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  
CLynn

Hypocrisy

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

^...... LOL I love you Pureethics but Hassanain Rajabali and Seyed Ammar don't always solve every situation and problem :lol:

( and yes, I know Seyed Ammar isn't in the videos but he seems to be the final authority on most matters on ShiaChat :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings aliasghark,

To answer the two questions I put in bold.

I posted this earlier

On the grounds of your most recent explanation, and the fact that I don't accept mutah, I would have to say no, I think you are probably just two people with attraction for one another who did not want to make the commitment of marriage, for your own reasons. Maybe you will be able to make that commitment to one another in the future. Right now you are no different than many people who are choosing to live together outside of the sacrament and blessing that God bestows on marriage... real marriage. (my feeling and belief. I do not condemn you. I want you to have God's blessing.) :)

So, do I think this is bad? I believe this to be against God's design for blessing. I do not believe we do what is best for ourselves by engaging in temporary intimate relationships, and God wants what is best for His children. He wants us to be blessed by the gift, the mystery, of intimacy with the opposite sex and to keep that mystery sacred between two people who join as one.

I believe there are better ways of getting to know one another and I believe that commitments of this nature are for life.

Remember, I am sharing my feelings, my beliefs, that come from my own life experiences, here... not passing judgement.

The hypocrisy is only when others are criticized for this same behavior just because they go about it differently. It is all against God when we put flesh desires above His blessings.

Greetings to you too CLynn :)

Well, Islam shares the same ideal of permanent marriage, it's just more practical in that it acknowledges people's needs and especially to know each other better (you can talk openly, hold hands, hug, etc in temporary marriage and you have rights and responsibilities towards each other). The Christian recommendation from what you're saying seems to be that you just marry permanently and then find out about your spouse. Don't you think that's bad for the marriage, more chances of the couple being incompatible? And the western alternative of course is to go out with and sleep with multiple partners without any rules or commitments.

Does Islam not provide a good middle path?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

Interesting, but yes, I can see where a man might like the simple benefits as well of a wife to do the cooking and cleaning, or even to provide a temporary place of residence.

I still think these are creations of man and not God.

Things of convenience.

Our point is that mut`a is versatile, and can be made to fit whatever personal or cultural norms are in a society. As you know, Islam is strict on the segregation of genders. I am not allowed to touch a woman, look at a woman improperly, be alone with a woman, and speak improperly or lengthily with a woman, unless she were my wife, mother, daughter, or sister. Mut`a is used to alleviate these boundaries with a contracted person of interest. A couple can add anything they want to a mut`a contract, including an agreement to no sexual relations, and this is very common. A mut`a couple do not even need to live together or provide the traditional gender roles in their marriage. Some people mut`a for the purpose of getting to know one another before jumping into permanent marriage - think of it as a courtship process, which is done with familial permission. It allows the couple to speak to each other without gender boundaries. I've also heard of it being used for practical purposes, like a man and woman who work alone sign a mut`a contract so that they may work comfortably. And of course, there are the sexual perks to mut`a, but only if that is agreed upon and fits all the conditions of the shari`a.

Most of the cultures of our parents here did not practice mut`a. It was rarely discussed and not a viable option in the societies they came from. In these countries, men and women rarely interacted, because schools were segregated and women did not work as much. There was no internet, no cell phones, no chatting, and any contact with the opposite gender would be professional and respectful. There was also a lot of cultural attachment to virginity in women, so they did not want to be with other men before they got married. And indeed, their generation was able to get married earlier, usually during highschool or within a few years after it. But Islamic and Shi`i society was not always this way; this society I'm describing is quite Victorian. Not long ago, polygamy was practiced more popularly (it is very rare amongst Muslims, especially in the baby-boomer generation and after), the slave system was in place, and mut`a was encouraged. Mut`a in the last 20 years has been beginning to return to the new generations because of the changing cultural conditions. Men and women interact daily, schools are mixed, men and women work at similar rates, internet, cell phones, chat rooms, and very regular contact with the opposite gender. Also, movies, music, and media encouraging these kind of relationships. Pornography. Not to mention, Muslims are an ethnic and religious minority, so waiting for Ms. Perfect is especially difficult in the West. There is also now more attention in couple compatibility, while a century ago it may not be the case. Educational demands are high, with many people not graduating until their mid to late 20s. The meats we eat cause us to gain puberty earlier too. All of these factors together lead to the sin of adultery in some direct or indirect way. This is why mut`a is being revived nowadays, because it is a practical tool to avoid sin. In a society where virginity is the expectation, Islam recommends that one does not ruin the reputation of a person in mut`a. But in a society where relationships are necessary to avoid sins like masturbation, pornography, girlfriend-boyfriend relationships, orgies, clubs, talking to women indecently, rape, and the tensions of celibacy, I see no problem with mut`a.

It is versatile as I have said, and not all generations have used it, but I find it especially useful in the 21st century. I explain some of the reasons here: http://www.shiachat....y/#entry2308372 While it may not fit your Victorian ideal, I don't think that model is particularly sustainable anymore. Sunnis for example don't practice mut`a, and many of the Sunnis I know (particularly Arabs) have had girlfriends behind their parents' backs. It's just the way this society is designed. Islam is a religion of all times and all places, so as a system and way of life, it accommodates for these things in a way where the core principles are static but the details are versatile.

Edited by Qa'im

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings aliasghark, :)

You asked about the 'Christian recommendation'.

The Godly prescription is courtship. Getting to know one another in the company of those who will ensure that boundaries remain in place. With adults there, who understand about infatuation and youthful lust, to be guidances.

I understand your logic... to me they are rationalizations used to escape the restrictions of discipline.

I have seen God's way, and it is right. Any other way and you get less than God's best.

"And the western alternative of course is to go out with and sleep with multiple partners without any rules or commitments.

Does Islam not provide a good middle path?"

I feel that islam provides alot of excuses... avenues that lead away from a right path.

and those who do these things(mentioned above) are those who have fallen away from God's path.

I'd like to say again, the misconception that 'the western way is to sleep around'. The western way is the same as the muslim way. All people are the same. People start off in innocence believing they are entering into a relationship that will last, but once sin has entered in it is hard going back. It is hard to put right what is begun in sin, rather than in God's blessing. Satan has accomplished his purpose. He has made you buy the lie. We have disobeyed God's plan. It is sin that has taken hold. Most people end up unintentionally in serial monogamous relationships. The thing is, love is about commitment, about perseverance. These relationships entered into under the deception of satan undermine those goals. These relationships have little chance of lasting. It is not in God's plan. Satan's purpose is accomplished in that sin breaks down the heart and soul. Sin separates us from God, until we don't even recognize His plan anymore.

You say that mutah is within God's plan, but I do not believe this. I believe God's plan for intimacy is for one man and one woman, sacred between the two of them, not to be shared with anyone else. It takes discipline to maintain such a relationship, and this is God's purpose. Discipline grows us.

tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is in our hearts

Salaam to you,

CLynn

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings aliasghark, :)

You asked about the 'Christian recommendation'.

The Godly prescription is courtship. Getting to know one another in the company of those who will ensure that boundaries remain in place. With adults there, who understand about infatuation and youthful lust, to be guidances.

I understand your logic... to me they are rationalizations used to escape the restrictions of discipline.

I have seen God's way, and it is right. Any other way and you get less than God's best.

"And the western alternative of course is to go out with and sleep with multiple partners without any rules or commitments.

Does Islam not provide a good middle path?"

I feel that islam provides alot of excuses... avenues that lead away from a right path.

and those who do these things(mentioned above) are those who have fallen away from God's path.

I'd like to say again, the misconception that 'the western way is to sleep around'. The western way is the same as the muslim way. All people are the same. People start off in innocence believing they are entering into a relationship that will last, but once sin has entered in it is hard going back. It is hard to put right what is begun in sin, rather than in God's blessing. Satan has accomplished his purpose. He has made you buy the lie. We have disobeyed God's plan. It is sin that has taken hold. Most people end up unintentionally in serial monogamous relationships. The thing is, love is about commitment, about perseverance. These relationships entered into under the deception of satan undermine those goals. These relationships have little chance of lasting. It is not in God's plan. Satan's purpose is accomplished in that sin breaks down the heart and soul. Sin separates us from God, until we don't even recognize His plan anymore.

You say that mutah is within God's plan, but I do not believe this. I believe God's plan for intimacy is for one man and one woman, sacred between the two of them, not to be shared with anyone else. It takes discipline to maintain such a relationship, and this is God's purpose. Discipline grows us.

tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is in our hearts

Salaam to you,

CLynn

Wa alaikum assalam CLynn,

There are several similarities between Christianity and Islam, but in the end Islam is the more practical path from God.

If one can abstain till permanent marriage, that's commendable (and there are people who do), but I think you'll agree that most people can't and don't, and it's unnatural to stay completely away from the opposite gender till you find your eventual perfect person. It's also not fair to ask people to remain in abusive marriages and not re-marry someone else, as you seem to be implying.

Islam works well in the real world. As a poster said before, the closest to the one man-one woman relationship ideal are generally Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings pureethics,

I love these videos... makes me want to say so many things...

These teachers are right in line with my own teaching.

In the second video he is saying all the same things that I am saying... scars... that lead to apathy... a dead heart.

In the third, the emphasis that marriage/love is about sacrifice, commitment.

It is when I see teachings like this that I understand how it is that muslims get so upset when their faith is questioned. In these teachings I see good... the same good that I believe in.

I believe that male/female separation is a good thing... to a degree... perhaps what needs to be addressed is degrees of separation... perhaps instead of 95/100 percent separation, 75/80 percent. A bit less separation for the muslim, quite a bit more for the parts of the world that are much too far astray.

But temptation is always there for everyone no matter how many degrees of separation we may try to put between male and female.

Family involvement - I agree, and belive, this is an important missing factor in relationship formation today. I have full admiration of the respect for parents still given in other cultures.

The only part that bothered me is the idea that these values and teachings have no place, or do not exist, in the western world. They do exist. These values, these teachings, are just as much present in the west as in the east.

It is not an east/west thing.

In both places you have those who choose to follow, and those who do not. We are all susceptible to going astray.

It's not an east vs. west thing.

It's a God vs. satan thing

It isn't right to act as though people in the east have never been unfaithful... have never been tempted, or sinful... any more or less than those in any part of the world. I think it is just much more visible, less hidden, in some places(mainly the western and developed countries, due to media exposure and free, rather than controlled, media. We are all human and given to our natural nature, our natural desires, when not tamed by the reverence for our Creator.

Great videos. Great teachings. Good to see.

Salaam,

Caringheart

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downfall in what sense? Would God send a prophet and righteous king who has ill-character? This only gives people an excuse to act sinfully, because if the prophets couldn't figure it out, then why would I need to?

Absolute monogamy is Roman Law - that's where the idea of only marrying one woman came from. Judaism for most of its history was a polygamous religion. Abraham (as) took Sara as his wife and still "got with" Hagar, his bondwoman. Ishmael (as) was not considered an illegitimate child and instead, God promised greatness for his progeny in Genesis. Jacob (as) took at least two wives. Even under Roman Christendom, men were allowed to have 52 female concubines (up to 1 new woman per week) and it was not seen as immoral or sinful. The British, French, and Americans took slaves as bondwomen and it was mainstream until the recent centuries. To say that this lifestyle is sinful would be throwing most Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many of our common prophets under the bus.

Roman? Christian. Christ taught indissoluble monogamy.

The Law of Moses could not be any clearer on monogamy. Judaism was not polygamous "for most of it's history". With the exception of the holy David and Solomon - all of the examples of holy men with more than one wife are before the Law. And they do contravene the original order established that a man should adhere to his single wife [γυνaῖκa - singular, not plural] and that they though two should become one. They two [δύο] - not three, four or nine. This is where marrying one woman came from. It is in the holy book of Genesis in the second chapter.

That the Living God permitted polygamy and concubinage as an indulgence before He gave the Law is not an argument for reviving it after the Law came and further still Christ Whose teaching on indissoluble monogamy is beyond dispute. Even if we granted that historical Judaism permitted polygamy - Christ did not. The indulgence was made for the same reason Christ taught divorce was permitted under the Law but not by Him. Men were not ready for it; such was the state of the world from the holy Noe until the Law-bearer.

No one has to go under any "bus". We believe in progressive revelation; the Living God redeeming a fallen humanity over time. The standards become higher as God reveals more to us and does more for us. After the Law polygamy is an exception and yes - sin. Prophets can and did sin. Matter of documentary fact. This is not an excuse to act sinfully. The exact opposite is true - for the Living God punishes these prophets and kings. The punishment of a prophet's sin is a greater preventative to sinning than any words from their mouths would ever have been. This is called God's permissive providence. And the number of prophets who did sin to those who did not - they are a minority. That Muslims constantly latch onto those few prophets who sinned to justify their religion and ignore those glorious columns of prophets of whom the world was not worthy - is pregnant with implications.

After Christ polygamy is not even a question until Protestants. Leave aside what Germanic warrior kings were doing in their bedrooms or the British and company did with their slaves. And - where is the source for the claim that polygamy was permitted in "Roman Christendom"?

While a monogamous lifestyle is possible, good, and even ideal many times, societies need alternatives to it. Adam only had Eve, and they were an ideal couple, but not every man is Adam and not every woman is Eve. Divorce rate is over 50% nowadays, premarital sex is probably 90% or more. Even in working marriages, couples cheat very often - men more than women. Even our elite and our representatives cheat in high percentages, like pastors and politicians. And it's not just mere coincidence or necessarily bad character. When the vast majority of all societies fail to abide by a model, one has to question the model itself and consider alternatives to it.

You are actually trying to pretend the voice of reason speaks for polygamy? Divorce rates "nowadays". It is modernity. The problem is not the model. The model works for several centuries prior. Divorce rates were non-existent. The problem in the modern world is precisely the deliberate disregard of monogamy. From divorces to spousal infidelity - these are the alternatives already being practised. Polygamy is nothing more than to allow the male to marry his adulterous partner and add her to the household.

And why stop at monogamy? Society has ceased to abide by many models or standards of conduct that Muslims also adhere to. How many people disregard the model of marriage at all! Why not non-marital sexual license all round then? The concept of marriage [Muslim included] clearly has to be questioned because millions of licentious fools fail to abide by it. And we could continue until everything that modern men are doing is justified by the supposed inadequacy of morality.

Edited by Servidor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ You are not the one to tell Jews what they should believe. The talmud has permitted polygamy and maimonides, a great scholar of jewry, has conceded to its permissibility. However it is true polygamy is seen as a concession in judaism and the ideal is generally to cleave to only one wife, as Adam did to Eve. It was only european jewry in the middle ages that gave edicts banning polygamy under widespread christian custom.

EDIT: I have to admit though it is a bit awkward muslims are using the examples of solomon and david to show the permissibility of polygamy. I mean deuteronomy says a king shoud not have many wives, and solomon had 700! What kind of example is this?!

Edited by Jahangiram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ You are not the one to tell Jews what they should believe. The talmud has permitted polygamy and maimonides, a great scholar of jewry, has conceded to its permissibility. However it is true polygamy is seen as a concession in judaism and the ideal is generally to cleave to only one wife, as Adam did to Eve. It was only european jewry in the middle ages that gave edicts banning polygamy under widespread christian custom.

I cannot speak for post-Christ rabbinical Judaism. I was speaking of historical Judaism, Judaism prior to the coming of Christ and contemporary with His coming. As I said the Law and prophets are clear on monogamy. Both the challenge concerning divorce by the pharisees and the redvctio ad absvrdvm of the sadducees concerning the woman who has seven husbands who die consecutively - whose wife therefore is she if there is a resurrection? - operate on the presupposition of monogamy. Monogamy was Jewish. All exceptions are ante-Law or sin.

EDIT: I have to admit though it is a bit awkward muslims are using the examples of solomon and david to show the permissibility of polygamy

It is not only selective in terms of choice of prophets, but it is selective concerning their actions as well. Both David - and especially David - and Solomon were holy men. To take of all their acts only their sins is veritably diabolical. Most Muslims who know the holy David and the holy Solomon were polygamous could not quote a single Psalm nor one proverb. Except smashing Goliath to pulse with a stone and building the Temple - most Muslims who call upon their example to defend polygamy could not relate a solitary event in the whole of these two extraordinary and holy lives.

Edited by Servidor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot speak for post-Christ rabbinical Judaism. I was speaking of historical Judaism, Judaism prior to the coming of Christ and contemporary with His coming. As I said the Law and prophets are clear on monogamy. Both the challenge concerning divorce by the pharisees and the redvctio ad absvrdvm of the sadducees concerning the woman who has seven husbands who die consecutively - whose wife therefore is she if there is a resurrection? - operate on the presupposition of monogamy. Monogamy was Jewish. All exceptions are ante-Law or sin.

:huh:

The Sadducees gave that example to Jesus (pbuh) to try to corner him into agreeing with their belief that the resurrection is a ficticious concept. Maybe for women it was a monogamous life based on that example, but certainly not for the man.

And no, the Law isnt 'clear' about monogamy when you have educated rabbis permitting it in halakha law throughout the centuries.

It is not only selective in terms of choice of prophets, but it is selective concerning their actions as well. Both David - and especially David - and Solomon were holy men. To take of all their acts only their sins is veritably diabolical. Most Muslims who know the holy David and the holy Solomon were polygamous could not quote a single Psalm nor one proverb. Except smashing Goliath to pulse with a stone and building the Temple - most Muslims who call upon their example to defend polygamy could not relate a solitary event in the whole of these two extraordinary and holy lives.

Yeah I know the feeling, a bit like christians on the internet just endlessly mentioning Aisha again and again as if the whole world revolved around her for Muhammad (pbuh) ; a caricature that makes you think the latter was kidnapping children day and night and making them all his child brides tee hee :)

Edited by Jahangiram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh:

The Sadducees gave that example to Jesus (pbuh) to try to corner him into agreeing with their belief that the resurrection is a ficticious concept. Maybe for women it was a monogamous life based on that example, but certainly not for the man.

The sadducees' example involved a one man to one woman status quo as a result of which there would have been one woman to seven men at the Resurrection. The problem as put by them presupposes that each man had only her as their wife, whose wife therefore is she at the Resurrection.

The problem would become considerably less acute if it were "Whose one of several wives is she at the Resurrection". It is hard to make it explicit, but to me at least it seems obvious how less forceful the dilemma would be if it did not presuppose monogamy. It would not seem so absurd if the backdrop were that a man could have any number of wives. Who would care whose wife this one woman in particular would be at the Resurrection if they had a plurality of them in any event? If polygamy were a live possibility surely some clause would have been used to make clear that in this hypothetical example at least it was strictly one woman to seven men. That there is no such clause is because it was not needed. The sadducees are presupposing monogamy.

I would also add to my two prior examples that of the Forerunner. The holy John the Baptist was beheaded for opposing the decision of Herod to divorce his first wife to be able to marry another woman. According to the Law, as understood at the time of Christ, Herod could not marry two women at once.

And no, the Law isnt 'clear' about monogamy when you have educated rabbis permitting it in halakha law throughout the centuries.

Yes - the Law is clear. It does not become less clear because rabbis several centuries later begin reinterpreting the text to allow for the possibility of polygamy. The Jews do not believe many things that are clear in the Law - they deny Christ Himself. And they imagine into the text many things more that are not there.

I also am doubtful of how many rabbonim really did say polygamy is permissible. The Talmud by it's very nature is full of responsa and counter-responsa. I doubt the majority legal rulings in whatever Talmud you are talking about are in favour of polygamy. Maimonides is one man, and until I see a direct quotation I am doubtful even of his favouring it.

Edited by Servidor

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...