Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
smshasan

Mutah With Hindus Are Allowed Or Not

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

mutah with hindus not allowed
Did you ask a marja3 ever? I'm not doubting, but if you could be more specific...

What about Sikhs? I mean, it would be awkward - you'd have to both be vegetarian, since Sikhs specifically can't eat halaal meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you ask a marja3 ever? I'm not doubting, but if you could be more specific...

What about Sikhs? I mean, it would be awkward - you'd have to both be vegetarian, since Sikhs specifically can't eat halaal meat.

First of all, Mutah with Sikhs/Hindus? Why??

Secondly, it is absolutely prohibited by all marjas. You may only perform Muta with a Muslim, Christian or Jew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

According to the Maraji`, Muta can be performed with the people of the Book, (i.e. Muslims, Christians & Jews).

However, there is an opinion for a particular Marja` which says that Zorostrians and Sabians are also considered from the people of the Book and so Muta with them is permissible.

Regards,

Kumail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, Mutah with Sikhs/Hindus? Why?? Secondly, it is absolutely prohibited by all marjas. You may only perform Muta with a Muslim, Christian or Jew.
It is a theoretical question. Actually it was intended to be broader than mut'ah... with all the millions upon millions of people in the world, it's not like it's completely implausible to consider. Plus Sikhs are monotheists, so why not ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syed Fadhullah :

Q: Is it permissible for a man to marry temporarily a Hindu woman?

A: It is prohibited to marry a woman who is not of the People of the Book.

Q: Is it permissible for me to conclude a Mutaa marriage (temporary marriage) with a Buddhist woman that I made her pronounce Shahadatain (the two testimonies; testifying the oneness of Allah and the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (p.) of Islam)?

A: It is impermissible to marry her if she just pronounce the Shahadatain without understanding and believing in them; that is without adopting Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that older scholars, such as Al Biruni and Mir Fendereski considered the educated of the Hindus as monotheists, but the common and lay folk as polytheists, meaning the essential religion itself is monotheistic but the common understanding of it is not. They may've believed the Vedas to be a divine text of some sort. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Syed Fadhullah :
Interesting. So then no Zorostrians... they are traditionally permitted as they are qualified as "equivalent to ahlu l-kitaab" because they are monotheists, profess "There is no god but [the Lord Wisdom] and Zarathushtra is his prophet", pray 5 times a day, perform their own wudhu and have a scripture.

Of course, the Arabic word zindiiq "Dualist, mushrik" is a corruption of Middle Persian Zandiig "One who follows the Zand [a Zoroastrian tafsīr on their scriptures]" because the Zand was a madhhab that pushed Dualism (that God and Shay6aan (Ahriman) were coeval and equal in power).

Still, modern Zoroastrians don't believe that. It was common in medieval religious movements all over Europe and the Middle East but not accepted by the faithful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, the Arabic word zindiiq "Dualist, mushrik" is a corruption of Middle Persian Zandiig "One who follows the Zand [a Zoroastrian tafsīr on their scriptures]" because the Zand was a madhhab that pushed Dualism (that God and Shay6aan (Ahriman) were coeval and equal in power).

According to Imam Sajjad, it was Al Hajaj Ibn Yusuf Al Thaqlafi that first started ordering people to call shias "zindiq" as well as majoosi and rafidi. He (hajjaj) said it was better to call them these names instead of shia of Ali or hussain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Define Hindu

Even Hindus cant define themselves. They Don't have any definition in Indian constitution. According to Indian constitution Hindus are those who are neither Muslim nor Sikhs nor Christen nor Jain etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mutah with a Hindu who is a Aryasamaji (who believes in one God and do no idol worship) is alowed. Though such Hindus are rare.

I dont think such type of Hindus are living in our Planet Earth.... Maybe you visit Mars some time ago... And You've seen some Hindus their... lolz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Surat al Ma'idah, verse 5:

(bismillah)

...And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter. (5:5)

Allah has only made halal marriage with fellow Muslims and the people of the scripture. This does not include polytheists such as the Hindus.

O ye who believe! When believing women come unto you as fugitives, examine them. Allah is Best Aware of their faith. Then, if ye know them for true believers, send them not back unto the disbelievers. They are not lawful for them (the disbelievers), nor are they (the disbelievers) lawful for them. And give them (the disbelievers) that which they have spent (upon them). And it is no sin for you to marry such women when ye have given them their dues. And hold not to the ties of disbelieving women; and ask for (the return of) that which ye have spent; and let them (the disbelievers) ask for that which they have spent. That is the judgment of Allah. He judgeth between you. Allah is Knower, Wise. (60:10)

Edited by Qa'im

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

What Ayatollah Saanei actually said was only in neccessity, and when people of the book are not available.

Quoting his akham:

Q1160: What is the verdict on entering into temporary marriage with non-Muslim women such as Catholic

Christians, Buddhists, and those with unknown faiths?

A: In case of a Muslim man’s need and necessity in such countries and in case Muslim women or those

from the People of the Book are not available, it will be permissible provided that the Muslim man makes

certain they will not become pregnant, and that it will be for such a short time that he will not be

influenced by the woman’s atheistic thoughts and beliefs which deserve loss and punishment. Basically,

Islam regards temporary marriage as a means of satisfying men’s needs while being in hardship and under

the pressure of sexual desires, but not as some sort of legal debauchery and extramarital sex. Therefore,

those who have wives with whom they can satisfy their sexual desires should not enter into temporary

marriage even with Muslim women, otherwise they would ruin their family life, their tranquility and

comfort, and would suffer hundreds of other losses.

Considering, however, that Christians/Jews/Muslims exist practically everywhere, it is very rare that this need be applied. What I AM curious on is if Mutah is allowed with those who believe in God, but do not follow a particular religion - many people I know do believe in God, just do not follow Christianity, Judaism, etc...

Wassalam =]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

According to the Maraji`, Muta can be performed with the people of the Book, (i.e. Muslims, Christians & Jews).

However, there is an opinion for a particular Marja` which says that Zorostrians and Sabians are also considered from the people of the Book and so Muta with them is permissible.

Regards,

Kumail

WA wr wb..

Wouldn't mutah w/ todays followers of Christianity be haraam? Check Quran 5:72,73.

Edited by gogiison2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ask your Marja' and if he tells you mutah with Christians is not allowed if they believe in the trinity i will be very surprised. I haven't read any marja' say such a thing.

We can't make our own ijtihaad unless we are qualified.

anyway looked up the verse and just realized something interesting.

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.5:72

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.5:73

notice the 2nd 'disbelieve'. what is the point of saying 'those among them who disbelieve' if what they are doing is disbelief?

are they not all disbelievers?

it means one can do disbelief but still not be a disbeliever. what makes one a disbeliever is when one knows what one is doing is wrong

and does it anyway.

some interesting traditions on this theme are at http://www.holyquran.net/cgi-bin/noor.pl?c...;vr=98&sp=2

so it doesn't mean that everyone that says that Jesus is God will go to hell.

there is a category in our hadeeth about mustad'afeen (literally oppressed). just as some are physically oppressed some people are spiritually oppressed. they don't know the truth.

sometimes when a muslim man marries a trinitarian christian woman it serves as a means to rescue her from spritual oppression brother.

when a woman marries you, be it temporarily she is more likely to listen to what you have to say and believe and take it seriously.

islam usually spreads via interaction and marriage is the peak of human interaction. i think this is the reason that Allah allowed muslim men to marry christian women.

5:5 was one of the last verses revealed to the Prophet (saw) and Allah calls marrying christian women Tayyib (good) for muslim men. Why?

Because the outcome is good. By mutah many muslim men are able to rescue spiritually oppressed christian women and show them the right path.

if rescueing a physically oppressed person has a great reward imagine the reward for rescuing a spiritually oppressed person.

I don't follow a specific Marja. We cannot make our own ijtihaad unless qualified by whom? The second part of the 5:73 looks like it's talking about the people of 5:69. Also, 5:5 I think mentions the woman must be muhsana which I think translates to chaste, so from what I understand this doesn't necessarily mean just any woman amongst the trinity worshippers.

Edited by gogiison2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my friend, islamic law is a specialized field that takes many years of hard work and study to become qualified in. a person who refuses to emulate a jurist though he/she is not qualified, meaning he/she has not studied for years to reach proficiency in deducing islamic laws from their known sources, he/she is being foolish. it is like a person who refuses to see a qualified doctor and goes to the library to research on their own when they are sick. emulation is simply consultation. would you not consult a doctor when sick or a lawyer when you have a legal problem? why is islamic law any different? would you go to a complicated court trial without any legal advise?

as for muhsanaat the term comes in the qur'an 7x in verses 4:24, 4:25, 5:5, 24:4 and 24:23.

as for 5:5

This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you 5:5

notice it is used 2x in the same verse and translated by Pickthal as "virtuous".

virtuous women of the believers

virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you

ok, how do you equate virtuous with non-trinitarian?

the verse is not easy to understand. if what you say about christian women is true then why did Allah put virtuous women of the believers too?

is it allowed for a man only to marry a virtuous women among believers? is he allowed to marry a non-virtuous woman among the believers?

if so then how do you justify saying that it is not allowed to marry a non-virtuous woman among the christian women?

you have to also refer to the authentic ahaadeeth on the subject. you are not a mujtahid. how can you even figure out which hadeeth is authentic and which is not?

please do yourself a favor and emulate a jurist or a few jurists. an ignorant person who refuses to do taqleed is worse than throwing darts in the dark. there is no way you can know your religious obligations if you don't at least consult a specialist. it is just simply not possible unless you are yourself a scholar and evidently you are not.

please don't be taken in by the non-taqleedi hype. these people are ignorant. even the ancient akhbaris did taqleed. these anti-taqleedi neo-akhbaris are just ignorant. a real akhbari would be offended by these people.

for example the shi'ah in the time of Shaykh Saduq consulted Saduq and his writings when they had a fiqh problem. that is why he wrote his book "Man Laa...".

Man Laa Yahduruhu al-faqih means One who does no have a jurist present with him. The very title of his book implies taqleed! If you are not a jurist and you have no access to a jurist you could consult his book.

i respect akhbaris. i respect usulis but people who are not scholars and refuse to do taqleed? i think that is either extremely ignorant or insane.

if you said you emulate saduq or hurr al-'Amili or shaykh Mufeed I could tolerate and understand that but when you say you are not a jurist and you dont' do taqleed of any jurist from from even the past that is not acceptable at all.

that still leaves the question about modern issues not answered by old scholars. who do you consult?

anyway i have a question about the shaykh school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykhism#Karim_Khan

i am very interested in learning more about Haji Karim Khan Kirmani. Can anyone point me to the right direction?

are there any modern day Shaykhi or Akhbari jurists alive? if so who?

also where can i find the book 'awaalim al 'uloom? i heard it is over a hundred volumes of hadeeth and there are many things in it that are not in bihaar al anwaar. is it available online or on disc?

i read Spiritual Body and Celestial Earth by Henry Corbin and he had some excerpts from some shaykhi scholars and i found it very fascinating.

i heard the late 'Abdul Hakeem Carney (ra) did some research into the shaykhi school. where can i find his writings?

saw http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/shaykhi.htm and it was a bit strange but still quite interesting.

i have Ahsai's commentary of Ziyarat al Jam'iah al-Kabeer and I find it so fascinating.

can anyone enlighten me on the exact standing of the shaykhi school today? i heard there are two schools, one in iran and another in the arab world?

Some of what you say makes sense but all is not totally logic. Now, of course I read about what scholars say. This doesn't necessarily mean I'll emulate him. If I followed every scholar out there I'd be naive. The analogy w/ the doctor doesn't work at all, I answered that before as well I think in my taqlid thread. So, basically I rather not talk about taqleed in this thread. If you have any thing you want to know or tell me about blindly following taqleed or who the best person to emulate I invite you to participate in my taqleed thread that I made.

As for the verses you listed, I see many translators use the word chaste but honestly I don't know enough arabic to know the different meaning of the word muhsana. What it looks like to me is that this verse has certain conditions, meaning the beginning of 5:5 we see says something like we can eat the foods of the people of the books. Now we know this is true provided that it's pure/lawful, that is the condition I see. So, with the word muhsana being used I think there is more conditions for this. Why I say this...tell me if a christian trinitarian worshipper prays to hindu gods as well, do you think you can marry her?

Sorry I had to add this..but go to my taqlid topic as well please...This is why I say don't follow any fallible blindly especially if they cannot give reference to Quran and hadith because you'll split yourselves even further down the road I think. Even the scholars who studied like doctors are having disagreements on what they read, why? because their is a lack of education there from what I see.

Edited by gogiison2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

Surat al Ma'idah, verse 5:

(bismillah)

...And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous WOMEN of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter. (5:5)

Allah has only made halal marriage with fellow Muslims and the people of the scripture. This does not include polytheists such as the Hindus.

O ye who believe! When believing WOMEN come unto you as fugitives, examine them. Allah is Best Aware of their faith. Then, if ye know them for true believers, send them not back unto the disbelievers. They are not lawful for them (the disbelievers), nor are they (the disbelievers) lawful for them. And give them (the disbelievers) that which they have spent (upon them). And it is no sin for you to marry such WOMEN when ye have given them their dues. And hold not to the ties of disbelieving women; and ask for (the return of) that which ye have spent; and let them (the disbelievers) ask for that which they have spent. That is the judgment of Allah. He judgeth between you. Allah is Knower, Wise. (60:10)

If I am not mistaken these verses only allowing MEN to perform mutah with people of the book? Not that anyone has stated otherwise but just clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking the principle, that everything is halal until proofen otherwise, I challenge you to provide me with proofs (ahadith) that mutah is not allowed with Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist women etc.

And I don't want any fatwas, I don't want to hear any results of your own ijtihad, whether that might be derived through qiyas or ray.

Just a plain proof that there are limitations in mutah other than that of blood/intermarried relationship or the woman being a known fornicateress or being married.

Are there any limitations of this sort in regards to slave women?

 

Maybe you can help brother :)

@Qa'im

Edited by BUL313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quran 60:10 prohibits marriage with polytheists.

The general consensus of the hadiths is that marriage with Kitabis is permissible, but disliked and not recommended in many situations.

Zoroastrians were considered dhimmis, but not the same as Kitabis. Marriage with Zoroastrians was forbidden or disliked by the Imams. Concubines however can be non-Kitabis:

محمد بن علي بن الحسين بإسناده ، عن الحسن بن محبوب ، عن العلاء بن رزين ، عن محمد بن مسلم ، عن أبي جعفر ( عليه السلام ) قال : سألته عن الرجل المسلم يتزوج المجوسية ؟ فقال : لا ، ولكن إذا كانت له أمة مجوسية فلا بأس أن يطأها ويعزل عنها ولا يطلب ولدها .

Furthermore, the believer (male and female) does not marry anyone who is an open opponent of Ahl al-Bayt, the Shi`a, or Islam in general:

محمد بن يعقوب ، عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن ابن محبوب ، عن جميل صالح ، عن فضيل بن يسار ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : لا يتزوج المؤمن الناصبة المعروفة بذلك

Mut`a is forbidden or disliked with one who is known for fornication:

وعن عدة من أصحابنا ، عن أحمد بن محمد البرقي ، عن داود بن إسحاق الحذاء ، عن محمد بن الفيض قال : سألت أبا عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) عن المتعة ؟ قال : نعم ، إذا كانت عارفة ـ إلى أن قال : ـ واياكم والكواشف والدواعي والبغايا وذوات الازواج ، قلت : ما الكواشف ؟ قال : اللواتي يكاشفهن وبيوتهن معلومة ويؤتين ، قلت : فالدواعي ؟ قال : اللواتي يدعون إلى أنفسهن وقد عرفن بالفساد ، قلت : فالبغايا ؟ قال : المعروفات بالزنا ، قلت : فذوات الازواج ؟ قال : المطلقات على غير السنة .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply brother.

There are Ahadith (at least one) that clearly permit doing Mutah with a Zorastrian woman. But I can't find one where the Imam is asked about doing Mutah with Mushrik or Atheist women.

Edited by BUL313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2016 at 6:31 PM, BUL313 said:

Thank you for your reply brother.

There are Ahadith (at least one) that clearly permit doing Mutah with a Zorastrian woman. But I can't find one where the Imam is asked about doing Mutah with Mushrik or Atheist women.

The Holy Qur'an says marriage to them is haram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the laws for Mutah and Permanent Marriage are different, right?

I mean I would say, since it is a doubtful matter I'll abstain but I won't declare it haram.

Edited by BUL313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...