Talk:Misyar marriage

shia agree with it?

I took out this section from the page and Shia

Reasons: 1) It is not Khomeini's Official Page, it is the page of Grand Ayatullah Sistani Of Iraq. 2) Answer 33 in the source (which is in Arabic) does not outright condone the misyar marriage, it is vague, please check it for yourself.

sources

all the people mentioned here are saudi, wahabi clerics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.113.165 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

totally disputed

• Misyar Marriage or "travellers marriage" is a modern Sunni innovation.

Isnt that obvious? Its Sunni since Bin Baaz is Sunni and since its used in Sunni countrys. Its not used in shia or jewish countrys... I dont get what is disputed about that. And its a inovation since its not Sunnah.

Misyar has been practiced in Saudi Arabia and Egypt for years. It was officially legalized by the Egyptian Sunni Imam Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi in February 1999, and the Mufti of Egypt has also been defending the arrangement of misyar. [1]

• Basically, it is a marriage without the couple living together in the same house or the husband being financial responsible for his wife.

This kind of marriage relieved them from any of the financial burdens or responsibilities of ordinary marriage. In the mesyar (traveler) marriage, men are not obliged to spend on their wives and children according to an agreement made between the couple. [2]

Misyar is an official relationship between man and woman, but does not involve that the two live together, nor that the man is economically responsible. [3]

• The intent of divorce, is assumed in this type of marriage, but the time of divorce must remain hidden for the wife.

Misyar has many similarities with mut'a, practiced in Shi'i Islam, except for the preceding definition of duration. [4]

the Misyar has no certain date for divorce, and it is up to the man to divorce his wife whenever, or if ever, he feels like doing so. [5]

It goes without saying that valid marriage should not be limited to a certain period of time; otherwise it will be reckoned as a Mut`ah (temporal) marriage which is prohibited in Islam. [6]

In other words, the time of divorce must remaing secret for the wife, for otherwise it will be equitad with Nikah Mutah by Sunni scholars.

I hope this will be to your satisfaction and that you will now remove the pov sign and the "source needed" requests.

--Striver 11:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Citations

This needs citations and commonality... It doesn't show how prevalent it is... which, from the obscurity of the topic... it isn't exactly prevalent. In any case I believe unless this is cited by decent sources it should be cut down drastically. gren グレン 01:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There are a great amont of external links provided, you are welcome to sift them for better reference. Otherwise, its ther. --Striver 09:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a modern innovation

Misyar marriage is not a modern innovation. I cite a report by Edward William Lane in The Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians in which he records instances of Misyar marriages with prostitutes in Cairo in 1825. ('Modern' in this sense means not the ancient Egyptians.) I have therefore edited out that reference. It may well be that Misyar is practiced only by Sunnis since i have not found any evidence to the contrary, so I have left that in. (It can only be refuted by a negative proof - a documented instance of Shia Misyar.

Shia will never use that bid'ah form, since they have Nikah Mut'ah. The idea of it was asked to Abu Hanifa, and that is a LONG way back, but still a LONG way AFTER muhammad, making it a Bid'ah. However, it was officialy legalized in a countris Sharia in modern times. Also, the intent of divorce is the MAIN part of this marriage form, as the question to Abu Hanifa makes clear, and it MUST be hidden. --Striver 12:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Striver.

I have looked up your points, and yes, I broadly agree with your edit. However I would ask that you do a couple of things:

Firstly, please edit so that it has a neutral point of view. Your opinion may be that the Misyar is bid'ah - but this is not a universal view so you can't say that. To say that many Muslims, or many Shia think it is bid'ah is fine, because that's a fact, not an opinion. Clearly the Saudi Ulema don't agree it is bid'ah, or they would not have legalised it.

Secondly, I would also ask that you remove the word modern, or at least clarify what you mean by that. I have cited a reference that Sunnis were already prqacticing Misyar before 1825. I agree that's modern in theological terms, but it is not what the average reader would think by the word 'modern'.

Generally, much of the "Islamic" content on Wikipedia seems to be of Sunni origin and this is not always made clear in the articles - which is wrong. A Shia point of view would add balance to a lot of them - perhaps with separate Sunni and Shia articles on certain topics where the doctrines are very different. However I think you need to be very careful about representing Shia (or Sunni) doctrine as "Moslem doctrine" - otherwise you risk starting a Shia/Sunni edit war. Much better to state what Shia (or Sunni) believe.

Since no one has responded to object, I now intend to modify that article as above.--Anjouli 07:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Reasons for Misyar" section

Due to a recent blanking (prob. vandalism though), I realised that the "Reasons for Misyar..." section is a bit POV, and very un-encyclopedic. Not denying that there are some points in the section that might prove true, is there a way to change the context of the paragraph to make it less POV and more factual information? If not, then I suggest a removal of that whole section. Stoa 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Contraversal

This stuff is highly contraversal and as said even al-Azhar scholars do not support it.

POV: Shi'a view

The whole section on the Shi'a view is extremely biased. I don't know anything about this subject but it's clear that it should be reworded. This is the text as of now, with problem words in bold:

Shia are glad that some Sunni have come to the conclusion that Nikah Mut'ah fills a necessary social function in giving laws for those who need it, Shia at the same time look with a humoristic disbelief on the people who refuse acknowledge that Umar made a innovation in forbidding Nikah Mut'ah, and rather innovate their own inferior version of Nikah Mut'ah, a version without Quranic support, not giving the woman the right to know how long the marriage is supposed to last.

... etc. The whole section also attributes these opinions to Shi'a people and scholars but this is not sourced in any way. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me, i hope this is a improvement. As for inferior, we do truly see it as inferior. --Striver 17:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but it'd be best to present an actual quotation by a more-or-less notable Shi'a scholar, on the record, saying that or something to that effect. The whole paragraph reads rather aggressive as a general statement, even if it's true. It's better to attribute opinions to representative members of the community. This advice, if you allow me, goes for anything of the form "XXX view of YYY". Thanks for understanding. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pablo that the Shia section needs a quote from a Shia scholar or at least a reference for the information provided. Also, some of the information in there is confusing such as the concept concerning Umar's role in it; I left it alone since I did not want to alter the meaning of the point. When speaking about the Sunni view, it should be taken into consideration that not all Sunni feel this way about Nikah Misyar (I don't know if that holds true for the Shia POV about the marriage): if refering to a specific point made by a Sunni scholar(that might be disagreed by with another scholar), then it should be stated there instead of it being made into a generalisation. —Stoa 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ill try to clearify Umars roll in it, according to the Shi'a view:

1. God authorised non-permanent marriages
2. Umar forbade it
3. Sunnis changed history, and now refuse the notion of Umar forbiding it
4. Sunnis recoqnize that non-permanent marriages are indeed needed in some parts of society
5. Sunnis refuse re-evaluate their view of history and draw the obvios conclusion, that Umar forbade it
6. Sunnis reintroduce non-permanent marriages, but in order to creat a loophole, they create a inferior version where the time of expiratino is forbiden to be told to the wife
7. Shi'a view this as hilarious
8. Shi'a view this as a threat to the values of non-permanent marriages and divorce. Why don't they just acknowledge that Umar made a misstake instead of punishing the wife? Sunnis dont regard him as perfect anyhow, they have regarded many of his other conclusions as voided...

Again, that is the Shi'a view. I hope it helps to formulate the version better. Im sure it can be sourced, i have read lots on this topic and it is my conclusion that the above is a consensus Shi'a view. However, i dont have any direct quote at hand. Any Shi'a editor that dissagrees with my conclusion? --Striver 12:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My personal view is that Sunnis scholars just would'nt acknowledge that Shi'a where right all along, they are to proud for that, and they have spended to long time stating "Nikah Mut'ah is almost prostituion". No offennce intented against my Sunni brothers, but this is my view. --Striver 12:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that this cant be used in the article, but its better than nothing to have it quoted here in the talk page:

"Ohhhh, but Misyar isn't PROSTITUTION. The man gives money and gifts to a woman who is a complete stranger to him (or pays off her parents), so that he can show up at her parents' house to have sex with her whenever he wants, without the "burden" of an actual husband-wife relationtship, or even friendship for that matter. Isn't that BETTER than Mut'a MARRIAGE?" (shiachat.com)

--Striver 12:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Misyar isn't prostitution because her parents must be witnesses, you are making confusion between Misyar and Orfy. Misyar is allowed because the woman's parent are witnesses while Orfy is forbidden because her parents are not witnesses. Mut'a is temporary while Misyar isn't. Misyar is just normal marriage but with the woman giving up some of her rights, which she can ask later and the man is obligated to give them to her later if she asks.--BelalSaid (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Move

Why was this article moved without talking about it? I oppose the move, and demand that the move be undone untill consensus has been reached. Admin? --Striver 08:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Further the motvation "("Nikah" is not an English word.)" is very weak, as if "Misyar" was or even "Islam" was a "english" word, however that is defined.--Striver 08:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

temporary marriage allowed by ibn Baz?

Has ibn Baz actually said that it's allowed to intend for this kind of marriage to be temporary? From what I understand, he said that it's okay to get married and keep living separated (with ones parents) if ones economy isn't that good. But he didn't actually say it's allowed to intend for this kind of marriage to be temporary. Are there any references?

I think that someone should either post a reference, or it should be stated that he didn't allow for this kind of marriage to be temporary.--83.253.92.210 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, what happened? Anyhow, here is something for the article: Bin Baz:

“ Someone asked him: In one of your tapes, you have a fatwa that it is permissible for someone in a Western country to get married with the intention of getting divorced after a specific period�What is the difference between this and between Mut'ah?

Response: Yes, this fatwa has come from Permanent Council (of Muftis), and I am its leader, and we have ruled that it is permissible to marry with the intention of getting divorced, if this intention is between the servant and his Lord. If someone marries in a Western country, and his intention is that when he finishes his studies or finds a job or something like this that he will get divorced, then there is absolutely no problem with this in the opinion of all 'ulama. This intention is something between the servant and Allah, and is not a condition. The difference between this and Mut'ah is that Mut'ah has the condition of a definite time period, such as a month or two months or a year or two years and so forth. If the time period fends, then the Nikah is abrogated. This is the invalid form Mut'ah. However, if somebody marries according to the Sunnah of Allah and the Prophet, but he nonetheless holds the intention in his heart that when he leaves the (Western) country he will divorce, then there is no harm it. This intention might change, and so it is not something definite. This intention is not a condition, and it is something between the servant and his Lord. There is no harm in it, and it is one of the ways that a person may remain chaste and avoid fornication and debauchery. This is the statement of all people of knowledge.

”

[7]

--Striver 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is in reply to Striver : What happened ? I tried to add some info to the existing text of the article, but I got into huge editing to make all the paras read in continuity. I must apologize, though, to the previous contributors to this article for the heavy editing I did. Maybe the end result is a completely different article from the one that existed before. If anyone wants to go back to the previous text that existed in July, that alternative always exists.Aster77 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a view:

This is absolutely bizarre. Bin Baz has permitted something that is in no way different from a temporary marriage. If a marriage with the intention to divorce is not temporary marriage, what is it? The only reason Bin Baz says Mut'ah is invalid is because the man actually tells the woman this beforehand, and that they agree on it, and that this condition is binding. Basically this amounts to saying that since Mut'ah is honest, it is haram. So if a man lies to a woman and promises her a permanent marriage, and then divorces her one-hour later, this is fine. But if a man and woman actually agree together that the marriage is only to last a month or what have you, then it is haram. For the Bin Baz camp its perfectly legitimate for a man to marry a woman [with the 'hidden' intention of divorcing her afterwards] if this is not deception then what on earth is? The woman may want to settle down, and have a family, a liar comes along who charms her, marries her, gets her into bed and then divorces her. All her hopes / dreams of having a man to settle down have been shattered there and then, she was tricked into marriage and then divorced. How can anybody with the slightest gift of intelligence claim that this "marriage with intent to divorce" is moral, and according to Bin Baz all scholars agree on its permissibility, yet temporary marriage is impermissible? What is possibly the difference, except that a dishonesty / deception is allowed in Bin Baz's temporary marriage?[8]

--Striver 12:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

12:2173

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Of all the lawful acts the most detestable to Allah is divorce.

Misyaar marriage carries an 'intention' to divorce, an act that is the most detestable in the eyes of Allah (swt)! Would Allah (swt) give his blessing to a marriage that's foundation is based upon this detestable intention?[9]

--Striver 12:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=16308

--Striver 16:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sunni View on Misyar Marriage

I hid the following personal comment in the article - complain may be relevant - Skysmith 20:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sunni View on Misyar Marriage WIKIPEDIA..This article has alot of faulty and baseless concepts in it.Many people have contributed to this false concept around the world claiming that Misyar Marriage is a Sunni practice. Far be it from the truth. The Sunnis, as many of you might know, are divided into four schools. One of these schools produced the Wahhabi sect, practiced mostly in Saudi Arabia and minorly in the Gulf region. The Misyar marriage has been promoted recently by the Wahhabis in the Gulf region. It is not an ancient tradition.

Hence, it is not an accepted practice in Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, etc... This article has absolutely no credibility....please verify it Wikipedia..and thank you. by 74.12.207.237 (talk · contribs)

The notice : "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed" has been posted, throwing doubts on the veracity of the contents of the article, based on the above comments of a « sunni » reader. But when we look at each of the arguments the reader presents to dispute the factual accuracy of the article, they do not seem to have any merit.

« This article has a lot of faulty and baseless concepts in it. » But the reader doesn’t give any specific example of faulty and baseless concepts to justify this accusation.

« Many people have contributed to this false concept around the world claiming that Misyar Marriage is a Sunni practice. Far be it from the truth. » The reader is wrong. Misyar marriage is practiced within the sunni community exclusively. It doesn’t exist in shi’a because shi'a already have marriage "mut'a" which is very similar to misyar marriage.

« The Sunnis, as many of you might know, are divided into four schools. One of these schools produced the Wahhabi sect, practiced mostly in Saudi Arabia and minorly in the Gulf region. The Misyar marriage has been promoted recently by the Wahhabis in the Gulf region. It is not an ancient tradition. » It is true that misyar marriage has been mostly promoted, over the past 15 years, in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region. But the Wahhabis are muslim, sunni people. So the reader admits that misyar is praticed by sunni communities.

« It is not an ancient tradition ». The word « misyar » is probably fairly recent, but « traveller’s marriage » has been known and practiced in Arabia for 14 centuries. Marriage mut’a is one variant of it, going back to the times before the appearance of Islam in the region.

« Hence, it is not an accepted practice in Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, etc. ». Misyar marriage is not practiced in countries which did not have this tradition (Lebanon), or whose marriage laws stipulations are incompatible with it (Turkey). It's concentrated for the time being in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates and the region, but has been extending to Egypt and other countries of the area in recent years.

« This article has absolutely no credibility....please verify it Wikipedia..and thank you. » The reader has not provided a single valid argument to dispute the veracity of the article. It's his word, against the word of several of the top muslim authorities in the charia. The notice should be removed. Aster77 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrible article needs better english, and POV statements removed

I will be radically rearranging this article, correcting it's very poor english, and trying to make it less tedious to read. Please, if your english id not very good, don't edit this article. Before anyone reverts my edits, please discuss. Debates about shia and sunni, should be in a seperate article, not here. This article should simply describe what Misyar is, and briefly how Shia view it. Aaliyah Stevens 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your editing was pretty good, and faithful to the text, but you have also introduced some absolutely erroneous ideas which I have corrected. Try to be more humble about your editing. Aster77 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's important to note that under the "misyar marriage in practice" it says

"Many wives hope to win the love of their husbands so that they may live with them permanently."

This is true, misyar can progress into a full blown commitment based marriage, i.e. the contract is like a 'rolling contract' that can be reviewed and renegotiated by both parties at any time, or in the event of a pre-stipulated condition or Shuroot. Shuroot in a marriage contract are common, this is important to mention.Aaliyah Stevens 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure I understand what you have in mind when you write the above lines. So, I'll just underline this, because many readers of the article don't seem to get the point clearly :

Misyar marriage, from a legal point of view, is a standard muslim marriage. Period. It includes, in the marriage contract, some stipulations. Muslim law considers this as perfectly normal. The stipulations in misyar marriage seem shocking to some of us, in view of the way we look at marriage in the modern world, or the way we interpret what the Shariah really says. But the Shariah has been interpreted over a period of 14 centuries by men, according to their male interests, and as they saw fit.

Today, if you take 12 ulemas and ask them the same question about misyar marriage conditions, you'll get a handful of divergent answers, many of them incompatible. This is what the article explains. One should realize that the same situation will exist if one looks at marriage law in 12 different European countries. He'll find 12 different regimes whose stipulations are often incompatible on important points. The difference between the two situations is that shariah is supposed to be the same in all Muslim countries (and that's an erroneous proposition) whereas it's normal that different countries would have different sets of laws.

But I'm not sure the "rolling contract" idea could apply to misyar. The man who engages in misyar marriage, as explained in the article, wants to satisfy his sexual needs whithout being accused of "zina" (for which he could be put in jail or worse) ; and without having to take financial commitments towards his sexual partner. As someone accurately describes the situation in an article in the references, it's legalized prostitution, without the men having to pay the "prostitute". (In effect, the man makes a one-time payment to the woman, in the form of "mahr").This seems to be the fulfillment of some men's dreams in the Middle East, and clearly has no relationship with the spirit of Muslim marriage. That's why al-Albani and Ibn Uthaymeen contest the legality of misyar marriage.

With respect to "shuroot" : it's admitted that "shuroot" can't go against the intent of the law (the wife can't specify, for example, that she will continue to live in her father's house ; or that her husband won't have the right to have any sexual relations with her). Such propositions, according to the ulemas, go against the reason of being of the marriage. One could of course argue that the conditions : "the man will no live with his wife" and "the man will undertake no financial committment towards his wife" also go against the reason of being of the marriage. But, it's the ulemas (men) who say how to interpret the "shuroot", and they interpret them as they see fit (and in favor of male interests). That's why it's interesting to note that, in countries where shariah has been incorporated into modern marriage law codes, misyar marriage can't be resorted to legally. Men would continue to resort to it, getting married privately, thru the offices of a public notary, with no real publicity. But their marriage would have no standing, in terms of law.

As for the renegociation of the conditions in the marriage contract, I don't think you can say that. The conditions in the contract are final. They can only be contested, as explained in the article. But the parties can of course write a new agreement between themselves, outside the text of the contract, in which they can stipulate anything they wish, such as : the man will give financial support to his wife in a given monthly amount, or pay her rent, etc. Aster77 10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't entirely undertsand your exact point above, it's not very clear. Shuroot are anything the husband and wife agree about their marriage- the Ulema don't define them, the couple do. You seem to view misyar in a skewed way, as if only men engage in it for their own "evil" sexual desires, and the women involved are always victims of this desire - "it takes two to tango"!. Women have sexual desires too, and misyar contracts can be very beneficial for women who want the pleasuers of marriage, but want to remain independent. It can be seen as a means of women's liberation from household duties. This has nothing to do with the Ulema, as it is a standard sunni marriage contract, with extra stiplulations, i.e. the wife and husband lift all responsibilities from each other except when they wish to enjoy each other, this is how it is practised, and many misyari marriages do become fully committed later. The experience of rich khaleeji (gulf) men, exploiting poor girls is not the only form misyar takes. Women can gain from it too, and can demand any amount of Mahr and maintenance payments weekly or monthly they wish. On another note, it sounds like English is not your first language, could you confirm that, sorry if I sound offensive, I don't mean it Aaliyah Stevens 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tag. With respect to your last observation, this article was first written in French for a French readership, then I thought it would be interesting to translate it into English for an English readership. I assumed some English-speaking reader would give it a better polish, which you did. Thanks for that.

With respect to your observation : "Women can gain from it too, and can demand any amount of Mahr and maintenance payments weekly or monthly they wish.", if they do that and obtain it from their husband, that becomes a normal marriage of the polygamy type. Misyar is defined as the marriage in which the husband only gives the wife an agreed-sum for mahr (whether he gives it to her in one installment or several is of course something they can agree upon).

As for the fact that "it takes two to tango", that's absolutely true, but from my readings and my knowledge of the people and the region, it's essentially the man who leads this dance as he sees fit. The wealthy women who find it convenient to enter into misyar marriage are the exception rather than the rule. The men who enter into misyar marriage without telling their first wife they have got a second wife are the rule, rather than the exception.

I'm providing all these details not to contradict you, but because you seem earnest in your interest to get further into the discussion of the fine points of the subject, and I think I've done enough homework on this subject to know quite a lot about it. Aster77 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive and positive criticism, I really appreciate it. I agree with you that this type of marriage when contracted by rich and powerful khaliji men usually favours men, however having studied Islamic theology, and law, and having travelled to almost every Arab country, from the Marrakesh to Karachi, the use of misyar is also common among a young couple in love who cannot for practical reasons live in a seperate home, and/or the wife does not wish to live with her husbands family, or so that they may spend time together without the hassle of convincing their parents of a full blown marriage (i.e. they conduct a relationship behind parents' backs). The Muslim world, and the practice of Islam goes well beyond the reach of rich Khaliji men, and in this context I suggest that misyar can actually be used and abused just as much by rich or powerful women, or be used for the benefit of career women who do not want to be tied down at the moment, which the Sunni Shariah has allowed. Anyway, I don't think we are debating the wording of this text, so there is no significant difference between us, thanks for your input, it might be worth now putting this article back into the french wikipedia?? Could you possibly transfer the Caliphate article into french too? Aaliyah Stevens 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues on tone.

Some parts of this article - particularly "Legality of misyar marriage" - read similar to a text book, and not an encyclopaedia. I'm not versed in Islam at all, so I myself am quite reluctant to make any changes. Six Times Is Enough (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)