کیا یہ سترہ سالہ لڑکا جنسی درندہ ہے؟

Citizen X

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
my assumption goes that only the sexual freedom does not yield to it.
No but it sure helps. A wicked person can be born anywhere in any system and no amount of anything is going to change him. But for the public at large it's a different story. Sad to say but why do you think child molestation in madrassas is so high? Its the same thing or was at least in the catholic church. Because the environment was the same and that kind of environment breeds this kind of behaviour.

The crux is that we have to eradicate this evil from both ends. Sexual frustration can be one cause of it, but a lack of fear of committing such a crime is more at play here. Specially if we see people involved in it who could have easily committed marriage instead.
Yes but like I said early marriage is really not the actual solution. It might work in many cases but it will overall do more damage than good in todays world.

Tough.... means children are susceptible.
Same can be said for a "normal" household, in fact in the desi world more children are getting scared for life because of bad and abusive marriages than being in a single parent household. In fact they would benefit getting out of that toxic environment.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Doesn't matter if you catch your ear from the right or the left, its the same thing. A doomed marriage is a doomed marriage.
Lets say I take your point for the discussion's sake. So how is this going to change with temporary marriage? You are going to end it in either way.
Again too much what if this and what if that. There are more bizzare cases in the world. Men having children from half a dozen women and vice versa
Too much of focus on exceptions than ones with more probability of occurrence.

You answered yourself there, it the same if the parents really don't have a good relationship with each and abusive relation scar children for life. A single parent home is better than this kind of home.
But in a temporary marriage, you are making it essential for the child to remain in single parenting, while you know conjoined parenting is better. You cannot presume from the start that every marriage is going to be an abusive one.

Moreover, you interest in each other as a spouse are different when you know someone is going to leave after a while. Your stakes are low. As on the other hand, the stakes in each other are high and interests are greater when you know someone is there for you in the long haul.


This is part of my argument, this needs to change.



Again thats what needs to change.
---------

I live outside of Pakistan and have spent most of my life outside so there really isn't anything you can tell me that I already don't know.
--------
Thats the same story everywhere in the world, ever one has their own personal story regardless of what it looks from the outisde. And once again you like to pick the extreme examples and portray them as normal, you should stop doing that. It's like when the west says all Muslims are terrorists.
No, I am not cherry picking here. I talk on the basis of statistics and researches conducted in social sciences. I am not projecting my personal opinion alone.


I can provide a plethora of statistics on this. A monogamous relationship of parents is better. Though, there are a few exceptions, but they are exceptions and cannot be generalized.


So you are going to tell your son to fast every time he has natural urges until he's in his late 20s or early 30s and get married! Getting full blown married for that is I think one of the worst things anyone can do.
My take will be probably a bit different on this, I am not going to tell my son anything, I am going to listen to what he wants and when. Though I am a proponent of early marriage, this is something I am going to tell him, but it will solely remain his own choice, but if he makes a choice early, then I am going to support him financially as well. I will support him anyway.

I will ask him to search for a life partner, who can be a better mother for his children, than being only a good sex partner for him. I will ask him to find a partner who is ready to stand by him through thick and thin and will be glad to grow old with him.


In my God given logic no one can declare something halal or haram regardless of who he is when Allah s.w.t has already made it clear what is and what isn't. A ruler might enact some rules but they are for that time and those people who they rule over, not to be followed universally by all people as a law till the end of time. But I do respect that you respect my POV.
---------
SO no murders and rape take place in Saudia, US, Iran and China? The countries which carry out the highest number of capital punishment year after year. Like I said its for justice for the victim and victims family more than anything else.
I think you have really not gone through the statistics as of yet.


Please see the statistics for rape and murder.
 

Citizen X

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Lets say I take your point for the discussion's sake. So how is this going to change with temporary marriage? You are going to end it in either way.
One both parties get into knowing its going to end soon, other is supposed to be for a lifetime and they are supposed to make it "work" at all costs.


Too much of focus on exceptions than ones with more probability of occurrence.
Not really.



You cannot presume from the start that every marriage is going to be an abusive one.
And you cannot assume every union is going to end in a child.


Moreover, you interest in each other as a spouse are different when you know someone is going to leave after a while.
Again they are not going to be "typical" spouses, they got together for one purpose and that wasn't to settle down and grow old together holding hands Other than a physical interest none other is required.

Moreover, you interest in each other as a spouse are different when you know someone is going to leave after a while. Your stakes are low.
Why do you keep confusing this for some kind of a permanent arrangement? There are no stakes. no one is trying to get to know each other and it's understood.

No, I am not cherry picking here. I talk on the basis of statistics and researches conducted in social sciences. I am not projecting my personal opinion alone.

New Partners, More Kids: Multiple-Partner Fertility in the United States
I can provide a plethora of statistics on this. A monogamous relationship of parents is better. Though, there are a few exceptions, but they are exceptions and cannot be generalized.
Again your only crutch in this argument is children. Millions of people have one night stands across the globe every day a very very tiny % of that result in children.

My take will be probably a bit different on this, I am not going to tell my son anything, I am going to listen to what he wants and when. Though I am a proponent of early marriage, this is something I am going to tell him, but it will solely remain his own choice, but if he makes a choice early, then I am going to support him financially as well. I will support him anyway.

I will ask him to search for a life partner, who can be a better mother for his children, than being only a good sex partner for him. I will ask him to find a partner who is ready to stand by him through thick and thin and will be glad to grow old with him.
Yeah and unicorns fart rainbows. What happens if God Forbid something happens to you and are no longer here. Now your son in 16, with wife and children out to fend for himself. See I can play the what if game too.


Lets say I take your point for the discussion's sake. So how is this going to change with temporary marriage? You are going to end it in either way.

Too much of focus on exceptions than ones with more probability of occurrence.


But in a temporary marriage, you are making it essential for the child to remain in single parenting, while you know conjoined parenting is better. You cannot presume from the start that every marriage is going to be an abusive one.

Moreover, you interest in each other as a spouse are different when you know someone is going to leave after a while. Your stakes are low. As on the other hand, the stakes in each other are high and interests are greater when you know someone is there for you in the long haul.



---------


--------

No, I am not cherry picking here. I talk on the basis of statistics and researches conducted in social sciences. I am not projecting my personal opinion alone.


I can provide a plethora of statistics on this. A monogamous relationship of parents is better. Though, there are a few exceptions, but they are exceptions and cannot be generalized.


My take will be probably a bit different on this, I am not going to tell my son anything, I am going to listen to what he wants and when. Though I am a proponent of early marriage, this is something I am going to tell him, but it will solely remain his own choice, but if he makes a choice early, then I am going to support him financially as well. I will support him anyway.

I will ask him to search for a life partner, who can be a better mother for his children, than being only a good sex partner for him. I will ask him to find a partner who is ready to stand by him through thick and thin and will be glad to grow old with him.



---------

I think you have really not gone through the statistics as of yet.


Please see the statistics for rape and murder.





In a nutshell getting married young is not going to solve this issue, instead we will have a society of children who can hardly look out for themselves with children of their own.

In a very crude way, why do I have buy a cow when I just want one glass of milk.

Watch the whole thing and the argument being made.

 
Last edited:

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
And you cannot assume every union is going to end in a child.
And you cannot assume that there are not going to be any child. What if we divide the probability to a half?

Again they are not going to be "typical" spouses, they got together for one purpose and that wasn't to settle down and grow old together holding hands Other than a physical interest none other is required.
The consequences of the union. The children?
Why do you keep confusing this for some kind of a permanent arrangement? There are no stakes. no one is trying to get to know each other and it's understood.
No I do understand that, but I think you are not understanding that in a low stake relationship, there are more chances of foul play.

Again your only crutch in this argument is children. Millions of people have one night stands across the globe every day a very very tiny % of that result in children.
It is a very generalized statement. Let me quote some of the numbers for you:

In 2008, women reported that more than half of all pregnancies (51%) were unintended. By 2011, the percentage of unintended pregnancies declined to 45%. That is an improvement, but some groups still tend to have higher rates of unintended pregnancy. For example, 75% of pregnancies were unintended among teens aged 15 to 19 years. Unintended pregnancy rates per 1,000 women were highest among women who:
  • Were aged 18 to 24 years.
  • Had low income (<100% of federal poverty level).
  • Had not completed high school.
  • Were non-Hispanic black or African American.
  • Were cohabiting but had never married.
Source: CDC.Gov

So, do the numbers speak for anything here? This is from US, where free contraceptives are also provided.

Yeah and unicorns fart rainbows. What happens if God Forbid something happens to you and are no longer here. Now your son in 16, with wife and children out to fend for himself. See I can play the what if game too.
He will have my inheritance to live on. After all, I would have been paying him out of my savings off course. So its not that I am purposefully dragging him into a financial crisis.

And off course, it will have some impact on my child if I die while he turns 16 and is unmarried.

Similarly, if my son commits Mut'ah and gets a child (unplanned), then, is it going to make things any easy for him if I die as well? The child is still his responsibility.

Actually you are just playing a game of what if, I am conducting a "What If" analysis by applying Monte Carlo technique.







While referring to a research, a person should be wary of the sources. If the organizations are known to be biased, then a person should avoid quoting those researches. The other thing is to look into the research methodology and design, to be sure that the research is credible.

On this particular subject, the researches conducted have been classified as non conclusive due to their design fault.

Please read the conclusion from the Committee on Law and Justice.

Whereas I referred to the straight statistics from UNODC.


In a nutshell getting married young is not going to solve this issue, instead we will have a society of children who can hardly look out for themselves with children of their own.

In a very crude way, why do I have buy a cow when I just want one glass of milk.
I don't know what makes you think that there are not going to be any children in a temporary marriage? Everything else remains constant in a Mut'ah except the time frame. On the other hand, if you think Mut'ah is not going to result in children then what makes you think that an early marriage will essentially yield to teenage pregnancies?
Watch the whole thing and the argument being made.

Watched even his second video on the topic. But in my own point of view, I am not convinced.

I do agree that Mut'ah is not haraam, it is banned. It can only be revived if a muslim is faced with similar conditions as the muslims of the early era of Islam faced.

My line of argument is still the same. Why has Allah (SWT) showed displeasure towards Divorce?

And as you said that one has liberty to agree or disagree with the rulings of Hazrat Umar (RA) since he was not a Prophet (and I agree to it as well), then why am I not allowed to disagree with the jurists and scholars this mufti in the video is referring to? saying that a Nikkah is valid even if you have it in your mind to divorce the bride just after some time, without telling her. I think this is not right. This will be abhorring. No, Mut'ah is not that bad, at least people are sincerely telling each other that it is going to be terminal.

Mut'ah, in itself is neither essential nor dysfunctional in circumstances. However, it is not a good idea to practice it a society where free believing women are available. You tend to build a more robust familial system which promotes a healthier society. Mut'ah is a degree less than Nikkah. So, if you have something superior available to you, then why would you go for something inferior?

As we have discussed and agreed upon earlier that it is our shift in the social norms which has made marriages difficult, then we should find ways to remove those hurdles, rather than resorting to some low grade alternatives.

Anyways, according to my personal doctrine, everyone is allowed to have his own opinion, provided that his will is for good. I may not be convinced with your argument, but I respect your intentions towards good and I also respect your right of having your own opinion. I can only debate, if you allow me to debate on the matter. Otherwise, I don't like poking my nose where it is not required.... for the reasons that I love my nose and secondly I don't want it broken..... Lols.
 

Citizen X

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
And you cannot assume that there are not going to be any child. What if we divide the probability to a half?

The consequences of the union. The children?
So, do the numbers speak for anything here? This is from US, where free contraceptives are also provided.
He will have my inheritance to live on. After all, I would have been paying him out of my savings off course. So its not that I am purposefully dragging him into a financial crisis.

And off course, it will have some impact on my child if I die while he turns 16 and is unmarried.

Similarly, if my son commits Mut'ah and gets a child (unplanned), then, is it going to make things any easy for him if I die as well? The child is still his responsibility.

Actually you are just playing a game of what if, I am conducting a "What If" analysis by applying Monte Carlo technique.
Children, children, children, children. Birth control and contraceptives anyone? If someone is too dumb to use those properly than he or she have no right in engaging in such activity anyways. And unplanned pregnancies happen by the million everyday and the world hasn't come to a screeching halt. If you have any argument other than children I will be more than happy to oblige you.

While referring to a research, a person should be wary of the sources. If the organizations are known to be biased, then a person should avoid quoting those researches. The other thing is to look into the research methodology and design, to be sure that the research is credible.

On this particular subject, the researches conducted have been classified as non conclusive due to their design fault.

Please read the conclusion from the Committee on Law and Justice.
Whereas I referred to the straight statistics from UNODC.
I can give you 2 dozen more favouring my POV and your stats don't prove anything. US should have one of the lowest homocide rates in the western world but it has the highest, why? Saudia practices public executions and a lot of it, so homocide rate should be non existent specially being a authoritarian state but it isn't.


then why am I not allowed to disagree with the jurists and scholars this mufti in the video is referring to?
Who told you that, you are allowed to disagree with everyone and anyone in this world, except the Quran and the Prophet s.a.w


lah (SWT) showed displeasure towards Divorce?
Thats for your traditional marriage, a temp marriage just dissolves after a certain time period which was decided upon before getting into the union. There is no "divorce" there.

Mut'ah, in itself is neither essential nor dysfunctional in circumstances. However, it is not a good idea to practice it a society where free believing women are available.
That's your POV with which I disagree with.

Mut'ah is a degree less than Nikkah. So, if you have something superior available to you, then why would you go for something inferior?
And that's your problem right there, you keep comparing apples to oranges. A temp marriage is not about getting to know each other, trying to settle down, raising a family, growing old together, be life partners etc etc. It's none of that, so stop trying to compare it with it.


As we have discussed and agreed upon earlier that it is our shift in the social norms which has made marriages difficult, then we should find ways to remove those hurdles
Again marriage is not the magic pill that will get rid of it or greatly reduce it. And social norms change all the time and evolve with time. Hopefully and I see this happening but at a glacial pace unfortunately we will move towards a more relaxed society like that of the past and where social norms are not dictated by fraud and illiterate moulvis.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Children, children, children, children. Birth control and contraceptives anyone? If someone is too dumb to use those properly than he or she have no right in engaging in such activity anyways. And unplanned pregnancies happen by the million everyday and the world hasn't come to a screeching halt. If you have any argument other than children I will be more than happy to oblige you.


I can give you 2 dozen more favouring my POV and your stats don't prove anything. US should have one of the lowest homocide rates in the western world but it has the highest, why? Saudia practices public executions and a lot of it, so homocide rate should be non existent specially being a authoritarian state but it isn't.



Who told you that, you are allowed to disagree with everyone and anyone in this world, except the Quran and the Prophet s.a.w



Thats for your traditional marriage, a temp marriage just dissolves after a certain time period which was decided upon before getting into the union. There is no "divorce" there.


That's your POV with which I disagree with.


And that's your problem right there, you keep comparing apples to oranges. A temp marriage is not about getting to know each other, trying to settle down, raising a family, growing old together, be life partners etc etc. It's none of that, so stop trying to compare it with it.



Again marriage is not the magic pill that will get rid of it or greatly reduce it. And social norms change all the time and evolve with time. Hopefully and I see this happening but at a glacial pace unfortunately we will move towards a more relaxed society like that of the past and where social norms are not dictated by fraud and illiterate moulvis.
Hmmm...

OK, Islam also legitimizes taking slave girls for pleasure. Don't you think that tradition should also be invoked too, in order to curb this problem of sexual gratification?
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Since there aren't any slaves anymore your point is moot.
What if one can find a slave girl for himself? underlining the fact that slaves are not only traded, they are also taken by force, like the prisoners and captives. Moreover, once you evoke the tradition, there are going to be plenty. Just like invoking mut'ah in some sects of Islam.
 

Citizen X

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
No I can, there are a lot of prisoners. I can buy girls from the market... there are people selling their girls out of poverty. I can get someone from an orphanage....
Er...no you can't. What you are talking about is human trafficking.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Doesn't matter if you care or not.
Ha ha ha..... Look my dear brother, let me tell you something.

I know why you will not approve of slavery, though it is stated in Quran clearly that you can have sexual relations with a slave girl. The reason is your mindset, which is fashioned in the western society. Your internal psychological defense mechanism will reject the idea just because of a disapproval by the people you are surrounded in. It will make you look awkward among them.

But while advocating in favor of Mut'ah, it is something fanciable, just because in the society you are living in has internalized this norm of open relationships.... getting to know each other's sexual compatibility before settling down and all that... and your mind accepts it readily because it makes you more compatible with them.

Whereas, just because I am advocating against Mut'ah, I sound more like an anti-shia and maybe more like a hard-boiled, hard head, thick skinned hardliner.

We call this as "heuristics" or the mental shortcuts, to be elaborate. The resultant of this is sometimes a "bias" in the arguments, which is not intentional.

But the fact is that when I am praying with a Shia brother besides me. I offer my prayers like him (do Raffah e Yadain). Because in my point of view, my prayers should be like my brother, standing besides me.
 

Citizen X

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
I know why you will not approve of slavery, though it is stated in Quran clearly that you can have sexual relations with a slave girl. The reason is your mindset, which is fashioned in the western society. Your internal psychological defense mechanism will reject the idea just because of a disapproval by the people you are surrounded in. It will make you look awkward among them.
Ha ha yourself. Just because it's mentioned in the Quran doesn't mean it endorses it. That was part and parcel of society of that time so it was tolerated, never condoned or endorsed. At the same time heavily discouraged time and time again as the biggest reward, repentance is often mentioned as freeing a slave. So rest of your argument is once again. Moot!

The US went to war with itself over the issue of slavery and almost split into two, and this was just a few 100 years a ago. So for a new religion to come in and declare it forbidden would have driven many away from it.

I sound more like an anti-shia and maybe more like a hard-boiled, hard head, thick skinned hardliner.
But the fact is that when I am praying with a Shia brother besides me.
??? What thats go to do with anything, You think I am shia! I detest Shia and openly admit it. I think of them a couple of steps lower than Qadianis. In fact many steps below them. Just go through my posting history I have made some very scathing anti shia posts here. So yeah no need for all of this.

What most shia practice under the guise of mutah is just legalized prostitution. SO don't bring that in.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Ha ha yourself. Just because it's mentioned in the Quran doesn't mean it endorses it. That was part and parcel of society of that time so it was tolerated, never condoned or endorsed. At the same time heavily discouraged time and time again as the biggest reward, repentance is often mentioned as freeing a slave. So rest of your argument is once again. Moot!
Maybe I just hit the right note here :-)

OK. So, in line with your reasoning..... :

1-
Just because it's mentioned in the Quran doesn't mean it endorses it
Just because Mut'ah is mentioned in Quran, doesn't mean it endorses it.

2-
That was part and parcel of society of that time so it was tolerated, never condoned or endorsed
Mut'ah was also a part and parcel of that time, when free believing women were not available and the non-believing people of the book were not ready to marry muslims. Mut'ah never condoned or endorsed. Prophet (SAW) never entered into such a practice, rather when he was presented with women as a captive or as a slave, he married them. Need references?

3-
At the same time heavily discouraged.
Divorce in marriage is heavily discouraged as well. This divorce in Mut'ah is mentioned right from the start. Nikkah is declared something which completes your emaan. Heavily cherished as well.

What most shia practice under the guise of mutah is just legalized prostitution. SO don't bring that in.

A prostitute is a prostitute and it does not has anything to do with shiism or sunnism.
There are many sunni prostitutes as well.

The main point is that if certain practices are allowed freely, they have a strong tendency to push women into such prostitution. Because men will always be looking for such temporary marriages for pleasure and less commitment and women will be looking for easy and more money with less control over them. The affected will be the children, who from the start will be destined to loose one of their parents, since contraception does not always work.

You think this works because it is like so in the west (I mean single parenting), but if you do a survey there, you will find that the children who are brought up by both of the parents under one roof have a better upbringing.

That is why, even if you look into Iran, most twelver shias are also not in favor of Mut'ah. The most ferocious resisters are women, because such practice is demeaning for them.

Such things do not evolve in two to five years. It takes a generation or two. Now, look at the history of the west as well. For the sake of decency here, I will not be too elaborate about referring "some things".

The movement of such freedom was introduced after the second world war, when Britain had its debt almost
240% of its GDP (REF) and it was the colonial era, so you can better understand what was the total GDP of British empire, where the sun never used to go down. I am only talking about Britain here, whereas most of the European countries were pushed into deep debts, including Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Sweeden and Austria etc. They were also doomed and needed money to rebuild their nation.

So there evolved a concept of "need of the time", to get whole of their nation to work. This meant getting the 50% of their population, which essentially comprised on women, out of homes. Certain known "
Enlightened Intellectuals" (REF) were put to this task right from the end of WWI.

I will contain myself here, because of length. But to be honest, look at the dressing of the western women, what it used to be before WWI and how is it now? Ever wondered why? This open sexual society introduced a "fight for survival" among men and women. Women started more to offer in order to attract more men towards her. So, the dressing started to get shorter and shorter and shorter.

The aftermaths of this change have started to be seen in recent times. Children, who were brought up MPF settings started to be more "extremist", either in terms of depression or rage, because it swings the pendulum on both extremes.

Therefore, now you see most of the western countries, after abolishing the institution of marriage in their society to give tax rebates to cohabiting couples. Other incentives are also given and some are in the pipeline to be introduced. Furthermore, they also introduced the concept of shared parenting for the children who were born out a temporary union, but that also did not solve the problem to an appreciable extent. Because you can sustain some of such extreme cases in the society, but you cannot handle the problem when your society is dominated with such offsprings.
 
Last edited:

Citizen X

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
1- Just because it's mentioned in the Quran doesn't mean it endorses it
Just because Mut'ah is mentioned in Quran, doesn't mean it endorses it.

2-
That was part and parcel of society of that time so it was tolerated, never condoned or endorsed
Mut'ah was also a part and parcel of that time, when free believing women were not available and the non-believing people of the book were not ready to marry muslims. Mut'ah never condoned or endorsed. Prophet (SAW) never entered into such a practice, rather when he was presented with women as a captive or as a slave, he married them. Need references?

3-
At the same time heavily discouraged.
Divorce in marriage is heavily discouraged as well. This divorce in Mut'ah is mentioned right from the start. Nikkah is declared something which completes your emaan. Heavily cherished as well.
But you glance over one of the most important facts, that after the complete Quran was revealed and within the Prophet's life s.a.w every command, rule, regulation, prohibition, what is and what's not forbidden was made clear and announced. And once the Quran was revealed and the Prophet s.a.w passed away. This gateway of revelation and commandments was closed forever till the end of time, after than any change and modifications were and will be temporary of and for those circumstances and times. No one can or has the authority to make any changes or modifications universally till the end of time that all humanity has to obey as "law" And the Quran itself warns not to make any thing lawful, unlawful and anything unlawful, lawful. Its just that simple.

The main point is that if certain practices are allowed freely, they have a strong tendency to push women into such prostitution. Because men will always be looking for such temporary marriages for pleasure and less commitment and women will be looking for easy and more money with less control over them. The affected will be the children, who from the start will be destined to loose one of their parents, since contraception does not always work.

You think this works because it is like so in the west (I mean single parenting), but if you do a survey there, you will find that the children who are brought up by both of the parents under one roof have a better upbringing.

That is why, even if you look into Iran, most twelver shias are also not in favor of Mut'ah. The most ferocious resisters are women, because such practice is demeaning for them.

Such things do not evolve in two to five years. It takes a generation or two. Now, look at the history of the west as well. For the sake of decency here, I will not be too elaborate about referring "some things".

The movement of such freedom was introduced after the second world war, when Britain had its debt almost
240% of its GDP (REF) and it was the colonial era, so you can better understand what was the total GDP of British empire, where the sun never used to go down. I am only talking about Britain here, whereas most of the European countries were pushed into deep debts, including Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Sweeden and Austria etc. They were also doomed and needed money to rebuild their nation.

So there evolved a concept of "need of the time", to get whole of their nation to work. This meant getting the 50% of their population, which essentially comprised on women, out of homes. Certain known "
Enlightened Intellectuals" (REF) were put to this task right from the end of WWI.

I will contain myself here, because of length. But to be honest, look at the dressing of the western women, what it used to be before WWI and how is it now? Ever wondered why? This open sexual society introduced a "fight for survival" among men and women. Women started more to offer in order to attract more men towards her. So, the dressing started to get shorter and shorter and shorter.

The aftermaths of this change have started to be seen in recent times. Children, who were brought up MPF settings started to be more "extremist", either in terms of depression or rage, because it swings the pendulum on both extremes.

Therefore, now you see most of the western countries, after abolishing the institution of marriage in their society to give tax rebates to cohabiting couples. Other incentives are also given and some are in the pipeline to be introduced. Furthermore, they also introduced the concept of shared parenting for the children who were born out a temporary union, but that also did not solve the problem to an appreciable extent. Because you can sustain some of such extreme cases in the society, but you cannot handle the problem when your society is
Rather unnecessary and irrelevant sermon.
 

Sohail Shuja

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
But you glance over one of the most important facts, that after the complete Quran was revealed and within the Prophet's life s.a.w every command, rule, regulation, prohibition, what is and what's not forbidden was made clear and announced. And once the Quran was revealed and the Prophet s.a.w passed away. This gateway of revelation and commandments was closed forever till the end of time, after than any change and modifications were and will be temporary of and for those circumstances and times. No one can or has the authority to make any changes or modifications universally till the end of time that all humanity has to obey as "law" And the Quran itself warns not to make any thing lawful, unlawful and anything unlawful, lawful. Its just that simple.
With due respect Brother, I think it is you who is glancing over the fact that all this was not known to Hazrat Umar (RA) and the Jurists of that time. That is why I referred to the word "Heuristics".

If I take your line of argument, then why you detest slavery? You apply your logic to the teachings of Islam and conclude on the fact. But here ......

Alright, let us cut it right to the chase.

You think a ban on Mut'ah was applied by Hazrat Umar (RA) for the people of his times.

Tell me why it was relevant for that time?


Rather unnecessary and irrelevant sermon.
Keep it with you. It may serve as a food for thought some times later. I know you are in the heat of arguments right now. But surely, these questions and information will let you ponder some time in life.
 

Citizen X

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
You think a ban on Mut'ah was applied by Hazrat Umar (RA) for the people of his times.
Yes


Tell me why it was relevant for that time?
I don't know and it really doesn't matter because of what I've posted earlier. What has been set in stone has been set in stone, what anyone does or did after that is inconsequential.



I know you are in the heat of arguments right now.
Nah I'm totally chill like a pill, must mahol te mittay chowl. I just detest unnecessary ha ha ho ho in midst of a discussion.
 
Sponsored Link

Featured Discussion Latest Blogs اردوخبریں