Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
'Muta' a subject appropriate for this Village?
Or vice versa. I used to think not, but have been shown how it _is_ appropriate here. It just so happens that any conversation on sunni-shi'a differences comes to rest on this difference, because of its undeniable interest to every muslim, young or old, sunni or shia, or even (as in my own case,) shunni.
Muta, technically, is defined as temporary marriage within islam; also called "Sigah/segeh/segheh". Same rules and requirements as Nikah, with the two subtle alterations that:
1) The "Gift", or Meh'r, which is the woman's Islamic right - and can be anything - (as long as it is something of literal/material value,) has to be presented before the start of the Mutah.
2) A duration has to be fixed which goes into effect at the exchange of the Meh'r, or as agreed upon. The lady has the prerogative of voicing additional limitations. (Or, as was once mentioned to me by a very refined friend, something like this can be said: "no limits need to be assigned at present, but the right to place limits is reserved for the duration of the Mutah". I thought this was an exceedingly cool way of letting the guy know that he better remain decent..
That's the information (and experiential perspective) I have. Now I ask if this is worth discussion here or not. Well?
Muta, technically, is defined as temporary marriage within islam; also called "Sigah/segeh/segheh". Same rules and requirements as Nikah, with the two subtle alterations that:
1) The "Gift", or Meh'r, which is the woman's Islamic right - and can be anything - (as long as it is something of literal/material value,) has to be presented before the start of the Mutah.
2) A duration has to be fixed which goes into effect at the exchange of the Meh'r, or as agreed upon. The lady has the prerogative of voicing additional limitations. (Or, as was once mentioned to me by a very refined friend, something like this can be said: "no limits need to be assigned at present, but the right to place limits is reserved for the duration of the Mutah". I thought this was an exceedingly cool way of letting the guy know that he better remain decent..
That's the information (and experiential perspective) I have. Now I ask if this is worth discussion here or not. Well?
Comments on this journal
A friend of mine gave it to me back in 1992... sadly it wasn't till 2006 that I decided to read it and then got the CD version of it. Really wish I had listened to it way back then.
Took me all of two years, but hey, Superman is, after all, super-maan!!
You were right, and yes, I had written an incorrect fact initially. I'll correct it here.
May I be forgiven?-)
Come on keeper, katayon and superman can we all hug and make up (no touching the lady though).
To the bloke who started this topic good on ya. I've studied Mutah in depth from over 30 sources (sunni and shia) as well as Quran and Hadith (hadith from both sunni and shia). I needed to do this in order to understand whether shiasm was correct or on the wrong path since even when i first heard about Mutah i too urged a notion of suprise that bent my spine and with much adaptable coercion stuck my head up the ignorants backside. Though the Lord had made me equal to you all and i managed to pull my head back out and read up on some stuff which paved me back on track and i'll tell you what from my findings i can say that no human being who claims to be a shia or sunni can deny the legitimacy of Mutah since its permissable.
So whats all the HOOHAAA about.
Though i love the sunnies too, majority of them dont even know that Muta was made permissable by the Prophet (saw). They also dont know that sunnies dont deny the fact that it existed, but their only argument is that the Prophet (saw) later banned it. This is where the sunni and shia differ....they say Umar banned it according to the Prophets ruling and we the shia deny that it was banned since there is clear indication that it was used even after the Prophets return to God. Once our brothers manage to understand this piece of history, it is then this discussion can progess with SUCCESS!
fi'aminAllah
the keeper, no one asked you to join the conversation. you can just go on and ignore the discussion rather than insisting that it be deleted.
i was talking to superman, not you.
second, you said that "Same rules and requirements as Nikah, with the two subtle alterations that:
1) Mutah can be done in private, no witnesses are necessary, and"
so you were saying that in marriage you need witnesses, but in temp marriage you can do it in private.
and I am saying, in marriage, either temp or perm, you don't need any witnesses.
why don't you read what you yourself wrote before you try to respond.
Katayon: I am trying to end this and won't be revisiting a while, (no time, honest!) so please accept this as my defence against your *ahmm* refutation.. I don't get it because I thought what I said ("no witnesses needed for Mutah") is exactly what you referred from S. Systani. If I may quote you: "There is no condition for the presence of witnesses during the solemnization of the marriage, just as the presence of a cleric is not a condition for the validity of the marriage." So we were'nt talking about marriage. I spoke on Mutah, and.. err... *drumroll* was I in the wrong? Y U gett'in so woik'ed up? (Can I smile? No offence intended! Pwwomise!) *SMILE*
tfu.
i will quote you Sayed Sistani's rulling for my proof that you do not need any witnesses whatsoever www.najaf.org najaf.org
and try to think also which one makes the most logical sense in every possible case.
and further more, on your original post, the #1 1) Mutah can be done in private, no witnesses are necessary, is also incorrect. that is not different from permanent marriage. even in permanent marriage you can recite the marriage vow without a witness:
388: from Sayed Sistani: It is permissible for the couple to recite the formula of marriage agreement by themselves or by appointing representatives who will recite it on their behalf. There is no condition for the presence of witnesses during the solemnization of the marriage, just as the presence of a cleric is not a condition for the validity of the marriage.
Do us a favor, when you don't know what the hell you are talking about, don't talk
Allaho Alaam
i honestly don't know what her methodology was, and if she just listed the relevant hadith from our collections or if she applied some criteria. i am sure it is a scholarly piece of work of high standard, i have read it. i am just not sure about all of the hadith, i have asked some people, but have not had the opportunity to talk to the more senior hadith specialists. although if i did get that opportunity i have a lot of other questions i would like to ask first!