Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Temporary marriage?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Assalam,

I have read in some places that shia Islam has a concept called " temprory marriage" is this real? What basis does it have in quran/hadith's? Can women also practice it? Just by its name it seems very unislamic to me 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think on must consider all these Traditions on Mutah from Sihaah Sitta then decide if it was haram or not. Sahih Bukhari: Narrated 'Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy battle

Im not knowledgeable enough to take part in the conversation, but im following

I cannot accept that line of reasoning. The reason why is because if everything that is coming out of the mouth of the Messenger of Allah(p.b.u.h) is wahiy (revelation from Allah(s.w.a)) and everythin

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
21 minutes ago, smma said:

Assalam,

I have read in some places that shia Islam has a concept called " temprory marriage" is this real? What basis does it have in quran/hadith's? Can women also practice it? Just by its name it seems very unislamic to me 

Yes both women and men can practice it.

This covers everything: 

https://www.al-islam.org/muta-temporary-marriage-islamic-law-sachiko-murata

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, smma said:

Assalam,

I have read in some places that shia Islam has a concept called " temprory marriage" is this real? What basis does it have in quran/hadith's? Can women also practice it? Just by its name it seems very unislamic to me 

It's in Islam. It was banned by Umar. 

Edited by Zainuu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

It is definitely allowed. Quran 4:24 is the primary ayah allowing it; you'll find countless hadith discussing it too.

It's one of the most discussed topic in shiachat history. Type this in google: mutah site:shiachat.com

I read that Quranic verse and don't see how it allows temprory marriage. It contains rules for marrying war captives and slaves. I'm not sure why Allah would allow the taking of slaves here but I guess that's another topic

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

This is now prohibited, by treaty, which the scholars signed-off on in-accordance-with Ayat 9:4.

Ah so the verse 4:24 only meant captives taken during the war against pagans and not any later wars?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, hasanhh said:

After the treaty(ies) in the 19th Century, no. Before this, any captive, not just pagans.

What do you mean treaty. Its in the Quran right? How can you suprcede something thats in the Quran

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/22/2020 at 9:42 PM, smma said:

Assalam,

I have read in some places that shia Islam has a concept called " temprory marriage" is this real? What basis does it have in quran/hadith's? Can women also practice it? Just by its name it seems very unislamic to me 

In Shi'a Islam, it is allowed; both men and women are allowed to practice it. In our books [Sunni], there were some companions who regarded it as permissible because they were not aware of the ruling that it had been forbidden because they did not hear it. They, however, were later on corrected by those who heard about it. It was used in dire times and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) allowed it for his companions for a specific amount of time and he banned it during Khaybar.

Side note: even if I was not a Muslim, I would never allow this. Why? Because I'd be damned if I allowed someone to have sex with my daughter purely for the sake of pleasure and using her like an object rather for a specific amount of time rather than loving her for who she is and treating her how she should be treated while being her lifelong partner. There is no difference in that and her having a boyfriend - or worse, if the time is shortened.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/23/2020 at 11:13 AM, smma said:

I read that Quranic verse and don't see how it allows temprory marriage. It contains rules for marrying war captives and slaves. I'm not sure why Allah would allow the taking of slaves here but I guess that's another topic

Correct. The rules and regulations are found within the Qur'an. What a man's right hand possesses is whom he is allowed to engage in intercourse with. This includes servants and servants alone. The only way to obtain servants is by war - and only this. Then after such, you may engage with them if they consent [as compulsion is prohibited with even your wives] - that, at least, is the Sunni perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Mahdavist said:

@Nightclaw it's not common for young women to engage in short-term marriages. I believe it's typically widows or divorcees.

All over Europe and America, it is practiced. If you go to Texas, where I am from, there is a large Shi'a community there. Many young girls, mid twenties, late teens, are practicing it. Same with England. 

Point is, it is practiced and allowed despite the age differences. If a boy wants to have sex with a girl and use her like a rag, then he is allowed to without any accountability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Haji 2003 changed the title to Temporary marriage?
  • Advanced Member
51 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

All over Europe and America, it is practiced. If you go to Texas, where I am from, there is a large Shi'a community there. Many young girls, mid twenties, late teens, are practicing it. Same with England. 

Point is, it is practiced and allowed despite the age differences. If a boy wants to have sex with a girl and use her like a rag, then he is allowed to without any accountability.

What do you mean by the term 'use her like a rag?'. Actually... don't explain! If two consenting adults are happy to engage in this, how is it anyone else's problem/issue/business? If you don't wish it for your daughter, that's your call. But you can't impose your selective views on everyone. 

Personally, I would certainly be willing to consider the concept of mutah for my daughter before she has a Nikah (if the long-term intention is a Nikah). Establishing compatibility in a halal way is very important IMO. 

Also, why do you say that the 'boy' used the 'girl' as a rag in the above scenario. Perhaps it was the other way round! How would you know? Or perhaps it was a mutually gratifying arrangement. Times have changed Brother. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
39 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

It was used in dire times and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) allowed it for his companions for a specific amount of time and he banned it during Khaybar.

This is a lie. Umar banned Mutah of Hajj and Mutah of the Women and he even said, I ban them, even though Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) allowed it.

0058%20-%20%D8%A5%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A9%20%D8%A8%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A9%20-%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A%20-%20%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%20%20%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%20%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%20%20%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%86%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%86%20%20_1057.jp2&id=alfirdwsiy2018_gmail_0058&scale=4&rotate=01-LI

"Narrated Jabir Ibn Abullah (رضي الله عنه), 

When Umar Became the leader (or Caliph) he said, 'The Quran is the Quran, and the Rasul is the Rasul. There were 2 Mutah's during the time of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and I will punish anyone (who does it) on of them is the Mutah of Hajj...and the other is the Mutah of the Nisa/Women...' "

So Umar Admits that it was done during the time of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). And if the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) banned it, why would didn't Umar say 'Because the Prophet banned it, I will ban it too!" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Salafi Guru

From: https://thesalafiguru.wordpress.com/2020/05/31/deceptive-marriages-marrying-with-the-intent-to-divorce/

The Sunni need to put this mut'ah discussion to rest. They have spent countless hours trying to attack the Shi’as on mut’ah and have hurdled all sorts of accusations that such a marriage is prostitution and so on. A mut’ah marriage contract is made up of the following three elements:

1) A marriage formula (the girl proposes, and the man accepts – like in a permanent marriage contract).

2) Known time period (yes, even if it is 1 hour – in theory you can put whatever time period, but theory does not necessarily translate into practice) – meaning the man and woman know exactly when the time period of the marriage will end.

2) A dowry that is to be given to the wife.

But what happens when someone asks these Sunnis if a man can marry a woman with a marriage formula and give her a dowry, but with the intention to divorce her after a time period. The only difference is, we just don’t know when precisely we will divorce this lady and we don’t have to let her know either (if you tell her and she still agrees, that will become Mut’ah – so you have no choice but to deceive her). In other words, what if we have these three elements:

1) A marriage formula

2) The man ambiguously knows he will divorce her at some point (for example: after he finishes his studies, or when he decides to move to another country etc. but doesn’t know the exact date).

3) Dowry (though this is not a required element at the time of pronouncing the marriage formula, it still needs to be determined and given at some point).

This is called “marriage with the intention of divorce”. Well let us see what a few of the greatest of Sunni scholars have to say about this deceptive marriage:

1) Shaykh Bin Baz (d. 1999) in Fatawa Islamiyya (v. 3, pg. 235):

س – هل يجوز الزواج بنية الطلاق؟
ج- لا حرج في ذلك إذا كان بينه وبين ربه من دون شرط من المرأة أو أوليائها وترك ذلك أفضل، لأن ذلك أكمل في الرغبة، وهذا قول جمهور أهل العلم كما ذكر ذلك أبو محمد بن قدامة في المغنى – رحمه الله -.

Question: Is it allowed to marry with the intention to divorce?

Answer: There is no problem with it as long as it remains between him and his Lord, without considering it a condition to tell the woman or her guardians – and in fact not telling her is better, because that is more desirable. This is the view of all the people of knowledge, as Abu Muhammad Qudama has mentioned in his book al-Mughni.

2) Shaykh Bin Baz in Fatawa Islamiyya (v. 3, pg. 235) also see official website.

قد صدرت هذه الفتوى من اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والإفتاء في المملكة العربية السعودية، برئاستي واشتراكي وهذا هو قول جمهور أهل العلم كما ذكر ذلك موفق الدين ابن قدامة – رحمه الله – في كتابة المغنى على أن يكون ذلك بينه وبين الله – سبحانه – وليس ذلك من نكاح المتعة.

This Fatwa was issued by the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta in Saudi Arabia, under my leadership and while I was a member of it, and this is the view of all of the people of knowledge, just as Muwaffaq al-Din ibn Qudama (r) has mentioned in his book al-Mughni, as long as this intention is between him and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) – and this is not the same as Mut’ah.

3) Saleh al-Maghamisi (Imam of Masjid Quba in Medina):

01:20: All of the people of knowledge from the predecessors – as Ibn Qudama (r) has said – this marriage with the intention of divorce is valid.

He mentions a few names of past scholars like al-Awza’i who believed it was haram because it was the same thing as Mut’ah. He then says (02:50): “Majority believe it is valid, and very few in quantity believe it is invalid as it resembles Mut’ah.

“It is possible to reconcile between the two contemporary opinions of permissibility and impressibility – imagine the scenario as follows and I say Allah has its true knowledge:

Anyone who travels, not for marriage, but for some other reasons like studies, trade, medical reasons, and fears corruption (fitnah) on himself because of the beautiful women present in his workplace, in the restaurants, and this is happening all the time, then it is permitted for him to marry with the intention of divorce, even if he does not inform the women about his intention. This is closer to the higher goals of the Shari’ah and to Nikah Shar’i in which there is no dispute, as this is a man who wishes to protect himself.

For example, if a person goes for trade and he knows he will remain in this country for a month or two or more or less…if he chooses one woman himself who can protect his chastity for that time period in that country, without explicating the time as a condition in the contract…then in this scenario marriage with the intention of divorce is completely justified as was the view of the majority of the predecessors and Bin Baz.”

4) Shaykh Ali Gomaa – the eighteenth Grand Mufti of Egypt (2003–2013):

A person asks and says: I travel to a distant land for 3 years for work and study, is it permissible for me to marry according to Islamic conditions even though in my mind I know I will return back to my country and divorce her?

[01:38] When a person married, they can marry for numerous reasons, it is not just for reasons of procreation. For example, for affinity, for procreation, for seeking assistance and help, for fulfilling religious obligations, for mercy, for love and so on. Marriage is not necessarily just for one reason as people think. Concealing these intentions – as per the four Imams – does not break the marriage contract, the marriage contract is valid.

Likewise, some people come from different countries and marry for chastity, for affinity and assistance and so on, while they hide the intention that when they return back to their countries, they will abandon them (the wives) …

[04:00] So what they conceal in their selves does not invalidate the contract, because the contract is dependent on the apparent wordings of the formula, not what a person has in their heart. This is permissible, there is no problem with it, and the four Imams have acknowledged this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
35 minutes ago, Aflower said:

What do you mean by the term 'use her like a rag?'. Actually... don't explain! If two consenting adults are happy to engage in this, how is it anyone else's problem/issue/business? If you don't wish it for your daughter, that's your call. But you can't impose your selective views on everyone. 

I was unaware I was not allowed to have an opinion on a matter! If you think it is imposing, then that is your opinion. I could not care less. However, ensure that when you make this assertion correctly. If two gay people are having intercourse and are happy to engage in this, how is it a problem for anyone else? If two people are happy to engage in unlawful intercourse, why is it a problem for anyone else? Yes, we do not agree and say it is prohibited - but why is it your problem? 

39 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Personally, I would certainly be willing to consider the concept of mutah for my daughter before she has a Nikah (if the long-term intention is a Nikah). Establishing compatibility in a halal way is very important IMO.

Yes, but the partner for her can reject and detach from her whenever he wants or do mut'ah with other women, if he pleases.

40 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Also, why do you say that the 'boy' used the 'girl' as a rag in the above scenario. Perhaps it was the other way round! How would you know? Or perhaps it was a mutually gratifying arrangement. Times have changed Brother. 

Because I know men. A man would want to marry her or wait to marry her. You can say what you will, but I know men like the back of my hand. I have been lots of places - and I can assure you that men systematically think the same, regardless if they say it or not. Allah knows us to, that is why we have to lower our gaze and women have to cover up. Allah knows how we were created.

Even if it was mutual, that still does not necessitate it being right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
34 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

This is a lie. Umar banned Mutah of Hajj and Mutah of the Women and he even said, I ban them, even though Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) allowed it.

0058%20-%20%D8%A5%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A9%20%D8%A8%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A9%20-%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A%20-%20%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%20%20%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%20%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%20%20%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%86%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%86%20%20_1057.jp2&id=alfirdwsiy2018_gmail_0058&scale=4&rotate=01-LI

"Narrated Jabir Ibn Abullah (رضي الله عنه), 

When Umar Became the leader (or Caliph) he said, 'The Quran is the Quran, and the Rasul is the Rasul. There were 2 Mutah's during the time of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and I will punish anyone (who does it) on of them is the Mutah of Hajj...and the other is the Mutah of the Nisa/Women...' "

So Umar Admits that it was done during the time of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). And if the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) banned it, why would didn't Umar say 'Because the Prophet banned it, I will ban it too!" ?

Nowhere in the narration you showed me does it state the 'Umar banned it. It states that he will punish who does it. Why? Because it was ma'ruf that it was banned. Was it done during the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? Yes...? Is it... could it be possible... just maybe... that it was practiced at the time of the Messenger and then banned? Could he be referring to the time it was practiced? It is not hard to see what he is talking about. Why would he punish for something that is allowed? Not once in this narration does he state he banned it. In fact, he is stating he will punish whoever does it for the very fact that it is banned.

Again, read upon the history of it. Some companions were not present and did not hear of it - including ibn 'Abbas and 'Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with them both) corrected him because he did not know of it. If you want to mention something and call me a liar, be sure to be fair and just. It is easy to make someone out a liar when things are out of context. Provide the explanation and stop being so quick to jump the gun while it is fully loaded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Guest The Salafi Guru said:

From: https://thesalafiguru.wordpress.com/2020/05/31/deceptive-marriages-marrying-with-the-intent-to-divorce/

The Sunni need to put this mut'ah discussion to rest. They have spent countless hours trying to attack the Shi’as on mut’ah and have hurdled all sorts of accusations that such a marriage is prostitution and so on. A mut’ah marriage contract is made up of the following three elements:

1) A marriage formula (the girl proposes, and the man accepts – like in a permanent marriage contract).

2) Known time period (yes, even if it is 1 hour – in theory you can put whatever time period, but theory does not necessarily translate into practice) – meaning the man and woman know exactly when the time period of the marriage will end.

2) A dowry that is to be given to the wife.

But what happens when someone asks these Sunnis if a man can marry a woman with a marriage formula and give her a dowry, but with the intention to divorce her after a time period. The only difference is, we just don’t know when precisely we will divorce this lady and we don’t have to let her know either (if you tell her and she still agrees, that will become Mut’ah – so you have no choice but to deceive her). In other words, what if we have these three elements:

1) A marriage formula

2) The man ambiguously knows he will divorce her at some point (for example: after he finishes his studies, or when he decides to move to another country etc. but doesn’t know the exact date).

3) Dowry (though this is not a required element at the time of pronouncing the marriage formula, it still needs to be determined and given at some point).

This is called “marriage with the intention of divorce”. Well let us see what a few of the greatest of Sunni scholars have to say about this deceptive marriage:

1) Shaykh Bin Baz (d. 1999) in Fatawa Islamiyya (v. 3, pg. 235):

س – هل يجوز الزواج بنية الطلاق؟
ج- لا حرج في ذلك إذا كان بينه وبين ربه من دون شرط من المرأة أو أوليائها وترك ذلك أفضل، لأن ذلك أكمل في الرغبة، وهذا قول جمهور أهل العلم كما ذكر ذلك أبو محمد بن قدامة في المغنى – رحمه الله -.

Question: Is it allowed to marry with the intention to divorce?

Answer: There is no problem with it as long as it remains between him and his Lord, without considering it a condition to tell the woman or her guardians – and in fact not telling her is better, because that is more desirable. This is the view of all the people of knowledge, as Abu Muhammad Qudama has mentioned in his book al-Mughni.

2) Shaykh Bin Baz in Fatawa Islamiyya (v. 3, pg. 235) also see official website.

قد صدرت هذه الفتوى من اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والإفتاء في المملكة العربية السعودية، برئاستي واشتراكي وهذا هو قول جمهور أهل العلم كما ذكر ذلك موفق الدين ابن قدامة – رحمه الله – في كتابة المغنى على أن يكون ذلك بينه وبين الله – سبحانه – وليس ذلك من نكاح المتعة.

This Fatwa was issued by the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta in Saudi Arabia, under my leadership and while I was a member of it, and this is the view of all of the people of knowledge, just as Muwaffaq al-Din ibn Qudama (r) has mentioned in his book al-Mughni, as long as this intention is between him and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) – and this is not the same as Mut’ah.

3) Saleh al-Maghamisi (Imam of Masjid Quba in Medina):

01:20: All of the people of knowledge from the predecessors – as Ibn Qudama (r) has said – this marriage with the intention of divorce is valid.

He mentions a few names of past scholars like al-Awza’i who believed it was haram because it was the same thing as Mut’ah. He then says (02:50): “Majority believe it is valid, and very few in quantity believe it is invalid as it resembles Mut’ah.

“It is possible to reconcile between the two contemporary opinions of permissibility and impressibility – imagine the scenario as follows and I say Allah has its true knowledge:

Anyone who travels, not for marriage, but for some other reasons like studies, trade, medical reasons, and fears corruption (fitnah) on himself because of the beautiful women present in his workplace, in the restaurants, and this is happening all the time, then it is permitted for him to marry with the intention of divorce, even if he does not inform the women about his intention. This is closer to the higher goals of the Shari’ah and to Nikah Shar’i in which there is no dispute, as this is a man who wishes to protect himself.

For example, if a person goes for trade and he knows he will remain in this country for a month or two or more or less…if he chooses one woman himself who can protect his chastity for that time period in that country, without explicating the time as a condition in the contract…then in this scenario marriage with the intention of divorce is completely justified as was the view of the majority of the predecessors and Bin Baz.”

4) Shaykh Ali Gomaa – the eighteenth Grand Mufti of Egypt (2003–2013):

A person asks and says: I travel to a distant land for 3 years for work and study, is it permissible for me to marry according to Islamic conditions even though in my mind I know I will return back to my country and divorce her?

[01:38] When a person married, they can marry for numerous reasons, it is not just for reasons of procreation. For example, for affinity, for procreation, for seeking assistance and help, for fulfilling religious obligations, for mercy, for love and so on. Marriage is not necessarily just for one reason as people think. Concealing these intentions – as per the four Imams – does not break the marriage contract, the marriage contract is valid.

Likewise, some people come from different countries and marry for chastity, for affinity and assistance and so on, while they hide the intention that when they return back to their countries, they will abandon them (the wives) …

[04:00] So what they conceal in their selves does not invalidate the contract, because the contract is dependent on the apparent wordings of the formula, not what a person has in their heart. This is permissible, there is no problem with it, and the four Imams have acknowledged this.

We do not blind follow scholars. It does not matter who makes permissible the prohibited; we hear and obey Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). I could care less what these scholars say when the matter has already been decided. If they allowed the eating of pork, should we do that to because they said it was permissible? None of these scholars are infallible.

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤۡمِنٍ وَّلَا مُؤۡمِنَةٍ اِذَا قَضَى اللّٰهُ وَرَسُوۡلُهٗۤ اَمۡرًا اَنۡ يَّكُوۡنَ لَهُمُ الۡخِيَرَةُ مِنۡ اَمۡرِهِمۡ ؕ وَمَنۡ يَّعۡصِ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوۡلَهٗ فَقَدۡ ضَلَّ ضَلٰلًا مُّبِيۡنًا‏
It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.
Surah Ahzab, verse 36.

 

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Nowhere in the narration you showed me does it state the 'Umar banned it. It states that he will punish who does it. Why? Because it was ma'ruf that it was banned. Was it done during the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? Yes...? Is it... could it be possible... just maybe... that it was practiced at the time of the Messenger and then banned? Could he be referring to the time it was practiced? It is not hard to see what he is talking about. Why would he punish for something that is allowed? Not once in this narration does he state he banned it. In fact, he is stating he will punish whoever does it for the very fact that it is banned.

Again, read upon the history of it. Some companions were not present and did not hear of it - including ibn 'Abbas and 'Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with them both) corrected him because he did not know of it. If you want to mention something and call me a liar, be sure to be fair and just. It is easy to make someone out a liar when things are out of context. Provide the explanation and stop being so quick to jump the gun while it is fully loaded.

If it was Ma'ruf to be banned then why didn't Umar say so? He should have given that reason. I will bring you a Hadith stating that they did it during the time of Abu Bakr as well,

lt was narrated that Abu Nadrah said:

I said to Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Ibn az-Zubair (رضي الله عنه) forbids tamattu` (in hajj) and Ibn `Abbas enjoins it. He said to me: I knew about this issue. We did tamattu` with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) - `Affan said: And with Abu Bakr - then when `Umar (رضي الله عنه) became Caliph, he addressed the people and said: The Qur`an is still the Qur`an and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is the Messenger. There were two mut’ahs at the time of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): one of them was the mut`ah of Hajj (i.e., tannaffit`) and the other was mut`ah with women.

https://sunnah.com/ahmad/2/271

So Umar was the 1st to say this. But did Umar say, I ban the Mutah? Yes

It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said:

"I heard 'Umar say" 'By Allah, I forbid you to forbid you to perform Tamattur,' but it is mentioned in the Book of Allah and the Messenger of Allah did it" meaning 'Umrah with Hajj.

https://sunnah.com/nasai/24/118

29 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Nowhere in the narration you showed me does it state the 'Umar banned it. It states that he will punish who does it.

Also, I wrongly translated the Hadith,

When Umar Became the leader (or Caliph) he said, 'The Quran is the Quran, and the Rasul is the Rasul. There were 2 Mutah's during the time of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and I ban the People from doing it. And I will punish anyone (who does it) on of them is the Mutah of Hajj...and the other is the Mutah of the Nisa/Women...' "

If you don't believe me then read the Hadith, I posted the picture,

1-2-LI

فأنا أنهى الناس عنها

So Umar was the 1st to ban it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

If two gay people are having intercourse and are happy to engage in this, how is it a problem for anyone else? If two people are happy to engage in unlawful intercourse, why is it a problem for anyone else? Yes, we do not agree and say it is prohibited - but why is it your problem? 

Where did this analogy of 'gay people' come from? You just pulled it out of thin air! 

Furthermore, you can not compare intercourse within a Mutah with intercourse within a gay relationship! You are not comparing apples with apples. Whatever one's personal view may be about Mutah, it is permissible within the Shia sect. Thus, sexual relations are permitted if both parties consented to this as part of the Mutah conditions between two Shias. (For clarity - Mutahs take place between a male and female. NOT between male and male OR female and female, in case there is any confusion on your part!)  Whereas gay relationships are considered haram in every Islamic sect. 

You asked "why is it your problem?" When did I say it's my problem? I never did!

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

then that is your opinion. I could not care less.

If you don't care about anyone's opinion then what are you doing on a chat forum debating/discussing matters with others? Why have you even bothered to respond to me? If you are not even willing to at least consider, and at best evolve after reading about the views of others, then what is the value of you being on this site? Why are you here? Evidently you do "care" about the opinions of others, regardless of how much you deny it, because  otherwise you wouldn't be responding to so many people on varying threads.

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:
1 hour ago, Aflower said:

Personally, I would certainly be willing to consider the concept of mutah for my daughter before she has a Nikah (if the long-term intention is a Nikah). Establishing compatibility in a halal way is very important IMO.

Yes, but the partner for her can reject and detach from her whenever he wants or do mut'ah with other women, if he pleases.

Correct. But this applies to both parties. Even the girl/woman has the right to change her mind and thus not proceed to a Nikah, if she does not see a future with the boy/man. Even she can 'reject' the boy/man, as you say. If the boy/man was so fickle as to change his mind without a legitimate reason during a Mutah then good riddance! The girl/woman would be better off knowing the boy/man's true character at this early stage rather than during a Nikah. 

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Because I know men. A man would want to marry her or wait to marry her. You can say what you will, but I know men like the back of my hand. I have been lots of places - and I can assure you that men systematically think the same, regardless if they say it or not. Allah knows us to, that is why we have to lower our gaze and women have to cover up. Allah knows how we were created.

This appears to be the crux of the issue/misunderstanding on your part. Not all Mutahs include sexual relations. One can exclude this in the terms of the Mutah. One can even choose to exclude all/any physical contact of any nature.

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Even if it was mutual, that still does not necessitate it being right.

If it was mutually consented between two sensible and mature consenting parties, then personally I don't see why anyone would object to someone else's choice to engage in one. It's certainly not for me, and it's not something that I would ever consent to/want to partake in, but that's my personal choice. There is no obligation to have/consent to a Mutah just because you are a Shia. That doesn't mean that it can't be 'right' for others under certain circumstances.  

I'm sure that there are a number of boys/men who would choose/hope to misuse a Mutah. But that's where a woman's wisdom/discretion comes into play. If some random roadside Romeo approaches a girl/woman for a Mutah, he would likely get a big tight slap in return. Only a fool would agree to that. If some desperado teenager approaches a widow, I'm sure the woman would know what that kids agenda is. 

However, if a professional educated man from a respectable family background approaches an educated professional woman for marriage, and if both parties parents consent to them engaging in a short Mutah for a period of time before they proceed to a Nikah, I don't see the issue.

The complication is that everyone views Mutah as a 'vulgar/distasteful/obnoxious' arrangement between 'dirty loose charactered' people, which unfortunately means that there is such a huge stigma associated with the word 'Mutah'.     

Edited by Aflower
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Salafi Guru
20 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

We do not blind follow scholars. It does not matter who makes permissible the prohibited; we hear and obey Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). I could care less what these scholars say when the matter has already been decided. If they allowed the eating of pork, should we do that to because they said it was permissible? None of these scholars are infallible.

Says someone whose one of the main sources of understanding religion and religious law is ijma (consensus) and popular view of the scholars!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
42 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

If it was Ma'ruf to be banned then why didn't Umar say so? He should have given that reason. I will bring you a Hadith stating that they did it during the time of Abu Bakr as well,

lt was narrated that Abu Nadrah said:

I said to Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Ibn az-Zubair (رضي الله عنه) forbids tamattu` (in hajj) and Ibn `Abbas enjoins it. He said to me: I knew about this issue. We did tamattu` with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) - `Affan said: And with Abu Bakr - then when `Umar (رضي الله عنه) became Caliph, he addressed the people and said: The Qur`an is still the Qur`an and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is the Messenger. There were two mut’ahs at the time of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): one of them was the mut`ah of Hajj (i.e., tannaffit`) and the other was mut`ah with women.

https://sunnah.com/ahmad/2/271

So Umar was the 1st to say this. But did Umar say, I ban the Mutah? Yes

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالَ قَرَأْتُ عَلَى مَالِكٍ عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، وَالْحَسَنِ، ابْنَىْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ ‏.‏

وَحَدَّثَنَاهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، بِهَذَا الإِسْنَادِ وَقَالَ سَمِعَ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، يَقُولُ لِفُلاَنٍ إِنَّكَ رَجُلٌ تَائِهٌ نَهَانَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏.‏ بِمِثْلِ حَدِيثِ يَحْيَى بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ مَالِكٍ ‏.‏

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَابْنُ، نُمَيْرٍ وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ جَمِيعًا عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، - قَالَ زُهَيْرٌ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، - عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ، ابْنَىْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنْ نِكَاحِ الْمُتْعَةِ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ ‏.‏

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ، ابْنَىْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، يُلَيِّنُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ مَهْلاً يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ ‏.‏

وَحَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الطَّاهِرِ، وَحَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالاَ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ، ابْنَىْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، يَقُولُ لاِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ ‏.‏

Ibn 'Abbas was not present at the battle of Khaybar. This is why he did not know and as corrected. As I stated, but it in chronological order and put things into context. It was cleared up. The fact you said 'Umar was the first to say and be so quick to say that I have lied shows ignorance on your part. This is not a problem, but remember to ask next time.

As for Abu Bakr, it never states he allowed it. They did it during his time, but these companions were not present during the conquest of Khaybar, so they were not aware. During Abu Bakr's reign, do you think that he would have remembered to clarify after it was well-known that nobody was practicing it? The narration you provided stated the the uncle of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) thought it was permissible until clarification from 'Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with them). 'Umar had to clarify for the very reason that it was being practiced when it was forbidden originally.

42 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said:

"I heard 'Umar say" 'By Allah, I forbid you to forbid you to perform Tamattur,' but it is mentioned in the Book of Allah and the Messenger of Allah did it" meaning 'Umrah with Hajj.

https://sunnah.com/nasai/24/118

This has nothing to do with mut'ah marriages.

42 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Also, I wrongly translated the Hadith,

When Umar Became the leader (or Caliph) he said, 'The Quran is the Quran, and the Rasul is the Rasul. There were 2 Mutah's during the time of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and I ban the People from doing it. And I will punish anyone (who does it) on of them is the Mutah of Hajj...and the other is the Mutah of the Nisa/Women...' "

If you don't believe me then read the Hadith, I posted the picture,

I know exactly what the Arabic says because that is the first thing I read. You said it states 'Umar was the first to prohibit it, so show me where it says he banned it after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and it was allowed forever. I know it said that he banned it. I see that, but you are stating that he is the one who said it first, no? Provide evidence for this claim of yours, because I have provided contrary evidence. Nonetheless, from this, we can conclude that this was to simply reinforce the ban. If you have contradicting, substantial, authentic evidences that go against what I have said [i.e. some companions were not present] or our narrations, then provide it.

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالَ قَرَأْتُ عَلَى مَالِكٍ عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، وَالْحَسَنِ، ابْنَىْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ ‏.‏

وَحَدَّثَنَاهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، بِهَذَا الإِسْنَادِ وَقَالَ سَمِعَ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، يَقُولُ لِفُلاَنٍ إِنَّكَ رَجُلٌ تَائِهٌ نَهَانَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏.‏ بِمِثْلِ حَدِيثِ يَحْيَى بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ مَالِكٍ ‏.‏

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَابْنُ، نُمَيْرٍ وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ جَمِيعًا عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، - قَالَ زُهَيْرٌ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، - عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ، ابْنَىْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنْ نِكَاحِ الْمُتْعَةِ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ ‏.‏

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ، ابْنَىْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، يُلَيِّنُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ مَهْلاً يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ ‏.‏

وَحَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الطَّاهِرِ، وَحَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالاَ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ، ابْنَىْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، يَقُولُ لاِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ ‏.‏

Ibn 'Abbas was not present at the battle of Khaybar. This is why he did not know and as corrected. As I stated, but it in chronological order and put things into context. It was cleared up. The fact you said 'Umar was the first to say and be so quick to say that I have lied shows ignorance on your part. This is not a problem, but remember to ask next time.

As for Abu Bakr, it never states he allowed it. They did it during his time, but these companions were not present during the conquest of Khaybar, so they were not aware. During Abu Bakr's reign, do you think that he would have remembered to clarify after it was well-known that nobody was practicing it? The narration you provided stated the the uncle of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) thought it was permissible until clarification from 'Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with them). 'Umar had to clarify for the very reason that it was being practiced when it was forbidden originally.

This has nothing to do with mut'ah marriages.

I know exactly what the Arabic says because that is the first thing I read. You said it states 'Umar was the first to prohibit it, so show me where it says he banned it after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and it was allowed forever. I know it said that he banned it. I see that, but you are stating that he is the one who said it first, no? Provide evidence for this claim of yours, because I have provided contrary evidence. Nonetheless, from this, we can conclude that this was to simply reinforce the ban. If you have contradicting, substantial, authentic evidences that go against what I have said [i.e. some companions were not present] or our narrations, then provide it.

I know exactly where this is leading, I won't respond

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

I know exactly where this is leading, I won't respond

It would have been better for you to admit you're wrong and you were ignorant about it.

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Guest The Salafi Guru said:

Says someone whose one of the main sources of understanding religion and religious law is ijma (consensus) and popular view of the scholars!

As long as it is in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah, most definitely. If not? We reject it, no matter who it is. I find it ironic that you have your username as "The Salafi Guru", yet you do not know the basics of what we accept and reject!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

It would have been better for you to admit you're wrong and you were ignorant about it.

No, You are bringing your hadith thinking that I care about it, Umar clearly said that he banned the people from doing it, you will be stubborn then run away. So Plz leave me alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

No, You are bringing your hadith thinking that I care about it, Umar clearly said that he banned the people from doing it, you will be stubborn then run away. So Plz leave me alone. 

 

4 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

So Umar was the 1st to say this. But did Umar say, I ban the Mutah? Yes

4 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

So Umar was the 1st to ban it.

This is a lie that has been refuted. You say I run, but this is what you are doing exactly that. Provide contrary evidence. You speak as if I have something to run from, when in this scenario this is you. You have lied - or rather, made a statement from tremendous ignorance - upon our books and now you know you have no response. 

If you do not care about the narrations the put things into context, wallahi, by the Lord of the Ka'aba, that shows you are insincere and only care about being right; arrogance. Stop speaking about things you do not know about, and when you are cornered, you hurl out insults because you are not intellectually capable of defending your point without behaving in such a way. Admit it - you were wrong. It is okay to be wrong, but never okay to be arrogant. I will leave you alone because I know you have no contradictory evidence after all of your searches, but not without this verse:

اِنَّهٗ لَا يُحِبُّ الۡمُسۡتَكۡبِرِيۡنَ‏

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
8 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

All over Europe and America, it is practiced. If you go to Texas, where I am from, there is a large Shi'a community there. Many young girls, mid twenties, late teens, are practicing it. Same with England. 

Point is, it is practiced and allowed despite the age differences. If a boy wants to have sex with a girl and use her like a rag, then he is allowed to without any accountability.

Keeping in mind that a previously unmarried woman needs her father's permission, I don't think this is really the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
6 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

We do not blind follow scholars. It does not matter who makes permissible the prohibited; we hear and obey Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). I could care less what these scholars say when the matter has already been decided. If they allowed the eating of pork, should we do that to because they said it was permissible? None of these scholars are infallible.

So you're saying that if I get married to a woman and then divorce her two weeks later, this is haram? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

Keeping in mind that a previously unmarried woman needs her father's permission, I don't think this is really the case.

She can also marry if she is independent. If she is dependent upon her parents, she has to ask for permission. If she is independent, she can ask for her parents permission but can still engage in it. 

Imam As-Sadiq said: "There is no problem in marrying the virgin girl without her father's permission if she is happy with this." 
Tadhib by al-Tusi: volume 7, page 380.

This narration was in regards to temporary marriage, providing she meets the conditions.

1 minute ago, Mahdavist said:

So you're saying that if I get married to a woman and then divorce her two weeks later, this is haram? 

Firstly, divorce is not prohibited. It is the most hated and disliked of permissible things to Allah, but it is certainly not prohibited. Second, it depends on why you divorced her. If you marry with the intention to divorce - Is it permitted by the Qur'an and Sunnah? Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) do this? Did his companions do this? Did those who followed them do this? And those who came after? You will find your answer therein.

There are many differences as to why it is absolutely prohibited, but these are one of the reasons and it is in consensus that it is prohibited. I agree with most things on this site though not everything. 

In essence, yes. If your intention is to divorce her after marrying her, it is prohibited. See the link above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Side note: even if I was not a Muslim, I would never allow this. Why? Because I'd be damned if I allowed someone to have sex with my daughter purely for the sake of pleasure and using her like an object rather for a specific amount of time rather than loving her for who she is and treating her how she should be treated while being her lifelong partner. There is no difference in that and her having a boyfriend - or worse, if the time is shortened.

Non muslims say the same thing about polygamy in Islam. Would you like your daughter to be in a polygamous relationship?  You might say it's ok but non muslims would even feel disgusted by it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Justsomeone said:

Non muslims say the same thing about polygamy in Islam. Would you like your daughter to be in a polygamous relationship?  You might say it's ok but non muslims would even feel disgusted by it. 

The same non-Muslims who have more than four boyfriends / girlfriends? Let us not kid ourselves. I met a guy who was strictly against Islam and men having 4 wives, but it was later found out the he enjoyed his wife doing certain activities with a group of men. This is not really an argument, but it is just goes to show the hypocrisy of these people. I have had this discussion with a lot of non-Muslims who had not much left to say about it.

Polygamy has been prevalent throughout society. Before Islam, men could have up to several wives and slaves, divorcing them and trading them. Islam came to put a restriction on the amount of wives you can have. Moreover, a woman can write in her contract, stipulating that she does not want her husband to get another wife and that cancels it out entirely. If he cannot take care of those wives equally, he is not permitted to get another one. There are rules and regulations to it and explanations that should e examined further rather than taking something at face value and turning into Usain Bolt with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...