Halala and Mutah - Crime against humanity?- Page 3

Originally posted by: Ranbhoomi

Spiritual intent destroted in halaha and mut'ah??

Halala...an elevating spiritual philosophy ???

Halala...for protection????

I mean knowing you I am not surprised you are OK with women being passed around in the name of halala..

You seem to find a lot of positivity in the concept of halala and mut'ah

Anyways...whether its halala or jauhar...women are the ones suffering thr most ...the only reason is the barbaric islamic desert cult.

But the contrast in your tone is quite visible talking about women subjugation in both these cases. Not once you mentioned how islamic ideology wrecked havoc for hindu women forcing them to commit jauhar.

You have so much good to say about these shameful islamic practices women are put though in 21st century but there was no such research or positive outlook for hindu civilization instead you flat out blamed hindu male patriarchy for the suffering of Hindu women which was actually caused by the Islamic invaders.

But kudos to you that you have very well justified halala and mutah in the year 2026 without any shame which even a fanatic mullah wouldn't be able to. Usko bhi ek baar sharam aa jayegi that he is advocating his women sleeping around with for the mistake he himself has made.

It is really disgusting that a woman is finding halala a spiritual philosophy and protection for women.

You should be ashamed of yourself for writing so much garbage defending such disgusting practices!!! There is nothing spiritual or philosophical about forcing women to sleep with her father in law, brother in law or a random mullah.

It can only come from a pervert mind. No god will advise anyone to put their women through such horrible torture.

So kindly stop defending such perversion on a decent forum.

brilliant!

It's so obvious: members with an equal bias against me don't read what I really wrote but what they imagine I wrote... well, I think there is no remedy for that

How was Halala 'originally elevating spiritual philosophy' when it punished woman for the actions of man? Where do u see spirituality in that? 🤔

If Halala was to punish husbands for their hot tempered decisions of Talaq then why were their wifes made to pay for it? How would the man feel punished if his ex wife had to make sexual relations with another man before he could remarry her? Unless her making sexual relations with another man would somehow embarass & punish the ex husband for making that hot tempered decision. Wouldn't this come under patriarchy?

Also, Why weren't ex-wives given a choice, even in the original version of halala, to not undergo Halala but instead punish their husbands in other ways like public lashing, beating or extracting heavy financial penalty before remarrying them, if they so wanted. Wouldn't that be better than making them have physical relationship with another man, without their choice in this matter, before they could remarry their husbands? Wouldn't women feel humiliated making sexual relations with another man, against their wish, just so they could remarry their divorced ex-husband? Don't you see patriarchy, Misogyny or anything else wrong in this 'originally elevating spiritual philosophy'? 🤔

T h i s is the only thing you seem to have understand rightly through my writings:

" Wouldn't this come under patriarchy?" E v e r y thing which got changed (by men and favouring the male position) after the founder of Islam had died wasn't in the sense of what he may have wanted for the Arabic community. Under Mohammed (and I repeat what I already wrote): Early Islamic legal reforms introduced unprecedented rights for women, including independent property ownership, inheritance, and the explicit right to refuse or initiate the dissolution of a marriage.

Nathu, honestly, I think I made my negative take on Halala and Mutah sufficiently clear. I just tried to follow the path how the initial legal framework got changed (Islam had been a socio-political 'religion' from the very beginning, btw.). I won't elaborate on that anymore as, personally, I'm strictly against them. As for me, I posted the essay on your teasing request, that's all.

Originally posted by: Clochette

T h i s is the only thing you seem to have understand rightly through my writings:

" Wouldn't this come under patriarchy?" E v e r y thing which got changed (by men and favouring the male position) after the founder of Islam had died wasn't in the sense of what he may have wanted for the Arabic community. Under Mohammed (and I repeat what I already wrote): Early Islamic legal reforms introduced unprecedented rights for women, including independent property ownership, inheritance, and the explicit right to refuse or initiate the dissolution of a marriage.

Nathu, honestly, I think I made my negative take on Halala and Mutah sufficiently clear. I just tried to follow the path how the initial legal framework got changed (Islam had been a socio-political 'religion' from the very beginning, btw.). I won't elaborate on that anymore as, personally, I'm strictly against them. As for me, I posted the essay on your teasing request, that's all.

How was Halala in its unchanged form, under Mohammad, not a system of patriarchy when it punished woman for hot tempered decisions of man? How would ex wife sleeping with other man punish the husband if he didn't think that he has to share something that he possessed with another man before he reacquires it? I'm honestly surprised and also not surprised that u don't see patriarchy in the original unchanged form of halala under Mohammad. Do you even think it's punishing the wife for his husband's deed? Couldn't there be other forms of punishment for the husband to discourage repeated talaq like public lashing or financial penalty instead of forcing the woman to sleep with another man, even in Halala's original form under Mohammad?

No you called it an elevating spiritual philosophy which it is absolutely not for reasons ive mentioned in my previous post. Not surprisingly you completely evaded anasweing those questions. And then you wonder why people question your intent. 🤷

P.s. "and the explicit right to refuse or initiate the dissolution of a marriage". Please show the source of this claim that woman got the right to refuse the dissolution of marriage.

Oh, Nathu...

"How was Halala in its unchanged form, under Mohammad, not a system of patriarchy when it punished woman for hot tempered decisions of man?"

The exploitative, pre-planned system of Nikah Halala did NOT exist under Mohammad. Patriarchy invented "Nikah Halala" later.

The unchanged, original law was an ultimatum to the man ...he wouldn't get the woman back, the woman would be free... she could marry (or not) another man. Only after the new man died a natural death or she divorced him, then the former husband probably could have the chance to get the woman back.

It only became a horrific tool of institutionalized misogyny because later patriarchal structures allowed men to turn a strict prohibition into a sick transactional service, forcing women to pay the price for male anger. The prophet himself who may have anticipated the 'loophole', condemned it (well-documented), he cursed both the man who performs this temporary marriage and the first husband who requests it, famously calling the intermediary man a "borrowed billy-goat". Under Muhammad, the term 'Halala' did not even exist.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Oh, Nathu...

"How was Halala in its unchanged form, under Mohammad, not a system of patriarchy when it punished woman for hot tempered decisions of man?"

The exploitative, pre-planned system of Nikah Halala did NOT exist under Mohammad. Patriarchy invented "Nikah Halala" later.

Oh is it so? I didn't know that.

Ok i just checked it indeed did not happen under Mohammad.

Intent: To punish the husband for rashly divorcing his wife a third time, forcing him to let her go permanently.

So the wife had to be permanently let go. But why this injustice with the wife when the fault was of husband? 🤔

Why couldn't the husband be punished by public lashing or financial penalty for divorcing third time and allowing remarriage after that punishment instead of permanent barring from remarrying that wife. Why punish the wife by doing so? Is this also spiritually elevating somehow? 🤔

Now please show the source of - "and the explicit right to refuse or initiate the dissolution of a marriage". Please give me the souce where Mohammad gave this right to woman that she could refuse the dissolution of marriage.

Okay, that is worth a more detailed reply

Under Islamic law, a wife cannot block a Talaq once the husband pronounces it.

However it is noteworthy that Islam originally granted women the explicit right to refuse a marriage contract in the first place (consent or no consent), and the explicit right to initiate the dissolution of a marriage herself via Khula.

Since you asked for the exact sources where the Prophet Muhammad granted women these rights, here are the undeniable, authentic texts (from AI):

1. The Right of a Woman to Refuse/Void a Forced Marriage

A woman cannot be married off against her will. If a father or guardian forces her, the Prophet ruled that the marriage is invalid.

• Sahih al-Bukhari 5136: The Prophet Muhammad explicitly stated that a woman's permission and consent must be sought before any marriage contract is valid.
• Sunan an-Nasa'i 3269: A young woman came to the Prophet because her father forced her into a marriage to raise his own social status. The Prophet immediately put the matter entirely in her hands, giving her the absolute right to cancel and refuse the marriage.

2. The Right of a Woman to Initiate Divorce (Khula)

If a woman is unhappy-even if her husband did absolutely nothing wrong-she has the institutional right to dissolve the marriage by returning the dowry.

• Sahih al-Bukhari 5273: The wife of Thabit ibn Qays came to the Prophet and said she found no fault in her husband's character, but she simply could not stand him. The Prophet asked if she would return his garden (the dowry). When she agreed, the Prophet ordered the husband to accept it and divorce her immediately.

You asked why this injustice happens to the wife when the fault lies with the husband. You are right that there is no "spiritual elevation" in a woman suffering for a man's temper. If a man is toxic enough to rashly throw his wife away three times, she should be permanently free from him.

The real crime and institutionalized misogyny happen when later patriarchal structures forced the woman into a staged 'Halala' marriage just to fix the man's regret-treating her body as a legal 'reset button' for his anger.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Okay, that is worth a more detailed reply

Under Islamic law, a wife cannot block a Talaq once the husband pronounces it.

However it is noteworthy that Islam originally granted women the explicit right to refuse a marriage contract in the first place (consent or no consent), and the explicit right to initiate the dissolution of a marriage herself via Khula.

Since you asked for the exact sources where the Prophet Muhammad granted women these rights, here are the undeniable, authentic texts (from AI):

1. The Right of a Woman to Refuse/Void a Forced Marriage

A woman cannot be married off against her will. If a father or guardian forces her, the Prophet ruled that the marriage is invalid.

• Sahih al-Bukhari 5136: The Prophet Muhammad explicitly stated that a woman's permission and consent must be sought before any marriage contract is valid.
• Sunan an-Nasa'i 3269: A young woman came to the Prophet because her father forced her into a marriage to raise his own social status. The Prophet immediately put the matter entirely in her hands, giving her the absolute right to cancel and refuse the marriage.

2. The Right of a Woman to Initiate Divorce (Khula)

If a woman is unhappy-even if her husband did absolutely nothing wrong-she has the institutional right to dissolve the marriage by returning the dowry.

• Sahih al-Bukhari 5273: The wife of Thabit ibn Qays came to the Prophet and said she found no fault in her husband's character, but she simply could not stand him. The Prophet asked if she would return his garden (the dowry). When she agreed, the Prophet ordered the husband to accept it and divorce her immediately.

You asked why this injustice happens to the wife when the fault lies with the husband. You are right that there is no "spiritual elevation" in a woman suffering for a man's temper. If a man is toxic enough to rashly throw his wife away three times, she should be permanently free from him.

The real crime and institutionalized misogyny happen when later patriarchal structures forced the woman into a staged 'Halala' marriage just to fix the man's regret-treating her body as a legal reset button for his anger."

You wrote -

"and the explicit right to refuse or initiate the dissolution of a marriage".

This makes it seem that the woman had rights to refuse dissolution of marriage.

Which u accepted now as

"Under Islamic law, a wife cannot block a Talaq once the husband pronounces it."

This is what i was asking that whether or not Islam, gave the right to the wife to refuse talaq once the husband pronounces it.

Khula i already know about.

You wrote - If a man is toxic enough to rashly throw his wife away three times, she should be permanently free from him.

Why are you taking away the freedom and right of the woman whether she wants to stay with her toxic husband or not. It is for the woman to decide not a man ... Someone said Patriarchy ... (in this case Mohammed himself forced this permanent ban whether or not the women wanted)...🤔

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

You wrote -

"and the explicit right to refuse or initiate the dissolution of a marriage".

This makes it seem that the woman had rights to refuse dissolution of marriage.

Which u accepted now as

"Under Islamic law, a wife cannot block a Talaq once the husband pronounces it."

This is what i was asking that whether or not Islam, gave the right to the wife to refuse talaq once the husband pronounces it.

Khula i already know about.

You wrote - If a man is toxic enough to rashly throw his wife away three times, she should be permanently free from him.

Why are you taking away the freedom and right of the woman whether she wants to stay with her toxic husband or not. It is for the woman to decide not a man ... Someone said Patriarchy ... (in this case Mohammed himself forced this permanent ban whether or not the women wanted)...🤔

bold: accepted... it is a bad wording... sorry

And I completely agree with you about the last point about - until now - I didn't give my own opinion: Mohammad just changed the Arabic habit of husbands to 'divorce' their wife whenever they wanted but equally to take her back whenever they wanted, so the women had been like a puppet in the hands of men/their husbands. The change by Mohammad wasn't a complete change as the wife can't refuse - it still leaves more power to the husband. Nevertheless, the husband had to pay and when a wife wanted divorce, she - THEN - got it too. It just shows that also prophets are humans and not infallible. Still, Mohammad undoubtedly wasn't a misogynist.