Muta marriage in Egypt

[brnidokiegurl 0]

in the US when someone says something to you you don't agree with or even if you feel slandered.

this kinda of attitude when here will most definately either get you in a fight or shot and i dont think this is being considered....things here are different. I know Ahmed said at his store someone comes to buy and doesnt say (good morning, how are you etc) he ignores.....i told him you do that here and they will jump over counter and attack you...they have no idea not everyone here is nice....and they wont be the rulers

The reason I brought up slander is it is a legal thing (although it is not what is occuring here), and if you wished to go after someone legally, being very hot-headed and then throwing personal insults back is NOT going to help your case. At all. Ever. Even though it's what most of us what to do in the heat of the moment! I don't know, but I'm reading VW's posts as being very calm and matter-of-fact. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her, she is not losing her cool. Losing one's cool also tends to make them lash out in an unproductive way, so you end up saying things that are either not as organized as you would have liked, or just reactionary. We all do it at times, and it's a lot easier to tell someone to cool off than to cool off yourself... but sometimes it is better to take that advice and then either forget it or reapproach the situation when you're better organized.

well from experience (with kids) someone wrong and put in a corner will start to get annoyed in trying to work their way out of a corner saying and doing most anything.....someone who has nothing to hide and has told the truth has no reason to fight back

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, I'm so hurt.

This discussion has been going on for three days. You just got here and you want to not only run it, but you're already joining in on the insults you were just condemning. Didn't take you long to show your true colors. See how easy it is?

I have read all the threads surrounding this topic. I know that people are interested in the arguments and it would like it to continue but that there are many who do not like the insults and have tried to calm things down several times. That is laudable because it would be a shame to close such an interesting topic. However if, as the person who is most educated on this topic, you insist on using your education to berate a particular couple then you have also lost critical perspective. You can't seem to see this, which as I said is a shame because if you just dropped the invective this topic could continue productively.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Normal person + Anonymity + Audience =

Just to make it Crystal Clear -- I think *both* sides in this exchange are guilty of hurling personal insults and name-calling. This has turned what could have been an educational and helpful discussion into pages and pages of mud-slinging.

The question is -- will either side rise above this type of behavior, and take the conversation where it needs to go in order to actually assist or inform anyone else ?

[Peikko 1,575]

Very well put Wife of Mahmoud. All that is required is to step away from the personal and continue with the information. I am sorry, I put the onus on VW because she is the more educated of the two, but that was perhaps unfair.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well, you can't always get what you want. This is a public forum and, frankly, few here know enuf about the subject to know how to evaluate it. That is a frustration for me.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, you can't always get what you want. This is a public forum and, frankly, few here know enuf about the subject to know how to evaluate it. That is a frustration for me

Frustrating, probably, but do you just want to be right about this particular couple, or do you want to share things you have learned in order to help those who struggle to graps the concept? Any Western woman who would like to marry a Muslim should be armed with information and not just information gleaned from a message board but it seems few are. You have some very intersting information on this subject that could be useful to someone contemplating this type of union.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry, what I would like to do here and what can be done are two different things. I don't control how people react. Some get defensive at the drop oof a hat, ppl take side, others resent u, some are so sold on boyfried Islam, they repeat like robots what they have been told by their SO. And my favorites (not) are the ones convinced that Islam is whatever you want it to be coz there are no rules in Islam, its all about intentions.

[Caladan 19]

Well, you can't always get what you want. This is a public forum and, frankly, few here know enuf about the subject to know how to evaluate it. That is a frustration for me

Frustrating, probably, but do you just want to be right about this particular couple, or do you want to share things you have learned in order to help those who struggle to graps the concept? Any Western woman who would like to marry a Muslim should be armed with information and not just information gleaned from a message board but it seems few are. You have some very intersting information on this subject that could be useful to someone contemplating this type of union.

This is a good point. Aside from all the drama about who's p!ssed off God and who's a fornicator and who needs to say shahada again and who's insulted whom and whether Stefano's evil plans will succeed (tune in next week on Days of Our Lives!) are some good non-Islam-related questions:

1) Are muta (I think that's the right term) marriages considered something that your average respectable Egyptian (mutatis mutandis for other countries) family would be happy about? If so, why? If not, why not? Does this vary by country? (I.e., since Egypt doesn't allow Americans to marry there these days, people might see the alternative as just as legitimate, given the circumstances preventing full marriage.)

2) Are these marriages considered something that isn't good enough for a respectable person, but okay for an American? If so, is this indicative of a problem?

3) What happens when one of these marriages ends? Is it considered akin to a normal divorce, or it is more like breaking up (for us Westerners) with a boyfriend or girlfriend (i.e., no responsibilities towards the ex or the ex's family.)?

4) Is there any correlation between these kinds of marriages and fraud? (i.e., 'I'm not really married, sweetie, I'm doing this for us and once I'm in the US and married civilly settled I'll send for you, my real intended.')

[mohamed N melinda 0]

Oh, I'm so hurt.

This discussion has been going on for three days. You just got here and you want to not only run it, but you're already joining in on the insults you were just condemning. Didn't take you long to show your true colors. See how easy it is?

I have read all the threads surrounding this topic. I know that people are interested in the arguments and it would like it to continue but that there are many who do not like the insults and have tried to calm things down several times. That is laudable because it would be a shame to close such an interesting topic. However if, as the person who is most educated on this topic, you insist on using your education to berate a particular couple then you have also lost critical perspective. You can't seem to see this, which as I said is a shame because if you just dropped the invective this topic could continue productively.

i wish she is that educated person at least in islam she just play with english words

when all fiqih ummah agree on what we did was legal islamic marriage no single muslim in this earth will say that our marriage was Haram just vw for her sick personal desire we i disagree with her about non muslim man marry muslim women

when i asked her about evidence from quran and sunnah as i am new muslim and dont like alot about islam (lol) to learn from her education she didnot provide it or at least from fiqih

nothing from fiqih nothing from quran nothing from shariah

just from her opeinion and mind how funny

i am not taking it personal problem as she did i knew very well my marriage was legal islamically and halal

she come one time and say your marriage is mutaah another say your marriage is misyar another say orfi

and i have post whats differnce between the three of them and my marriage is no one from them and she even avoided talking about this point

and how smart you are when u asked why i dont register the marriage now in egypt after they allow it . so we will have to file again k3 smarty and wait more time

vw say something new or say nothing and respect the poeple mind here they had enough from you

[Sofiyya 1,687]

when all fiqih ummah agree on what we did was legal islamic marriage no single muslim in this earth will say that our marriage was Haram just vw for her sick personal desire we i disagree with her about non muslim man marry muslim women

There are quite a few who say what you did is wrong because not all of them agree is is right. I work with eight scholars and that all went thumbs down on it.

when i asked her about evidence from quran and sunnah as i am new muslim and dont like alot about islam (lol) to learn from her education she didnot provide it or at least from fiqih

The source of fiqh is supposed to be the Quran and Sunnah. When you were asked to post ayat to support your nikah, you said we can wait forever. You couldn't do it.

nothing from fiqih nothing from quran nothing from shariah

See above.

just from her opeinion and mind how funny

Fiqh is opinion, and I don't express an opinion that I can't back up.

i am not taking it personal problem as she did i knew very well my marriage was legal islamically and halal

she come one time and say your marriage is mutaah another say your marriage is misyar another say orfi

and i have post whats differnce between the three of them and my marriage is no one from them and she even avoided talking about this point

I said you have a traveller's/tourist marriage, which is an unregistered contract entered into for sex by Muslims and foreigners. They are common in ME tourist areas and are performed at lawyer's offices, like your's was. You had a tourist marriage, no legality to it, no imam, no masjid. You must have been telling ppl you married in a masjid, because that;s what they were saying. Did you tell them that?

and how smart you are when u asked why i dont register the marriage now in egypt after they allow it . so we will have to file again k3 smarty and wait more time

See, that just points to the fact that you are not married, and you know it. Egypt is not aware of this "marriage", neither is the US. You wanted a roll in the hay and took a shortcut to pleasure. Then you didnt want to follow the law at home, but you will follow the law in the US. You taught your woman to disrespect the law in a Muslim country, then she went home to follow the law in a non-Muslim country. Talk all you want about fiqh, you haven't done what the ulema require in Egypt either.

vw say something new or say nothing and respect the poeple mind here they had enough from you

Waiting for you to say something new.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Interesting article

‘Misyar marriage’ hot topic in Saudi Arabiaby Michel Hoebink*

30-08-2007

In Saudi Arabia, a case against a woman who is married to two men has sparked a debate about the concept of 'misyar' or traveller's marriage: is it an important modern addition to Islamic law, or is it a legal form of prostitution?

The woman entered into a 'misyar' marriage contract with two men, each of whom thought he was her only spouse. The double marriage only came to light when one of the men missed a plane and returned to find his wife with the other man. In Saudi Arabia, men can have up to four wives, but women who marry more than one man are deemed guilty of adultery under the country's Sharia law. The woman in the present case faces possible execution by stoning.

Mistress

Although the idea of women being stoned to death for committing adultery fails to excite much controversy in Saudi Arabia, the case of the woman with two husbands has re-ignited discussion about misyar marriages. Such a marriage, contracted under Sharia law, legalises what best can be described as the sort of relationship a French man might have with his mistress.

Under most misyar contracts, a woman gives up a number of rights she would have in normal Islamic marriage, such as her right to the provision by the man of living space and maintenance, and that he should live with her or, if there are other wives, that he spend an equal amount of time with her. The popularity of misyar marriages has increased enormously in Saudi Arabia over recent years, with thousands of men looking for such relationships via the internet.

Secret

For men, the advantages of a 'misyar' marriage are obvious. In a society where adultery is punishable by death, it provides the possibility of a legal relationship with a woman without the social and financial duties associated with ordinary marriage. The men want to be able to visit their 'misyar' brides whenever they want, without having to pay maintenance or build a house for them. 'Misyar' marriages are also often kept secret from the family and from 'official' first wives. Possibly the most important advantage for men is that, through such contracts, the payment of the enormously high dowries, usual in Saudi Arabia, can be avoided.

Women choose this kind of contract only if they, for some reason, cannot enter into a normal marriage. For reasons including the huge dowries expected from them, Saudi men are increasingly marrying foreign brides. Despite the lack of statistics, this is thought to have led to the alarming increase over recent years in the number of unmarried or divorced women in Saudi Arabia.

Solution

The issue of misyar marriage is being hotly discussed by clerics and the broader Saudi public. Supporters say it is a reasonable part of Sharia law through which two people voluntarily enter into a contract with each other. They see it as a good solution to what is perceived as the problem of divorced women and older spinsters.

Opponents say it is a threat to the position of women and the family. Saudi women's rights activists are outraged by it: they say ordinary marriage, which gives men far more rights than women, is bad enough, and that this sort of marriage robs women of the few rights they have normally.

Rejection

Many traditional Muslims, too, reject 'misyar' marriage. Sheikh Ahmed al-Kubaissi from the United Arab Emirates thinks there is no formal problem with 'misyar' marriage. It fulfils all the demands of Islamic law. Nevertheless, he describes it as contrary to the norms of decent Islamic life. A respectable woman, in his view, would never enter into such a contract.

[Ihavequestions 419]

Okay. You all are right. Let's remove the names of specific individuals (because that is where the hurting starts) and discuss the issue at hand.

With that, let's look at the following scenario:

Two USCs want to marry. They enter an attorney's office in their hometown and sign a contract that says they agree they are married, in front of two witnesses. They go home, have a little "We agreed we're married!" party with their families and move on with their married life, which eventually includes children.

Some years later, husband has a mid-life crisis, quits his job, buys a red Corvette, and starts dating a woman half his age. The agreed-to marriage is now a train wreck and she's so outta there. The missus wants the children, child support for the children, alimony (spousal support), and half of all of their material possessions - the house, bank account, mini-van, family pets, silverware, all of it. In order to enforce what she believes are her rights as a woman who agreed to be married, she takes her copy of the contract into the courthouse and asks a judge for a divorce and to give her what she believes she is entitled to.

How well do you suppose that "agreement" would hold up in court?

It wouldn't because a signed statement does not make a legal marriage. At best this couple simply "put in writing" they would be living together as if they were married.

At minimum, marriage in the U.S. requires a license (permission) and an officiant to perform a ceremony in which the couple are pronounced man/husband and wife - and that pronouncement is the moment when the couple becomes husband and wife. The marriage must be recorded in the local courthouse where becomes a matter of public record. No matter who performs the ceremony or where it occurs, be it a religious official in a place of worship or a government official in a government building (i.e., court house), every legal marriage in the U.S. contains those same elements: permission, the pronouncement, and a legal record.

Are you with me so far?

I hope so because here lies the problem.

Because there was never a legal marriage, this couple would not end their relationship with divorce. Instead, the wife would go about claiming her rights (custody and, if she's lucky or has a really sympathetic judge, "Pal"-imony) and the rights of her children (child support) by filing a series of law suits. Custody of the children, child support, and "Pal"-imony would be handled in a family court and a civil suit (think: Judge Judy) would have to remedy the rest. And, because, in the U.S., children born of a marriage are legally the husband's children and this is not a legal marriage, this wife is now in the position where she has to establish paternity and the man she agreed she was married to could argue the question right up to the DNA results. What could have been solved with one legal action becomes a series of actions quite quickly, all of which require money to claim as well as defend.

Marriage is NEVER simply an act before God. It is ALWAYS a legal matter, no matter what country's soil is under a couple's feet when they marry.

From the U.S. Embassy (Cairo) Consular Section which is certainly a must-read for every U.S. citizen planning to marry an Egyptian: "The only legal marriage for foreigners in Egypt is a civil ceremony performed at the local marriage court, which is in accordance with Islamic practice. Persons wishing a religious ceremony may arrange for one separately, but it is the civil ceremony that establishes the legal marriage."

"Court." Not an attoney's office. A court. Big difference.

While I can understand there have been problems which prohibited USCs from marrying Egyptians, I cannot understand the belief that, because they couldn't legally do something, convincing themselves they found an alternative legal solution somehow makes it legal when neither individuals or couples make law but only legislators.

(Sorry for the blathering. I'm tired this morning and really wanted to spend some time in this discussion because I do think it's important before the thread locked.)

[Caladan 19]

How well do you suppose that "agreement" would hold up in court?

One big difference between Islamic law and Anglo-American law is that the latter does recognize common-law marriages in some circumstances as just as legally binding as a marriage. She'd probably have a pretty good case for half the house.

And you're absolutely right that it wouldn't be a marriage, and as such wouldn't be automatically subject to the same legal wonkery in the event of the relationship terminating. And she certainly wouldn't be filing for a divorce.

[mohamed N melinda 0]

The source of fiqh is supposed to be the Quran and Sunnah. When you were asked to post ayat to support your nikah, you said we can wait forever. You couldn't do it

sure fiqih is from quran and sunnah and hadith . my marriage is the marriage all muslim do but not register by the court for some reason

and where is your evidence thats is haram nothing

and where your evidence from quran that your marriage 30 years was halal nothing lol

u lived in haram 30 years u should know that . Allah forgive every thing but when u deny it was haram thats the big problems

There are quite a few who say what you did is wrong because not all of them agree is is right. I work with eight scholars and that all went thumbs down on it.

there is non of them say what i did was wrong but you lol if u consider you from ummah eluma ( doubt it so much) since u r in doubt to be jsut muslim not ummah ulema AND YOU KNOW WHY

I said you have a traveller's/tourist marriage, which is an unregistered contract entered into for sex by Muslims and foreigners. They are common in ME tourist areas and are performed at lawyer's offices, like your's was. You had a tourist marriage, no legality to it, no imam, no masjid. You must have been telling ppl you married in a masjid, because that;s what they were saying. Did you tell them that?

who say halal marriage should be done by imam or in masid lol another fault as educated muslim woman!!!

u can call my marriage as you want as long as it halal in Allah eyes

See, that just points to the fact that you are not married, and you know it. Egypt is not aware of this "marriage", neither is the US. You wanted a roll in the hay and took a shortcut to pleasure. Then you didnt want to follow the law at home, but you will follow the law in the US. You taught your woman to disrespect the law in a Muslim country, then she went home to follow the law in a non-Muslim country. Talk all you want about fiqh, you haven't done what the ulema require in Egypt either

i am not married lagal by court in Egypt and i never said that but my marriage islamically is halal 100%

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Many traditional Muslims, too, reject 'misyar' marriage. Sheikh Ahmed al-Kubaissi from the United Arab Emirates thinks there is no formal problem with 'misyar' marriage. It fulfils all the demands of Islamic law. Nevertheless, he describes it as contrary to the norms of decent Islamic life. A respectable woman, in his view, would never enter into such a contract.

I found this excerpt particularly revealing of the conflict between law and morality in Islam. The bare bones basics of offer, acceptance, 2 witnesses is not about morality, but Islam most explicitly directs moral behavior. So, how is it possible for a scholar to condone a union based on offer, acceptance, 2 witnesses, but not require moral behavior to be part of intent? It's a tenuous and schizophrenic position to hold, and jurists producing fatwas have been drifting far from the Middle Way into territory that devolves Islam into a system that debases women to satisfy men. Then they shrug "oh, well", and leave the door open to allow for less morality and more leglaisms.

If you have studied the texts, you know that Islam is not meant to be like that. But Allah said men are weak and will fall into their bases behavoir if not conscious of their responsibility to women. We are losing our conscious and along with it, our credibiity.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Virtual wife