Q: Is it permissible for a frigid
wife or husband to watch pornographic scenes?
A: I don’t think it has been
scientifically proven that watching pornographic films is a reliable
treatment for frigidity; on the contrary, it often has negative
results. Also, morally speaking, this weakens moral immunity, and
attaches people, even couples, to a mood of dissolution which makes
man feel alienated from his wife when she fails to imitate the woman
who plays the sexual role in the film, and makes the wife alienated
from her husband if he fails to imitate the male figure.
Similarly, the same thing happens
upon fornication. When a man fornicates with an experienced whore, he
feels disappointed when his wife fails to offer moves similar to the
ones offered by the whore, who has provided him with all elements of
excitement. Perhaps this is one among the reasons that have led some
jurists to forbid temporary marriage (mutaa) to common prostitutes.
So, we believe that the x-rated movies and pornography have a negative
impact on the spiritual, moral and family sides of a person; thus, I
forbid it for spouses.
But, if a husband or a wife, or both
suffer frigidity in the absence of any means of treatment, whether
natural- through mutual excitation -or through medication, and if the
only treatment is watching pornographic scenes, then this will be
permissible, only because this is the only means, keeping in mind that
this should be done apart from any excess, just like taking the proper
dosage of the medicine prescribed, provided that this passive
situation may threaten their matrimonial life.
Q: Some justify the permissibility of
watching pornographic films by saying that such movies make sexual
intercourse between a man and his wife more enjoyable, harmonious and
lustful; accordingly, a man becomes more attached to his wife, which
deepens and strengthens the family relationship, which is the basis of
coherent society. What is your comment?
A: When we study some religious texts
quoted from the Prophet (p.), we find out instructions that urge man
to prepare his wife for sexual intercourse by arousing her excitement;
he is also urged not to make love with his wife in a frigid way; on
the contrary, some Traditions emphasize that a husband shouldn’t
fulfill intercourse before his wife’s sexual desire is satisfied, so
that she is not left under the wild lust with nobody to satiate her
desires.
And I don’t think that the
advantages of watching pornographic scenes are more than ten percent,
whereas, negative consequences may exceed eighty percent, accordingly,
these few advantages don’t make it permissible, for the
disadvantages are greater by a very large margin.
Q: Is keeping aloof from woman during
the menstrual period limited to the front part or vulva? What are the
legal limitations of having sex with a woman during the menstrual
period?
A: It is normal that the
impermissibility of having sex with women during the menstrual period
is limited to the specified part, which is the vulva, but man can
enjoy manipulating the other external parts. There is a juristic
controversy about the anal intercourse. Some jurists forbid anal-sex
in principle, but those who allow it differ juristically. Some believe
that anal sex is permissible during the menstrual period, depending on
the Holy Aya, {Keep aloof from the woman
during the menstrual discharge}. [
02:22
] which implies the forepart. Others interpret “Keep aloof from the
women…” as keeping loot from the whole intercourse; accordingly,
they forbid it in both parts during menstrual discharge. We believe
that usual sexual intercourse is impermissible during the menstrual
period.
In general, we do forbid anal-sex as
an obligatory precaution
Q: Are there any legal taboos upon
sexual intercourse?
A: A husband and a wife are free to
use any way upon sexual intercourse, provided that there is no
particular forbiddance. And the only particular forbiddance is related
to the juristic controversy about the anal sex. In other situations,
they have total freedom to use any way they desire, but the woman
doesn’t have to respond to her husband in some cases that cause pain
or harm, or make her sick or embarrassed as when a husband asks his
wife to practice oral sex. In such a case, the wife doesn’t have to
comply with her husband’s demand if it doesn’t conform to her
personal yearning.
Q: Is it permissible for a wife to
excuse herself from participation in sexual intercourse when she is
exhausted, or when she undergoes a discouraging psychological state?
A: If sexual intercourse causes her
too much uneasiness, she has the right to abstain from it in
accordance with Allah’s (the most exalted) say, {He
has not laid upon you any hardship in religion}. (78:22)
But if only she doesn’t feel like
it, then she doesn’t have the right to abstain.
Q: What can we say about a man who
satiates his lust with his wife without satiating hers?
A: Such a sexual behavior is immoral
and inhumane even though it is not considered a sin on the part of the
husband, but it is legally repulsive. Imam Sadiq (a.s.) is reported to
have said in one of his traditions, “The Messenger of God (p.) said:
“When you have sexual intercourse with your wives, don’t be like a
bird, instead, stay long.”
In another narration, Imam Sadiq (a.s.)
said: “The Messenger of God(p.) once said: If a man’s wife feels
unsatisfied after sexual intercourse, she may resign her will to any
man no matter how ugly or
repulsive he may be. So, upon having sex with your wives, excite them
through dalliance, for it is more pleasurable”.
Also, Imam Ali(a.s) was quoted, “If
one of you wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife, he must not
be in hurry, for women have their own needs”.
Thus, in these religious instructions
about sex, we can find out that Islam considers woman’s lust and the
need to satiate it among the vital moral issues in her relation with
man, so men must not be selfish through fulfilling their desires and
leaving their wives sexually unsatisfied.
Q: Some believe that inducing sperm
through, embracing, dalliance or other similar acts is just like
masturbation?
A: The impermissible masturbation is
inducing sperm using one’s hand or any other means; that is
self-masturbation. But inducing sperm using the hand of one’s wife
or through some of the other acts that the wife takes part in
upon dalliance is permissible.
Q: Is it permissible for a bigamist
(Man having two wives or more) to have sex with his wives
simultaneously- upon their agreement, if they feel it is more
pleasurable and lustful?
A: This is not impermissible by
itself, but some jurists express their reservations concerning the
impermissibility of woman to look at another woman’s private parts.
Accordingly, their activity in question is illegal if it causes one
woman to look at another woman’s loin. However, I believe that
looking at another woman’s private parts is limited to emergency
cases pertaining to gynecology, not including the matter in question.
So, in the mentioned situation, caution is of great importance to
avoid looking at private parts. Furthermore, I express reservations
towards the legitimacy of the action itself because it does not
conform with the juristic foundations that reject it. Thus, the
believer has to abstain from such activities in pursuit of precaution
and disdain.
Q: Should a young woman who suffers
sterility, caused by a disease or surgery have Iddat (period during
which a widow or a divorcee may not remarry)?
A: Iddat is a must, being a means to
determine that the woman is not pregnant. As such, it is a general
preventive measure, that include the cases when people question the
wisdom behind such a measure. When legal rules are issued, they
don’t pursue each single case apart, but they consider the general
state of affairs. Thus, Iddat is meant to include all cases where
pregnancy is possible even though the external symptoms assert its
impossibility. But in cases of no actual entry and menopause, Iddat is
not a must.
Transsexuals (sex reassignment
surgery (SRS))
Q: It has been reported that Your
Eminence allows gender change; may we know more about the details of
your opinion? What are the juristic justifications and foundations on
which you based your judgment?
A: There are many cases pertaining to
this subject: One case, which has lately been common in western
community, comprises a surgery in which the testes, penis and scrotum
are totally removed. In addition, a cavity is made to look like a
girl’s vulva. Then administration of the hormone estrogen is
prescribed, for the purpose of effecting somatic changes in order for
the patient to look more closely in his physical appearance like the
other sex. In such a case, man’s anatomical formation is preserved,
with the appearance of some feminine features like soft voice,
prominence of breasts and hairless beard. Such a surgery makes no
difference, for it doesn’t enable the transsexual to have any sexual
intercourse, as a woman, with other men, so it will be a male-male
sexual relation; moreover, this surgery doesn’t make him a female
from the Shari’a point of view. It is just a fraudulent operation to
justify the homosexuality, which is still rejected, and despised by
the great majority of communities.
Disallowing such a surgery is quite
logical, because this operation inflicts the body with damage-removing
genital- in the absence of any benefit that outbalances the mentioned
damage.
Some other common and known cases of
changing one’s sex like changing an epicene to a female. Such cases
assume the possibility of changing a female to a male with all
characteristics, such as having a penis, having the ability to have
sex just like any other man, and acquiring masculine appearance, or
the possibility of changing a male to a female by transplanting female
gentile, where a transsexual will be just like any woman anatomically
and medically, and where a transsexual has a normal vagina, through
which sexual intercourse is performed and where the same feelings of
the ordinary woman are aroused upon having sex with a man concerning
the nature of lust and its secretion. Consequently, there will be no
difference between the transsexual and any female except in casual
attributes as when a woman has no uterus or she can’t carry a baby
since ordinary women may undergo such condition. Accordingly, the
transsexual will turn to be an ordinary woman regarding the external
features and the sexual characteristics.
In the last cases mentioned, we
don’t have any proof or legal text that deem them impermissible.
Unless we have legal evidence that disallows changing sex primarily,
in principle, changing sex and the surgeries in question are
permissible.
If such surgeries were accomplished,
the consequent outcome would be considered an ordinary woman having
the same rights and duties. She should marry, give birth and inherit,
for she would become a real woman.
As for the cause behind permitting
this surgery, in the basis of legislation, if we don’t have any
evidence that necessitates prohibition and in the state of hesitation
and suspicion whether something is permissible or not, it is deemed
permissible in principle. It is worth mentioning that I am not the
only one who adopts such a ruling, for both Imam Khoui in his book
“Mounyat El Sail” (the wish of the one who asks) approved
sex-change.
If some have deduced the
impermissibility of sex-change through the Holy Aya {And
most certainly I will bid them so that they shall alter Allah creation}
(4:119) which tells about Satan and its tricks, considering it as an
alteration of Allah’s creation, we say: What is meant by Allah’s
creation here is not man, because “Allah’s creation” is a
general term including everything created by God, the most exalted.
And if we adhere to the impermissibility of altering Allah’s
creation, as understood and construed by those religious scholars,
then we will have to protect trees, plants, lands, mountains and
rivers from change even though no one will comply to it, which is
disapproved by rational people, knowing that, most jurists adhere to
the permissibility of changing one’s sex, in addition to man’s
beautification changes.
Q:
So what
is meant by Allah’s creation?
The answer is
included in the verse, “The nature made by
Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah’s
creation; that is the right religion.” (30:30). So Allah’s
creation means human nature, namely believing in one God, and here is
someone who wants to change human nature by moving it from monotheism
to polytheism, this suits Satan’s role in alienating man from Allah
and from believing in one God. Thus, “I will
bid them so that they shall alter Allah’s creation,” means
that they will alter human nature, which has been mentioned in the
former verse. Also. In some Traditions, it is mentioned that Allah’s
creation refers to nature, and it is quite clear that the satanic
major role has nothing to do with the physical and medical nature of
things.
As for
self-damage, it is not allowed if there is no benefit that outbalances
the damage. And it is normal that the man who tries to change himself
to a woman must be undergoing critical conditions, which make
reassignment surgery benefits, outbalance the expected damage caused
by the surgery.
Q:
Doesn’t this mean that any person can have any of his organs cut or
excised for a mere desire, complex, obsession or mood, so long as this
doesn’t lead to death or fatal damage?
A: Not at
all; man is not allowed to cut or exterminate any of his organs
without any conventionally considerable reason as when one’s nose is
deformed by accident; in this case a plastic surgery is allowed.
Another example is when someone’s fingers or toes are abnormal,
which hinders his movement and work. Also plastic surgery is
permissible in this case.
So, there
must be a considerable benefit that justifies cutting, mending or
excising any body organ. Similarly, excising the male genital is not
excluded from this supposition. So, as mentioned, if the sex
reassignment surgery were performed successfully, no one would be
allowed to have the operation unless he were in urgent need and
psychological frustration that would affect his health and well-being.
This will justify the operation; Allah utterly knows.
Q:
One of your reported opinions deems it permissible for a woman to look
at another woman’s private parts, which conflicts with most jurists.
What is the fundamental reference and juristic base of this opinion?
A: First, the
narrations that deem it impermissible for a woman to look at another
woman’s are not trustworthy. But there is an authentic narration
mentioned by Ali Ben Ibrahim in his interpretation of Allah’s say
“And say to the believing women that they cast
down their looks and guard their private parts” (24:31)
addressing women not to look at their sister’s private parts and to
guard theirs.
Moreover, in
Al Kafi, there is another narration that asserts the mentioned
interpretation and says: everything mentioned in Quran about guarding
women’s private parts is related to fornication, except this verse,
which means looking.
On the other
hand, there are a lot of narrations that deem it permissible for a
woman to look at another woman’s loin without urgent need. For
instance, some narrations tell that in case of conflict between a
woman and her husband on whether the woman is a virgin or not, another
woman can put an end to this conflict by looking at the woman’s
private parts. Such a case is not urgent, because necessity pertains
to situations when a person’s life is endangered and where there is
no difference in ruling between man and woman. Also in case of
suspicion whether there is any obstruction in a woman’s vagina that
prevents sexual intercourse, there is a Tradition telling, “such
matters are known by women, so seek the trustworthy woman to examine
it”. So, this alleged ambiguity is not in its right place because
any woman can put an end to this conflict without any problem or
embarrassment.
Besides, the
fundamental reference is in the evidence given in the narration that
says, “Woman’s testimony is accepted in all matters that man
can’t look at”. This means that the testimony is accepted in all
situations when man can’t look at the private parts of a woman
herself, where as woman can. Here the loin is included in the term
“all” and this means that all parts that man can’t look at, a
woman can-The term “all” includes hair, breast, arms and loin. I
adhere to this generalization where testimony comprises all parts that
man can’t look at, among which is the loin, or else what is the
difference in ruling between man and woman.
Thus, in
matters of woman’s delivery women are exclusively engaged, and men
don’t have the right to take part unless it is quite urgent. Were
necessity governing this matter, it would be meaningless for the
narration to include such specification, since necessity governs and
equally allows both man and woman to take part in action, so the above
narration is evidence that a woman can look at another woman’s loin
without urgent need.
To sum up, in
the concerned narrations, it is clear that the difference between man
and woman concerning looking at a woman’s loin is that man is not
allowed to look. If the same rule of impermissibility applies to both
man and woman, then any of them would be allowed to look under
necessary conditions because they are equal before the rule of
prohibition. But looking must be restricted to need and must not
include the needless ordinary look; God utterly knows.
Q:
Your belief that woman has no spermatic fluid and consequently her
masturbation induces no sperm has brought about great confusion among
the public. Could you please explain the details of this ruling
together with the consequent ambiguities? And what are the principles
and traditions on which your Eminence based your opinion?
A: What
should be made clear is that if woman had a spermatic fluid similar to
man’s, which runs upon orgasm, then the woman must wash as man does
in a similar situation, also, woman’s masturbation would be
prohibited on the basis of the legal foundation. Where as, if woman
has no spermatic fluid, then wash is not a must as unanimously
approved by jurists and then woman’s masturbation will be
permissible because prohibition is restricted to sperm running, so in
the absence of spermatic fluid, masturbation is not an issue that is
prohibited or allowed. This is exactly similar to the case when a man
plays with his penis without consequent sperm-also unanimously
approved by jurists-and wash is not a must, because prohibition is not
based on lust inducement but on the misplacement of spermatic fluid
(as reported in some narrations).
But even if
this assumption (woman has no sperm) proved true, we advise women not
to get into this bad habit (masturbation), because its practice leads
to negative consequences upon marriage and causes psychological,
neural and medical complications that threaten her normal life, social
status and future marriage. In this respect, some jurists in their
comment on my allowance of woman’s masturbation regardless of sperm
run, refer to two narrations, the first of which is narrated by
Oubeida Ben Zarara, who said: Once, an old neighbor of us had a pretty
and expensive bondwoman. That old man couldn’t have full sexual
intercourse with his bondwoman, who would ask him to put his hand on
her labia because that gave her greater pleasure, but he detested
that. So, the old man demanded that Zarara ask Imam Jaafar Sadiq (a.s.)
about the matter.
So, Zarara
asked the Imam, who said, “There is no harm in using any of his body
parts to give her pleasure, but he is not allowed to use anything
other than his body”.
The second
narration is given by the same narrator, Zarara, and it says: I asked
Imam Sadiq (a.s) about men who have many bondwomen, but they can’t
have full sexual intercourse with them, so they give them pleasure by
other means”. Then the Imam replied, “There is no harm in using
any of his body organs.”
But the two
mentioned narrations are clearly prohibiting the use of any outside
means to satisfy the wife’s sexual desire, though they permit the
use of the male’s other organs including the hand to satisfy the
wife, but there is no mention of whether she can use her own hand or
not.
Q:
Since this fatwa doesn’t represent a practical necessity, but it
leads to corruption and moral dissolution when adopted by women who
might be entrapped by moral disadvantages, some ask why aren’t
precautional fatwas issued in this respect? And why is this fatwa
aroused in general?
A: Those who
say so haven’t experienced the critical problems undergone by women
when they are encountered by urgent situations, which drive them to
inquire about the legal ruling that might put an end to these
problems.
We have
experienced the depth of these problems through studying the various
situations and through receiving questions that seek rulings in cases
as when a woman’s husband is imprisoned and she is not sure whether
he is dead or alive, or when a husband spends a long time in prison in
the absence of any legal circumstances that lead to divorce, or when a
husband is in a state of absence, where the wife should legally wait
for four years to be then divorced by the judge if the husband’s
guardian doesn’t sustain her, or when a husband remains abroad for a
long time where reunion is impossible due to financial reasons.
All these
cases turn to be serious sexual problems, which drive the jurist to
seriously think of finding solutions. It’s natural that women’s
masturbation sometimes leads to negative consequences, but prohibition
or negligence on the part of the jurist also have more negative
impacts on the life of woman, especially the married one who has no
legal opportunity to solve sexual problems. In short, the mentioned
details pressed me to study the subject in a legally responsible way.
Q:
Can’t we consider the above-mentioned damage a main cause to
prohibiting this habit?
A: I don’t
think this habit leads to the damage that necessitates prohibition;
Moreover, there is a consensus among jurists that prohibition, is
limited to spermatic fluid running. So, if a man plays with his penis
not intending to induce sperm and if he could hold himself back before
orgasm leads to ejaculation, then he is not a sinner; consequently, he
must not wash, and he must not break his fast if he is fasting. This
is agreed upon by all jurists because masturbation (as understood by
all jurists) means the coming out of sperm.
Q:
So, why hasn’t Islam permitted lesbianism, which is far from sperm
production?
A: Because
Islam has prohibited all forms of unnatural sexual relations between
man and woman because such relations are not based on a legal
contract. So, sexual relations among people of the same sex are
rejected in Islam, which wants men and women to naturally practice
their sexual relation through their physical potential characteristic
because the natural state of Allah’s creation is not represented
through homosexuality or lesbianism. Also, Allah didn’t create
man’s body, , to practice such unnatural relations; perhaps because
of the consequent damage of leaving natural relationships.
Q:
Must a woman wash if she had wet dream?
A: I have
already said that woman has no spermatic fluid, but if this
supposition were true, then woman’s wet dream would be the same as
man’s; that is, if she dreams of having sex with a man without a
consequent fluid, after examining her clothes, she doesn’t have to
wash, but if there is -in accordance, with the supposition - she has
to wash. However, it is well known that woman doesn’t have that
liquid which comes out from man upon sexual intercourse. Thus, we
believe that wash is not a must for women who have sexual dreams.
Q:
Is it lawful for a woman to look at another woman suspiciously?
A: If the
mentioned suspicion means woman’s attempt to endear herself to
another woman for illegal acts, or lesbianism, then the look is
prohibited.
Q:
One of the secular writers has put forth the idea that Islam views
sexual intercourse as inferior, taking as evidence that Islam imposes
wash after intercourse to purify the soul from the impurities of sex.
What is your Eminence’s opinion?
A: I believe that this way of
interpreting wash is incorrect because wash is not based on the
Islamic inferior view of sex, knowing that Islam encourages sex and
deems it a human right for both man and woman. Moreover, Islam even
requires man to satisfy his wife’s sexual desire, and not fulfill
the intercourse before his wife is satiated. Also, some Traditions
mention that man may be rewarded for sexual relations, which protect
him from committing sins. As for wash, it doesn’t imply a spiritual
filth, but it implies that when man ejaculates after having sex, the
whole body takes part in the process, so wash represents a type of
spiritual and physical purity suggesting clearness and refinement,
which liberate man from indulging in physical pleasures.
On the other hand, Islam considers
sperm as impure as urine is, and since the whole body naturally takes
part in the process of ejaculation, then the whole body is concerned;
thus, the wash is more related to the physical side than the spiritual
one. Jurists who believe that ejaculation upsets the soul base their
judgment on the above reasoning, not on an authentic legal ruling.
Furthermore, there is a big
difference between ejaculation that represents the filth of the soul,
and that which suggests physical filth Accordingly, wash is not a must
by itself, but it is a must for a Moslem to be prepared for prayers
and for any state that requires purity.
Mainly, there are two types of
impurities. The first includes the direct material impurities, such as
urine, blood, etc… and the second comprises a joint participation
between the body and the soul, but not on the basis of inferiority.
Besides, we know that ablution is a must for prayers after sleep, so
can we say that Islam views sleep as inferior? This is meaningless.
Islam wants the Moslem to renew his physical state by washing and to
renew his spiritual state through opening to purity and consequently
approaching Allah, the most Exalted. So, the obligatory wash after
ejaculation is the same as the obligatory ablution for prayers after
sleep. No one can say that Islam views sleep as inferior, and wash and
ablution lead to the physical purity as a means to spiritual
refinement, providing that wash and ablution are done in pursue of
God’s satisfaction.
Hymen:
Q: Orientals in
general, and Moslems, in particular, are accused of giving women’s
hymen a greater importance than that it deserves. What is your
Eminence’s comment?
A: This is right. Actually, there
are some Traditions that recommend marrying virgin women, but this
doesn’t mean that virginity is a sacred thing, but this is based on
the fact that the virgin, who hasn’t married before, opens to her
husband more faithfully and adherently since her husband is the first
man in her life, and when one joins the first person in his/her life
it is natural that his/her feelings are different from those of a
person who has a previous experience with another person. I agree that
social traditions have expanded the issue of women’s hymen to the
extent that it has become a value, believing that marrying a virgin,
which implies “hymen rupture” often associated with violence,
represents virility and manhood. This is not a religious state but one
of social traditions and customs.
Religiously speaking, virginity is
one symbol of chastity opposing non-virginity resulting from
fornication; however, if non-virginity is natural, then it is not
considered a negative value, similarly, virginity is not considered a
sacred positive value except in the mentioned explanation about
matrimonial understanding.
Female circumcision:
Q: Female
circumcision has recently made a great fuss among the public-What is
the Islamic ruling concerning this issue? Is it true that Islam
supports restraining the tense of woman’s lust?
A: Circumcision was an Arab custom,
which extended till the appearance of Islam. So, When we study the
reported Traditions, we can’t find any instance urging or
encouraging circumcision so that it becomes recommendable for girls,
but the Traditions including circumcision don’t imply prohibition.
And there are some Traditions that tell that the Prophet(p.) advised
the women who performed circumcision not to misapply it; thus, it is
legally permissible unless it leads to negative consequences or harm
where restrain of a girl’s lust might have negative results to her
future marriage. Then it will be prohibited
In other words, a girl’s
circumcision is lawful if it doesn’t negatively affect her body or
future marriage. If circumcision causes her great damage like
frigidity, which naturally affects her life, then circumcision will be
impermissible.
I think that the only positive point
resulting from this process lies in the ancestors belief that the less
lustful a woman is, the closer to chastity she will be, so they sought
this method to reduce the sins committed by the girls which might
dishonor a family or a tribe. But, this view is rejected for it is not
right to perform such an act, which may lead to dangerous consequences
only to encounter an anticipated problem.
Besides, lust is not a negative
value but a natural human phenomenon created by God to preserve the
natural process on which sexual reproduction and family ties are
based: consequently, man is attracted to woman, and woman is attracted
to man. However, lust may represent a negative value when it
intensifies and consequently leads to negative effects, such as moral
deviation. Thus, we can’t consider lust a negative thing, which
needs to be cut down except in unnatural cases when lust results in
deviation.
Moreover, Imam(a.s.) Al- Sadiq(a.s.)
is reported to have said in one of his Traditions, “circumcising a
boy is a part of the Sunna of the Prophet(p.), but circumcising a
bondwoman is not.”
In another Tradition, Imam Al-Sadiq(a.s.)
said: “Circumcising women is a noble deed but neither a part of the
Sunna of the Prophet nor a must. And what is better than a noble
deed?”
It is clear that circumcision
represented a way for the women to gain their husbands’ respect in
accordance with the social tradition of that time. This is suggested
in the Prophet’s advice to UmHabib, who used to circumcise
bondwomen. When the Prophet (p.) met her, he asked her ”Do you still
practice the same job?” She replied, “Yes, until it becomes
prohibited so that you prevent me from doing it” Then the Prophet(p.)
answered, “It is lawful. Come nearer and let me teach you.” When
she approached him, he said, “Um Habib, when you circumcise, don’t
wear out and don’t mutilate, for this is better for the radiance of
woman’s face and is more preferred by the husband”. So, this was
meant by Imam Sadiq’s word about a noble deed, where the process was
related to social traditions pertaining to embellishment and to liking
women. But when traditions change, ruling then differs with the
difference in title where a noble deed may turn to be its opposite,
just like any case that changes with the change of the objective
reality where rulings vary positively or negatively; God utterly
knows.
Q:
Some view Mutaa(temporary marriage) as legalizing fornication in all
its details including motives, practices and consequences, or they
believe that Mutaa is a second degree marriage where woman is despised
and deprived of inheritance and custody. What is your comment?
A: When we study Mutaa in this
context, we have to raise a question: Is a woman’s or a man’s
sexual practice a shameful act that degrades him or her? Or it is a
natural need that represents natural instinctive satisfaction like
eating and drinking?
It is normal that we can’t deem
sex a negative value or a filthy or shameful act that humiliates
woman’s character, otherwise, sex of permanent marriage will also be
considered shameful.
So, sex in itself is not a
disgraceful behavior, and Islam is trying to solve sexual problems in
the same way it solves problems of eating and drinking and all matters
concerning the physical instinctive elements. Here, another question
is raised. Did Islam legalize the “temporary marriage”(even in
particular cases) or not?
Moslems agree that Islam legalized
it, so the principle legislation by Islam-even in specific time-
implies that the sexual practice of Mutta demeans neither woman nor
man, because the sexual intercourse in the temporary marriage is just
the same as that of the permanent marriage concerning highness and
degradation and concerning the nature of sexual practices in both
types of marriage; accordingly, woman is not degraded, or why would
God approve woman’s inferiority and degradation knowing that He
says, “And surely we have honored the children of Adam…”?
Still, there is juristic conflict
concerning the following question: Did Islam extend the duration of
temporary marriage legitimacy in the same way it extended that of a
permanent marriage or, it confined it to a specific time? And the
answere to this basic question is: why Mutaa?
Mutaa represents a human need for
sex in cases when permanent marriage is not possible, however, Mutaa
is not a comprehensive solution for sex. The legitimacy of this issue
was initiated by the need of those Moslems in war time.
The prophet(p.) was asked whether
castration was the appropriate solution to the men’s wild lust, so
the prophet(p.) permitted Mutaa. This incident represents a model for
all cases when man can’t marry permanently in situations like
traveling and seeking education, or under critical economic and
security conditions or in any case whose problems vary in time and
place. This means Mutaa was adopted in the absence of any reliable
solution facilitating permanent marriage. So, if Mutaa becomes common
and natural and if it complies to traditions and customs of a society,
then both man and woman will be sexually satisfied without any
obstacles that may drive them to fornicate.
Accordingly, we can say that sexual intercourse is not filthy by
itself neither for man nor for woman, but Allah, the most Exalted,
prohibited fornication because it doesn’t totally comply with the
rules concerning children or family relationship, but it represents a
situation where woman sells herself; where, Mutaa represents actual
marriage where man and woman share sexual practices as married couple,
but temporarily, and where woman feels that she is having sex with her
husband in the absence of any complex or impurity because the marriage
contract gives them the impression that their relation complies with
the legal system and is far from impurity.
Thus, the contract of Mutaa provides protection to the newborn
even if his birth occurs by mere coincidence. Consequently, the
newborn is a legitimate child when the documents that confirm the
contract and assert the relation between the mentioned couple and the
newborn are available. As for the questions concerning the idea that
Mutaa deprives woman of alimony and inheritance, we say that the
nature of this kind of marriage necessitates these conditions, and the
woman who agrees on temporary marriage accepts the conditions
voluntarily and convincingly, in the same way a woman permanently
marries a man under the condition that her husband will not bequeath
her.
The temporary marriage is allowed in cases when man can’t
provide a house or spend money due to economic crisis or other causes.
It is a contingent marriage, not a permanent one. So the matter is not
as bad as it is expressed in the question.
This issue should be handled in
relation with whether the prophet Muhammad(p.) invalidated Mutaa after
validating it or not. This is the secret of the conflict between
Sunnah and Shiites. The Shiites believe that Mutaa is lawful, for the
prophet(p.) didn’t invalidate it, where as the Sunna believe that
Mutaa is prohibitaed because it was invalidated by the Prophet (p.).
Mutaa and the legalized fornication:
Q: Since fornication
-especially in western countries is always based on mutual agreement
or arranged in return for material substitute, so what is the
difference between fornication and Mutaa and why is the relation
prohibited n the former and allowed in the latter?
A: The difference between consensual
fornication and marriage, permanent or temporary, is the contract that
indicates the willingness of marriage between the couples, whether
verbally or in a written form. This is available in marriage, but it
is not in fornication. Through marriage, permanent or temporary, Islam
allows family or sexual relations; thus, marriage adds to the
legitimacy of the mentioned relationships; however agreement between a
man and a woman is not enough to attain legality, for all dealings,
whether allowed or prohibited are based on mutual agreement. For
example, usury is based on mutual agreement but it is an illegal deal,
where as contract adds to the agreement the mental willingness of the
spouses to deeply attach to one another and to form a relationship.
Moreover, upon fornication, and in
the west in particular, matual agreement is available but not on the
basis of the will to marry or to make a family; that is, the couple
starts as friends then as lovers where they practice fornication, and
then they marry... It is worth mentioning that fornication is not
approved in the different parts of the world, and it’s considered an
illegitimate relationship rejected by the law since it is not
authenticated by a contract. So, the west didn’t legalize
fornication but it legislated laws protecting the rights of female
fornicators and the rights of the “illegitimate child” in relation
with his parents, without allowing such relation. Thus, the resulting
newborn is called the illegitimate child of so and so, knowing that
the public knows these parents. Also, the west regards unlawful sexual
intercourse-outside marriage-committed by spouses as infidelity, and
the husband or the wife has the right to file a lawsuit against her or
him.
|