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  
Hannibal

Underaged Misyar Girls In Egypt

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I don't agree with this being done to under age girls....misyar or mut3a. However I can't help but wondering if some of the slavers and mut3a crew children on this forum wouldn't be here condoning this practice and churning the hadith mill into over drive if it were shias doing it. 

Edited by ImAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't nikah= marriage? At least this is what I find when I google. I also find that Muhammed married her when she was six and consumed her when she was nine. Is this correct? I know some girls reach puberty very early nowadays. But wasn't it rather unusual at the time of Muhammed? Anyway, why be upset when older men marry 11 year old girls as long as they have reached puberty.

Well I don't understand how this is relevant to the topic, the marriage between Aisha and the Prophet was permanent and normal. Here we're talking about families living in  poverty selling their daughters as a bride price for temporary marriages, which is completely different to the whole Aisha thingy you got going hejsanvejsan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't understand how this is relevant to the topic, the marriage between Aisha and the Prophet was permanent and normal. Here we're talking about families living in  poverty selling their daughters as a bride price for temporary marriages, which is completely different to the whole Aisha thingy you got going hejsanvejsan.

 

 

I notified the mods that this is hejsansvejsan but they don't seem to care.....I guess he has a new ISP and need more proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her marriage was consummated at a later age, nikah is only permissible once a woman reaches puberty.

 

So she was 9, still 2 years younger than the girls reported in this article.

 

Regardless, these are Sunnis traveling and practicing Misyar, not Mutah.  

 

Sunnis don't practice or believe in Mutah's validity.

 

According to Islam, there is nothing wrong with this, temporary or otherwise.  

 

At least people aren't killing entire villages and taking the women as sex slaves anymore (at least less frequently than early Islamic history).

 

I don't know why people keep acting shocked that these things happen, this has happened since the beginning of Islam, the Arab men valued young women as sexual objects and it was no secret, they were part of the booty split between warriors.  Whenever an Arab would see a beautiful woman he wanted sex with he would go through nikah or mutah even if it meant giving his cloak to the woman for dowry.

 

Misyar is worse than Muta because Misyar is meant to be a permanent marriage where the woman simply voids her right to financial support by the husband.

 

(Rich Arab with 3 wives) visits Egypt... finds 11 year old girl who isn't married already.... gives her 100 dollars for Dowry and marries her under the conditions of Misyar... has sex with her for the week that he is there... Goes back to Saudi Arabia and leaves his 11 year old wife behind in Egypt...

 

They're still legally married, that 11 year old girl according to Islam is married to this guy who she will never see again.

 

Anyone else see the problem here?

 

The only way to fix it is by divorce... Then it's the same thing as Mutah.

 

Hypocrites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

misyar,mutah,3urfi....it's all the same ,the names only differ from one country to another..they  all suck.. :wacko:

 

To clarify the difference between the types of marriages.

I think Mutah is known for most members here and no need to explain, but its main feature is that it is a temporary marriage.

 

Urfi or 3urfi, is different. As this type of marriage is mostly done in secret and the couple do not register it with the government, which is where the  Arabic name "urfi" comes from, it roughly means informal. This type of marriage is considered Zina among Sunnis, and it was used to be practiced by university student, I believe. I don't know how common it is now. But Urfi marriage is not temporary, as I said its main feature is complete secrecy and lack of wali for women. Thus, it is considered as Zina.

 

Misyar means "visiting" or a visit, it is a permenant (unlike Mutah) marriage with a wali for the women (father's approval), and it is not secretive, in the sense that it is registered with the government and acknowledge in society (unlike Urfi). The main feature of this marriage is that the husband does not live with his wife (Thus, the name "misyar" or visit, as the husband visits). This is type of marriage is done when a women is a widow with children and does not want the man to live with her, or when the husband is marrying a second wife and does not wish to live with her. However, nafa8a (taking care of the wife's expenses)  is still wajib. 

 

According to Sunnis, Urfi and Mutah are not allowed (in the form I have written above), while Misyar is allowed.

It should be known though that Misyar marriages are rarely done, if ever, outside of the gulf region. As the word Misyar is word in the dialect of the people of the gulf.

 

The above marriages are disgusting and I don't think that either Shias or Sunnis approve of them. The concept of a temporary marriage is rejected altogether by Sunnis. While for Shias, I don't think that a Mutah marriage in this exploitative forum is allowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify the difference between the types of marriages.

I think Mutah is known for most members here and no need to explain, but its main feature is that it is a temporary marriage.

 

Urfi or 3urfi, is different. As this type of marriage is mostly done in secret and the couple do not register it with the government, which is where the  Arabic name "urfi" comes from, it roughly means informal. This type of marriage is considered Zina among Sunnis, and it was used to be practiced by university student, I believe. I don't know how common it is now. But Urfi marriage is not temporary, as I said its main feature is complete secrecy and lack of wali for women. Thus, it is considered as Zina.

 

Misyar means "visiting" or a visit, it is a permenant (unlike Mutah) marriage with a wali for the women (father's approval), and it is not secretive, in the sense that it is registered with the government and acknowledge in society (unlike Urfi). The main feature of this marriage is that the husband does not live with his wife (Thus, the name "misyar" or visit, as the husband visits). This is type of marriage is done when a women is a widow with children and does not want the man to live with her, or when the husband is marrying a second wife and does not wish to live with her. However, nafa8a (taking care of the wife's expenses)  is still wajib. 

 

According to Sunnis, Urfi and Mutah are not allowed (in the form I have written above), while Misyar is allowed.

It should be known though that Misyar marriages are rarely done, if ever, outside of the gulf region. As the word Misyar is word in the dialect of the people of the gulf.

 

The above marriages are disgusting and I don't think that either Shias or Sunnis approve of them. The concept of a temporary marriage is rejected altogether by Sunnis. While for Shias, I don't think that a Mutah marriage in this exploitative forum is allowed. 

 

 

The prophet was disgusting too, when he "allowed" it? Way to shoot yourself in the foot... Sala-nasty

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the disgusting part he was referencing was what is going on in Egypt currently as opposed to mutah or misyar that is done in a more appropriate non exploitative manner.

No, he was referring to "the above marriages" as disgusting (ie Mutah, Misyar, 3urfi)

 

 

 

The above marriages are disgusting and I don't think that either Shias or Sunnis approve of them. The concept of a temporary marriage is rejected altogether by Sunnis. While for Shias, I don't think that a Mutah marriage in this exploitative forum is allowed. 

 

What is disgusting anyways?

 

Sex?

 

Not marrying a woman permanently?

 

Maybe God knew that some people would have a very hard time being in a permanent marriage where they are required to provide financially due to economic restraints and politics and cultural boundaries.

 

Sure in a perfect world a permanent marriage would be great, but we don't live in a perfect world.

 

Just because someone can control their libido and/or has enough money to marry permanently and buy a house for his wife doesn't mean they should judge the people who can't control their strong libido for many years on end with no hope in sight due to not having enough money to buy a house for a future wife.

 

You might be good at controlling your libido but maybe you're a jerk, rude, or a thief, everyone has different problems and faults, it isn't right to point out the faults of others and belittle them especially when they're doing something halaal.

 

It is better to marry temporarily or under specific conditions without acquiring financial burdens and to remain halaal and chaste through that marriage than to fornicate with various men/women without any law in place to guide it.  Mutah is a law guiding you to be able to release your sexual frustrations.

 

The only disgusting thing is when people exploit mutah... But people exploit Zakat and nobody says "Zakat is disgusting!" they say the person is terrible for doing that.

 

So stop saying Sex and Mutah are disgusting, because you look foolish and insulting.

Edited by AlayhisSalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put it that way.

 

Religion has been used to oppress the masses for long, even today, So Religion Sucks,?

 

If you see takfeeris chanting "Allah u Akbar" while beheading innocent people, you wont declare

 

that "Allah u Akbar" sucks, Will you?

 

Unfortunately, maybe religion does suck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the disgusting part he was referencing was what is going on in Egypt currently as opposed to mutah or misyar that is done in a more appropriate non exploitative manner.

Yes, this is what I meant, I thought it was quiet clear in the way I placed it.

Thank you for further clarifying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, maybe religion does suck...

 

Does religion suck? Or is it all of the oh so "perfect" and "religious" people that suck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does religion suck? Or is it all of the oh so "perfect" and "religious" people that suck?

 

Religious people have committed uncountable atrocities in the name of religion. Muslims all over the world are killing and terrorizing, and the worst is that no one condemns it. I wonder if it's nit an inherent problem with religion (including Islam).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious people have committed uncountable atrocities in the name of religion. Muslims all over the world are killing and terrorizing, and the worst is that no one condemns it. I wonder if it's nit an inherent problem with religion (including Islam).

 

Call me when you find the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me when you find the problem.

 

Actions speak louder than words, no?

So if the Muslims worldwide are committing atrocities, maybe there must be something with their religion behind it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actions speak louder than words, no?

So if the Muslims worldwide are committing atrocities, maybe there must be something with their religion behind it?

 

So if i commit an act by your name, your to blame. Sounds rational right?

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if i commit an act by your name, your to blame. Sounds rational right?

 

There's a diff between isolated incidents and systematic ones.

When the Muslim world systematically kills people, one have to wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a diff between isolated incidents and systematic ones.

When the Muslim world systematically kills people, one have to wonder.

Explain to me this "system" in fine detail please. Make sure to quote religious sources which agree with their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain to me this "system" in fine detail please. Make sure to quote religious sources which agree with their actions.

 

Look at Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, terror attacks in the West, etc. and you will see Muslims killing other Muslims and/or non-Muslims.

The muslim world is not systematically killing anyone. A portion of the "Muslim" world, namely those with a militant wahabbi/Salafi worldview are causing mayhem, death, and destruction. Many Muslims including the Shia have been condemning these people for a long time and continue to do so.

 

I don't see many Muslims condemning it. Maybe only those who live in the West.

Edited by Robin Hood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, terror attacks in the West, etc. and you will see Muslims killing other Muslims and/or non-Muslims.

 

I don't see many Muslims condemning it. Maybe only those who live in the West.

How is that a system? I said please explain to me this "systematic" killing done by "muslims". You just gave me a bunch of random countries that just happen to have muslims living in it as the whole world does. Also non muslims kill each other and religious people all the time. Is one life not as important as many?  As I said, because you happen to put the blame on Islam, put money where your mouth is and prove that is what Islam dictates. Ill be waiting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, terror attacks in the West, etc. and you will see Muslims killing other Muslims and/or non-Muslims.

 

I don't see many Muslims condemning it. Maybe only those who live in the West.

Do you notice what is common in all these countries you listed.......it's Salafis/Wahhabis....whether be it al Qaeda, TTP,Islamic state of Iraq, al nusra, boko haram, etc. it's always them doing the suicide bombings, plundering, beheadings, rapes, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you notice what is common in all these countries you listed.......it's Salafis/Wahhabis....whether be it al Qaeda, TTP,Islamic state of Iraq, al nusra, boko haram, etc. it's always them doing the suicide bombings, plundering, beheadings, rapes, etc.

 

Or maybe it's the Sunnis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuals are killed in Iran, they're not Sunni.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2dgsZYA1mPY#at=168

 

There is plenty of evil and hate and intolerance in religion, especially in Islam currently.

 

It's disgusting that one can say "Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem" and then show no mercy or compassion towards a certain group of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuals are killed in Iran, they're not Sunni.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2dgsZYA1mPY#at=168

 

There is plenty of evil and hate and intolerance in religion, especially in Islam currently.

 

It's disgusting that one can say "Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem" and then show no mercy or compassion towards a certain group of people.

 

You might want to read up on the story of Prophet Lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say is messed up.

 

God doesn't kill people for being homosexual.

 

Well i dont claim to be an expert so maybe you can shed some light and correct me....

 

 

Pickthall

And We utterly confounded them, and We rained upon them stones of heated clay. (15:74)

 

the people of Lot are being discussed 15:51 onwards and they are being referred to those who in engaged in Sodomy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well i dont claim to be an expert so maybe you can shed some light and correct me....

 

 

Pickthall

And We utterly confounded them, and We rained upon them stones of heated clay. (15:74)

 

the people of Lot are being discussed 15:51 onwards and they are being referred to those who in engaged in Sodomy.

 

 

 

 

Yeah but they weren't your run of the mill homosexuals who don't hurt anyone.

 

They were criminals, thieves, rapists, evil-doers of all sorts.

 

I'm pretty sure they would've still been dealt with even if they were heterosexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but they weren't your run of the mill homosexuals who don't hurt anyone.

 

They were criminals, thieves, rapists, evil-doers of all sorts.

 

I'm pretty sure they would've still been dealt with even if they were heterosexual.

How do you figure they would have been dealt with when you label Allah as "Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem" - who forgives all.

 

Islam has dictated the penalty for criminal, thieves and rapist and i dont believe any of them results in an outright death penalty that too by stones being cast on them so i am not buying your reasoning however you are free to follow your flavor of Islam.

 

 

This is not a matter of opinion but a cut & dry verdict so i dont see this conversation going any further.

Edited by Logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you figure they would have been dealt with when you label Allah as "Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem" - who forgives all.

 

Islam has dictated the penalty for criminal, theives and rapist and i dont believe any of them results in an outright death penalty that too by stones being cast on them so i am not buying your reasoning however you are free to follow your flavor of Islam.

 

 

This is not a matter of opinion but a cut & dry verdict so i dont see this conversation going any further.

 

Yeah I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point.

 

I merely proposed the opinion that murdering homosexuals because they are homosexual is wrong.

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...