Marriage with Non-Muslim *Unique*

[FollowerofIslam]

Salam Alaykum Everyone!

There is a unique situation I would like to have a better understanding about. 

I know the laws around marriage with muslims and ahlul kitab. 
 

However, can a Shia man temporarily marry a woman who believes in God but does not particularly believe in a religion yet? 

I heard that if a woman believes in the oneness of God she is permissible for mut’ah. Not sure. Let me know your thoughts and advices and knowledge :).

Wassalam!

[Guest Fahad]

This is particularly a big issue if you live in the West.

Alot of non-Muslim women, and even some women with a Muslim background identify with being "spiritual" with no specific affiliation to any religion or religious denomination, especially in the coastal cities in the U.S.

So certainly a challenge.

[notme]

1 hour ago, FollowerofIslam said:

However, can a Shia man temporarily marry a woman who believes in God but does not particularly believe in a religion yet? 

Letter of the law, no, only people who follow Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.

But you might want to know more about her beliefs.  Maybe she is Muslim and just doesn't realize it yet.

[علوي]

12 hours ago, FollowerofIslam said:

Salam Alaykum Everyone!

There is a unique situation I would like to have a better understanding about. 

I know the laws around marriage with muslims and ahlul kitab. 
 

However, can a Shia man temporarily marry a woman who believes in God but does not particularly believe in a religion yet? 

I heard that if a woman believes in the oneness of God she is permissible for mut’ah. Not sure. Let me know your thoughts and advices and knowledge :).

Wassalam!

Walaikom assalam,

You should ask your marja. 

Sistani website: https://www.sistani.org/english/send-question/
Khamenei website: https://www.leader.ir/en/istifta
Shirazi email: ask@shirazi.ir

May Allah bless you. Ma3salem. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, Guest Fahad said:

This is particularly a big issue if you live in the West.

Alot of non-Muslim women, and even some women with a Muslim background identify with being "spiritual" with no specific affiliation to any religion or religious denomination, especially in the coastal cities in the U.S.

So certainly a challenge.

 

Temporary marriage of a woman with certain beliefs [Rulings on marriage with infidels and other religions]
Question: Is a temporary marriage with the following beliefs correct? She has been born a Muslim but says she is not a Muslim but: She says she has complete faith in Allah, I talk to him five times a day, follow the words that are related to God in any book in the  Injil Torah Quran Avesta , I accept all his prophets, for my complete satisfaction she is also ready to say Shahadatain.
Answer: If she accepts Prophet of Islam, She is a Muslim.

Quote

عقد موقت زنی با اعتقادات خاص [ احکام ازدواج با کافر و سایر مذاهب]

پرسش :آیا عقد موقت زنی با اعتقادات زیر صحیح است؟مسلمان زاده بوده ولی میگوید مسلمان نیستم اما: میگوید به خدا ایمان کامل دارم ، روزی پنج بار باهاش حرف میزنم ، از حرفهایی که مربوط به خداست تو هرکتابی که باشد انجیل تورات قران اوستا پیروی میکنم، تمام پیامبرانش رو قبول دارم، برای رضایت کامل من نیز حاضر هست شهادتین را بگوید. پاسخ :چنانچه پیامبر اسلام را قبول دارد مسلمان است.

 

13 hours ago, FollowerofIslam said:

However, can a Shia man temporarily marry a woman who believes in God but does not particularly believe in a religion yet? 

I heard that if a woman believes in the oneness of God she is permissible for mut’ah. Not sure. Let me know your thoughts and advices and knowledge :).

Law of marriage with the People of the Book and combatant infidels [Rulings on marriage with infidels and other religions]
Question: Can a Muslim man or woman marry a People of the Book or a combatant infidel?
Answer: A Muslim woman can not marry an infidel and a Muslim man can not marry other than Jews and Christians, so there is no problem in marrying women of the Book like Jews and Christians, of course,surly if they are also combatant infidels, marrying with them is against  precaution.

Quote

حکم ازدواج با اهل کتاب و کافر حربی [ احکام ازدواج با کافر و سایر مذاهب]

پرسش :آیا مرد یا زن مسلمان می تواند با اهل کتاب یا کافر حربی ازدواج نماید؟

پاسخ :زن مسلمان نمى &rlmتواند به عقد كافر درآيد و مرد مسلمان نیز نمی تواند با غیر از یهود و نصاری ازدواج نماید، بنابراین ازدواج با زنان اهل کتاب مانند یهود و نصاری مانعی ندارد، البته اگر آنها نیز از کفّار حربی باشند ازدواج با آنها خلاف احتیاط است.

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?typeinfo=21&lid=0&catid=46906

[Ashvazdanghe]

Marrying a Muslim woman who has an infidel husband
 I met a non-Iranian girl with a Buddhist religion abroad (I do not live in Iran), she became a Muslim a few months after meeting me, after which I found out that she was married, but emotionally and maritally left her husband. They are separated and just live in a same house, his wife did not become a Muslim, and after two periods of menstruation, according to the ruling I heard (the marriage of a woman who has converted to Islam  and her husband is an infidel is annulled), I married her temporarily. And I had sex, and after a few months she officially divorced his ex-husband. Have I sinned? What is the ruling on my marriage to her permanently or temporarily?
If she  married while that man was  infidel , their marriage is void and your permanent or temporary marriage with that girl is valid, but if they thought the marriage was valid and intercourse has 
 been taken place, after knowing that the marriage was void, She should keep Iddah. In order to be able to has a permanent or temporary marriage with another man, in permanent marriage a woman who has period , the precaution is to wait until she sees menstruation twice and is cleansed, and when she sees the third menstruation, her period is over. If you have been married with her after this period of time.Marriage is valid but on the other hand if it has been done before ending of Iddah  which yourself have recited formula and intercourse has happened based on obligatory precaution , You have forbidden forever to each other 
 except that in keeping amount  of Iddah you have  refered toa Marja that considers becoming  twice perioding  enough

 Categories: Rules of relationship with a married woman

Quote

ازدواج با زن مسلمانی که شوهر کافر دارد

 با دختري غير ايراني و با مذهب بودايي در خارج از كشور آشنا شدم (بنده مقيم ايران نيستم)، آن دختر چندين ماه پس از آشنايي با من مسلمان شد، پس از آن متوجه شدم كه ازدواج كرده است اما از نظر عاطفي و زناشويي از همسرش جدا شده است و تنها با هم در يك خانه زندگي مي كنند، همسر او مسلمان نشد و پس از گذشت دو دوره عادت ماهانه طبق حكمي كه شنيده بودم (باطل شدن ازدواج زني كه مسلمان شده و همسرش كافر مي باشد) با او ازدواج موقت كردم و رابطه جنسي برقرار كردم و پس از چند ماه او به طور رسمي از همسر قبلي اش جدا شد. ايا دچار گناه شده ام؟ حكم ازدواج من با او به صورت دائم و يا موقت چيست؟

اگر در حالیکه آن مرد کافر بوده به عقد او درآمده عقدشان باطل است و ازدواج دائم یا موقت شما با آن دختر صحیح است اما اگر فکر می کرده اند عقد صحیح است و آمیزش هم صورت گرفته بعد از اطلاع از باطل بودن عقد باید عده نگه دارد تا بتواند با مرد دیگری عقد دائم یا موقت کند، در عقد دائم زني که عادت مي شود احتياط آن است که بقدري صبر کند که دوبار حيض ببيند و پاک شود و هنگامي که حيض سوم را ديد عده او تمام است.‌ لذا اگر بعد از این مدت ایشان را عقد کرده باشید عقد صحیح است اما اگر قبل از تمام شدن عده بوده و خودتان صیغه عقد را خوانده باشید و آمیزش نیز صورت گرفته باشد بنابر احتیاط واجب حرام ابد شده اید مگر اینکه در رعایت مقدار عده به مرجعی رجوع کرده باشید که دو بار عادت شدن را کافی بداند.‌

 دسته‌ها: احکام ارتباط با زن شوهر دار

https://makarem.ir/ahkam/fa/category/index/527/ازدواج-های-حرام?page=1&sortby=3&sort=1&view=0

[Ashvazdanghe]

Relationship with a married Christian woman and temporary marriage with her
  A Christian woman who, in order to save herself from her oppressive husband, has an affair with a Muslim man to save him and later to temporarily marry and live with him, and during this time they also had sexual intercourse, and the Muslim man rescued the woman and made Mutah with her for himslef. They have been living together for 13 years now. What is the form of this marriage according to Sharia?
Their illegitimate relationship is a very bad thing and they should repent and make up for it with good deeds, but their marriage is right now.

Quote

تباط با زن مسیحی شوهردار و ازدواج موقت با او

 زن مسیحی که برای نجات از شر شوهر ظالم خود با مرد مسلمانی رابطه برقرار میکند که اورا نجات دهد و بعدا با او ازدواج موقت نموده وزندگی کنند و در این مدت با هم ارتباط جنسی هم داشتند و مرد مسلمان زن را نجات داده و برای خویش صیغه نموده وحالا مدتی 13سال است با هم زندگی می کنند. آیا این ازدواج از شرع چه صورت دارد؟

ارتباط نامشروعشان کار بسیار بدی بوده و باید توبه کنند و با اعمال نیک آن را جبران کنند ولی ازدواجشان فعلا صحیح است.‌

https://makarem.ir/ahkam/fa/category/index/527/ازدواج-های-حرام?page=1&sortby=3&sort=1&view=0

[EiE]

41 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Marrying a Muslim woman who has an infidel husband
 I met a non-Iranian girl with a Buddhist religion abroad (I do not live in Iran), she became a Muslim a few months after meeting me, after which I found out that she was married, but emotionally and maritally left her husband. They are separated and just live in a same house, his wife did not become a Muslim, and after two periods of menstruation, according to the ruling I heard (the marriage of a woman who has converted to Islam  and her husband is an infidel is annulled), I married her temporarily. And I had sex, and after a few months she officially divorced his ex-husband. Have I sinned? What is the ruling on my marriage to her permanently or temporarily?
If she  married while that man was  infidel , their marriage is void and your permanent or temporary marriage with that girl is valid, but if they thought the marriage was valid and intercourse has 
 been taken place, after knowing that the marriage was void, She should keep Iddah. In order to be able to has a permanent or temporary marriage with another man, in permanent marriage a woman who has period , the precaution is to wait until she sees menstruation twice and is cleansed, and when she sees the third menstruation, her period is over. If you have been married with her after this period of time.Marriage is valid but on the other hand if it has been done before ending of Iddah  which yourself have recited formula and intercourse has happened based on obligatory precaution , You have forbidden forever to each other 
 except that in keeping amount  of Iddah you have  refered toa Marja that considers becoming  twice perioding  enough

 Categories: Rules of relationship with a married woman

https://makarem.ir/ahkam/fa/category/index/527/ازدواج-های-حرام?page=1&sortby=3&sort=1&view=0

This is a sickening statement to read. Is there any validity to this?
Based on what you wrote, I even believe that some parts were incorrectly translated.

The wife has a husband, she converts to Islam, and the husband is not a Muslim, so their marriage is "anulled," despite the fact that there is no official annulment from the partners involved. According to the ruling you cited, it is acceptable for a Muslim man to marry a woman who is already married and have sexual relations with her.
To be honest, reading it made me sick. Imagine the husband's reaction had he been aware of the circumstance.

Instead of this lousy behaviour on the part of both genders, why not seek an official divorce first and then marry whoever you want?

[Abu Hadi]

18 hours ago, FollowerofIslam said:

Salam Alaykum Everyone!

There is a unique situation I would like to have a better understanding about. 

I know the laws around marriage with muslims and ahlul kitab. 
 

However, can a Shia man temporarily marry a woman who believes in God but does not particularly believe in a religion yet? 

I heard that if a woman believes in the oneness of God she is permissible for mut’ah. Not sure. Let me know your thoughts and advices and knowledge :).

Wassalam!

The rule she must be muslima or Ahl Al Kitab (Christian, Jew, or Sabean(which there aren't that many anymore)). At the same time, they don't need to be 'practicing', i.e. go to Church / Synagogue, etc. If you ask her 'What religion are you?' and she says 'I'm a Christan, Jew, etc' then you can marry her for temporary marriage (provided the other condition are fulfilled for marriage). The asking and response from her that she is, that's the only requirement. 

Of course, you need to look at her general character also. For example, if she is known for committing zina (adultry), then it is either haram or highly discouraged (depending on your marjaa) to marry her. 'Known for adultery' means she is a prostitute or she is known in the community to be very permiscous. Also, it is highly discouraged to marry a women of low character, i.e. she is known to be a liar, theif, etc. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 6/16/2022 at 1:00 PM, EiE said:

The wife has a husband, she converts to Islam, and the husband is not a Muslim, so their marriage is "anulled," despite the fact that there is no official annulment from the partners involved. According to the ruling you cited, it is acceptable for a Muslim man to marry a woman who is already married and have sexual relations with her.

 

Salam you have dropped something from it which if wife became muslim then husband refused to become muslim despite of her request or previous agreement of husband for becoming muslim so then their marriage will be anulled .

Quote

To be honest, reading it made me sick. Imagine the husband's reaction had he been aware of the circumstance.

anyway it's clear that her husband doesn't care about her which he has canceled his oath about converting to Islam.

Quote

Instead of this lousy behaviour on the part of both genders, why not seek an official divorce first and then marry whoever you want?

 Official divorce is not accepted by many cultures and religions which still some Christians are still against official divorce in similar fashion of Judaism also in  non Abrahamic religions likewise Zoroastrianism & Buddhism & etc concept of divorce is totally forbidden which it's a Taboo in their societies which only way of ending a marriage in Buddhism is death which after death of husband wife can't marry with anyone else until her end of life. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 6/16/2022 at 1:00 PM, EiE said:

Instead of this lousy behaviour on the part of both genders, why not seek an official divorce first and then marry whoever you want?

Traditionally, Buddhists practised the form of marriage which prevailed in the society in which they lived.

 the Buddha did not advocate any particular form of marriage

the Buddha only discusses monogamy, again implying that he accepted this as the best form of marriage (A.IV,91)

.He said that if a woman lacks merit she might have to contend with a co-wife (sapattī, S.IV,249) and the Tipiṭaka discusses the disadvantages of polygamy for women. ‘Being a co-wife is painful.’ (Thi.216)

Quote

Polygamy / Polyandry & Buddhism

Ven. Dhammika wrote:
Traditionally, Buddhists practised the form of marriage which prevailed in the society in which they lived. Although the Buddha did not advocate any particular form of marriage, we can assume that he favoured monogamy. His father Suddhodana had two wives and as a prince he could have had several wives also, but he chose to have only one. In a discourse on marriage, the Buddha only discusses monogamy, again implying that he accepted this as the best form of marriage (A.IV,91).He said that if a woman lacks merit she might have to contend with a co-wife (sapattī, S.IV,249) and the Tipiṭaka discusses the disadvantages of polygamy for women. ‘Being a co-wife is painful.’ (Thi.216), ‘A woman's worst misery is to quarrel with her co-wives.’ (Ja.IV,316). Such problems are confirmed by the Kāma Sūtra which describes the tensions and manoeuvrings between several wives in the same household. There seems little doubt that it was for these reasons that the Jātaka counseled: ‘Do not have a wife in common with other’(Ja.VI,286).
http://buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=248" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=17623

Buddhism considers marriage an entirely personal and individual concern, not a religious duty.

Cultures Where Women Marry More Than One Husband Simultaneously

Some of these cultures believe in Multiple-Paternity

Quote

Polyandry in India
In India, there are several tribes that practice polyandrous unions, like the Toda people (the residents of the Nilgiri hills in south India). There’s also the Kinnaur.

Polyandry was also practiced amongst the Paharis, a district group of people who live in the lower areas of the Himalayas in Northern India. In this culture, a woman who marries the first son of the family is automatically the wife to all his brothers and all the men have equal rights to her as husbands and as fathers to all her children.

 

Quote

Polyandry in China

Amongst the people of Tibet, it is believed that it is possible for a woman to be impregnated by more than one man’s sperm at a time — that is they believe a child can have more than one father. Because of this, most poor families in that culture prefer the polyandry form of marriage as it is more economical and division of properties amongst offspring wouldn’t be a problem as all the men in the family marry one woman.

https://historyofyesterday.com/cultures-where-women-marry-more-than-one-husband-simultaneously-c18c71c93c14

https://www.legit.ng/1250196-5-places-women-husband.html

https://thewhistler.ng/4-countries-where-women-have-multiple-husbands/

What is the Buddhist view on Divorce?

Although separation or divorce is not prohibited in Buddhism, it’s necessity would rarely arise if both spouses strictly followed Buddha’s teachings.

Quote

However, if two spouses truly cannot reconcile and agree with each other, then they should have the freedom to separate.

Separation is preferable to living a miserable family life for a long period of time for both partners and innocent children.

Buddha also cautioned older men not to have young wives as the old and young are unlikely to be compatible.

 

Quote

What is the Buddhist view on multiple spouses?

Although the teachings of Buddha are silent on the subject of monogamy or polygamy, it is generally agree that lay Buddhist should limit himself or herself to one spouse.

If one does should to marry, Buddha taught that we should be faithful to that one spouse and refrain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct.

Further, Buddha taught that one of the main downfalls or causes of suffering is man’s involvement with other women or a woman’s involvement with other men.

https://buddhism.info/buddhist-views-on-marriage-and-divorce/

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

Salam @EiE in conclusion Buddhism about  allows having mutiple wife & husband in same time whether for Men or Women with any belief which only it has some moral & social advices about following social norms in marriage  but on the other hand in Islam Men just allowed for limited polygomy for having only four wives wich monogamy is encouraged in similar fashion a woman only can have just one muslim husbad which both of it is in opposition to Hinduism procedure about marriage which if a Hindu woman converts to Islam then her husband in a limited frame of time must become Muslim or they must separate from each other if husband refuses to become a muslim which in question only problem is immoral behavior of questioner man before marriage with converted girl which they must repent from their sin nevertheless their marriage has been valid .

[kadhim]

I think the community really needs to take a careful fresh look at these sorts of rules to figure out what the real principles and objectives behind the traditional rules were, and then figure out what makes sense in the present context, given those principles and our realities. 

We need to get away from this superficial sort of approach of “1200 years ago, men could marry these people but not these other people, and women could marry these but not these, so that’s how it is.”

Instead, we need to ask deeper questions that get beyond surface imitation of precedent. 

Why could men marry certain sorts of people but not others? What were the fears or apprehensions behind these groups that could not be married in that context? Same for women. Why could Muslim women only marry Muslims in the traditional picture? What were the fears and apprehensions behind those lists of people either couldn’t marry? What were the risks or dangers the rules were trying to prevent? Are those fears still relevant today for either or both?  What were the assumptions about the positions in society of men and women implicit behind these traditional interpretations? Do those assumptions still apply? 

[Reza]

19 hours ago, kadhim said:

Why could men marry certain sorts of people but not others? What were the fears or apprehensions behind these groups that could not be married in that context? Same for women. Why could Muslim women only marry Muslims in the traditional picture? What were the fears and apprehensions behind those lists of people either couldn’t marry? What were the risks or dangers the rules were trying to prevent? Are those fears still relevant today for either or both?  What were the assumptions about the positions in society of men and women implicit behind these traditional interpretations? Do those assumptions still apply? 

Do you have answers to these questions?

[Abu_Zahra]

On 6/23/2022 at 5:32 PM, kadhim said:

 

We need to get away from this superficial sort of approach of “1200 years ago, men could marry these people but not these other people, and women could marry these but not these, so that’s how it is.”

I think this will lead us to the same discussion as previous threads, specifically that this line of thinking struggles against two crucial points:

-the limitless knowledge of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and therefore the infinite wisdom of His laws

-the notion that what was permitted to the Muslim ummah after the revelation remains permissible until the day of judgement and what was forbidden remains forbidden until the day of judgements. 

Certainly if one can improve their understanding of the wisdom behind the shariah, based on authentic sources, then this is indeed commendable. 

On the other hand picking and choosing the rules on the basis of speculative theories is neither sustainable nor consistent. 

[kadhim]

9 hours ago, Reza said:

Do you have answers to these questions?

I do have my reasonable take on these questions. 

I’ll respectfully decline the poke to answer them though for two reasons:

(1) The questions in themselves and a range of people reflecting on them are really more useful than my particular take on it

(2) I want to push back on the notion some people have that you can’t pose a good question unless you can immediately provide an answer to it.

I would love to hear your take on it though.  

[kadhim]

3 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I think this will lead us to the same discussion as previous threads, specifically that this line of thinking struggles against two crucial points:

-the limitless knowledge of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and therefore the infinite wisdom of His laws

-the notion that what was permitted to the Muslim ummah after the revelation remains permissible until the day of judgement and what was forbidden remains forbidden until the day of judgements. 

Certainly if one can improve their understanding of the wisdom behind the shariah, based on authentic sources, then this is indeed commendable. 

On the other hand picking and choosing the rules on the basis of speculative theories is neither sustainable nor consistent. 

I can see how your interpretive assumptions here would make it difficult for you to grapple seriously with these questions. 

However, in a proper discussion, interpretive assumptions are open to question, and the burden would fall on you to justify your assumptions, as well as whatever assumptions lie behind those assumptions rationally, before earning the right to invoke them. 

Unfortunately, you don’t get any of this for free. 

One great “upstream” preliminary question that is quite interesting is to take God’s infinite knowledge, wisdom, and legislative capacity as a given (a reasonable base assumption among fellow Muslims) and then look at what this does and doesn’t logically follow from that. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by kadhim

[Abu_Zahra]

14 hours ago, kadhim said:

However, in a proper discussion, interpretive assumptions are open to question, and the burden would fall on you to justify your assumptions, as well as whatever assumptions lie behind those assumptions rationally, before earning the right to invoke them. 

The assumptions and their justifications:

-Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is All Knowing (justified by the Quran)

-The Quran is the word of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) (justified by it's inimitability and trust in the Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) 

-Muslim men cannot marry women who are not from the Ahlul Kitab (justified by the Quran and hadith)

-Muslim women cannot marry men who are not Muslim (justified by the Quran and hadith)

[kadhim]

4 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

The assumptions and their justifications:

-Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is All Knowing (justified by the Quran)

-The Quran is the word of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) (justified by it's inimitability and trust in the Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) 

-Muslim men cannot marry women who are not from the Ahlul Kitab (justified by the Quran and hadith)

-Muslim women cannot marry men who are not Muslim (justified by the Quran and hadith)

Hold on here. You’re kind of misapplying the concept while simultaneously  jumbling together things at different levels. Let’s sort this mess out.

So an interpretive assumption is an assumption about how to read a text and how to draw conclusions from it. It’s the assumptions of things you hold to be true prior to picking up the text. As such, these are not things you justify through the text itself. You justify interpretive assumptions through reason. 

So of your four points here, only the first two are arguably interpretive assumptions.   Although to be correctly phrased, you should justify the first through reason based arguments like classical kalam arguments. 

The last two are not interpretive assumptions. They are the result of applying your interpretive assumptions to the text. 

Let’s flesh out the interpretive assumptions you’re applying implicitly but didn’t make explicit here. 

So starting with assumption number one, which you did state, (1) God is all-knowing, all-wise. To which I would add, as something that flows directly from that, all knowing about human affairs and optimally (to the maximum extent that is possible) capable of designing rules to regulate human affairs. 

To this extent we are on the same page. 

It seems to me that you take this assumption to naturally imply two other assumptions:

(2) God’s unlimited knowledge and wisdom imply that God and is capable of giving rules to mankind in one shot that are suitable and moreover optimal for all times

(3) Assuming God is capable of doing so, this is something that God actually  intended to do and chose to do. 

Here you’re not as well-grounded rationally. I don’t agree that these later two naturally follow from the first. Traditionalists need to do a better job at justifying these two assumptions (if that is even possible). 

Edited June 25, 2022 by kadhim

[Reza]

19 hours ago, kadhim said:

(1) The questions in themselves and a range of people reflecting on them are really more useful than my particular take on it

(2) I want to push back on the notion some people have that you can’t pose a good question unless you can immediately provide an answer to it.

This isn’t some abstract discourse, this is about a specific, practical subject. 

It would be better if people settle on a methodology, give a direct answer, own up to that answer, and lay it all out there for debate, so others can decide their material course of action. Or simply saying “I don’t know”.

Throwing around broad contextual questions and outsourcing the hard work to others for extracting practical conclusions isn’t that helpful. This just sounds like someone not secure in his own methodology. 

Prove to me that answering any of your above questions on historical context is even a prerequisite at all for settling this issue.

[kadhim]

53 minutes ago, Reza said:

This isn’t some abstract discourse, this is about a specific, practical subject. 

It would be better if people settle on a methodology, give a direct answer, own up to that answer, and lay it all out there for debate, so others can decide their material course of action. Or simply saying “I don’t know”.

Throwing around broad contextual questions and outsourcing the hard work to others for extracting practical conclusions isn’t that helpful. This just sounds like someone not secure in his own methodology. 

Prove to me that answering any of your above questions on historical context is even a prerequisite at all for settling this issue.

I’m pointing out a conversation the community needs to have. That doesn’t mean I’m inviting or demanding a debate on the spot. And by definition, a community discussion involves more than one person’s voice. Focusing on what I might think about it is a distraction. 

I frankly don’t appreciate your tone here. You need to step it back about 50%, brah. 

[Abu Hadi]

3 hours ago, Reza said:

This isn’t some abstract discourse, this is about a specific, practical subject. 

It would be better if people settle on a methodology, give a direct answer, own up to that answer, and lay it all out there for debate, so others can decide their material course of action. Or simply saying “I don’t know”.

Throwing around broad contextual questions and outsourcing the hard work to others for extracting practical conclusions isn’t that helpful. This just sounds like someone not secure in his own methodology. 

Prove to me that answering any of your above questions on historical context is even a prerequisite at all for settling this issue.

Exactly. I am closing this thread. The OPs question has already been answered many posts ago. He is a muslim and a Shia (from his profile). He started this looking for an answer from Marjaa. He got it. If we want to ponder on the nature of 'truth' that probably requires another thread.