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

12 hours ago, AkhiraisReal said:

How does it work with iddah though. Because a prostitute doesn't observe iddah.

And if the man knows the prostitute will not observe iddah and/or has not observed iddah from previous intimacy, is the contract still valid?

There's no iddah for zina (which is what a prostitute is engaged in). 

 

13 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

I just have to add that some marjae allow mutah with prostitutes albeit makrooh.

I have heard that before, (from other members here although  I have never seen an actual fatwa or writing from a marjaa' regarding this ) but I am wondering how those who (supposedly)  allow it reconcile that with the following ayat

الزَّانِي لَا يَنكِحُ إلَّا زَانِيَةً أَوْ مُشْرِكَةً وَالزَّانِيَةُ لَا يَنكِحُهَا إِلَّا زَانٍ أَوْ مُشْرِكٌ وَحُرِّمَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden

Quran. Al-Nour (The Light) 24:3

 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


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

There's no iddah for zina (which is what a prostitute is engaged in). 

 

I have heard that before, (from other members here although  I have never seen an actual fatwa or writing from a marjaa' regarding this ) but I am wondering how those who (supposedly)  allow it reconcile that with the following ayat

الزَّانِي لَا يَنكِحُ إلَّا زَانِيَةً أَوْ مُشْرِكَةً وَالزَّانِيَةُ لَا يَنكِحُهَا إِلَّا زَانٍ أَوْ مُشْرِكٌ وَحُرِّمَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden

Quran. Al-Nour (The Light) 24:3

 

 

Question: Is it permissible to be party to temporary marriage with a woman who is “known for adultery”, if no other woman is available and the person is in desperate need of marriage?

Answer: Based on obligatory precaution, one should refrain from marrying such a woman except after her repentance..
Does this mean it's haram? is this implying prostitution?
 
Question: What is the meaning of the expression used by the jurists that “there is no waiting period (‘idda) for an adulterous woman because of her adultery”?
Answer: It means that she is allowed to marry after having committed adultery without observing the ‘idda; and, if she is married, then it is permissible for her husband to have sexual relations with her without observing the ‘idda, she would need to seek repentance and forgiveness.

 

Question: What is meant by the expression “an adulterous woman known for adultery”?

Answer: It means that such a woman is known among the people for committing adultery in which case, it is not permissible to marry her as an obligatory precaution, unless she seeks repentance.
 
 
Why would iddah not be necessary for adulterous woman?
 
I also found this:
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AkhiraisReal said:

It means that she is allowed to marry after having committed adultery without observing the ‘idda; and, if she is married, then it is permissible for her husband to have sexual relations with her without observing the ‘idda, she would need to seek repentance and forgiveness.

How is paternity determined then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

There's no iddah for zina (which is what a prostitute is engaged in). 

 

I have heard that before, (from other members here although  I have never seen an actual fatwa or writing from a marjaa' regarding this ) but I am wondering how those who (supposedly)  allow it reconcile that with the following ayat

الزَّانِي لَا يَنكِحُ إلَّا زَانِيَةً أَوْ مُشْرِكَةً وَالزَّانِيَةُ لَا يَنكِحُهَا إِلَّا زَانٍ أَوْ مُشْرِكٌ وَحُرِّمَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden

Quran. Al-Nour (The Light) 24:3

 

 

There has been other threads on this subject before actually where they already discussed these things. From my personal understanding of their point of view is that mutah with a female (albeit a prostitute) is still better than zina with your hand, as in the lesser evil.

I would suggest you to look into those old threads or maybe start a new one on the topic as it would derail this one otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Azadar-e-Ali said:

How is paternity determined then?

Well paternity can be determined through several ways. If I am correct Iddah was a way of measure to determine paternity, correct? However since time has moved there are other methods to determine paternity. But then why is iddah still required? I am not very knowledge within these fields to answer those questions. Hopefully some other brother might be able to. @Abu Hadi

32 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

There has been other threads on this subject before actually where they already discussed these things. From my personal understanding of their point of view is that mutah with a female (albeit a prostitute) is still better than zina with your hand, as in the lesser evil.

I would suggest you to look into those old threads or maybe start a new one on the topic as it would derail this one otherwise.

There are other problems with prostitutes. Once you get a taste of the "just pay and enjoy" that could very well lead to a more negative path. Prostitutes can also lead to you having some unrealistic standards on your future wife which most likely won't be met. Leading to both having bad "intimacy relationship".

I don't understand the logic behind this unfortunately. I wish I did. I understand that zina with your hand is haram. But how is "mutah" with prostitution so much better? Sure not every man have the patience of a monk. But surely there must be other ways to control libido than to constantly think of sex.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Diaz said:

Today I will update you about the girl, my friend actually knows her. 

 

5 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Please don't, It is better to not know about her. Just make an hypothetical example about the issues, no need to publicity tell about the real person. 

Can this be considered "backbiting" even if it's hypothetical example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AkhiraisReal said:

 

Can this be considered "backbiting" even if it's hypothetical example?

It is not backbiting if we just talk about hypothetically that does not reflect on the person and have nothing to do with the person. We should just talk in general sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Please don't, It is better to not know about her. Just make an hypothetical example about the issues, no need to publicity tell about the real person. 

Ok brother, I won’t. But I just wanted to clear some doubt about her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 9:49 AM, Diaz said:

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. 

 

On 6/26/2020 at 9:49 AM, Diaz said:

Read above. 

Sorry, but what you said is not polygamy. She is with one man at a time (monogamy) and obeying all the rules of marriage, including mahr and iddah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 7:57 PM, Guest Khanb said:

How is my understanding islamically wrong? Women are said to be a test for men. What does that imply? In the past Shia societies, it was the low class slave women who practiced mutah. Women still value men who have financial stability. Women do not chose their partners on the basis of physical attraction. Nothing has changed.

Modern research accounts for the effects of sexual perversion spread by the media, that is why western research on sexuality is not indicative of women's natural behavior before the sexual indoctrination by the media. 

Which text in all of Islamic literature states that women have equally high sexual desires? 

I never said that mutahs purpose is to speculate whether a marriage would work or not. I only said that is one of the main reasons many Shias enter into mutah marriages. 

Most of crime is linked to poverty(not saying a crime is being committed in this case)Focusing on  social issues is not relevant  to this discussion. Women aren't the only victims of inequality. 

Woah, enough pointless things.

You talk about class and financial stability, and using that you build your truth (women dependance on men, lack of sexual desire and interest only in financial stability obtained through marriage). Yet it is the other way around. It shall be the truth what commands us how to organize ourselves and structure our economy. Otherwise, capitalism will keep ruining our societies, our morals, and our understanding of Islam itself, which will end up serving this system of cruelty more and more.

Only an (ignorant) man would say so happily that women don't choose their partners based on physical attraction.

Poverty is also a social issue by the way. You should know that, to be honest. And you are right, women are not the only victims of inequality, but to think that the fight against inequality shall not be intersectional is very naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ali

Please don’t judge this lady. Probably, She may be looking for a man who would keep her happiest. If Mutah is halal, then who are we to judge people who do that. Isn’t there a saying from Hazrat Ali (عليه السلام) in this regard, that if the second caliph had not stopped mutah, no one would have committed adultery except a lowly person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Khanb
14 hours ago, Bakir said:

Woah, enough pointless things.

You talk about class and financial stability, and using that you build your truth (women dependance on men, lack of sexual desire and interest only in financial stability obtained through marriage). Yet it is the other way around. It shall be the truth what commands us how to organize ourselves and structure our economy. Otherwise, capitalism will keep ruining our societies, our morals, and our understanding of Islam itself, which will end up serving this system of cruelty more and more.

Only an (ignorant) man would say so happily that women don't choose their partners based on physical attraction.

Poverty is also a social issue by the way. You should know that, to be honest. And you are right, women are not the only victims of inequality, but to think that the fight against inequality shall not be intersectional is very naive.

Women do not value physical attraction as much as wealth, status and power. I'm under the impression this is a fact that has forever been prevelant. 

You were the one making pointless statements, I just responded to them and keep it relevant to mutah. You have extended this discussion to the repercussions of capitalism.  Poverty has existed in every type of economic system, not just capitalism. Capitalism has not exacerbated any socioeconomic issues that would increase the number of mutahs done out of despair. 

Also, you are assuming that mutah is bad, right? And that it is done by women out of economic despair? 

In the Shia societies in the past (not capitalist) mutah was practiced by low class slave women. 

I just want to know why a woman would be involved in mutah if not for the money 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Khanb
14 hours ago, Bakir said:

Woah, enough pointless things.

You talk about class and financial stability, and using that you build your truth (women dependance on men, lack of sexual desire and interest only in financial stability obtained through marriage). Yet it is the other way around. It shall be the truth what commands us how to organize ourselves and structure our economy. Otherwise, capitalism will keep ruining our societies, our morals, and our understanding of Islam itself, which will end up serving this system of cruelty more and more.

Only an (ignorant) man would say so happily that women don't choose their partners based on physical attraction.

Poverty is also a social issue by the way. You should know that, to be honest. And you are right, women are not the only victims of inequality, but to think that the fight against inequality shall not be intersectional is very naive.

Women value wealth, power and status much more than physical attraction. I am under the impression that this is fact that has been prevalent forever. 

You were the one making pointless statements. I was just responding to them and keeping it relevant to mutah. You extended this discussion to the repercussions of capitalism.

Also, you are assuming that mutah is bad, right? And that it is done by women out of economic despair? 

Poverty has existed in every type of economy. Capitalism has not exacerbated any socioeconomic problems that would increase mutahs done out of despair. 

Shia societies in the past(not capitalist) , mutah was practiced by low class slave women. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest popcorn!Monad

I'd say she is a very clever woman, to have men and women who do not engage with her, write essays about her morality thousands of miles away. Who are these men and women who speak so greatly of her?.

inexperienced, detached, single, deluded, confused, immature , unlearned, socially and psychologically traumatised. Why such negative connotations?. How can I say such things when I do not even know any of you?. Perhaps from reading 70% of the comments, I can form an opinion. Just like we formed an opinion of her without knowing any details. ALL opinion but it does make us all feel important and vent out at each other, while hoping we have banked some imaginery good deeds into our imaginery bank accounts.

Here is some gossip for the naive. :

  • She must be extremely good looking, with charm and intelligence knowing how to accumulate wealth via sleeping with rich men. Selling her body for a small amount of time, perhaps a day or a week for three months wages ( iddah ), almost equal to a highly qualified proffessional working 200hours a month x 3 = 600 hours.
  • It is a limited career.
  • Women like these want or need money, come from poverty, prefer his lifestyle, want an ALpha male, = rich,  are either pimped out by criminal gangs, government agencies.
  • Not all women can do this, because they are no in that category, both physically and intellectually.
  • Most people do not even know that such business occur within their own cities, so how would she be effected by society.
  • How do I know about the above?. Ask those who deal with the super rich. This is common practice.
  • There is YT documentory about the super rich in Monaco, and the same thing happens there. Rich old men with pretty young girlfriends, who then get dumped and are given money and property to shut up.
  • 5 to 15k is nothing for someone who can wipe their backsides with money.
  • Many posters are good at conjuring ideas up then are practically non existent in the real world. They seem to have a village mentality about gossip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 8:57 AM, AkhiraisReal said:

Question: Is it permissible to be party to temporary marriage with a woman who is “known for adultery”, if no other woman is available and the person is in desperate need of marriage?

Answer: Based on obligatory precaution, one should refrain from marrying such a woman except after her repentance..
Does this mean it's haram? is this implying prostitution?
 
Question: What is the meaning of the expression used by the jurists that “there is no waiting period (‘idda) for an adulterous woman because of her adultery”?
Answer: It means that she is allowed to marry after having committed adultery without observing the ‘idda; and, if she is married, then it is permissible for her husband to have sexual relations with her without observing the ‘idda, she would need to seek repentance and forgiveness.

 

Question: What is meant by the expression “an adulterous woman known for adultery”?

Answer: It means that such a woman is known among the people for committing adultery in which case, it is not permissible to marry her as an obligatory precaution, unless she seeks repentance.
 
 
Why would iddah not be necessary for adulterous woman?
 
I also found this:
 
 

Salam Br. 

I have had this same discussion about this fatwa many times here. I will say it again because maybe there are some who haven't heard this before. Also, you might already understand these points, so although I am replying to your post, this reply is not necessarily for you. It is a general thought and stance based on the knowledge that I have gained over the (many) years on this forum as well as other sources I have.

We need to be very, very careful when we post these fatawa without context. Some younger brothers (maybe some older ones too ) with little knowledge of the religion will take this fatwa as a 'green light' to engage is sex with prostitutes. This fatwa has been used in the past this way by other members (not you), some have been banned and some left voluntarily. So for those who will listen, I will say it again, 'THIS FATWA IS NOT A GREEN LIGHT TO ENGAGE IN SEX WITH PROSTITUTES'. 

So here is some context on this. The absolute haram (haram under every circumstance) are very few. I have been thinking about this, and a few of these are Shirk (ascribing partners to Allah(s.w.a)), killing of a mumin person intentionally, (a few others which I can't think of now). There is no circumstance where these are allowed. The rest of the haramat (the haram things) are conditional haram. For example, most people think that drinking alcohol is an absolute haram, it isn't. It is 99.9% of the time, but there are a very few circumstances where it isn't (like if you are dying of thirst). Most people think intentionally skipping Salat (for men)  is an absolute haram, it isn't. For example, if you become temporarily insane or you become intoxicated, you are required to skip the prayer until you regain your sanity or you are no longer intoxicated.

So to understand this fatwa, we need to understand the meaning of the term Sayyid Sistani used (the Arabic term), ihtiyyat (precaution). Marjaa' use this word when they cannot absolutely determine whether an act is haram in all circumstances. For example, when someone says 'Out of extreme necessity', there are many types of extreme necessity. What the fatwa is saying is that Sayyid Sistani cannot determine absolutely whether this is haram in every type of 'extreme necessity'. Since masturbation is haram, and there may be some circumstance where a greater harm will result (like death or permanent injury to the reproductive organ, insanity, etc) if this 'release' does not happen, then he cannot determine absolutely whether in that case, having sex with a women who is known for adultery would still be haram, in all of those cases. If you ask a vague question, you will get a vague answer.

When you say 'extreme need' without clarifying the nature of that need and the circumstances that will result if that need isn't fulfilled (the harm that will result), the marjaa will give an answer, because they are required to do that, but this answer will also be vague, not because the marjaa is not knowledgeable but because the question is vague. Unfortunately, some people take these vague answers and then interpret them in a way that fits their inclination, what they have already decided in their mind, with their limited knowledge is the correct answer and they are only looking to the marjaa' to validate that answer , rather than trying to seek out the correct action given their exact circumstances, because they are afraid they will get an answer which they don't like. 

I also understand that there are many brothers, and sisters in very difficult circumstances when it comes to this issue. At the same time, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is merciful, and especially to the Mumineen and Muminaat, so we are tested to the limit of our ability to pass the test, and then the test is over. So if a man is falling into an 'extreme need' so extreme that he is considering a 'women known for zina', he should seriously consider the circumstances that put him in the place where he is considering this (given all the many authentic hadith we have plus the ayat from the Quran I quoted in my previous post that show that this is bad idea) and should seriously reflect and see if there is not a better option available. 

Again brother, I did not mean to offend you and the response is not directed at you specifically. It is just that in the past this fatwa has been misused and misinterpreted by other members in the past. 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ali

Salaam Brother and Sisters.

I am not a faqih, but with due respects to all I want to share my 2 cents worth of thoughts on this post.

For me it is amusing that this post has generated so many views and replies, when in fact this is a simple matter wherein a woman seems to have used a halal but not commonly used method of marriage. 

Islam has provided ease in all spheres of life. If we mix our own views, culture and religion, then it becomes a problem, in my opinion,  sexuality is a basic need like food and water. So, Islam has provided various halal ways of marriage. In fact, in the past there was even provision for concubinage. What Islam totally disapproves is adultery. The main problem with adultery is the issue of illegitimate children. Otherwise, what is Mutah except  enjoyment? Therefore, there is no need to put on our so called ‘“moral” spectacles to view things. 

I think as a society we need to grow up. We are too much engrossed in these small things. Look where the other societies have reached. In this age and times, why the shias are mostly lagging behind in all spheres of life. How many of our people are in the forefront of technology and research? 

We need to move on and our collective mindsets need to change.

And lastly, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has not given us the  task to judge others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Abu Hadi waleykum salam.

Thank you for clarifying. It's true what you say, sometimes we try to interpret the "vague questions and answers" in a way that fits our view or are more inclined towards.

I was never offended by your reply, hopefully all brothers/sisters can learn from it.

Edited by AkhiraisReal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 10:49 PM, notme said:

It might also cause psychological or spiritual harm, but without further information we really can't know that. 

The great thinker Nassim Taleb speaking about the Coronavirus and those who said "we don't really know/ have enough evidence":

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1247182217912160257

What this woman is getting into is something that involves a high level of risk and the consequences would not be minor. In such a context the supposed absence of evidence is not a good reason to engage in the act, because it is not evidence of absence.

 

bMD2qYj.png?1

55bh7GW.png?1

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 11:06 PM, Ayuoobi said:

and other factors are involved.

The mods don't want us to talk about this subject here, so we can't say certain things. But I think the principles involved relate to my objections against certain attitudes in this thread; so I will leave this response:

Imagine if a house burned down and an expert in the matter told you that there were 5 things that could have caused it. Would it not be sensible to remove all five potential causes when rebuilding the house? Retaining one of them because "we don't know that it was the cause", would be recklessness.  You want evidence that it was a certain thing that caused it - but you don't even have evidence that it wasn't caused by it. So we must not do it out of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 11:03 PM, AkhiraisReal said:

"prostitute"

Some people on this forum said that since she is observing iddah then it doesn't fall under that definition. Whatever the definition is, she can actually do it without iddah if there is no consummation. So she could see a different man every hour and get money for it. As repulsive as that may be, according to certain views of Islam on this thread, what she would be doing is perfectly halaal.

One of the problems with their approach to Islam is that they do not admit the possibility that some teachings of Ahlulbayt may not have been transmitted to us. Did anyone ask the Ahlulbayt about these things? And if they did does it mean that we definitely received every single  saying of theirs? So for these people it is all halaal just because the religious texts do not mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The second point: I agree that permissible acts can become impermissible in certain situations. However there needs to be a basis for this. It cannot be based on vague notions (eating meat is haram because vegetarians could be offended, marrying a white woman is haram because ethnics could be offended etc etc). 

In addition to jurisprudence, one must of course use wisdom, judgement and common sense. Of course I would avoid eating meat in the presence of a vegetarian friend. This is good manners and good judgement. But we cannot start labelling things as haram in the way you are categorically doing just because it doesn't follow conventional etiquette or norms.

 

I think you have given a false analogy and made a straw man argument. You cannot simply compare eating meat in front of a vegetarian to the example that I and the brother were discussing. There is a difference in the kind of harm, in the severity of the harm and the probability of it occurring:

  1. The harm of offense is not like the psychological harm of being divorced after a day of marriage. It is also not like the social harm of not being able to find a spouse thereafter. We are talking about actual harm here not "vague notions" or "conventional etiquette" as you put it. This isn't dependent on societal norms and opinions, it depends on human nature itself. @Ayuoobi 
  2. The severity of the harm is also much more. How bad is it to offend a vegan with eating meat compared to divorcing after a day?
  3. The probability of the harm is also a lot greater. How likely is a vegan to be so offended when you eat meat?

BTW a fatwa for you to think about: 

Question: If putting on the face veil (an-niqãb) in a country [like England or America] sometimes arouses astonishment and inquiries, is it obligatory to take off such veil since it would become part of the libãsu ’sh-shuhra?

Answer: It is not obligatory [to do so]. However, if wearing it arouses disapproval by and dislike of the general public in a particular country, it would be classified as “libãsu ’sh-shuhra” in that country and it would not be permissible to wear it over there.

http://www.sistani.org/english/book/46/2066/

Here one law of Islam is used to change the permissibility of another thing.

On 6/27/2020 at 8:31 PM, Mahdavist said:

Brother you are using exceptions as rules. You say transporting alcohol is not haram in itself, and you point to an example where it's being disposed of.

Rather, it is haraam in itself and as an exception it may become permissible if one is disposing of it.

 

Using your principle, divorce after a day would normally cause great harm, in exceptional cases it wont. Thus don't call it halaal. Unless you think great harm is halaal.

And I am not using the exception as the rule, I am claiming that the rule doesn't exist without context.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Using your principle, divorce after a day would normally cause great harm, in exceptional cases it wont. Thus don't call it halaal. Unless you think great harm is halaal.

I disagree. 

Transporting alcohol in itself is haraam as proven by hadith. Only the context can make it haraam in a specific situation

Similarly, divorce in itself is permissible (albeit disliked). Only the circumstances and context might (and I say here might because the idea of 'great harm' is speculative rather than definite) make it impermissible.

You are ignoring the inherent permissibility of things (mut'ah, divorce etc) and rushing to make haram what Islam inherently made halaal. I don't say that they can't become haraam, but the starting position will always depend on the inherent permissibility and only specific circumstances may make something unpermissible. 

This was the more general point.

Getting into specifics, your examples seem to be very subjective. You have simply decided that divorce is harmful and therefore haram (some divorcees would argue that their marriages were harmful and they're much safer divorced than they were married). You simply decided that a vegan won't get that offended at someone eating meat (why not? Some would be deeply offended. More than vegans, certain hindus would take great offence to someone consuming beef in their presence). There is no clear guideline here, it seems to be enough that a woman dislikes her husband to have a second wife and therefore it becomes haram. I wonder if you would declare it halal for the husband to start satisfying himself just because his wife isn't always available for him and she objects to him taking a second wife. Can you see where this is heading? In the end the halal and haraam of Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) almost becomes irrelevant for you because society and individuals are taking the lead in determining what's halaal and what's haraam. It's an approach that will never be consistent. 

Does the husband marry twice to prevent haraam, or does he use haraam means to satisfy his desires because his wife dislikes second marriages?

Do I touch the non mahrams hand to avoid offending her, or do I forego the handshake and offend her instead?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2020 at 4:39 AM, Mahdavist said:

I disagree. 

You don't think a man divorcing a woman after only day will cause much harm to her? We are talking about a situation where the woman was unaware of his intentions to divorce - with everything else being normal.

Please note again that I wasn't talking about divorce in general but this one specific scenario.

Quote

You have simply decided that divorce is harmful and therefore haram

Where did I say that?

I think it depends on context. Divorce can be wajib, haraam etc. I just don't think we can label it as inherently mubah when there is normally a context attached to it. If someone asks you what is the Islamic opinion on divorce we don't give one word answers such as "permissible". We should give more elaborate answers.

Quote

Transporting alcohol in itself is haraam as proven by hadith.

I don't see that. I see ahadith which speak about transporting alcohol for drinking. It is haraam because of the normal societal context and not inherently haraam.

Quote

Getting into specifics, your examples seem to be very subjective.

With the example that was being discussed in this thread (divorce after a day) it isn't about offending someone or going against societal norms. It is matter of strong human nature. I have mentioned this before. This is not a subjective matter. There may be other more complex and subjective scenarios, but even they will have their own rulings depending on the exact situation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divorce is halal and so is mutah.There is no haram divorce. What's forbidden is injustice and oppression whether against others or the self. Not divorcing a woman who is asking for divorce can be oppression and injustice so is marrying  and divorcing the girl days after marriage unless their is some justifiable reason. Similarly, multiple mutahs for a woman isn't forbidden even if it is for money as long as the rules are being followed but if she is being injust and oppressive towards herself in the process then that's a problem. 

Edited by starlight

Share this post


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

There is no haram divorce.

Please read this and tell me how you disagree: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235067088-mutah-as-a-business-for-women/?do=findComment&comment=3293840

And what the woman in the OP is doing is also haram (maybe unless  there is some exceptional reason).

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 11:51 PM, Muhammed Ali said:

What is clearly haraam in that scenario is the hurt that it will cause the woman. She will be hurt psychologically and socially. She may even find it hard to find another husband. To do that to a person is haraam.

In this case the one causing the hurt is her own self.

On 6/27/2020 at 11:51 PM, Muhammed Ali said:

If I were to ask you the following without any context: "Is it halaal to ruin the chances of someone getting married and to severely hurt their feelings?" You would say it's haraam. But for some reason when it is caused by a prior halaal act it is not haraam? To me that is unsound.

It's not haraam imo. Haram and halal have pretty much clear cut boundaries in islam. Divorce is detested but nevertheless halal. We can't pronounce anything haram that has been made halal by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

The statement you gave has lots of grey areas. Ruining the chances of marriage for someone can mean a lot of things under different contexts. We have to look at individual actions. Was their slandering, backbiting or lying going on to ruin someone's chances for marriage? If yes then it's these acts that are haraam. 

We cannot classify acts as halal or haram by the standards of the society these days. For example, marrying someone who had a mutah in the past shouldn't immediately disqualify someone for permanent marriage but going by the threads on SC apparently it does. Similarly marrying a divorcee or widow/er shouldn't be a problem but many muslims these days don't want to just on the basis of this So divorcee or mutah or being a widow shouldn't automatically mean haram because chances of marriage ruined. 

Similarly this girl, though we are going on and on with very little information, but who knows she entered into first mutah, could have been a promise of permanent marriage or just something she did and she was made to believe that after one mutah no man would want him as a permanent wife again so that pushed her towards this harmful spree. If this is the case, what is haram and forbidden? mutah or the one who misled her into mutah with promises of permanent marriage? or the ones who believe that 'one mutah in past automatically means wanton woman/ philandering man? 

Share this post


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

In this case the one causing the hurt is her own self.

The woman is hurting herself even though it was a man that divorced her after one day of marriage? I think you might be missing the context because it veered off onto anther scenario. The brother and I were not talking about the woman in the OP. It's another example that someone bought up.

Quote

It's not haraam imo.

What is your view of the hadith I quoted in that post?

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


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

The woman is hurting herself even though it was a man that divorced her after one day of marriage? I think you might be missing the context because it veered off onto anther scenario.

Lol,yeah I think you are right  because I didn't follow the entire thread. In that case divorce is still halal though injustice isn't. 

5 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

What is the view of the hadith I quoted in that post?

Any act that is associated with injustice is wrong. I don't know if it would be correct to say haram but definitely wrong and unjust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anna

Salam 

 

thank you very mich for this post.

I have a question:

A woman made muta with a man. Muta endet. She had to weit for 6 weeks (2 Periode of blood).

After 3 weeks the man wanted the woman back. She agreed but not with Sexual Intercourse.  Just to Meet and perhaps vorher not Intercourse 

How long is now iddah?

For your Information: it is a theoratical question.

 

Wasalam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, starlight said:

Lol,yeah I think you are right  because I didn't follow the entire thread. In that case divorce is still halal though injustice isn't. 

Any act that is associated with injustice is wrong. I don't know if it would be correct to say haram but definitely wrong and unjust. 

In my view such a divorce is legally valid but haraam. I think many people conflate legality with haraam and halaal.

The reason I post in these threads is because I feel like this forum (and maybe the community) in general tends to give a callous interpretation of Islam. I have seen people get harmed because of these interpretations of Islam. Coincidentally a revert woman recently told me that she married a man who did it with the intention of shortly leaving her. She is suffering depression. Apparently the man has done it to many women. 

Share this post


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

In my view such a divorce is legally valid but haraam. I think many people conflate legality with haraam and halaal.

On what do you base the distinction between something not being haraam and legally valid?

 

22 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

The reason I post in these threads is because I feel like this forum (and maybe the community) in general tends to give a callous interpretation of Islam. I have seen people get harmed because of these interpretations of Islam. Coincidentally a revert woman recently told me that she married a man who did it with the intention of shortly leaving her. She is suffering depression. Apparently the man has done it to many women. 

What do you suggest is done to prevent men doing this? I don't think anyone believes this is ethical behaviour, and I would assume that this person will have to answer for it on the Day of Judgement, but it doesn't seem that this is something Islam can legislate for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest hmmz!Monad

 

1 hour ago, Muhammed Ali said:

The reason I post in these threads is because I feel like this forum (and maybe the community)

I'd "say" are you not conflating it according to your own bias ( as we all do ), that being at what you have being exposed to?. The reverted lady in question should have known what she got her self into, if she did enter the mutah marriage, the requirements are that both parties should know the agreements prior to that type of engagement. If one party was disingenuous then the contract would be void, infact she could take legal action. If X tells Y, that they are going to engage in a short term relationship and when it ends Y becomes depressed. The fault lies in Y and not X. As both parties had agreed to the end result.

There is no evidence that the said person is hurting her/his self. Again these are personality traits that we have to deal with. I am unsure as to how we come to the conclusion that an individuals is hurting themselves?. Collected data does not entail all brain types, there are some who enjoy high risk taking while some quiver at the site of a harmless spider.

I read the narrations that you posted. It seems the context of it is about permenant marriage. I suggest you go over the other narrations too. Cleary divorce is also permissible for incorrect behavior according to one person, although we do not even know what that behavior is. I did not find any context where it implies that divorce is harmful thing in that book and i'd that you probably opened a larger can of worms regarding many of the narrations and the effects of harm as you have posited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

On what do you base the distinction between something not being haraam and legally valid?

By legally valid I mean that the couple are considered divorced by the law. The religious authority and the state would have to consider them divorced. So a divorce which causes much injustice may be haraam but it is legally valid. I suspect that when people are using the term halaal in this context they are thinking of legal validity in their mind.

By definition anything that results in the punishment of Allah is haraam. If some people want to state that the divorce is halaal but it results in injustice which is haraam, then that is not too far from what I have been saying. 

Quote

What do you suggest is done to prevent men doing this? I don't think anyone believes this is ethical behaviour, and I would assume that this person will have to answer for it on the Day of Judgement, but it doesn't seem that this is something Islam can legislate for.

What do you mean by legislate? Legislation by state or religious authority is not what Islam teaches for this scenario, but there is the greater legislation of Allah (i.e. the punishment of Allah).

What I am arguing for is a change in how we communicate these ideas to people. People do stupid and harmful things because they don't think things through properly. E.g. when Trump spoke about injecting disinfectant, some people actually went and did it. If we don't elaborate to people when speaking about these rulings then you will get some people who will think something is halaal just because their received a one word answer. Some time ago someone told me that their father does mutah serially with different war widows and the family (including the mother) is struggling with accepting it. Their community actually thinks it's mustahab because that is apparently what their religious leaders told them. So I gave this person a contrary opinion (that this behavior is not mustahab). And that is my point, what we say on forums like this makes a difference to what may happen in the real world.

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...