A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/01/02 at 23:43:44 |
[slm] is Muta marriages the same thing as a man marrying a woman in a different country other than his own to avoid falling into haram? [wlm] jaj |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
se7en |
04/02/02 at 00:42:31 |
as salaamu alaykum, Nope. Mutaa is a practice that has been outlawed by sharia [Islamic law]. If a Muslim man marries a woman for *whatever* reason - be it to refrain from haram, because his parents forced him into it, love, whatever - he has duties and responsibilities towards her.. and she has rights over him. These rights are the same no matter why he married her. |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/02/02 at 21:24:51 |
[slm] so what about that kind of marriage? the one i described?? [wlm] jaj |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
Abu_Hamza |
04/03/02 at 00:13:03 |
[slm] jaj, it depends what you mean. is the man going to keep her with him as a wife, only as long as he's there? and then divorce her when he leaves? in other words, is it a *temporary* marriage or a permanent one? if it's a temporary marriage, then that is muta, and it's completely forbidden in Islam. if it's a permanent marriage, where the husband will keep the wife with him, and if he moves back to his country he will take her with him, then it's a proper marriage. Allah knows best. wassalamu alaikum |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/03/02 at 00:28:47 |
[slm] Abu_Hamza my husband never intended to keep me as his wife. he never intended to take me back to saudi arabia. he told his parents "what kind of son would i be if i brought home an american wife?". he parents told him to stay with me because of our son. but i found out about him not intending to stay with me which was only a part of why i didn't want to be with him anymore. is that muta? [wlm] jaj |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
Abu_Hamza |
04/03/02 at 18:29:50 |
[slm] From the way you're describing it, it doesn't seem to be muta. Muta is a *temporary* marriage. And it is known at the time of the nikaah (marriage contract) that this marriage will be null after such and such period of time. So, both parties are aware of the fact that the marriage will be for a temporary period of time before they get married. Once again, muta is completely haraam in Islam. What you are going through is completely different. It's a situation where your husband is living away from you, but he is still your husband and you are his wife. The marriage is still valid. Whether or not he's doing something wrong by not spending his time with you ... that's a whole different story! Wallahu a'lam. Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah |
04/03/02 at 18:30:30 |
Abu_Hamza |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
Anonymous |
04/03/02 at 23:33:15 |
assalaamu alaikum, jaj, When people enter into a temporary marriage, they sign a contract and agree on a dowry. Both parties know from the beginning what sort of an agreement they are making. I know most people on this board don't consider mut'a valid, but the point I want to make is that, even if your former husband belonged to a sect for whom mut'a is a possibility, if he didn't explain it all to you from the beginning and get your freely-given, *informed* consent, then he was doing something wrong, by any standard. I hope this helps a little, rachel |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/03/02 at 23:49:38 |
[slm] my husband never intended to stay married to me. he told me all we had to do was sign a contract and have 2 witnesses sign it and that was it. i even didnt get my dowry and he still wont give it to me. he told his parents he only married me to avoid falling into haram while he was studying here in the USA. when we signed the contract, i was under the impression we were going to be together forever inshallah. when i got pregnant, he kicked me out of our apartment and now he has left the country. [wlm] jaj |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/03/02 at 23:50:35 |
see what i'm saying is he never intended to stay with me and i was not aware of this. |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
khanzadeh |
04/04/02 at 21:25:46 |
[color=Black] [slm] Sister Jaj still seems confused on the issue of marriage. I'll make an attempt to explain the issues involved, inshallah. You must know the rules for nikah (marriage) in islam to realize the absurdity that is muta. For a muta contract (temporary marriage or marriage of pleasure):[list] [*]There is [u]no need for witnesses[/u]! [*]The couple agrees to a [u]stipluated time[/u] for cohabitation which can be as short as 15 minutes! [*]The dowry given to the woman by the man, [u]mehr, can be something as [i]significant[/i] as a glass of water[/u].! The time of payment is also subject to contractual agreement. [*]There is [u]no need for consent[/u] from the woman's wali (guardian) even if she is a virgin. [*]The [u]woman can't inherit[/u] from the man in case of his death (and vice versa). [*]A man can make such a contract concurrently with [u]any number of women[/u]. [*]A [u]woman has no other rights over the man[/u] (except what was stipulated in the contract) and vice versa. [*]Any children from such a cohabitation inherit from the father, though. [/list]Any rational person can easily observe the serious shortcomings of such contracts. All these issues are compeletly orthogonal to the excellent rules of nikah in Islam. In short, muta contract can clearly be used as a cover for prostitution and for other social evils. 'Umar (RA), realizing the fitnah inherent in such contracts outlawed them in absolute terms. Anyone who practices this is considered to be fornicating and the hadd applies. Similar rulings are there for those who legitimise or justify this practice. This is, according to my understanding, by the ijma' (consensus) of the ahl-as-sunnah. There are countless rulings on this issue, and a brother posted one of them in the other 'muta' thread. From sister jaj's posts, what I can deduce is that her (ex?) husband married her properly, but clearly with the wrong neeah (intention). He also mistreated her. The brother, it appears, has transgressed. But the sister need not worry about her child as the law of her land (USA?) is on her side. What I suggest to you sister, is to consult with an Imam and a lawyer to straighten things out. I have tried my best to verify the info about muta that I have posted. I ask Allah (SWT)s forgiveness for commiting any mistakes and for propagating any falsehood. [/color] |
04/04/02 at 21:30:54 |
khanzadeh |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
Abu_Hamza |
04/05/02 at 02:02:07 |
[slm] [quote]What I suggest to you sister, is to consult with an Imam and a lawyer to straighten things out. [/quote] I strongly second that suggestion!!! May Allah (swt) help you. Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/05/02 at 03:52:47 |
[slm] thank you very much. now i understand! another question i have is he told me i didnt need a wali nor did he need to ask my father for permission because my family are non-muslims. is that true? also for a marriage to be valid, must it be notarized? do you know what i mean? or is the contract just between the couple? i think in other words i'm asking is somebody supposed to marry us or do we do it ourselves? |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
khanzadeh |
04/06/02 at 02:19:43 |
[slm] As I wrote before my respected sister, take your queries to an Imam near you and Inshallah, you'll get satisfactory answers. You'll only get more confused by all the different answers you get on this (or any other) board. Btw, here is a good link for marriage info (it contains more than what I can say). http://www.soundvision.com/Info/Islam/marriage.nikah.asp |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/06/02 at 02:45:31 |
[slm] this is from that link Secondary Requirements 1) Legal guardian (wakeel) representing the bride 2) Written marriage contract ("Aqd-Nikah) signed by the bride and the groom and witnesses by two adult and sane witnesses 3) Qadi (State appointed Muslim judge) or Ma'zoon (a responsible person officiating the marriage ceremony) 4) Khutba-tun-Nikah to solemnize the marriage NONE of that took place...does that mean our marriage isn't valid??? jaj |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
Abu_Hamza |
04/06/02 at 21:37:29 |
[slm] jaj, what exactly did happen in your wedding then? That is, how did your marriage take place? |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/06/02 at 23:57:16 |
[slm] he had 2 brothers sign a contract that he typed up and then we signed it and thumbprinted it and that was it. i didnt ask any questions because i trusted him and i was foolish and didnt learn about marriage on my own. |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
zomorrud |
04/07/02 at 22:38:06 |
Assalamu alaikum, The following was taken from [url]http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/articles/fatawawom/marriage.html#divorce[/url], and shows the diversity of opinions on this subject. --- Marriage with the Intention of Divorcing After a Period of Time Question: A person is going abroad to study and he wants to protect his chastity there by getting married for a specific period of time. Afterwards, he will divorce his wife although he does not inform her that he is planning on divorcing after a specific time period. What is the ruling concerning such behavior? Response: Marriage with the intention of divorce must fall into one of two cases. First, it is explicitly stipulated in the marriage contract that the marriage is for a month, year, until he finishes his studies and so forth. This is known as muta. This is forbidden. The second case is where the person has that as his intention [in his heart] but it is not put as a stipulation in the contract. The widespread opinion among the Hanbalis is that that is forbidden and the contract is void. They say that what is intended is equivalent to what is actually stipulated, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Actions are based on intentions and for everyone is what he intended."[sup]1[/sup] They also say that if a man marries and plans on divorcing a thrice-divorced woman simply in order to make her permissible for previous husband, that marriage is not valid even if what was intended is not stipulated in the marriage contract. Again, this is what is intended is like what is stipulated. So if the intention of making the wife "legal" for her previous husband makes the contract null and void, the intention to perform [something similar to] muta also makes the contract null and void. This is the opinion of the Hanbalis. The second opinion among the scholars is that it is permissible for the man to marry that woman with the intention that he will divorce her after he leaves her land, such as those who go to the West to study or for other purposes. They say that it is sound because it is not stipulated in the contract and this distinguishes it from muta. Furthermore, in the case of muta, as soon as the period finishes, the two are separated whether they still want that or not. In this case, though, it could be the case that he desires his wife and decides to remain with her. This is one of the opinions held by Shaikh al-Islam ibn Taimiya. In my opinion, such a marriage is not muta since it does not meet the definition of muta. However, it is still forbidden since it is a type of deception of the wife and her family. The Prophet (peace be upon him) has forbidden deception and mendacity. If the woman knew that the man only intends to be married with her for that specific time, she would not agree to the marriage nor would her family. In the same way, he would not be pleased to marry his daughter to a man who intends to divorce her when he has fulfilled his needs from her. How can he be pleased with doing to others what he would not be pleased to have done to himself? This goes against the foundations of faith. The Prophet (peace be upon him) has stated, "None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."[sup]2[/sup] I have also heard that this opinion has led some people to do something that none of the scholars would be in agreement with. That is, some people travel to such lands with the sole purpose of performing such a marriage and then they return to their countries. This is also a greatly forbidden act. Therefore, one must close the door that leads to such a possible practice. Furthermore, the act contains deception and cheating. And it opens a very dangerous door since people, in general, are ignorant and most of the people's desires will not keep them from violating what Allah has prohibited. Shaikh ibn Uthaimin Footnote 1. Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.--JZ 2. Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.--JZ |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/10/02 at 23:27:14 |
[slm] what is Hanbalis?? jaj |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
bhaloo |
04/11/02 at 02:01:26 |
[slm] That should read Hanabalis (its one of the 4 schools of thought, the other 3 being Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi) |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
Abu_Hamza |
04/11/02 at 12:52:28 |
:) Hanbali is singular. Its plural is Hanabil in Arabic. Neither Hanbalis nor Hanabalis is a proper word :) If I'm mistaken, the Arabic speaking people on this board can correct me (that's NOT you jannah :P) Wallahu a'lam. Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
zomorrud |
04/11/02 at 12:56:47 |
assalamu alaikum, Not to digress, but Hanbali is correct. It may also be written as Hanbalee, and is used to refer to a follower of the Hanbali madhab. (*) Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal is a great scholar after whom the Hanbali madhab was founded. So sr Jaj, most scholars who give scholarly opinion, will research the matter in the writings of the 4 known scholars (Abu-Hanifa, Malik, Shafi3ee, and Ahmed ibn Hanbal) and/or their students. Take care wassalam (*)I think the confusing part was the addition of the 's' at the end of the word to refer to the plural. So the term 'Hanbalis' is not a proper word in Arabic. Just like the term 'masjids' is not! The plural of 'Hanbali' is 'Hanabilah', and that of 'masjid' is 'masaajid'. But for simplification's sake, both forms are used and are understood. |
04/11/02 at 13:15:19 |
zomorrud |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
se7en |
04/15/02 at 14:06:33 |
as salaamu alaykum, jaj we talked a little bit about the schools of law on the old message board.. you can check out some of the discussions [url=http://www.jannah.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl/YaBB.pl?board=madrasa&action=display&num=6058]here[/url], [url=http://www.jannah.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl/YaBB.pl?board=madrasa&action=display&num=6060]here[/url], and [url=http://www.jannah.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl/YaBB.pl?board=sisters&action=display&num=6365]here[/url]. Hope that's of help :) wasalaamu alaykum :-) ps - the plural of Hanafi is 'Ahnaaf'. I learned that just recently 8) |
04/15/02 at 14:10:44 |
se7en |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
jaj |
04/15/02 at 22:52:54 |
[slm] i just dont get it. does it matter which one you follow? which ones do you guys follow? i'm so confused about this!! jaj |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
muqaddar |
04/23/02 at 13:14:12 |
[slm] Muta marriages are haraam certain groups view the mahr as a fee for sexual consummation which is like prostitution |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
se7en |
04/24/02 at 08:56:21 |
as salaamu alaykum, [quote]i just dont get it. does it matter which one you follow? which ones do you guys follow? i'm so confused about this!! [/quote] Jaj, it's okay, most of us are confused about it too :P They're all just different ways of understanding Islamic law. [quote] certain groups view the mahr as a fee for sexual consummation which is like prostitution [/quote] That's absolutely *not* what it is. The mahr is a Muslim woman's *right* when she marries - it is a financial gift that is a means of security for her and that is for her own disposal. It is not a price on her head and it shouldn't be made out to be that way. |
04/24/02 at 08:58:23 |
se7en |
Re: question on this Muta marriages |
---|
muqaddar |
04/24/02 at 12:34:59 |
[slm] Agree with your comment below Se7en. I should rephrase that as certain heretics who call muta halaal view it that way. Had a discussion with a heretic who was trying to convert some of my friends and thats when it emerged that in their view the haqq mahr is translated as 'wage' for sexual consummation. It is categorically rejected by the people of Sunna [quote author=se7en link=board=madrasa;num=1017722625;start=15#24 date=04/24/02 at 08:56:21]as salaamu alaykum, That's absolutely *not* what it is. The mahr is a Muslim woman's *right* when she marries - it is a financial gift that is a means of security for her and that is for her own disposal. It is not a price on her head and it shouldn't be made out to be that way. [/quote] |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |