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  
Allahu_Akbar

Mut'ah With A Non Believer

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

 

 

Sister, this is far from the truth. There are many, many denominations and sects within Christianity and if you are familiar with early Christianity, many Scholars prefer to call it: Early Christianties since there were so many competing ideologies and interpretations of the Message of the Son of Mary [a]. Even nowadays, not all Christians believe Jesus is God. Trinitarians, for example, don't consider Jesus divine.

 

Ws. 

 

 

I lived with practising Christians while going to uni and they very much believe in the trinity - "God in the flesh", "the divinity of Jesus", "God in three persons", etc was the main stay of their belief. I am very sure of this as it made no sense to me and I wanted it to make sense - but it didnt.  I am sure there are off shoots of the religion - just like there are off shoots of every religion - including Islam.. but in modern times - this is the main belief.  You can nitpick others if you want.

 

I found this on Wikipedia 

 

The Encyclopædia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnateGod, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."[16] Although the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a small number of Christian groups and denominations. And not all nontrinitarians consider themselves Christian.

 

​So if someone wants to find a Christian who does not believe in the "divinity of Jesus" so that they can possibly secure a mutah contract, more power to him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lived with practising Christians while going to uni and they very much believe in the trinity - "God in the flesh", "the divinity of Jesus", "God in three persons", etc was the main stay of their belief. I am very sure of this as it made no sense to me and I wanted it to make sense - but it didnt.  I am sure there are off shoots of the religion - just like there are off shoots of every religion - including Islam.. but in modern times - this is the main belief.  You can nitpick others if you want.

 

I found this on Wikipedia 

 

The Encyclopædia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnateGod, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."[16] Although the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a small number of Christian groups and denominations. And not all nontrinitarians consider themselves Christian.

 

​So if someone wants to find a Christian who does not believe in the "divinity of Jesus" so that they can possibly secure a mutah contract, more power to him!

 

 

I was previous a Christian myself but did not believe in the Divinity of the Son of Mary. Unfortunately, most Christian's believe in what you described. Many begin to question that which was spoon fed to them as a child and are forced to reject it when they see the blatant inconsistencies, its illogical nature and most troubling, its lack of textual evidence from the Scriptures. The Trinitarian version of Christianity itself was an 'offshoot' that later became the prevailing interpretation of Christianity. 

 

I'm not so sure about finding someone to do Muta with. OP, unless you really need it, do your best to obtain. If you can't, you have been given solutions by God and you are free to use them. There is nothing shameful about this.The Imams [a] did it themselves and it is a marriage and union between a man and a women. 

 

Unless I am mistaken, there is a Ruling from Sayyid Ali al-Sistani which says you can have the girl recite the shahada prior to contracting Muta with her. Please don't quote me on that one, as I am not 100% sure. I will try and locate the ruling, however, I don't personally recommend this course of action. Try and speak to the girl about Islam and see if she is willing to convert on her own free will and accept islam internally and externally with her heart and tongue. Guidance is in the hands of God, but do not underestimate the power of Du'a, for it was deemed the 'weapon of the believer'. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, thank you, my mistake. Was a typo. 

 

Ws. 

Edited by al-Burooj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even nowadays, not all Christians believe Jesus is God. Trinitarians, for example, don't consider Jesus divine.

 

 

The point is not whether they believe in Jesus being God but whether they regard temporary marriage as permissible.

 

If they don't, then I believe that a temporary relationship would amount to selfishness and deception. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, I must say.

 

What I understand is that some of you are basically saying that mutah is only valid if both parties believe in the concept; if only the (Shia) man believes in it but not the woman, we have a moral (legal?) dilemma here, because according to her sect she'd be fornicating and sinning.

 

This would also mean that Shia a cannot do mutah with a Sunni woman because in her sectarian teachings it's not a recognised form of marriage (yes, we know the Umer episode but currently Sunnis consider mutah to be haram). It's also not recognised in Judaeo-Christian tradition.

 

It can be argued that we don't have to take into account a woman's sectarian believes so long as she's willing to accept our mutah formula and goes properly ahead with the formalities and legalities. If so, does it not make it a little immoral for Shias to disregard her religion's teachings so long as we're safe according to ours?

 

After all, (suppose) when I mutah-ed Alice, a Christian girl, her being of Christian religion played a fundamental part in legalising my mutah with her (My mutah would have been invalid if she were a Buddhist or Bahai).

 

Since her religion enables me to do mutah with her, is there no responsibility on me to consider what her religious teachings actually say about her having sex outside Christian wedlock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is not whether they believe in Jesus being God but whether they regard temporary marriage as permissible.

 

If they don't, then I believe that a temporary relationship would amount to selfishness and deception. 

 

(bismillah)

 

Whether they consider it permissible or not is irrelevant. Christians have no concept of Temporary Marriage. Christianity does not have a law in the sense that Islam does and they have almost abandoned the Shari'a of Moses altogether. They do not have a specific ruling on Muta. If the girl is given freedom and is independent (like most Christians) he isn't required to ask the fathers permission, so it would be entirely up to the girl. This is according to our Fiqh. I don't have the specific ruling on me, however, I personally just asked two separate Scholars who confirmed to me this would be the case. 

 

Also, brother, where is the deception if the girl willingly enters into the contract with the brother? 

 

 

Ws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, I must say.

 

What I understand is that some of you are basically saying that mutah is only valid if both parties believe in the concept; if only the (Shia) man believes in it but not the woman, we have a moral (legal?) dilemma here, because according to her sect she'd be fornicating and sinning.

 

This would also mean that Shia a cannot do mutah with a Sunni woman because in her sectarian teachings it's not a recognised form of marriage (yes, we know the Umer episode but currently Sunnis consider mutah to be haram). It's also not recognised in Judaeo-Christian tradition.

 

It can be argued that we don't have to take into account a woman's sectarian believes so long as she's willing to accept our mutah formula and goes properly ahead with the formalities and legalities. If so, does it not make it a little immoral for Shias to disregard her religion's teachings so long as we're safe according to ours?

 

After all, (suppose) when I mutah-ed Alice, a Christian girl, her being of Christian religion played a fundamental part in legalising my mutah with her (My mutah would have been invalid if she were a Buddhist or Bahai).

 

Since her religion enables me to do mutah with her, is there no responsibility on me to consider what her religious teachings actually say about her having sex outside Christian wedlock?

 

Well, everyone is responsible for themselves... But it doesn't really make much sense to temporarily marry any non-shia woman when we as knowledgeable people are aware that no other shariah allows a fixed-term marriage. 

 

These type of pious christian girls (that you could legitimately call following Christian shariah) are becoming extremely rare, and these type of women are the least likely ones to marry on a fixed-term no matter what.

 

The only solution is to make mutah have no stigma in shi'i communities!!! YES!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are practising Christians, they would not agree to mutah as it would be a major sin in their religion.  Kind of a problem….

 

 

He does not have to narrow his marriage in a very short time however he could establish a marriage with her in a very ling period although it is temporary;e.g.a hundred year marriage 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you people need to make everything so freaking complicated. Our law says you can make temporary marriage with a Christian. Many Christian girls are quite OK with such arrangements. That's the end of the discussion. You don't find that "ethically satisfying," well, then synch your actions with your where your mind is headed and seek out another way.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you people need to make everything so freaking complicated. 

 

It is not complicated at all. It is very simple.

 

If the woman is not a Shia, then from her point of view and beliefs, the woman is committing an act of sin. And in all probability, God would judge her on the basis of her beliefs and not someone else's. Surely, God is extremely forgiving, but there is no reason to believe that every sin will be forgiven.

 

Assuming that she truly believes in her religion,this woman could very well be punished for a sin which could have been avoided if the other party had been a little thoughtful.

 

If however, she does not really believe in her professed religion, she does not qualify for the contract anyway. Because this contract can only be made with either a Muslim woman or with a follower of the Book (Jew/Christian).   

 

Further to the point, the other party in the deal knows all this only damn too well.

 

Therefore, indulging in something that we know a poor, misguided woman might suffer for, is in my view, nothing short of blatant and outright selfishness.

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not complicated at all. It is very simple.

 

If the woman is not a Shia, then from her point of view and beliefs, the woman is committing an act of sin. And in all probability, God would judge her on the basis of her beliefs and not someone else's. Surely, God is extremely forgiving, but there is no reason to believe that every sin will be forgiven.

 

Assuming that she truly believes in her religion,this woman could very well be punished for a sin which could have been avoided if the other party had been a little thoughtful.

 

If however, she does not really believe in her professed religion, she does not qualify for the contract anyway. Because this contract can only be made with either a Muslim woman or with a follower of the Book (Jew/Christian).   

 

Further to the point, the other party in the deal knows all this only damn too well.

 

Therefore, indulging in something that we know a poor, misguided woman might suffer for, is in my view, nothing short of blatant and outright selfishness.

 

I know!!! @_@ wow. Why did no one think of this before today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not complicated at all. It is very simple.

 

If the woman is not a Shia, then from her point of view and beliefs, the woman is committing an act of sin. And in all probability, God would judge her on the basis of her beliefs and not someone else's. Surely, God is extremely forgiving, but there is no reason to believe that every sin will be forgiven.

 

Assuming that she truly believes in her religion,this woman could very well be punished for a sin which could have been avoided if the other party had been a little thoughtful.

 

If however, she does not really believe in her professed religion, she does not qualify for the contract anyway. Because this contract can only be made with either a Muslim woman or with a follower of the Book (Jew/Christian).   

 

Further to the point, the other party in the deal knows all this only damn too well.

 

Therefore, indulging in something that we know a poor, misguided woman might suffer for, is in my view, nothing short of blatant and outright selfishness.

 

This is really a surreal post. Wow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really a surreal post. Wow. 

 

He has a point. Regardless of whether a non-shia would ACTUALLY be punished by Allah for doing mutah, it is still a fact that mutah is not accepted in other shariah, meaning those who actually care about their laws(religious people) would be the ones who would (probably) never do mutah unless they already were thinking about becoming shia in the first place. 

Edited by EthidiumIodide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has a point. Regardless of whether a non-shia would ACTUALLY be punished by Allah for doing mutah, it is still a fact that mutah is not accepted in other shariah, meaning those who actually care about their laws(religious people) would be the ones who would (probably) never do mutah unless they already were thinking about becoming shia in the first place. 

 

Uh, no. He doesn't. There is no "other shariah." There is one shariah and a bunch of manmade rules of no consequence. 

 

A Christian or Jew would (and do) do mutah because it's just a more formalized version of the sorts of relationships they are already more or less all doing already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this guy seriously asking if he can marry an atheist? 

 

This is borderline a joke, and the fact that it is about mutah makes it even worse.

 

There is no way you would ever find any marja that would permit marriage with a non believer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no. He doesn't. There is no "other shariah." There is one shariah and a bunch of manmade rules of no consequence. 

 

But, that's, like, just your opinion man.Try telling that to the women who aren't lovers of ahlul bayt. 

 

 

 

 
A Christian or Jew would (and do) do mutah because it's just a more formalized version of the sorts of relationships they are already more or less all doing already.

 

The key word here is formalized. The type of women who would not care that mutah is not part of their religion wouldn't care about the dictates of your religion either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only two religions out there which accept the concept of temporary marriage: Zoroastrianism and Hinduism.

 

And theyre both mushrik so presumably its not allowed to contract mutah with either >.<

 

I didn't know that! Hmm. Aren't there a small amount of marajeh who accept Zoroastrianism as ahlul-kitab? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asalam Alykum,

 

I would just like to defend the position of Mutah with other faiths. Firstly, there is reseach that Mutah is in the books of Ahl e Kitab (which I have read it is from this source: http://mutah.com/).

 

Secondly, if you are able to convince a person who is Ahl Kitab that it is a way permitted by Allah then it is no sin upon them because you must realise, in believing in the matter of Mutah, you have bought them one step closer to the Qur'an, one stop closer to the truth. Additionally, though it maybe sin in their religion to marry us based on our books, this cannot end in a paradox as the religion has been perfected at Prophet (S.A.W.) and if you have strong enough belief, the passion to show the other person that if they give this a sincere try then surely this is no sin? Further their books are updated by ours so technically, they are not sinning at all in doing Mutah. Please don't feel Mutah is something Christians wouldn't accept. I know of such instance very well and Alhamdulillah it is working out well. You cannot approach this with a close mind. You must sit and explain to that person what and why this is. You should explain that this is the way to avoid sins and give them literature to fully understand that it even covers situations where a child is involved.

 

Finally to OP, perhaps you should try to convince her of faith. She is half way there. She believes there is no God. The rest is your test :). Prove to her there is Allah. If it doesn't work show her this forum and let her discuss why with people here. Surely there are many great minds sitting here who are able to guide her and answer her questions.

 

And I cannot believe how many people Mutah topics attract. No one attracted my Soy Sauce topic and eventually I replied to myself to close the topic :dry: :dry: :dry: :dry:  Maybe next time I will put Mutah and involve some storyline then add the question that I need answering.

 

Ma'Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asalam Alykum,

 

Yes I made a Soy Sauce question that I answered myself then I made an Ittar question because the guy who I use to buy White Musk from has disappeared! So I thought maybe some brother/sister makes ittar so I can buy it and perhaps other people on the forum can too! Sadly I couldn't answer the other post because I don't know how to make Ittars :no:

 

Here are the links:

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235020053-wine-based-ingredients/

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235020567-attarittar-purchase/#entry2674177

 

Ma'Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wont derail this thread - but I have no idea what the answer to your question is. Perhaps post in the ate/eating thread? With the food aficionados! It seems to get a lot more action than the forums you posted in… and maybe you will get your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

baqar's argument is unsound.

 

He argues that

since a man's mutʿa is only permitted with a Muslim or Kitābī woman,

and since mutʿa is not permitted in Kitābī law,

therefore, a woman who commits mutʿa is no longer a Kitābī woman,

and since she is not a Muslim either,

therefore she is neither Muslim nor Kitābī,

and therefore mutʿa is not permitted with her.

 

For this argument to be valid, it needs an extra premise:

The extra premise is 'anyone who commits an act not permitted by the religion they subscribe to no longer belongs to that religion'.

Now the argument is valid.

Yet, as I shall argue, it is unsound.

 

There is at least one major problem with this argument.

That same extra premise is False.

Indeed, it would be True if 'faith in a religion' was equivalent to 'belonging to a religion'.

But the two are not equivalent.

There is a clear distinction between 'belonging to a religion' and 'faith in a religion'.

The Koran states: 'Do not say we have found faith, rather say we have come to Islām'

Thus, belonging does not entail faith, and consequently, not-faith does not entail not-belonging.

 

(In fact, it is sufficient if one genuinely subscribes to a religion for one to belong to it)

 

In summary then, the argument is unsound and therefore lacks probative force.

 

 

 

(wasalam)

 

So we are encouraging kitabi women to commit sin by offering mutah to them? I understand your "incisive" logic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a man need not worry about his partner's sin, why is mutah with married women forbidden?

Is it sin for a non-Muslim to not perform the five daily salah, or are they judged according to the rules of their own religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you guys might like to think, I might perhaps remind you of the emboldened part of the following verse: 

 

[4:25]

 

And those of you who cannot afford to marry free believing women, let them marry those among your believing maids whom your right hands possess.  God well knows your faith. You are sprung the one from the other. Marry them, then, with the leave of their masters, and give them a fair dower: This is for those of you who fear falling into sin. But if you abstain, it is even better. God is All-Forgiving and All-Merciful.

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my. This is sorta pathetic. All this argument over something that has been clearly outlawed. The OP said he follows Sistani so all he had to do was go to his site and read up on mut3a. There he will find the answers to his situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, it becomes wājib if abstention proves unsuccessful, which, perhaps, is not totally unheard-of.

 

(salam)

 

Brother, excuse me but this is one of the strangest statements I have ever heard.

 

It is easy for someone living in the some countries to make such a statement, because it may not be difficult to find someone willing to do muta.  

 

But just go to India or Pakistan or one of those Afro-Asian countries where chaste women will  never do muta.

 

And then please tell me that if  muta becomes wajib, how on earth is someone supposed to do this wajib act.

 

I doubt if muta is permissible with prostitutes or unchaste women.

Edited by IloveImamHussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want go on a tangent in this thread:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235026742-ayatollah-khamenei-on-mutah/#entry2755045

...by detailing the problems with prostitution. 

 

And this current thread is the most recent one on the topic (another more recent one seems to have been removed)... so I'm writing my text here instead, as food for thought in case anyone happens to read either post and actually considers going to a prostitute:

 

 

For one thing, the prostitute would still have to be a "person of the book"... so either Muslim, Christian, or Jew.  And considering how many people nowadays are agnostic or atheist, that's not going to be simple to find anyway.  Plus, sex outside of marriage is wrong in all 3 religions, so being a prostitute is a huge problem for anyone who professes to be of those faiths.
 
I detailed the issues in a recent thread, but can't find it now.  
 
 
However, the basic issues are that prostitution:
 
- Goes against Islamic principles -- because it's an exploitation of people who are in a bad situation (usually drug addiction, mental health problems, etc.)
 
- Violates the law  (in most countries... and Islamically, we generally have to follow laws)
 
- If others find out about it, it would greatly hurt a person's chances at finding a quality spouse in the future.
 
- Condoms aren't 100%, and who knows if the prostitute is taking birth control pills (or can even afford it).  And it will likely import STDs into the Muslim community.
 
 
Theoretically, if a woman wanted, maybe she could do mutah for financial reasons, and then observe the 3-4 month iddah (or however long it is) before she does mutah again.  So that may be why it's seemingly makrooh instead of absolutely haram in Ayatollah Khamanei's view (although I notice from another thread, he apparently classifies going to a prostitute as "reprehensible", which seems about as close to haram as possible without actually being haram).  But she couldn't make much money that way, and any guy who could afford to pay a huge amount could simply get married permanently.
 
 
Considering all of the above various requirements and considerations, it's essentially impossible to find a halal way of going to a prostitute, so there's no point for people to even suggest it.
 
Plus, I think the fact is, for any Muslim guy, there's always *some* Muslim girl out there who would want to marry you.  Maybe he feels that she's not what he's looking for, but that's still an infinitely better alternative than going to a prostitute.
Edited by Bright

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...