Church vs Mosque

``So I would request you to carry on this debate only if you want to do it in the spirit of learning and education. I do not want to offend anyone either. `` During your discussion, you use the term `business` as derogatory, please stick to your word.

1. ``This contract is verbal where a man and a woman agree verbally to perform muta`a for mutually agreed payment/dowry. No witness is required to attest that contract. In other words no one has to know who is doing what and with whom at a certain time.``

The Islamic marriage contract consists of an offer (ijab) and acceptance (qabul) that occur at the same meeting. In order for the contract to be valid, the man and woman must both hear and understand the offer and acceptance. In all schools except the Hanifi school, the general consensus among jurists is that a woman must have a legal guardian to conclude the marriage contract on her behalf even if she possesses full legal capacity. According to all the Sunni schools, the marriage also must be witnessed by two male witnesses, or one male and two female witnesses. The Shia, however, do not require witnesses. There is no requirement under any school that the marriage contract be made in a particular form or ceremony; although the Quran recommends that marriage contracts be in writing, oral contracts are valid. Furthermore, there is no quranic injunction that stipulates that witnesses are required for nikah, however the quran clearly mentions the need for witnesses in surah talaq ayat 3. ``When their waiting period is about to end, keep them or separate from them lawfully. Let two just people witness the divorce and let them bear witness for the sake of God. Thus does God command those who have faith in Him and the Day of Judgment``.
In the Sunni, madhab there is no such requirment for divorce. I ask the questioner to prove where does it say that witnesses are required for nikkah and not required for talaq???

2. ``This sounds like an open conduit to regulated prostitution to me. `` Again a nonacademic arguement, I fail to understand which University of standard will approve your thesis if it is based on such sentiments.

One cannot pursue muta if they have the means for permanent marriage. Let me remind you that permanent marriage has certain constraints, 1. Financial and household obligation on the husband for the wife and kids 2. The payment of mahr (dowry) by the groom to the bride 3. Fullfillment of tamkeen by the wife (providing sexual and reproductive access to the husband) 4. Following the commands of the husband with regard to Islamic law. Therefore, if either a man or a woman is not able to fullfill their end of the deal, then according to both sunni and shia jurisprudence, they cannot marry. Therefore, according to your claim, such people do not have the right to marry? Let me also make it clear that Islam advocates early permanent marriage, and therefore, muta is not a resource for undued pleasure? Furthermore, if according to your formula, every male would be able to have countless wives, etc, I don`t see in what society would muslim girls opt for this arrangement and not get married permanently if they had the resource to do so.

3. You said there is no obligation with regards to the man but you state this as if this is defined somewhere? Under muta, as I had mentioned in a previous post, the requirements and contributions are customizable, flexible unlike permanent marriage. The woman has a right to stipulate what she wants, and so does the man. Is there any woman in her right mind who would not choose to stipulate expenses, maintenance, etc? Furthermore, according to sharia, children born in Muta inherit the fight of inheritence, and are the responsibility of the father.

I would ask that before you make your biased remarks and conclusions, claiming to be a student of this topic, please do some research before you make your opinions known.

I don`t even want to comment on these remarks ``Let me explain my point with an example - suppose the New York port authority today announces that from now on all rides on the buses and subways are free, but there is a voluntary 3 dollar a trip ticket. Who and how many people will then buy the ticket. It is anybody`s guess. But this is exactly what has happened in Western societies these days. People only marry to each other because of their judeo-christian values only, other than that they prefer to just `live together`. Which means that the only real loser in this whole affair is the woman and woman alone who as a single mother is stuck with children. I know that condoms have been invented but isn`t it a fact that after her marketable age a woman is always a loser without a man. ``

I invite the readership to judge them in the light of what I have written in response. There is a clear distinction between permanent and temporary marriage, and the latter has been provided not as an escape but as a rescue option. Those who cannot marry permanently can temporarily. Its as simple as that. :)



Salam alaikum

Shabber

Ralph # 72 - Could you send me a picture of yours?

Thanks

Atif2 and Faizahussain

Congratulations on acting like brave Muslims the two of you are. Under Islam, you could do no better than to post publicly a picture that was sent to you in private.

When a person begins to show pride in being a Muslim, it becomes clear what kind of acts he or she will engage in.

Rozaiba # 64

I would like to address your contentions about Ijtehad. My reply:

I do not agree with the notion that the evolution of Islamic jurisprudence thru Ijtehad has ever stopped. In order to understand what I am trying to say, we must understand what was the mechanism of ijtehad, jurisprudence and its implementation as law in the pre-colonial era or more precisely before the collapse of Ottoman Caliphate. It is a common knowledge that there has never been a formal body for ijtehad and jurisprudence throughout the Muslim history in any part of the world. The ijtehad and jurisprudence always and continually developed in schools (madrassahs), colleges (kulliat), and universities (Jamia`at) where jurists, students and teachers used to develop law by addressing the new issues of their times. The technical name for this procedure of issuing verdict is called Fatwa. For non-cognizable issues like family matters, inheritance, and other issues, which now fall under the body of civil law people directly contacted those jurists and accepted their verdicts. This system is still in place to some degree in almost every Muslim country. In case there was a dispute with the jurists, people then contacted government appointed judges named Qazis to get their issues resolved. The Qazi, most of the time in turn sought advice from those jurists and issued his verdict (fatwa), which was binding. For cognizable issues Qazis usually adopted the same procedures if there was no precedence.

As the colonial powers took control over the Muslim lands the link between jurisprudence and court system was severed. In Hindustan this change was forced upon the people so forcefully that all the legal verdicts and other records prior to the occupation were seized by the british raj and sealed. It was a criminal offence not to hand over those records. All these records were then transferred to England, which still reside in British East India Library. Despite the fact that this link between jurisprudence and its enforcement was severed, people still kept on taking their non-cognizable cases to those jurists. Those jurists kept on issuing their verdicts called Fatwas and people kept on voluntarily abiding by them. But now when there was a dispute on a fatwa and people took their cases to the government appointed judges, overwhelming, majority of whom was now white judges direct from Britton, those judges did not seek advice from the jurists. They even showed contempt and ridiculed the fatwas issued by the jurists. Colonialism always create a class among the occupied people who take care of the dirty work that colonial powers do not want to do themselves as we see in Iraq and Afghanistan today. This class at that time was at the forefront of ridiculing those jurists and their ways to please their master – in a more loyal than the king way.

It is extremely important at this point that we should understand the system of education in the pre-British era as well. The historical records tell us that throughout Muslim history, not only in sub-continent but throughout the Muslim world, the schools (Madrassa), colleges (Kulliat), and universities (Jamia`at) worked independently free of government support. Sometimes government and sometimes affluent people in the society used to gift trusted property (agriculture land, shops, and rental property) to those institutions and it formed the basis for the school funding. That trusted property had a sacred value and it was protected at all costs with the change of governments/rulers etc. The Islamic jurisprudence thus was developed free of government influence (most of the time) in those institutions independently. Since in Muslim society there is no concept of separation of church and state (which is a recent invention anyway), the theology was a part and parcel of the total education.

When British took control of India, the first thing that they did was to confiscate the trusted properties attached with the educational institutions. That resulted in the instant death of several thousand institutions across the country. The second step they took was to ``nationalize`` some of the surviving institutions - meaning that the funding started coming from British government. British government also not only confiscated the properties of 100s of thousands of Muslims but also prohibited any private funding of any education institutions. The third step was taken to exclude the Muslim theological part of education from the curriculum and added English language as a compulsory subject. The fourth step that they took was to give full control to the missionaries to go to any institution that they wanted and preach Christianity in schools. Those missionaries used to invite Muslim clerics for open debates (now it is happening in Iraq as a recent Time Magazine title story suggests) inviting all and sundry of the city on the premises of those schools and instead of debating, used to make use of the opportunity to insult Islam and its tenets. In the Hindus they found very enthusiastic spectators. So in that situation Muslim leadership, school-teachers, ullema and clerics forbade common Muslims to attend those schools, which makes sense.

It was sometime in 1880s that British parliament passed an act that prohibited government sponsoring missionaries and sometime during that time Muslims were allowed to open their own education institutions.

But by then the damage was already done.

In Muslim era the masjid, the school, and the jurisprudence was never separate but now masjids were forced to reduce themselves to the level of only prayer rituals. Jurisprudence and schooling took the back seat. And now since by law it was not allowed to attach trusted property to educational institutions the ullema, muftis, moulvis, and jurists became utterly dependent on alms by the common people. A madrassah student was thus forced to go home to home and beg for food and alms; thus from then only orphans and most downtrodden and dispossessed of the society started going to that madrassahs – and the tradition still continues. This coupled with the ridicule by the slave class of the colonialism slowly changed the mind of the people. They started looking down upon what was their pride once. This is the ultimate form of slavery when occupier is able to change the mind of the people. They might not have been able to win the hearts of the people (except of the minion class) but they did succeed in changing the minds of the people.

The Issue With Clerical Class

``And since there is no clerical class allowed in Islam, who would do ijtihad? I don’t think an average Joe was ever allowed to do this. ``#64 by rozaiba on September 9, 2004 9:43am PT

The clerical class is the rallying cry of the Catholics. They inhabit third world regions like Latin America and relatively poorer and impoverished parts of Europe (Southern).

This is the thing: Clerics are a diversion. One cleric will say modern things, another will say backwards things. One will lead their congregation this way and another will lead their congregation in the other direction. What matters is the overall society and values of the people at large.

You have to have courage and belief that you have power. What power do you have? Leave bad mosques and join good ones or leave mosques altogether and start your own mosque or join some religion that better suits you. If you stand up to these fanatics they will change or they will drive you away and in turn they will perish. If you stay and cower and don`t do anything they will take you down with them. When you try to leave they will threaten you with death for apostasy and all that, but they are impotent and helpless themselves, don`t heed their threats and find your own heaven!

The REMOVAL or weakening of a clerical class is necessary before the voice of the people is heard. The people will do the Ijtihad as they have always done. How do the Protestant Christians allow the people to reform the Church? They allow the people of the Church to VOTE on who leads their sermons. The people listen to the chap and then they vote on whether they like the fellow. How democratic!

I saw this only in a Protestant Church and I see only in a Protestant Church that the Cleric is the most humblest and puts up with the most questioning and sketpicism :) and entertains the most amount of wild ignorance :) because he is there to serve the people!

The Protestant people also go over the finances of the Church and make sure that only the necessary is spent because grandiose churches might lead to glorification of the Mullah/Cleric but they lead to poorer congregations, I hope that in the article it didn`t come across that the Church was palatial, it was not, it was SIMPLE and MINIMALIST with every bit of the scandinavian sensibility. If you have gold adorned churches and expensive clothing for your clerics you as the worshippers are the ones who become weaker financially (because you have to foot the bill) and in turn you are more dependent on the Church. This is what the reformation changed.

To say that Islam has no clergy is wrong. It has a very powerful clergy which appoints Maulanas and it is controlled by the Dar Ul Ulum or the Awqaf boards. Nobody tells you about these things because for them you don`t exist and they continue to control your lives without your even knowing it. Islamic clergy is part of one Muslim party or another and they are all equally virulent and violent because they are into politics and they have more political power than you can imagine! Islam needs to serve the people before it tries to inflict upon us the cause of Jerusalem or Palestine or Chechnya.

Muslims in far off lands (and even Kashmir) are just distractions to keep you from recognizing that the clerics and the feudal lords are screwing you! They want to distract you with political nonsense of far way lands and they want to be involved in politics because they want control. Only Ayatollahs and Popes would claim that Islam is political. It may be personal, spiritual but political Islam and the clergy are one of the problems we face.

How will Ijtihad happen? A weak clergy will automatically tailor their sermons and revise their opinions to serve the people. A strong, centralized, paid clergy will trample your rights and everyone elses and destroy all innovation or progress. A strong clergy will even become a tool of authoritarian and despotic people as history shows clearly in the case of the Vatican (and their Nazi/ Fascist allies).

....... mosque, mandar, church, synagogue - they are all equally scary and worthless, places that you want your children to avoid ............gathering places for bigots who believe their god is bigger and stronger and bent upon smiting people who dare to doubt the veracity of ancient mumbo jumbo transcribed by superstitious fools on scrolls, leaves and tablets ..........

............ but having said that, there are certain subtle differences that do make some houses of horror more tolerable than others .............

......... i will agree with shiraz that is quite cruel to force people to kneel and twist their ankles for extended periods of time while being bombarded with loud arabic rap - that is what the guards were doing to the poor souls in abu gharaib ............. it is certainly a lot more humane to be able to sit upright, even if it is on a hard wooden bench, and be bombarded with tasteless jesus rock while he looks down at you from his perch on the cross, wearing a diaper and bleeding from his crowned head ............ disgusting, but easier on your joints!.........of course, there is always the danger that some pedophile clown dressed in a white robe with a red sash will force you to kneel while he delivers a two hour mass sent up by the head of the circus in rome!.............but they do have a padded rail on which you can rest your sore knees .......... it is still hell on earth, but a lot better than squatting on the floor ...........

.......... but they do have better food at the masjids - at least in north america ........... biryani, korma, hommous, kafta, shhish kabob, tabouli, tandoori chicken .......... heck of a lot better than the stale wafers and flat wine that they pass out at church .......... i will take the stuff offered up by muhammad and his god any day over the scraps offered by jesus and his father ............. of course, the ahmedi mosques and ismaili jamaat khanas have better menus ....... but then, they are better at everything .............

.........but all things holy are a mixed blessing, or curse........ the food might be good, but you have to put up with the pushing and shoving in the food line and the grunts and slurps of the hyderabadis and bengalis licking their fingers and rolling up rice balls in their fists ..............

............ next time we will talk about sex in the houses we build for god ...........

MQM

I am still educating myself with the concept and my information is incomplete. In addition, Chowk is not a very good place to carry on intellectual discourse on the issues related to jurisprudence, it is only a good place to get some pointers. So I would request you to carry on this debate only if you want to do it in the spirit of learning and education. I do not want to offend anyone either. As far as I have read about this concept there are three items that I am really uncomfortable with:

1. A contract is perscribed for performing muta`a. This contract is verbal where a man and a woman agree verbally to perform muta`a for mutually agreed payment/dowry. No witness is required to attest that contract. In other words no one has to know who is doing what and with whom at a certain time. The second thing is that the polity ``may`` legislate it to be a registered contract with or without witnesses. In case polity legislates it to be a contract without witnesses then I don`t know what is then difference between muta`a and legalized and liscenced prostitution. And if polity legislates it to be a registered contract with witnesses then I don`t see any difference between Nikah and muta`a. Why then bother. But in either case this registration stuff is not devinely mandated but invented by clergy only and hence it can only be considered an attempt at face-saving only.

2. A woman is not allowed to re-muta`a untill she passes two manstrual cycles - thus decried Imam Jafar Sadiq. It means during the two month period - out of which about 14 days are natural downtime anyway - a woman has exactly 46 days uptime. So it means a woman can have at the most six to seven sexual partners in the course of a year whereas no such restriction apply to men. They can muta`a two to three times a day. It is true that a a condition of Wali`s permission is also imposed for any muta`a but suppose if a man has three to four real or adopted daughters, as a Wali, he can run this business throughout the year. And by doing so he hasn`t done anything illegal or amoral or hasn`t violated any religious decry or restriction either . This sounds like an open conduit to regulated prostitution to me.

3. Since there is no obligation on part of man other than making a one time payment to woman, doesn`t it then weaken the institution of marriage which comes with lot of responsibilities of childcare, alimonies, naan-nafqa i.e. a certain maintainance allowance due on part of man to his wife, the upbringing of children, the inheritance etc. Why would anyone in his right mind, if he is a man, would opt to tie his hands in a marital relationship rather than being content on muta`a. Let me explain my point with an example - suppose the New York port authority today announces that from now on all rides on the buses and subways are free, but there is a voluntary 3 dollar a trip ticket. Who and how many people will then buy the ticket. It is anybody`s guess. But this is exactly what has happened in Western societies these days. People only marry to each other because of their judeo-christian values only, other than that they prefer to just `live together`. Which means that the only real loser in this whole affair is the woman and woman alone who as a single mother is stuck with children. I know that condoms have been invented but isn`t it a fact that after her marketable age a woman is always a loser without a man.

Welcome VS. Exclusion

Perhaps the black churches of the South are more ‘accepting’? I’d always arrive a little late with my friends and because our group had an array of skin tones, the churchgoers would be thrilled to see us enter. The ushers would go overboard by making room for us in the front seats in the jam-packed place of God. The churchgoers were extremely happy seeing non-blacks and foreigners join them on Sundays. #35 by rozaiba on September 8, 2004 7:22am PT

Being welcome is all very nice but do not be decieved simply by the level of welcome. The level of welcome has little to do with the values of a people. Just because someone indulges you does not mean they are nice or good or positive.

Punctuality is a virtue and if someone doesn`t point that out to you then be wary of the attention of such people.

If the level of welcome was a sign of virtue then you should try converting to Islam. Muslims will fall all over themselves trying to kowtow and pay obeisance to you atleast until the next convert comes along. This is how Muslims treat their new converts :
- they will hide the unseemly parts of their religion until your ``faith is strong`` and then they will label this deception ``Hikma`` (or wisdom.
- if you are white they will try to hook you up, if black they will try to hook you up with someone who cannot get married and needs a greencard.


Since most of their converts are ex-cons and african Americans I would be very wary of even going near their Churches but I did go nonetheless. Why? Because I didn`t know! I didn`t have a clue until I saw them whining and complaining about wrongs and ills of the past. This is how they bond, much like the Muslims they bond by indulging in their persecution complex. And guess who these whiners were? They had just immigrated from Africa and they were accusing white people of doing them wrong!

I saw one of them walk into a Church wearing an Arab dress thinking ``Christians must like it when we wear our traditional clothing``. The Africans conveniently forgot that the Arab Muslims have wiped their people from North Africa, and till today continues to enslave them in Darfur and continues to eradicate these beautiful people from the face of the earth. Did you know that slavery was recently revived by the Islamists in Sudan? This is news you will not get in an ISNA or CAIR or MSA newsletter.

When I pointed the cloths out to the fellow he started quoting poverty of Africa and how Pakistan gets aid from the west. What does poverty and aid have to do with this?

They go ahead and name their children after their worst persecutors (Arab Muslims) and then come to Churches to complain some more and extort more concessions from everyone else. I still like them nonetheless and they have many wonderful qualities even though an Algerian pretends to be an Arab and looks down upon ``black Africans``! and then the same Algerian gets up and says ``In Islamic countries we are all about equality, we never think about black or white``. Lies! and liars! They think they can fool their own people and then themselves.

When you took that friend to a mosque what you encountered was pernicious hatred. Hatred of non-Muslims justified by the length of their ``pubic hair`` (and therefore relegating them as ``najis``).

These are the words and deeds and acts and excuses of NAZIS! This is exclusion and persecution as practiced by Prophet Mohammad in the 6th century. He wiped out the Jews of Banu Quraiza then declared the Meeqat - a boundary of hundreds of miles that encompasses Mecca and Medina which forbids all non Muslims. Then he proceeded to wipe out all non Muslims from that area - a genocidal act and an ethnic cleansing that no Muslim talks about or acknowledges.

To this day Osama Bin Ladin fights his holy war on this exact basis that non Muslims should not be allowed in ``holy land``. Except, get this : for Bin Ladin the entire Arabian peninsula is holy land not just the meeqath around Mecca and Medina.

``For those interested, please see Arthur`s picture at`` #63 by atif2 on September 9, 2004 7:40am PT

``Judging by your picture ... ``#61 by Urstruly on September 9, 2004 6:55am PT

Please sir, I implore you I don`t like my picture paraded. I recognize that you don`t find me attractive and wish to pillory me. I think we should focus on the discussion and the points raised instead of what I look like ( at other points people have dragged in my mother and father and what they look like also and that is just cowardly and resorting to dirty tricks).

I implore you to desist because I have been attacked and persecuted in the past by Muslim fanatics and I think it would be dastardly to resort to such things when you don`t have an argument.

Despite everything I hope you will recognize that you are good human beings and listen to the goodness in you and do not succumb to tyranny, violence or the acts of cowards.

Athar Shiraz

First and foremost I would request a copy upon your completion of your thesis.

Furthermore, let me simply point out that Nikah in Sharia is a contract between the genders, therefore the concept of marriage in Islam is that of a contract, a declared agreement between a man and a woman. The notion of premarital love, relations, etc. according to Islamic sharia is not valid at all. Therefore, marriage as an institution in Islamic terms is that of a contract.

I would be very interested in your explanation of what the concept of marriage is in accordance to Islamic jurisprudence and where does that concept negate the practice of muta.

Regards

Shabber

Shiraz wrote:

“Paid Clergy
Some of you have been concluded ``We need to have paid clergy``. You are wrong! The Catholics tried it and it hasn`t worked. Omar stipulated it centuries ago but it hasn`t work and it will not work. Creating a clerical class will oppress you even more as you go to your places of worship only to justify their existence and if you don`t go they will abuse you for being bad and they will attack your lifestyle and your difficulties.”


For Shiraz as well as anyone else:

Personally I think clerics are parasites and common sense is enough for guidance in today’s world.

However, that is not the case with everyone. Many want religion to be THE guide. Which is fine and all. But then my question is, by rejecting a clerical class, did Sunni Muslims jeopardize their chances to maintain the viability of religion as a guide for all times?

Most Muslims are Sunnis. The mechanism, I am told, available to Muslims to keep in tune with the times is that of ijtihad. This is something the Prophet was supposed to have made clear. Yet, we are also told that this was never used. It was never implemented. Why was this so? People say that ‘oh, the Mongol invasion freaked out the Muslims etc…’. What I would like to know (as I know the rest of you are far smarter than me) is how was ijtihad conducted before the Mongol invasion? I’ve heard that even before it was rarely conducted. And why was it not conducted (in Sunni Islam at least)?

One reason I am told is that a clerical class wasn’t allowed. To do ijtihad I assume one has to be educated. And for nearly all of Muslim history, only a fraction of a percent of Muslims were educated. And since there is no clerical class allowed in Islam, who would do ijtihad? I don’t think an average Joe was ever allowed to do this.

It seems to be a case of misguided zeal. By rejecting the ancient notion of a clerical class, Sunni Muslims did away with the one institutional mechanism that could have kept the faith dynamic and kept the revolutionary spirit alive.

I am making these connections based on assumptions and would like to see where they are wrong. Enlighten me folks!

Solitude aka Arthur Shiraz - Good to know that your mom looks like Queen Elizabeth - who as per your standards is very beautiful. Then you should at least look like Prince Charles I suppose.

For those interested, please see Arthur`s picture at:

http://www.chowk.com/show_interactor_page.cgi?membername=faizahussain#ilog

Please scroll down to July 15th ilog. He is the one on the left :)

Regards

Soundmiester

No, as I hinted, I am in the process of writing a thesis on Muslim Family Laws focusing on issues of marriage. Muta`a in my un-educated opinion is an anathema or an antithesis to the very concept of marriage in essence. I want to verify my opinion and would appreciate help from any quarter.

Solitude # 51

Judging by your picture, as posted by an interactor in past, your dad must then be Iddi Amin.

Urstruly, planning to decamp with some 13-year old Shia chick or what? What`s with this mut`a obsession.

Solitude = A shiraz author of the above aricle
comment no. 50

Arthur Shiraz has written an intresting essay, yet he misses the whole point. Shiraz is on a mission to secularize Pakistan - something that can never quite happen, because it is not in the will of the people. Now I myself have written several essay attacking extremism, and following the controversial hadeeth blindly - yet I never considered that Pakistan or any other Muslim country should be rid of its Islamic heritage.
Arthur I have to question your conclusions that somehow Islam is responsible for the tragedies occuring in the Muslim world today. comments like `lets westernize Pakistan` are met with equally greater suspicion as to the objectives of the West. So I have to label your comments irresponsible at the least, and unpractical.
But i think its fair that we here on chowk enjoy an oppurtunity to voice our opinions and i dont think we should attack anyones character or integrity just because he or she proposes something which we dont agree with. That is the beauty of a healthy society that Pakistan is finally starting to emerge into.....slowly but surely.