• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mutah, the so called "temporary marriage". Whats the problem?

You wont do that. After 20 years, you would want to divorce them. See what Jeff Bezos and Rupert Murdoch did. As for obligations, those can always be negotiated in a Nikah-al-Mut'ah, or you want the marriage totally for free? Then keep your sex-slave (will hardly merit to be called a wife) hidden in a basement.

Well, the current ruling party is thoroughly religious and secularism in India does not mean abandonment of religion. Our Constitution says "Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava" (treat all religions equally). Apart of worship of only one God and idols, Hindus are as good or even better than Muslims. Our Gods and Goddesses do not make it compulsory for any one to worship them, nor to follow what one particular person said.

I agree, I prefer that freedom, a chaos that I might navigate through unperturbed. Now to get me a basement!
 
What is the mainstream view among people in India (who are Hindu, nominal or otherwise) regarding pre-marital sex, and sex in "temporary relationships" or the loss of virginity and the status of virginity? I believe it must have been very important all across the world in the past that the woman be a virgin before she is with her husband and that she remains married to her husband ideally and does not have intercourse with anyone else.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Now to get me a basement!
You do not want one in Delhi. You do not live here. :)
What is the mainstream view among people in India (who are Hindu, nominal or otherwise) regarding pre-marital sex, and sex in "temporary relationships" or the loss of virginity and the status of virginity? I believe it must have been very important all across the world in the past that the woman be a virgin before she is with her husband and that she remains married to her husband ideally and does not have intercourse with anyone else.
Pre-marital sex is not appreciated by Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains; of course, done secretly by many. Never heard of "Nikah al-Mut'ah" being practiced here, though again, people of all religions do it clandestinely. State of Gujarat has a law "Maitri Karar" (Friendship Arrangement). "Living in" is permitted by law, for LGBTQ too. But in the latter two, a long association will be considered not much different from marriage (Alimony). No, there was no system of showing the blood-stained handkerchief to people as proof. You got what you got, generally not made into an issue.
 
Last edited:

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Its the word "Begotten" and "Only Begotten" that is troublesome, besides "Father" and "Son". Also, Mormons (who are not considered proper Christians by most other Christians), believe that Jesus is literally the Son of God.
Begotten and only Begotten Son of God are references to the Sonship of Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus was virgin born of Mary but they don't believe in the Trinity or Jesus being God or the non literal sense of the word Son.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Yeah. Many people who have never read it, and like you many who have never read the Bible also make this kind of statement.

You are yet to give Quranic verses that say "Jesus is the Antichrist".
I believe that the Muslims will view the Antichrist as their Messiah.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Are you sure? I don't know where you are getting your ideas, from the TV or internet or something? The Qur'an does not seem to say stuff like that, I've seen Muslims wearing jeans with their faces shaved and working at banks and technology stores, I don't know where you're getting this 7th century stuff from, probably the TV and those scary guys yelling on TV? The Qur'an doesn't say anything which made me feel like I was to go back to the 7th century or that the 7th century was really so different.
What Mohammed said about Satan and ears sounds like superstition.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Most people don't believe such a practice is really to ever be put into play, most Muslims do not believe in such a thing as legal or ethical, and so most Muslims never practice any such thing.
That's not the question. Islam as a doctrine claims to supersede Christianity. And yet it seems to me that Islam is a moral step backwards from Christianity. That most Muslims see Nikah mut'ah for what it is (religiously sanctioned prostitution) is evidence of the moral law written in their hearts as individuals. Romans 2:15. Not for the supposed greatness of the Islam which sanctions it.

Take polygamy as an example. Jesus tells us that for the Hebrews, God overlooked it as a temporary concession to human weakness. He then revokes this concession insisting that lifelong monogamy was always the divine intent. Has God changed his mind? Did Allah after seven centuries come to the conclusion that faithful monogamy was just too lofty an ideal after all?

so a lot more self-identifying Christians get intoxicated, have sex with various people before marriage, and go to Church services too.
Jesus did say that salvation is a narrow path. Matthew 7:13-14. It's not surprising that most people (even self-identified Christians) are not walking it.

Nonetheless don't think I'm any kind of apologist for the sexual culture in the so-called Christian west. Asmodeus and Mammon sit enthroned these days. But Christianity continuities to call us to reject these false gods.

It would be far fetched to say that Islam isn't a religious "upgrade" or "downgrade" towards conservative religion compared to modern Christianity in most cases. In many ways, Christianity seems like just talk, and though Islam is headed in that direction most likely, its still got a lot more which makes it seem like a "real, actual, religion with practices".
Have you actually looked at what a serious Catholicism or Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy requires? It's as every bit demanding as Islam. Yes, modern liberal "Christianity" may not demand much of anything from you, but it's hardly fair to judge a faith by the most watered down incarnations of it.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
I have already mentioned that I have no problem with Muslim marriage, even four or fourteen marriages, Nikah-al-Mut'ah or Nikah-Halala. Why should I have any? It i not my religion, it is not my culture. They can do whatever they want within the limitations of Indian Constitution, which was not formed without the participation of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Zoroastrians and Jews. People from all religions were members of our Constituent Assembly (Constituent Assembly of India - Wikipedia).

Thats not relevant.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I believe that the Muslims will view the Antichrist as their Messiah.

You can believe the sun is a tin ball that someones grandad hung up there. That does not make any case.

Quote the Quran to establish what you said. IF YOU CAN.

But of course, you cannot. Because what you said is made up. Show a verse that says "Christ/Jesus is the antichrist".

;) You will fail my friend. Have some decency to just say you made a mistake.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
You have never read any of the scripture have you mate?

The Koran talks about wife beating. The Bible doesn't.
Surah 4:34, "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
You can believe the sun is a tin ball that someones grandad hung up there. That does not make any case.

Quote the Quran to establish what you said. IF YOU CAN.

But of course, you cannot. Because what you said is made up. Show a verse that says "Christ/Jesus is the antichrist".

;) You will fail my friend. Have some decency to just say you made a mistake.

Muslims beleive that the 12th imam will rule the world for seven years. Three years of chaos before he is revealed sounds like the Bible talking about three years of tribulation before the Antichrist destroys the Jewish temple.
 
That's not the question. Islam as a doctrine claims to supersede Christianity. And yet it seems to me that Islam is a moral step backwards from Christianity. That most Muslims see Nikah mut'ah for what it is (religiously sanctioned prostitution) is evidence of the moral law written in their hearts as individuals. Romans 2:15. Not for the supposed greatness of the Islam which sanctions it.

Take polygamy as an example. Jesus tells us that for the Hebrews, God overlooked it as a temporary concession to human weakness. He then revokes this concession insisting that lifelong monogamy was always the divine intent. Has God changed his mind? Did Allah after seven centuries come to the conclusion that faithful monogamy was just too lofty an ideal after all?


Jesus did say that salvation is a narrow path. Matthew 7:13-14. It's not surprising that most people (even self-identified Christians) are not walking it.

Nonetheless don't think I'm any kind of apologist for the sexual culture in the so-called Christian west. Asmodeus and Mammon sit enthroned these days. But Christianity continuities to call us to reject these false gods.


Have you actually looked at what a serious Catholicism or Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy requires? It's as every bit demanding as Islam. Yes, modern liberal "Christianity" may not demand much of anything from you, but it's hardly fair to judge a faith by the most watered down incarnations of it.
Yes, they are not living up to the requirements of the religion, as you have mentioned, and should carefully follow the catechisms and rulings if they wish to refine their religions or claim to be members of such.

As for Islam, the people who are actually practicing Muslims are likely much closer to following the requirements of their religion than are many of the people who call themselves Christians.

Furthermore, "Mutah" is not something most Muslims even believe in, it is not clearly mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an, and neither is the famous "polygamy" clearly prescribed.

This is what the Qur'an says:
Ayah an-Nisa` (Women) 4:3 Renditions at IslamAwakened.com

The multiple marriage thing has something to do with Orphans and their care and rights, and furthermore, it suggests "marry only one" to the orphan or whatever it is saying, or otherwise "marry only one wife" if you are concerned about unfairness, then also says:

4:129
"And it will not be within your power to treat your wives with equal fairness, however much you may desire it; and so, do not allow yourselves to incline towards one to the exclusion of the other, leaving her in a state, as it were, of having and not having a husband. But if you put things to rights and are conscious of Him - behold, God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

So here is the issue:
Many cultures in the world had already been married to multiple women, and this was not abruptly outlawed. Most Muslims today are only ever married to one woman or one woman at a time.

Islam permits divorce, while Christianity according to the New Testament seems to suggest that divorce turns a woman into an adulteress, and this is not a "step forwards" but very harmful towards women potentially.

Other things which were not abruptly outlawed were Slavery, even though today most Muslims don't own slaves, in Christianity, slavery was not even suggested as something bad, and slaves being beaten up by their masters or treated cruelly even were told to return to their masters or owners, whereas the Qur'an in contrast counts the "freeing of a slave" as a good deed which the righteous are to perform and to expiate sins, a move in the right direction.

Sudden abolishment of Slavery would leave a complete population of dependents who had no support, money, care, nothing, as the Slaves were in many ways like children due to depending on the owner for food, clothing, care, and it was wrong and cruel to just say "go now, you're on your own", but they needed to be furnished with the ability to survive on their own and establish themselves as free people, otherwise they might be forced to survive through crime or become beggars.

The Qur'an did not move in the wrong direction in my opinion, it established a more sophisticated vision of God as well, one that is superior to anything which Christianity officially came to promote, such as the confusing terminology used in the Bible or Jesus the human man as God and the Son of God and God as a doting Father rather than a Non-Human superior being.

The Qur'an never said "go ahead, do mutah, divorce and separate a lot, deflower women" it has none of that, it has everything against that, in a much more decent fashion than Christian extremism saying that any woman who re-marries or is divorced by her Husband is an adultress.

The Bible also says many ridiculous and wrong things, by retaining the Jewish material in the Old Testament (which tells people that tribal interest taking is wrong but to go ahead and take interest from the surrounding people and nations) and then Jesus supposedly saying things like "gouge out your eye, cut off your foot and hand, drown people who hurt "these little ones" which people just take as a sort of joke to ignore, when Jesus questioned the Jews for their ignoring what he calls God's commandment supposedly which orders the Jews to "kill their children" if they show any form of disrespect to their parents, and then he gave this example when the Jews were trying to convince him to wash his filthy hands before eating food with them.

Jesus also says "I have come only for / to the Children of Israel" to the woman who was begging on behalf of her child and he was ignoring her and she was following him desperately, and had to call herself a dog for being a Canaanite or whatever because God is apparently a racist Man.

So no, nothing is going in the right direction there, and even though what you see on TV are tanned looking imbeciles yelling and juggling with grenades, that is not what is really in the Qur'an if one reads it carefully in its entirety, and in reading it carefully without the imbeciles in mind, one can see that the Qur'an is entirely superior to what is in the Bible on every single count practically as what is better and more helpful and more reasonable for human beings and just in comparison.

Where the Bible says women have to "cover their heads or else shave their hair off" and "are not permitted to speak in the Churches" or over a man, and that "Christ is to Man, as Man is over Woman" that a Husband is basically like a God to his wife? This is nothing like Islam or "headed in the right direction", and the Qur'an's words seem far more suitable and appropriate for the modern world than what was in the New Testament. You might think differently also if you were a women, forced by birth to feel a pressure to abide by such things when you are just a human beings (with boobs! BOOBS! YOU HAVE BOOBS! YOU CAN'T GET A DIVORCE AND IF YOU ARE DIVORCED YOU ARE AN ADULTRESS! BOOOOOBS!).

Yet, the Qur'an can be said to be the scripture of Moloch, Rimmon, and all the rest of "Allah's names". Do you believe that Asmodeus and Mammon are real entities? I'd like to know more about that, you could even make a different thread about Demonology since that is a favorite topic of mine and of great interest to me as to what people think on it all and each, their experiences, all that. I have a whole thread full of medieval demon names even.

The Muslims are the ones seen covering their heads, but nothing is no explicit or vigorous about this head covering business as apparently the writing in the New Testament for example.

You could also make a thread which lists all the commandments and acts and thoughts and whatever in detail that it takes to qualify as truly on the Straight and Narrow as a True Christian.

You're right that the Qur'an is a sort of "relaxation" from the eye gouging, hand and foot cutting, child abuser drowning, turn the other cheek, slay right in front of me all those who denied me as their King, a divorced woman is an adulteress, Christianity. The trouble might be that some of us might be calling the Devil, God:
Whose your Daddy? Dan?
 
Muslims beleive that the 12th imam will rule the world for seven years. Three years of chaos before he is revealed sounds like the Bible talking about three years of tribulation before the Antichrist destroys the Jewish temple.
This Muslim doesn't believe in any of that and none of that is mentioned in the Qur'an at all.
 
The Koran talks about wife beating. The Bible doesn't.

That is disputed now, so that many people say it is not actually talking about "lightly beating" the wife at all or any beating whatsoever. The Qur'an does explicitly say to restrain your hands from violence and so not to hit anyone at all except in self defense basically.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Fair enough.
Would you please present a source that requires the man to be unmarried?
I ask because I have not found one.

Please be kind enough to open a new thread to discuss these laws and regulations about it if you wish. And if you wish, you can take that all of this is for married men as well. Its all fine.

In fact, there is no proper source for this Mutah marriage whatsoever. The only established source of the Shii community is dating to the 17th century. What you will find mostly are some ahadith that does not have any stipulations clearly. Thus, in order to come up with a fathawa you have to understand the whole of the Islamic sources in a holistic manner. I am not propagating Mutah Nikah so I dont have to justify it, and I find it strange to find others thinking that its imperative. If you not most of the ahadith it would just say Mutah, but there are no proper explanations.

Any way if you go through the Tahsis concept or explanation of something which is actually not in the text is what Imam Shafi says that Hassan that is referred to women also refers to men and because of this its Baathil or not valid. For example, if I quote you Imam Malik on the Mutah matter, he lived in the 2nd century AH, but the person who quotes him lived in the 6th century AH. It was almarhinani.

If you take the Umar issues with the Mutah Nikaha, you would see that this sister who had a child had the baby through a Mutah, with a single man in al mahdil mawoodh. Then it describes a man who took a wife through Mutah but never married again, which means he was not married before. He never married for the second time after the Mutah marriage.

So this is a rabbit hole you have to walk down. Id rather focus on the topic at hand.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Yes, they are not living up to the requirements of the religion, as you have mentioned, and should carefully follow the catechisms and rulings if they wish to refine their religions or claim to be members of such.

As for Islam, the people who are actually practicing Muslims are likely much closer to following the requirements of their religion than are many of the people who call themselves Christians.

Furthermore, "Mutah" is not something most Muslims even believe in, it is not clearly mentioned anywhere in the Qur'an, and neither is the famous "polygamy" clearly prescribed.

This is what the Qur'an says:
Ayah an-Nisa` (Women) 4:3 Renditions at IslamAwakened.com

The multiple marriage thing has something to do with Orphans and their care and rights, and furthermore, it suggests "marry only one" to the orphan or whatever it is saying, or otherwise "marry only one wife" if you are concerned about unfairness, then also says:

4:129
"And it will not be within your power to treat your wives with equal fairness, however much you may desire it; and so, do not allow yourselves to incline towards one to the exclusion of the other, leaving her in a state, as it were, of having and not having a husband. But if you put things to rights and are conscious of Him - behold, God is indeed much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

So here is the issue:
Many cultures in the world had already been married to multiple women, and this was not abruptly outlawed. Most Muslims today are only ever married to one woman or one woman at a time.

Islam permits divorce, while Christianity according to the New Testament seems to suggest that divorce turns a woman into an adulteress, and this is not a "step forwards" but very harmful towards women potentially.

Other things which were not abruptly outlawed were Slavery, even though today most Muslims don't own slaves, in Christianity, slavery was not even suggested as something bad, and slaves being beaten up by their masters or treated cruelly even were told to return to their masters or owners, whereas the Qur'an in contrast counts the "freeing of a slave" as a good deed which the righteous are to perform and to expiate sins, a move in the right direction.

Sudden abolishment of Slavery would leave a complete population of dependents who had no support, money, care, nothing, as the Slaves were in many ways like children due to depending on the owner for food, clothing, care, and it was wrong and cruel to just say "go now, you're on your own", but they needed to be furnished with the ability to survive on their own and establish themselves as free people, otherwise they might be forced to survive through crime or become beggars.

The Qur'an did not move in the wrong direction in my opinion, it established a more sophisticated vision of God as well, one that is superior to anything which Christianity officially came to promote, such as the confusing terminology used in the Bible or Jesus the human man as God and the Son of God and God as a doting Father rather than a Non-Human superior being.

The Qur'an never said "go ahead, do mutah, divorce and separate a lot, deflower women" it has none of that, it has everything against that, in a much more decent fashion than Christian extremism saying that any woman who re-marries or is divorced by her Husband is an adultress.

The Bible also says many ridiculous and wrong things, by retaining the Jewish material in the Old Testament (which tells people that tribal interest taking is wrong but to go ahead and take interest from the surrounding people and nations) and then Jesus supposedly saying things like "gouge out your eye, cut off your foot and hand, drown people who hurt "these little ones" which people just take as a sort of joke to ignore, when Jesus questioned the Jews for their ignoring what he calls God's commandment supposedly which orders the Jews to "kill their children" if they show any form of disrespect to their parents, and then he gave this example when the Jews were trying to convince him to wash his filthy hands before eating food with them.

Jesus also says "I have come only for / to the Children of Israel" to the woman who was begging on behalf of her child and he was ignoring her and she was following him desperately, and had to call herself a dog for being a Canaanite or whatever because God is apparently a racist Man.

So no, nothing is going in the right direction there, and even though what you see on TV are tanned looking imbeciles yelling and juggling with grenades, that is not what is really in the Qur'an if one reads it carefully in its entirety, and in reading it carefully without the imbeciles in mind, one can see that the Qur'an is entirely superior to what is in the Bible on every single count practically as what is better and more helpful and more reasonable for human beings and just in comparison.

Where the Bible says women have to "cover their heads or else shave their hair off" and "are not permitted to speak in the Churches" or over a man, and that "Christ is to Man, as Man is over Woman" that a Husband is basically like a God to his wife? This is nothing like Islam or "headed in the right direction", and the Qur'an's words seem far more suitable and appropriate for the modern world than what was in the New Testament. You might think differently also if you were a women, forced by birth to feel a pressure to abide by such things when you are just a human beings (with boobs! BOOBS! YOU HAVE BOOBS! YOU CAN'T GET A DIVORCE AND IF YOU ARE DIVORCED YOU ARE AN ADULTRESS! BOOOOOBS!).

Yet, the Qur'an can be said to be the scripture of Moloch, Rimmon, and all the rest of "Allah's names". Do you believe that Asmodeus and Mammon are real entities? I'd like to know more about that, you could even make a different thread about Demonology since that is a favorite topic of mine and of great interest to me as to what people think on it all and each, their experiences, all that. I have a whole thread full of medieval demon names even.

The Muslims are the ones seen covering their heads, but nothing is no explicit or vigorous about this head covering business as apparently the writing in the New Testament for example.

You could also make a thread which lists all the commandments and acts and thoughts and whatever in detail that it takes to qualify as truly on the Straight and Narrow as a True Christian.

You're right that the Qur'an is a sort of "relaxation" from the eye gouging, hand and foot cutting, child abuser drowning, turn the other cheek, slay right in front of me all those who denied me as their King, a divorced woman is an adulteress, Christianity. The trouble might be that some of us might be calling the Devil, God:
Whose your Daddy? Dan?

The New Testament doesn't say that a divorced woman is an adulteress. It says that a woman who has multiple husbands is an adulteress.
 
Top