please keep track of what is being discussed. This wasn't about what is wrong with temporary marriage, this was about the question how temporary marriage is a better alternative to a permanent marriage and planning a divorce. You can claim it is better and I can claim it is not which is indeed an opinion of both you and me. However, claiming that the reason for it being better is because the latter may force you to do something that is disliked, ie divorce, is something that can be discussed whether or not is factually correct. I have shown you that divorce is not disliked with a legitimate reason. You have yet to show why this will not apply.

As for what the Prophet(saws) taught, the rules and regulations is what makes a practice worthy condemnation and since I do not believe that the Prophet taught the same sules with the same restrictions as Shi'i scholars do, this statement is simply irrelevant. Ibn 'Abbas might have been able to say this, Shi'is on the other hand, unfortunately not.

Quote
Above are your words, verbatim. You question a teaching which doesn’t in fact exist. It’s clearly a mistake, and since we all make mistakes, shall we move on?
Refer to my earlier comment regarding your change of stance regarding what obligatory precaution means where once it "doesn't necessarily mean "not allowed"" and later on it is "absolutely forbidden". If I made a mistake, I have no problem admitting it if you admit this mistake is caused by your misinformation, I can hardly be blamed for this.

In any case, whether we can move on or not doesn't necessarily depend on this possible mistake. There is difference in ruling between a permanent marriage and a temporary one regardless of what obligatory precaution exactly means. So I can simply ask again:
"‘’What I don't understand if a Christian impinges on "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion" is that a permanent marriage is only not allowed as per obligatory precaution and a temporary marriage is absolutely forbidden without a doubt. So, it is then better to permanently marry such a Christian then to temporarily marry her! How does that make sense if it is against "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion"?’’"

Quote
Here you say the "argument does not hold", whereas in your previous paragraph you say "it can’t even be discussed". I think it’s clear that you will not accept my premises regardless of what they contain, and this itself is why I didn’t "discuss the second premise". 

Yes, I point out two problems with your argument, one related to your first premise and the other with your second premise. So to make it even clearer for you to understand, (Assuming the second premise is true), the argument can't even be discussed due to the ambiguity of the first premise and (assuming the first premise is true), the argument does not hold as the second premise was not shown to be true and you chose not to comment further. How is pointing out two problems with two premises proof that unwilling to accept premises regardless what they contain?

And not discussing the second premise because it was clear that I would not accept your premises regardless of what they contain while discussing the first premise doesn't make sense. If that was the case, then there is no point in discussing further the first premise either so in light of that I will maintain that you were simply unable to prove the second premise as the reason why you didn't discuss it anymore.

Quote
I would've appreciated a considered response from you regarding the overall conceptual outlook behind your views. This discussion being of your own initiation, there is yet one insight I’d hoped to garner from it for my own understanding ...
I don't think this is necessary, you have admitted that promiscuity is a transgression of the boundaries of Allah(swt) and I have mentioned this as the reason why people condemn mut'ah. You have not shown how our outlooks differ, rather you have confirmed that they are the same in this regard. The only difference is that you claim that mut'ah is not a license to promiscuity and I believe it is and this is what should be discussed. It is only natural and you should actually admire that I and others take a stand against mut'ah if what we believe is true and consider it a confirmation that our outlooks are not different from what you claim. And if you are a truth seeker and consistent, once you find out that mut'ah with its restrictions and conditions in Shi'i theology is in fact a license to promiscuity you should condemn it as well.

Quote
Sunni brothers who try to paint mut’ah as allowing promiscuity and licentiousness are unaware of the realities of the lives of the Anbiyaa(as), in that there’s nothing un-Islamic about a man having halal access to numerous women.
Are you implying that the Prophets(as) were promiscuous? If not, what is the relation between promiscuity and having halal access to numerous women? (I thought you were not going to make my life harder and understood what promiscuity is supposed to mean.)

Ibrahim

Re: Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?
« Reply #399 on: March 04, 2018, 02:30:50 PM »
Quote
My goal was clearly laid out from the start of this discussion. The OP stated that the embarrassment of Shi'is regarding mutah is an indication of how immoral they themselves consider it without knowing, a statement I agree with. You attempted to explain this and additionally tried to defend mutah by stating that mutah is not a license to promiscuity. I challenged that statement and above that, I stated that the very fact that you feel compelled to state this is an indication of how embarrassed you are regarding the matter. As I said earlier "A greater sign of insecurity is when people are dishonest about what they believe because they are too embarrassed to openly stand for their beliefs. Why is almost every Shia dishonest about mut'ah?"

This resulted in a discussion regarding a couple of questions that were intended to show that one of the results of mut'ah, with the regulations and restrictions in Shi'i theology, is in fact a license to promiscuity. You chose to respond in a manner that only confirmed what I initially thought, namely you chose time and again to come up with examples that showed that even though the contract is temporary, the intention and the goal in that particular example was to have a permanent relationship. Whether this was mut'ah for the sake of the conversion of a Christian woman (the contract is temporary to give her time to convert, but the intention was to marry her permanently as a Muslim wife) or mut'ah for the sake of "halal dating" (the contract is temporary to give them time to know each other, but the goal was to marry permanently). The very fact that you feel compelled to do it this way, leads me to think that you yourself are embarrassed without realizing it.

In any case, I think it is beneficial to discuss whether or not the following things are requirements for a valid mut'ah marriage (and yes, also this time evidence is appreciated and yes, also this time the questions are rhetorical as I do not believe them to be requirements nor have I seen evidence to suggest this):

- Is it required for a temporary marriage to form an intention to attempt to establish a relationship that is indefinite or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?

- Is it required for a temporary marriage that the partners are committed (in the context of a sexual relationship) towards each other or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?

- Is it required for a temporary marriage that there is a fear of falling into sin or, if not,  does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?

I think these answers will help us in partially answering the question whether or not mut'ah, with the conditions and restrictions in Shi'i theology, is a license to promiscuity or not. I will remind you however that simply shrugging this off by stating that an absence of one of these things causes one to transgress the boundaries of Allah(swt), will not cut it. It is important to prove this claim and show which boundaries exactly we are talking about. (Also a link with with more than a paragraph to read is not appreciated and relevant portions can be quoted as it may turn out to be irrelevant)

GreatChineseFall, thank you for your post, which enables me to reflect on my own position in the process of responding.

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.


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. 

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.

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.

The only source of meaningful dispute I now see remaining is that we're having difficulty agreeing on what constitutes "promiscuity", which I will return to later.

Before that I will deal as concisely as possible with the multiple side-issues under multiple quotation boxes, a format which I continue to assert will be of no avail to anyone concerned.

Quote
I simply stated that I didn't fing anything that I consider relevant and I asked you to quote what was relevant. My dismissal in a few words can be easily addressed and even prevented by quoting a few words. I guess you spent several minutes (at the very least) to find this so spending a few seconds to quote what is relevant shouldn't be a major concern and it would prevent me spending several minutes to read something that may eventually turn out to be not so relevant.

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.

Quote
Refer to my earlier comment regarding your change of stance regarding what obligatory precaution means where once it "doesn't necessarily mean "not allowed"" and later on it is "absolutely forbidden". If I made a mistake, I have no problem admitting it if you admit this mistake is caused by your misinformation, I can hardly be blamed for this.

In any case, whether we can move on or not doesn't necessarily depend on this possible mistake. There is difference in ruling between a permanent marriage and a temporary one regardless of what obligatory precaution exactly means. So I can simply ask again:
"‘’What I don't understand if a Christian impinges on "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion" is that a permanent marriage is only not allowed as per obligatory precaution and a temporary marriage is absolutely forbidden without a doubt. So, it is then better to permanently marry such a Christian then to temporarily marry her! How does that make sense if it is against "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion"?’’"

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.

Quote
Again, how can it be an agreement where you quote me saying "It can't be that both options are disliked" and you respond by saying "and it can in fact be that both options are disliked"?

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?

Quote
Yes, I point out two problems with your argument, one related to your first premise and the other with your second premise. So to make it even clearer for you to understand, (Assuming the second premise is true), the argument can't even be discussed due to the ambiguity of the first premise and (assuming the first premise is true), the argument does not hold as the second premise was not shown to be true and you chose not to comment further. How is pointing out two problems with two premises proof that unwilling to accept premises regardless what they contain?

And not discussing the second premise because it was clear that I would not accept your premises regardless of what they contain while discussing the first premise doesn't make sense. If that was the case, then there is no point in discussing further the first premise either so in light of that I will maintain that you were simply unable to prove the second premise as the reason why you didn't discuss it anymore.

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.

Quote
Please keep track of what is being discussed. This wasn't about what is wrong with temporary marriage, this was about the question how temporary marriage is a better alternative to a permanent marriage and planning a divorce. You can claim it is better and I can claim it is not which is indeed an opinion of both you and me. However, claiming that the reason for it being better is because the latter may force you to do something that is disliked, ie divorce, is something that can be discussed whether or not is factually correct. I have shown you that divorce is not disliked with a legitimate reason. You have yet to show why this will not apply.

As for what the Prophet(saws) taught, the rules and regulations is what makes a practice worthy condemnation and since I do not believe that the Prophet taught the same sules with the same restrictions as Shi'i scholars do, this statement is simply irrelevant. Ibn 'Abbas might have been able to say this, Shi'is on the other hand, unfortunately not.

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.

Quote
I don't think this is necessary, you have admitted that promiscuity is a transgression of the boundaries of Allah(swt) and I have mentioned this as the reason why people condemn mut'ah. You have not shown how our outlooks differ, rather you have confirmed that they are the same in this regard. The only difference is that you claim that mut'ah is not a license to promiscuity and I believe it is and this is what should be discussed. It is only natural and you should actually admire that I and others take a stand against mut'ah if what we believe is true and consider it a confirmation that our outlooks are not different from what you claim. And if you are a truth seeker and consistent, once you find out that mut'ah with its restrictions and conditions in Shi'i theology is in fact a license to promiscuity you should condemn it as well.

Quote
Are you implying that the Prophets(as) were promiscuous? If not, what is the relation between promiscuity and having halal access to numerous women? (I thought you were not going to make my life harder and understood what promiscuity is supposed to mean.)

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.

Am I implying that the Prophets(as) were promiscuous (na'udhubillah)? No, naturally I'm not implying this. The Anbiyaa(as) weren't considered promiscuous despite having, in some cases, many hundreds of wives and ma malakat aymanukum available to them according to our accounts. This is the point in itself.

Having halal access to numerous women does not make a man promiscuous or immoral, as demonstrated by the Anbiyaa(as). So, where does your objection come from? What does the word "promiscuous" even mean in this context?

The Ottoman Sultans, your Caliphs, had hundreds of women sexually available to them at any one time. They were able to do this within the boundaries of Shari'ah - halal relations according to your own interpretation of Islam.
Would you criticise your own Caliphs and call them promiscuous? What does the word "promiscuous" even mean in this context?

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.

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.

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).

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).

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4398 Views
Last post February 22, 2015, 07:23:14 PM
by Rationalist
1 Replies
1123 Views
Last post February 23, 2015, 07:27:27 PM
by Hani
4 Replies
1032 Views
Last post February 07, 2016, 04:47:47 PM
by Optimus Prime
3 Replies
434 Views
Last post January 08, 2020, 02:23:31 PM
by MuslimK