Would you consider someone who was engaged in Mutah as divorced when looking for permanent spouse?

[Muslimthought97]

Salam,

The question is pretty straight forward but I am not sure what is the correct thing to state when meeting someone. I know you don't have to state previous haram relationships as you are allowed to conceal you're previous sins except if virgin or not to what I know, this is what I was taught. But if someone is a virgin and contracts Mutah, at the end what do you think is the most correct 'status' for someone to label themselves as unmarried or divorced? 

Would you say you can still call yourself unmarried, even if you are not a virgin in a mutah relationship? 

Or islamically are you now and should state you are divorced? I ask this because many martimonial services ask this as basic info and when you mention divorced people seem to shun you away and it lowers likelihood of getting married but if you had a Mutah it's not technically the same as having a permanent nikah with someone and things went wrong then divorce etc. Similarly you wouldn't say you are divorced if one was in a haram relationship prior also?

I am looking for answers to this question please. and it is not to reflect me just a question I cannot seem to independently find the answer to. I am thinking of the other person and how they would percieve it if you said you were unmarried but then turns out you had previous mutah relationship(s). Many thanks to those who share their opinions.

[habib e najjaar]

A mutah = a marriage. A marriage can only end by death or divorce. So one is either a widow or a divorcee. The technical definition may differ slightly where the marriage was never consumated.

[Muslimthought97]

1 hour ago, habib e najjaar said:

A mutah = a marriage. A marriage can only end by death or divorce. So one is either a widow or a divorcee. The technical definition may differ slightly where the marriage was never consumated.

Interesting I knew it was ofcourse a marriage but didnt think one would be a divorcee after at least didnt occurr to me, what you said does make sense though I appreciate the reply

[haideriam]

1 hour ago, habib e najjaar said:

A mutah = a marriage. A marriage can only end by death or divorce. So one is either a widow or a divorcee. The technical definition may differ slightly where the marriage was never consumated.

There is no divorce though with a mutah, is there?

[ireallywannaknow]

Personally I would not consider that person's status as divorced. If I was on a marriage site and I saw someone's status as divorced I would only think they were talking about permanent marriage. If I saw "never married" I would think it meant never permanently married but would not be totally surprised if they had been temporarily married before. 

[ireallywannaknow]

1 hour ago, habib e najjaar said:

A marriage can only end by death or divorce.

Or by time running out/ being given back. 

[PureExistence1]

As salaamun aleikum, thats interesting..the only thing I know is that if a couple who are engaged in mutah decide to end the mutah before the agreed upon expiration date, then the husband has to "gift back" the remaining time to the wife. 

There is a brief sentence that is said by the man, something similar to  " I, so and so, gift back to you the remaining X amount of time of our marriage agreement" and the woman says "I accept", and it is over...she starts her iddah and they both can go their separate ways. 

(I don’t know the exact formulas words, please forgive me for any innaccuracy, in sha Allah)

I don’t think this is considered a "divorce". Otherwise, the mutah ends at the agreed upon date when it can then be either extended or ended depending on different factors.

I don’t think this needs to be disclosed on marriage sites as a "marriage". I think these sites are concerned about previous nikkah/permanent marriages, but maybe once a couple starts communicating, maybe THEN is the time to discuss matters such as previous mutahs.

W/s

[habib e najjaar]

What is mut'ah? If it is a marriage, and if has been ended by time running out/being gifted back, and eddah for it observed, what else should we call the parties involved? 

I am worried that this consideration of mutah as something other than a marriage is what has led to its massive abuse. It is a marriage, with a specified duration. Khalas

[habib e najjaar]

1 hour ago, haideriam said:

There is no divorce though with a mutah, is there?

There is no divorce formula, but there is a specified method of "ending" it and the woman MUST observe iddah of divorce unless the marriage was never consumated.

If a woman was married permanently for 1 month, then divorced, or married for a one month long mutah, what is the difference in her status if in both cases the marriage was consumated?

[Moalfas]

1 hour ago, habib e najjaar said:

If a woman was married permanently for 1 month, then divorced, or married for a one month long mutah, what is the difference in her status if in both cases the marriage was consumated?

Technically, In both cases she would observe  Iddah as you clarified, however, in the latter case, it would be inaccurate to describe the ending of her temporary marriage as a divorce. 

It's a very interesting point as there is no 'status' attached to the ending of a temporary marriage even if the time was cut short by 'Hiba' - gifting the time back, which again (technically) is 'divorcing' prior to the end of the contract. 

[habib e najjaar]

4 hours ago, Moalfas said:

Technically, In both cases she would observe  Iddah as you clarified, however, in the latter case, it would be inaccurate to describe the ending of her temporary marriage as a divorce. 

It's a very interesting point as there is no 'status' attached to the ending of a temporary marriage even if the time was cut short by 'Hiba' - gifting the time back, which again (technically) is 'divorcing' prior to the end of the contract. 

There is a status attached to a woman who has been in a marriage, whether temporary or permanent and consumated the marriage  and this is important to be known even by the person marrying her, because it even affects the people who have become permanently mahrim to her, such as the direct ascendants and descendants of the man who previously married her, and may one day protect the woman from slander against her character if discovered.

We need to stop looking at mutah as a relationship and see it as a marriage with a defined expiry date and very limited rights for the woman including:

Issue 2433: A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to subsistence even if she becomes pregnant.

 

Issue 2434: * A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband, and does not inherit from him, and the husband, too, does not inherit from her. However, if one or both lay down a condition regarding inheriting each other, such a stipulation is a matter of Ishkal as far as its validity is concerned, but even then, precaution should be exercised by putting it into effect.

Issue 2435: If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, did not know that she was not entitled to any subsistence and sharing her husband's conjugal bed, still her marriage will be valid, and inspite of this lack of knowledge, she has no right to claim anything from her husband.

ssue 2453: * If the husband makes it a condition before Nikah, that the woman should be a virgin, and it transpires after Nikah that she is not virgin, he can repudiate the marriage. However, he can deduct and take the difference between the Mahr usually paid for a virgin woman and the one who is not a virgin.

Issue 2454: * It is haraam for a man and a woman who are not Mahrams, to be together at a private place where there is no one else, if it is feared to lead to immorality and scandal, even if it is a place where another person can easily arrive. But if there is no fear of any evil, there is no objection

[habib e najjaar]

If the woman becomes pregnant such that the pregnancy derives from the period of mut'a, the child belongs to the husband, even if he performed coitus interruptus. This statute applies to every legitimate act of sexual intercourse, not specifically to mut'a, since the principle enunciated in the saying: 'The child belongs to the bed' is of general application.11 Al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan claims consensus on this point.12

However, if the man should deny the child, then it does not belong to him; the 'sworn allegation' required in permanent marriage is not necessary. Al-Shahid al Thani, al-Shaykh al-Ansari and al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan claim consensus on this question. They point out that the 'bed of mut'a', like the 'bed of a slave-girl', does not hold the same high position as the bed of a permanent wife, since a wife by mut'a is a 'rented woman'.13 On this point two hadith have been recorded.14

Source: Link

[Lilly14]

Even if you don't list that you were in Mutah on your page, you should tell them before they invest emotions and time into you, because that might be a major deal-breaker for them. And even if the fact that you were in Mutah isn't a deal-breaker for them, withholding the truth about something important is a major deal breaker for some people.

[ireallywannaknow]

I see it like two employees... One is a temporary worker, the other is hired permanently. When the temp worker's contract ends, he will not consider himself fired like the permanent one would if he was terminated. The status is different even though they are both considered employees. [Both marriages... Different outcomes] 

[habib e najjaar]

2 minutes ago, ireallywannaknow said:

I see it like two employees... One is a temporary worker, the other is hired permanently. When the temp worker's contract ends, he will not consider himself fired like the permanent one would if he was terminated. The status is different even though they are both considered employees. [Both marriages... Different outcomes] 

For a person assuming they are marrying a previously unmarried person (which is the standard assumption when marrying a girl who is not a known divorcee), there are multiple potential deal breakers if that person were to know this woman has been that close to another person before. A lot of people can accept it despite knowing it, but not knowing and finally discovering it can be disastrous.

[Moalfas]

On 11/13/2019 at 9:51 PM, habib e najjaar said:

There is a status attached to a woman who has been in a marriage, whether temporary or permanent and consumated the marriage 

Yes, Thayib ثيّب : one who's consumated her marriage through a permanent or temporary marriage.

As opposed to the status Bikr بكر for a virgin.

What I was alluding to was that the status of 'divorce' only applies to the end of a permanent marriage. 

I agree with everyone who suggested that these details MUST be disclosed right at the beginning.

[Muslimthought97]

On 11/13/2019 at 10:49 PM, Lilly14 said:

Even if you don't list that you were in Mutah on your page, you should tell them before they invest emotions and time into you, because that might be a major deal-breaker for them. And even if the fact that you were in Mutah isn't a deal-breaker for them, withholding the truth about something important is a major deal breaker for some people.

 

On 11/13/2019 at 11:46 PM, habib e najjaar said:

For a person assuming they are marrying a previously unmarried person (which is the standard assumption when marrying a girl who is not a known divorcee), there are multiple potential deal breakers if that person were to know this woman has been that close to another person before. A lot of people can accept it despite knowing it, but not knowing and finally discovering it can be disastrous.

Yes I agree with the two of you should be disclosed asap. I am glad to have opened and read this discussion as habib said it has helped me realise the Mutah is a marriage more than a 'relationship' how it's percieved.

On 11/13/2019 at 11:21 PM, ireallywannaknow said:

I see it like two employees... One is a temporary worker, the other is hired permanently. When the temp worker's contract ends, he will not consider himself fired like the permanent one would if he was terminated. The status is different even though they are both considered employees. [Both marriages... Different outcomes] 

This is a very interesting way of seeing it and both would be disclosed on the CV either way so neither is hidden on the next 'job' (in this case marriage just adding to analogy)

[Lilly14]

12 hours ago, habib e najjaar said:

If the woman becomes pregnant such that the pregnancy derives from the period of mut'a, the child belongs to the husband, even if he performed coitus interruptus. This statute applies to every legitimate act of sexual intercourse, not specifically to mut'a, since the principle enunciated in the saying: 'The child belongs to the bed' is of general application.11 Al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan claims consensus on this point.12

However, if the man should deny the child, then it does not belong to him; the 'sworn allegation' required in permanent marriage is not necessary. Al-Shahid al Thani, al-Shaykh al-Ansari and al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan claim consensus on this question. They point out that the 'bed of mut'a', like the 'bed of a slave-girl', does not hold the same high position as the bed of a permanent wife, since a wife by mut'a is a 'rented woman'.13 On this point two hadith have been recorded.14

Source: Link

I understood that it is saying that children from Mutah are meant to be in the custody of the dad, if the dad wants custody, but if he doesn't, he can give custody to the mom. Nor is he required to help provide the child's sustenance/material needs to an extent. Which I'm guessing that that means he's not even required to pay anything even if his child is dying in poverty somewhere. 

But is it saying in both permanent and Mutah marriages the child belongs to the man, but the man can not deny providing for his child if and only if the child is from permanent marriage?

I'll have to read up more on these rulings and my Marjah. These are really rough, especially if a woman doesn't know these things and enters Mutah. 

But I'm glad that there can be a premutah contract stipulating conditions, like child support to circumvent these rulings in case of pregnancy. And prenikah contracts that can stipulate joint custody of kids in case of divorce. 

I'm thankful at least if someone has a baby from Mutah marriage, there are laws in places so the father has to financially partially support the child whether he wants to or not in my country, regardless if the couple is married by law or not.  And that joint custody is the default. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Lilly14

[habib e najjaar]

3 minutes ago, Lilly14 said:

I understood that it is saying that children from Mutah are meant to be in the custody of the dad, if the dad wants custody, but if he doesn't, he can give custody to the mom. Nor is he required to help provide the child's sustenance/material needs to an extent. Which I'm guessing that that means he's not even required to pay anything even if his child is dying in poverty somewhere. 

But is it saying in both permanent and Mutah marriages the child belongs to the man, but the man can not deny providing for his child if and only if the child is from permanent marriage?

I'll have to read up more on these rulings and my Marjah. These are really rough, especially if a woman doesn't know these things and enters Mutah. 

But I'm glad that there can be a premutah contract stipulating conditions, like child support to circumvent these rulings in case of pregnancy. And prenikah contracts that can stipulate joint custody of kids in case of divorce. 

I'm thankful at least if someone has a baby from Mutah marriage, there are laws in places so the father has to financially partially support the child whether he wants to or not in my country, regardless if the couple is married by law or not.  

Well, the reason I found it important to highlight these rulings is so that people see the other side of divine laws. The fact that Islam allows mutah or recognizes that some circumstances necessitate mutah does not mean that Islam condones or encourages it. In another hadith  the ahlbayt (عليه السلام) are reported to say that a virgin girl entering into mut'ah is عیب علی اهلها I.e a shame upon her family.

People need to realise that Islam does not encourage non permanent relationships and hopes to deter them by making them have unfavourable conditions for the parties most affected by them. So a woman willing to rent her body for use by a man (mutah) should know that she has exposed herself to possible slander (if the father denies paternity of the child for example), and is not ordinarily entitled to maintenance or inheritance (normally if a guy is willing to provide these to a woman, what is stopping him from marrying her permanently? Nothing). So what if the secular laws will force him to provide for a child he has denied as his? Will it undo the harm of having an "illegitimate" child? No Muslim woman would ever want to be associated with such a title in society, niyyah and private contract of marriage recognized by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) aside.

[Lilly14]

4 minutes ago, habib e najjaar said:

Well, the reason I found it important to highlight these rulings is so that people see the other side of divine laws. The fact that Islam allows mutah or recognizes that some circumstances necessitate mutah does not mean that Islam condones or encourages it. In another hadith  the ahlbayt (عليه السلام) are reported to say that a virgin girl entering into mut'ah is عیب علی اهلها I.e a shame upon her family.

People need to realise that Islam does not encourage non permanent relationships and hopes to deter them by making them have unfavourable conditions for the parties most affected by them. So a woman willing to rent her body for use by a man (mutah) should know that she has exposed herself to possible slander (if the father denies paternity of the child for example), and is not ordinarily entitled to maintenance or inheritance (normally if a guy is willing to provide these to a woman, what is stopping him from marrying her permanently? Nothing). So what if the secular laws will force him to provide for a child he has denied as his? Will it undo the harm of having an "illegitimate" child? No Muslim woman would ever want to be associated with such a title in society, niyyah and private contract of marriage recognized by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) aside.

In Mutah, men truly seem to have the longer end of the stick, as he's not doing Zina, and he's seemingly not held responsible if he does happen to have a child from it. 

I can't imagine how hard it is if you're poor, and/or can't relocate to get away from the judgemental people... how hard life will be for both the child and you. Especially in non western countries, where you are surrounded by other Muslims all the tine and your child doesn't have rights. 

[habib e najjaar]

On 11/14/2019 at 9:27 PM, Lilly14 said:

In Mutah, men truly seem to have the longer end of the stick, as he's not doing Zina, and he's seemingly not held responsible if he does happen to have a child from it. 

Allah set is never unjust, never even let such a thought cross your mind. The fact that Allah has created a law to allow some convenience in some situations does not mean it should be abused. Equal and opposite to the set of rights they have is a set of obligations they have. A man escaping his wordly obligations does not free him from facing its wordly and other wordly consequences. For one, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) says to men: 'iffoo tai'ffoo nisaa-ukum. Restrain yourselves and your women will restrain themselves.

Edited November 16, 2019 by starlight
Word edit

[Moalfas]

8 hours ago, Lilly14 said:

Nor is he required to help provide the child's sustenance/material needs to an extent.

7 hours ago, Lilly14 said:

and he's seemingly not held responsible if he does happen to have a child from it. 

According to our jurisprudence, the father is responsible for the sustenance of his offspring regardless of the type of marriage. 

[Lilly14]

5 hours ago, Moalfas said:

According to our jurisprudence, the father is responsible for the sustenance of his offspring regardless of the type of marriage. 

OK thanks for clarifying. The language of the text was a bit confusing and seemed to imply different. 

[habib e najjaar]

8 hours ago, Moalfas said:

According to our jurisprudence, the father is responsible for the sustenance of his offspring regardless of the type of marriage. 

This is assuming he acknowledges the child is his. If he does not, under mutah, he cannot be forced to take a paternity test. A woman who agrees to be rented for use must know the risk she exposes herself to. See:

However, if the man should deny the child, then it does not belong to him; the 'sworn allegation' required in permanent marriage is not necessary. Al-Shahid al Thani, al-Shaykh al-Ansari and al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan claim consensus on this question. They point out that the 'bed of mut'a', like the 'bed of a slave-girl', does not hold the same high position as the bed of a permanent wife, since a wife by mut'a is a 'rented woman'.13 On this point two hadith have been recorded.14

Al-Shahid al Thani adds that although sworn allegation is unnecessary in mut'a, this is the outward and exoteric statute, and there is another 'statute' established between man and God. In this second respect it is not permissible for the man to deny the child just because he performed coitus interrupts or suspects his wife of adultery. He must have definite knowledge that the child does not belong to him. Hence it is incumbent upon him to observe what exists between him and God, even though his word alone will be accepted and there is no need for him to make a sworn allegation.15

[The Green Knight]

On 11/13/2019 at 11:49 PM, Muslimthought97 said:

Would you say you can still call yourself unmarried, even if you are not a virgin ? 

This question has its uses. If I had to filter out the immature people in a group I would make a questionnaire and certainly add this question to it. "Would you marry a divorced / non-virgin person?" Personally if I had to then I would prefer someone divorced as they would be knowing much more about relationships compared to someone with zero social knowledge show casing their virginity.

[habib e najjaar]

4 hours ago, Lilly14 said:

OK thanks for clarifying. The language of the text was a bit confusing and seemed to imply different. 

Keep in mind, a father is bound to provide for his children. however, IF he denies the children as his, what next?

In our jurisprudence, for a permanent marriage, where the assumption is that a marital bed has no illegitimate children, a man alleging the children are not his would need to prove it.

for a temporary marriage/ a rented woman/ mutah, the man SHOULD not deny children who are his, but if he does, he will not be subjected to a paternity test against his will.

this is important to know, secular/country laws aside.

[Muslimthought97]

7 hours ago, habib e najjaar said:

Keep in mind, a father is bound to provide for his children. however, IF he denies the children as his, what next?

In our jurisprudence, for a permanent marriage, where the assumption is that a marital bed has no illegitimate children, a man alleging the children are not his would need to prove it.

for a temporary marriage/ a rented woman/ mutah, the man SHOULD not deny children who are his, but if he does, he will not be subjected to a paternity test against his will.

this is important to know, secular/country laws aside.

Forgive me if I sound rude as it is not my intention, but I don't understand how one can draw a conclusion and say that both nikah and mutah are marriages and not 'relationships' but then when it comes to responsibility the man can simply ignore his in the latter? I also think it is distasteful to call mutah 'a woman who agrees to be rented for use' as that's most definitely not the nature of it (quoted as in previous post). If I partake in Mutah I don't ask a woman can I please rent you for a night? As they are not objects, instead you are establishing an intimate relationship with such person, both attracted both want to be close perhaps nikah not a viable option who knows, but to think of it purely as a business transaction where you 'rent' them I believe is wrong.

It can only make sense to me that if both are the same thing I.e. marriage, only difference is one ends after a finite time the other indefinite then the responsibilities are the same in both. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Muslimthought97

[habib e najjaar]

8 hours ago, Muslimthought97 said:

Forgive me if I sound rude as it is not my intention, but I don't understand how one can draw a conclusion and say that both nikah and mutah are marriages and not 'relationships' but then when it comes to responsibility the man can simply ignore his in the latter? I also think it is distasteful to call mutah 'a woman who agrees to be rented for use' as that's most definitely not the nature of it (quoted as in previous post). If I partake in Mutah I don't ask a woman can I please rent you for a night? As they are not objects, instead you are establishing an intimate relationship with such person, both attracted both want to be close perhaps nikah not a viable option who knows, but to think of it purely as a business transaction where you 'rent' them I believe is wrong.

It can only make sense to me that if both are the same thing I.e. marriage, only difference is one ends after a finite time the other indefinite then the responsibilities are the same in both. 

I have not given my opinion on what I think of the ahkaam, I am simply quoting the terms (rental of a woman) and laws used in ahkaam, because I the main focus our societies are flooded with is : do not practise restraint. Engage in mutah. Its halal. Its mustahab. Heck its wajib. Here is the formula.

Unfortunately these are half truths if not given in their full context. I only quoted these to give perspective to the matter. 

Wa billahi tawfeeq.

[habib e najjaar]

P.s you may also find the term nikah objectionable if it is translated literally for you to mean permission to use a specific part of the anatomy. There is a hikmah in this usage of terms, if you do not look at it through a tainted lens or subjectively.

Edited November 15, 2019 by habib e najjaar

[Muslimthought97]

9 minutes ago, habib e najjaar said:

P.s you may also find the term nikah objectionable if it is translated literally for you to mean permission to use a specific part of the anatomy. There is a hikmah in this usage of terms, if you do not look at it through a tainted lens or subjectively.

Apologies then for my ignorance, to me it sounded a little distasteful and I would hope you could understand my point as I was taking it as a literal meaning. I wasn't aware it was stated as such. (still bothers me but thats another issue) I agree with you however about dishing out the mutah formula everytime a thought of a woman crosses to mind.

[habib e najjaar]

35 minutes ago, Muslimthought97 said:

Apologies then for my ignorance, to me it sounded a little distasteful and I would hope you could understand my point as I was taking it as a literal meaning. I wasn't aware it was stated as such. (still bothers me but thats another issue) I agree with you however about dishing out the mutah formula everytime a thought of a woman crosses to mind.

Yes, the terms used are "distasteful" we can say. But what is wanton satisfaction of lust? Is it not distasteful, objectionable, disgusting, sickening, nauseating, etc. The terms which can be used to describe a situation where a persons entire intellect and reason is driven by his/her lust/wants/desires/needs are infinite, and all of them will make us uncomfortable.

So the ahkaam make it easier for us: describe a situation for what it is, so that we as human beings look at these acts and ommissions that we do PURELY as a means of attaining the ridhaa and proximity of our Creator (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and not an end to serve our "desires". To break it down: is mutah permissible to satisfy uncontrollable urges? Yes. Is it encouraged purely for purposes of "satisfying" our lusts? No, because human was made khalifa on this Earth because he is able to subdue his lusts and carnal desires to his reason, unlike animals.

We keep quoting the ahadiths about the love of this dunya being like sea water. The more you drink of your lusts, the greater your thirst becomes. Yet we want to tell our youth: engage freely in mutah. It will satiate your desires.

Urgh.

Peace out.

Wabillahi tawfiq

[starlight]

6 hours ago, habib e najjaar said:

the love of this dunya being like sea water. The more you drink of your lusts,

Just a little technical point,something which came to my mind. I was wondering if carnal desires and companionship of women are a dunya thing? It is one of rewards of heaven for men. 

[habib e najjaar]

45 minutes ago, starlight said:

Just a little technical point,something which came to my mind. I was wondering if carnal desires and companionship of women are a dunya thing? It is one of rewards of heaven for men. 

So are rivers of milk and honey (eating and drinking) and the ghilmaan (youths serving people). These are no longer base desires in the afterlife.

Edit: ghilmaan as mentioned in surah Toor:

و یطوف علیهم غلمان لهم كأنهم لولو مكنون

Edited November 16, 2019 by habib e najjaar

[starlight]

Just now, habib e najjaar said:

So are rivers of milk and honey (eating and drinking) and the ghilmaan (youths serving people). These are no longer base desires in the afterlife.

Yeah, so what I was trying to say is that one should look at carnal desires just as one looks at food and clothing. One cannot do without them and as long as something is halal and without extravagance it's fine. Seeking to fulfill sexual desires via halal means isn't dirty or something to be looked down upon.

Some aarifeen practice abstinence from worldly pleasures which is fine, very good infact but then they do so from all worldly pleasures(for e.g I read somewhere that Ayatullah Sistani gave up eating one of his favourite Iraqi sweets just because he felt he enjoyed it too much!) But expecting this from someone who hasn't walked down the path is unreasonable In my humble opinion. 

I am not contradicting anything you are saying. Just adding to by saying that we should put carnal desires in the same box as food and clothing and allow some room for interpersonal variation.

[habib e najjaar]

4 minutes ago, starlight said:

Yeah, so what I was trying to say is that one should look at carnal desires just as one looks at food and clothing. One cannot do without them and as long as something is halal and without extravagance it's fine. Seeking to fulfill sexual desires via halal means isn't dirty or something to be looked down upon.

I am not contradicting anything you are saying. Just adding to by saying that we should put carnal desires in the same box as food and clothing and allow some room for interpersonal variation.

Agreed, with the difference being that human being has been encouraged to fulfil these desires in a particular way (for example eat, but do not do a,b,c,d..., eating in certain ways is makrooh, eating in certain conditions is even haram e.g where something causes you more harm than good for instance a severe allergic reaction), at the same time we are told even eating pork can be "halal" under some specific conditions and with specific instructions. This is what we sometimes refuse to put satisfaction of carnal desires under, and prefer to use it as an unconditional right yet Allah has made the enjoyment of every single wordly desire highly controlled and regulated with a lot of conditions. We accept these for food, so why not accept these conditions when it comes to fulfilment of sexual desires?