Muhammed Ali

Perhaps I need to clarify that I wasn't trolling or joking. If this is causing her difficulty right now, then there is a risk that it could be greatly amplified when she marries him and falls in love. This pain could last years. This is the torture that I was referring to. There may be people who don't mind it and it doesn't bother them at all, or who have no choice, but this girl already knows that it bothers her and she has a choice and she needs to avoid taking that risk. She doesn't know how much worse she may feel later. People need to realize that there is a difference between theory and reality. You can theorize how you may feel when doing something, but reality is sometimes different.

In the other thread I didn't give my reasons for my view. So I took this opportunity to do it. What are the implications of considering mutah as a recommended act? How would you recommend utilizing the blessing of mutah? I assume that in your view if a person has the opportunity to do mutah then they should do it for the blessings. Does this mean that if a person is in mutah they should remain in it to prolong the blessing (if there is no possibility of any permanent marriage)? Should they break a mutah with one person if it means they can travel and do mutah with more people who are deprived of it? Is it better to stay in a longer term mutah or to take the opportunity to have numerous shorter term ones?

This would need a long discussion and I am not in a position to get into that. To address a few of your points: Some studies show that those who engage in short-term "relationships" tend to have weaker marriages. But I don't remember if those studies show that it is causation or correlation. Common sense tells me that it is likely both. If a person has in the past had mutah then they are more likely to do it when married - because the gates have been opened. Perhaps to you that isn't a problem. From the first point they are more likely to find their spouse less special. Ayatullah Mutahhari has this view too. Thus weakening the marriage. Some studies also show that those who engage in short term relationships have higher levels of depression. Some even show that the cause has been established and it is not correlation. Why is alcohol for women such a major component of short-term relationships? To mask the brain's signals that tell her that this is a bad idea. The woman's brain releases hormones which makes her attached to the future father of her child. This is not a factor that we should brush aside or belittle. "then the wives would not be so hesitant over it." not true. You can't destroy human nature so easily. I am not of the view that women should just be asked to tolerate polygamy if they dislike it. It's callous. "So why is it not a social harm in having more then one woman?." It is a social harm when you take away from other single men. And it is for other reasons too. There is a reason why people think of these things as dirty or shameful. It is deeply wired into us. You cannot just put it down to social conditioning. The human mind knows that this thing can lead to pregnancy, diseases, emotional hurt, social instability, jealousy etc. The Lindy effect dictates that short-term relationships should be avoided. If I explain why, it would be controversial. I am not of the opinion that mutah is haraam. I am of the opinion that it is certainly not mustahab (otherwise why wasn't it done more during the time of the Prophet {s}?) and it is to be avoided except for those people who are in a situation where the benefits outweigh the harms. Like people who have no hope of finding a suitable permanent marriage in the future. Or jaded old people who may have gone though a few marriages and this wont harm them as much as finding another spouse. Or certain "sahabah" who came from jahiliyyah and were already affected by promiscuity in their past. Or maybe even a divorced young person who had a bad marriage and wants to do mutah out of caution before deciding upon a permanent one. People are different and the way that they will be impacted by mutah is different. I don't think people should be tricked into it by being told it is mustahab. I am missing out many details here.

I am an ordinary nobody. When I said "The way I deal with this subject is I tell" (emphasis from yourself), I was referring the the manner in presenting the information. I don't see what was in that paragraph that was controversial or unorthodox. I should clarify again that when I say the speech of Allah is not an attribute of his I mean any specific speech (e.g. the Quran) is not an attribute. However speech in general (i.e. communication/speaking) can be considered an attribute. Allah is the speaker. That is an attribute of his; but the Quran is not an attribute. Allah is the creator, but the created universe is not. Which doesn't mean to say that I don't have any unorthodox views or thoughts. E.g. in the thread I linked to I suggest that perhaps the attributes of action are a subset of the attributes of essence. I have not read any scholar say that. Perhaps some scholars do believe it - I don't know.

I posted the previous post before you did. You are not going to like me saying this but these representatives are not easy to talk to. Trust me I have tried. If you want to ask a fiqhi question then fine. But if you want to discuss philosophy then most are not qualified. I wish I could speak to the higher ranking scholars. It would be helpful. In regards to saying that great scholars wont make fundamental errors. This is detailed matter and it doesn't belittle them to say that you question a detailed teaching.

@OrthodoxTruth I noticed that you partially agree. I suspect that it is because I said the Quran as the word/speech of Allah is not an attribute. Have a look at the thread below. If we are talking about the word of Allah in some metaphorical form (so not a specific set of words like the Quran) meaning communicating then I can admit that it is an attribute. I.e. Allah is the communicator/speaker. If however speech/word refers to a specific creation then it is not an attribute of Allah.

I am so sorry I will have to keep it brief due to a lack of time. I think here are three things to consider: Making a special case for the Quran. Erroneously positing that the word of Allah is some kind of attribute of Allah. Neglecting the implications on Tawhid. 1: Why is the Quran given this status when the Taurat and Injeel or the ahadith al-Qudsi are not? Are they not the words of Allah? When Allah spoke to Prophet Musa {a} on the mountain, why are those words not considered eternal? 2: What justification is there to believe that the word of Allah is some sort of attribute of Allah? Rather it is a creation of Allah just like ruhullah (the Nabi Isa {a}) and baitullah (the Kaba) are. Just because the words "x of Allah are used", it does not mean that it is an attribute of Allah. Sunnis say things like "The Quran is the word of Allah, and Allah is eternal thus the Quran is eternal". Well in that case anything which is x of Allah is also eternal. The house of Allah is eternal? Prophet Isa {a} is eternal? Kalamullah means that it is speech that Allah chose to guide us. Baitullah is a house that Allah chose as our central place of worship. These are words composed by Allah and revealed to his creation. They are the highest level of language and they contain the wisdom of Allah. Thus they are called kalaamullah. 3: If the Quran is eternal, then in what form does it exist? Is it an entity separate from Allah? In that case it is (in the words of Imam Ali {a}) another god beside Allah. This is shirk. Is it a part of Allah (e.g. speech of the soul as some Sunnis said). In that case Allah is compound (murakkab). And the philosophers have rightly told us that Allah is not murakkab. Rather Allah is indivisible. His essence and attributes are the same thing. When we say al-Rahman, al-Qudus, al-Aleem, al-Qawi etc these things are not parts of Allah nor are they additional to his essence. Rather that are all the same being. They are just different names for Allah. Allah's knowledge is Allah. Allah's power is Allah. Thus we must ask is the word of Allah also Allah? Following on from the previous point is the Quran also Allah? Without elaborating, this is an absurd notion. The way I deal with this subject is I tell these people that the knowledge of the Quran is eternal with Allah, but the Quran itself is created. In that way perhaps you could say the Quran is eternal, in the form of knowledge. But the knowledge of the Quran is eternal with Allah in the same say that the knowledge of anything else is eternal with Allah. The Taurat, Injeel & all other creations are known by Allah eternally. A point a friend of mine made: Remember that the words of the Quran are limited and contingent (although they are very special words). They are in a human language (Arabic), human words etc. These are creations of Allah, which Allah knew about eternally. Arabic is not Allah's own language. And Allah knows better.

There is just too much misinformation and misunderstanding in this video. Being very brief: The Quran is not eternal It is not an attribute of Allah The Ruh is a creation of Allah - just like the Quran There are many ahadith which speak about things such as acts of worship appearing in the afterlife as persons or other creatures. He is selectively picking three to make it look like Islam has a trinitarian equivalent. These creatures are meant to be metaphorical, mystical or even physical representations of other things. It doesn't mean that the former are conscious beings or that the latter are actually those beings. Read Kitab al-Tawhid by Sheikh Saduq for the meanings of words such as ruh, kalam etc. Read this for some good discussion on the Quran/ speech of God etc: https://www.al-islam.org/al-bayan-fi-tafsir-al-quran-prolegomena-quran-ayatullah-sayyid-abulqasim-al-khui/13-quran-created-or

I owe you a response from another thread. If it was mustahab, it would have been much more widely practiced during the days of the Prophet {s} and the Imams {a} (especially considering that it predates Islam - in some form). This is the nature of similar mustahab institutions (e.g. the giving to charity or congregational prayers). You are telling us that this act is mustahab but its practice was rare during the time of the aforementioned leaders? You cannot simply bring a handful of ahadith which talk about the reward of doing mutah and then deem it mustahab - regardless of how authentic the chains are. You already know that some learned people deem those ahadith to be context bound for the sake of reviving a wrongfully abrogated practice. They say that these ahadtih contradict other ones which discourage it. Regardless of what you think about the authenticity of those latter ahadith, the evidence from the general lives of the divine leaders and the shia community indicates that it is not mustahab. There is a need to balance some evidence against other evidence. In my opinion, since this act is not benign and reason leads us to believe that practicing mutah as a generally recommended act would lead to much psychological and social harm, then the evidence required for it to be considered mustahab needs to be a lot stronger. In this context, an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. If this was a benign act or one that reason considers beneficial, then perhaps we could accept weaker evidence. How good are you at defending the authenticity of your own religious beliefs? E.g. the existence of God, the authenticity of your religious books, the authenticity of the books of rijal etc?

She should save herself the torture and outright reject him.

If you don't know ask those who know. If you don't know them. Seek them out.

I am not certain that the sky is blue, but I have certainty about God. You wont find many answers on Shiachat and from Shia ulama. Sorry. Different people are good at different things.

Also have a look at the notes that come with Muhammad Asad's translation on the same site. Although a few of his beliefs are non-conventional (which personally doesn't bother me), I like his approach to the translation and commentary because he clarifies points of confusion for a modern reader.

There is one here: https://al-quran.info/

I don't disagree with that. I think you are encouraging noble traits. I think the forum members generally give advise that is opposed to that which will cause harm. I am talking about the wider Muslim community. In my opinion, we must remember that people are different and some (perhaps the majority) cannot be expected to act in the most 'noblest' way, because their circumstances don't allow it. E.g. If someone was very badly treated by a parent in their childhood, then I don't think we should always encourage that person to maintain ties with the parent. I have seen religious speakers who will make the victim feel bad for not speaking to the parent. No everyone is in a mental state to be able to do what is considered the 'best' act. We may even harm the individual more, and Islam is against that. We have to take into consideration the feelings and circumstances of ordinary people who have been harmed. Sometimes these things are done for other that what they seem. You can be kind to a person that wronged you because they may be misguided and are not so blameworthy. But it may be that the person doesn't deserve kindness, but you do it because you deserve it. Or you do it to inspire that person out of their evil ways, or to demonstrate to the public that you are not the one to blame etc.