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
Diaz

Mutah as a business for women

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salamu Alaykum, before I start I apologize if any sister in here who are disturbed by this topic. Today I was talking with my friend, normally we talk about anything that comes to our mind. Suddenly I remember the BBC documentary (about the men who sell girl for mutah marriage), I talked about it with my friend, then suddenly he brought this up. He said he knows a girl who marry a rich Shi’a men for a high amount of dowry. Her dowry start from $5k up to $10k-$15k per month. That excluding the gift she gets from them like gold, jewelry, shopping cards, car etc. Is that permissible in Islamic law? Since Mutah to her is like a business. According to my friend, what she does is halal because she does wait for her iddah and she never let men touch her before temporary marriage. But I didn’t find it in any Maraji if it’s halal or no. I’m just curious, again sorry if anyone is disturbed from this topic specially sisters in here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Diaz said:

According to my friend, what she does is halal because she does wait for her iddah and she never let men touch her before temporary marriage. But I didn’t find it in any Maraji if it’s halal or no.

Salam. If she hasn't done anything haram, she is okay. Since every mutah husband left her, she will try again after her iddah is over. If her mutah husband was willing to make the marriage permanent, she would probably say yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, starlight said:

Off topic. I don't know why she is doing this but if I could I would advise her to find someone to marry permanently. 

 

1 hour ago, ShiaChat Mod said:

If her mutah husband was willing to make the marriage permanent, she would probably say yes. 

Oh, I forgot to say that she is polygamy. That’s the second reason why she is doing it. First reason is because she want money, but in halal way. 
 

Edit:- This is according to my friend, I don’t know her. 

Edited by Diaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

it does come close to the "western" definition of prostitution.

It is more like a sugar daddy/ sugar baby relationship than prostitution. Prostitution involves seeing mulitiple men at the same time, whereas the 'idda prevents this. The woman is more like what would be called a "kept woman."

12 minutes ago, Diaz said:

she is polygamy. That’s the second reason why she is doing it.

This didn't make sense, can you clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ayuoobi said:

This didn't make sense, can you clarify?

Like, she doesn’t want to be with one man forever. Instead, she want to be with a man for 1-2 months and after few months she will be with another man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

A religion which allows serious self harm? What sort of religion is this?

Demonstrate that this harm is strong enough to merit a legal prohibition.

5 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

They don't consider any harmful consequences,

Demonstrate the harmful consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

You don't think having sexual relations with a baby causes sufficient harm?

Sexual relations in the English languages means penetration, which no faqih permits. What is permitted are non-penetrative acts like thighing, and no, I don't think that in principle it causes any physical or psychological harm to the child, at least not in premodern society. In modern society due to social tabboos it might cause psychological harm that is contingent (similar to child-marriages). I came to realize after some elementray research in this matter that our perceptions of what causes harm are largely due to the internalized biases of our society rather than on any solid data. At any rate, I might be wrong, so if you can show me the data that demonstrate that this leads to significant harm, I'm all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

Sexual relations in the English languages means penetration, which no faqih permits. What is permitted are non-penetrative acts like thighing, and no, I don't think that in principle it causes any physical or psychological harm to the child, at least not in premodern society.

I am conservative with my language because I have friends and relatives who sometimes visit this site. But I disagree with your first sentence. Although a certain US ex-president will agree with you.

Perhaps I shouldn't make these posts when I don't have enough time to engage in a discussion. There is evidence that children who go through such things suffer much harm. In fact multiple personalities is one of them.

You are asking me to provide evidence that children who lived in societies where this wasn't a social taboo also suffered harm. You know it's hard to find that. But I can look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, starlight said:

That's messed up. She will run out of temporary options and by that time no one will want her as a permanent wife. 

What's worse are the men actually in contact with her. Why would a man want a "prostitute" as their wife?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Perhaps I shouldn't make these posts when I don't have enough time to engage in a discussion. There is evidence that children who go through such things suffer much harm. In fact multiple personalities is one of them.

You are asking me to provide evidence that children who lived in societies where this wasn't a social taboo also suffered harm. You know it's hard to find that. But I can look into it.

This is off topic though. 

This discussion is about a woman having many mutahs in as quick a sequence as iddah allows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muhammed Ali said:

But I disagree with your first sentence.

I mean I looked it up in the dictionary. That's what it means. At any rate, this is a semantical difference.

 

2 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

There is evidence that children who go through such things suffer much harm. In fact multiple personalities is one of them.

Usually children who go through this in our society are involved in situations where violence, penetration, verbal abuse, unstable households, incest, secrecy, and other factors are involved. Our perception of the harm comes because it is correlated with these other demonstrable harms. I am asking if it is something like thighing itself which is causing the harm, or these other factors. Correlation is not causation.

 

4 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

You are asking me to provide evidence that children who lived in societies where this wasn't a social taboo also suffered harm. You know it's hard to find that. But I can look into it.

I do know it's difficult to find that, which is why I maintain an agnostic position towards the harm, rather than accusing the fuqahaa' of being ignoramouses who can't see the obvious. I don't know exactly what it was like to live in premodern society, so there are many things about which I leave moral judgements to the people of that time. Premodern fuqahaa did not see a harm to this practice in their society, and we lack evidence, so on what basis are we saying that they're wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

Most Muslims are complaining that Islam is too totalitarian because it penetrates into every aspect of life. @Muhammed Ali has surprised me in that he appears to be saying that Islam is not totalitarian enough, and needs to control even more behaviour. *shrug*

What a fallacy, especially for a person who likes engaging intellectual discussions. Asking for more control in one area doesn't mean asking for more control in other areas. It possible to ask for more control in one area and want less control in most other areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

I do know it's difficult to find that, which is why I maintain an agnostic position towards the harm

Go read some of Nassim Taleb's books on risk taking. In fact try getting into trading and see how much you can lose without caution.

Quote

rather than accusing the fuqahaa' of being ignoramouses 

Would they tell you it causes no harm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

What a fallacy, especially for a person who likes engaging intellectual discussions.

I will admit, I was slightly trolling. It was not meant to be vicious. I suspected you wanted "less control in most other areas." What are those areas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ayuoobi said:

I will admit, I was slightly trolling. It was not meant to be vicious. I suspected you wanted "less control in most other areas." What are those areas?

Where did I imply that I wanted less control? I was just trying to show that you made a fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Muhammed Ali said:

In fact try getting into trading and see how much you can lose without caution.

If you can demonstrate there is even a significant risk of harm, then this argument makes sense. I am proposing that the very idea that non-penetrative acts are harmful really has no basis and is rooted in modern biases which come with extremely loaded metaphysical assumptions about the nature of sexuality, sexual autonomy, the atomized individual, family, and a whole other host of ideas.

Just now, Muhammed Ali said:

Where did I imply that I wanted less control? I was just trying to show that you made a fallacy.

Do you or do you not want less control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, notme said:

The harm of serial short-term monogamy is social, not physical. It might also cause psychological or spiritual harm, but without further information we really can't know that. 

If social harm is considered, one could argue against a lot of things. 

I don't see anyone advocating for more people to do this, just people saying "it isn't haram."

I disagree, I will be back in a week or two to respond. The vary nature of women wanting to bond with the father of the children is enough to know how this can cause harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topics like this is of no benefit.

Whether what she doing is halal or not, none of my business. However she is a prostitute.

Definition of prostitute

to offer for sexual intercourse in exchange for pay

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prostitute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ayuoobi said:

Sexual relations in the English languages means penetration, which no faqih permits. What is permitted are non-penetrative acts like thighing, and no, I don't think that in principle it causes any physical or psychological harm to the child, at least not in premodern society. In modern society due to social tabboos it might cause psychological harm that is contingent (similar to child-marriages). I came to realize after some elementray research in this matter that our perceptions of what causes harm are largely due to the internalized biases of our society rather than on any solid data. At any rate, I might be wrong, so if you can show me the data that demonstrate that this leads to significant harm, I'm all ears.

I'm sorry to say this by thiging a baby or infant is morally wrong and even your fitrah will tell you it's wrong. Try it and you'll see what I mean. It's just pure evil and it comes from Shaytan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MohammadAli1993 said:

I'm sorry to say this by thiging a baby or infant is morally wrong and even your fitrah will tell you it's wrong. Try it and you'll see what I mean. It's just pure evil and it comes from Shaytan. 

He isn't even limiting it to thighing. To people with his views everything is fine except one thing. Even oral sex by a little child is allowed. Isn't that right @Ayuoobi ? I struggled to even write those words.

Anyway I should really do some work ...

Edited by Muhammed Ali

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.


×
×
  • Create New...