Misyar Marriage

Question: Anyone have some anti-miscegenation quotes? I know I've seen some flying around here over the past few weeks. Extra credit if they're from a high-ranking Mormon!

Answer: June 17,1978 - Church News headline "Interracial Marriage Discouraged" in same issue which announces authorization of priesthood for those of black African descent. Sources at church headquarters indicate that Apostle Mark E. Petersen requires this emphasis. Alma 3:9"...whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed." "Utah law also prohibited marriage between a white person and a black (including persons only one-eighth Negro). As late as 1941, Counselor J. Reuben Clark used the [N] word . . . in his First Presidency office diary. In 1947, the First Presidency wrote that 'the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, [is] a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now.' In other words, the First Presidency condemned interracial marriage as abnormal. "In 1950, Counselor Rueben J. Clark added that 'anything that breaks down the color line leads to marriage.'

Question: What was the churches stance on interracial marriages when the states banned it? When the Anti-miscegenation Laws were enacted in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States what was the churches stance in the ban? What did they preach about it?

Answer: All I know is that the Catholic Church has never opposed interracial marriage.

Question: Are cults (e.g. Mormonism, Orthodox, Catholics) generally against miscegenation? By miscegenation I don't mean marrying with other races, but marrying with people who are not their kind--it seems that the Utahans have little interest in marrying out of their cult, likewise with the xenophobic Greeks and Pedoph, er..., Roman Catholics who think they are the "only true faith?"

Answer: No. They aren't. People throw the word cult around just to above it all. They may or may not know what Weber meant when he gave birth to the sociological notion. A good example would be Pope Benedict XVI's investigation into the Legionaries of Christ. This small order of consecrated men and women will be making headlines because once again, the pope instigated inquiry in the Catholic Church. There are about 900 consecrated women in this order's Regnum Christi wing in 30 countries. The pope started the inquiry because the founder of Legionaries (Marciel Maciel 1941) was accused of sex crimes long ago before he died. And this pope is en route to weeding out all crooks from the Church. Within the Catholic Church, it's working. Protestants and public school officials. I'm looking at you. You're next. So keep feeding the hatred and bigotry against the Catholic Church, though it won't help you. You're gonna fall. Key thing to keep in mind when you read the press reports: everything you hear will be based on what eight people said to a couple of wire reporters. 8. Out of 70,000 members of the Legionaries of Christ. The Associated Press will call the order secretive. They aren't. They just don't give any time at all to public relations. Zero. Journalists don't like that. It means they can't get information. It frustrates them. So they blame their lack of ability to gain information on the subject by labelling them secretive. It would be more accurate to say the members of the order have no time to fool with questions by people who aren't explicitly working towards the goals that Jesus Christ laid out for mankind. If you've given up everything including money, sex and power to follow Christ, you're not going to be inclined to entertain clueless questions from reporters. You'll ignore them completely because "talk" don't matter near as much as "walk." The Vatican and preaching members of clergy and consecrated life do plenty of talk if reporters want to listen. No one in the Catholic Church forces a person to become a member of clergy or consecrated life (nuns, monks). It is perfectly content for clergy or religious who took consecrated vows to renounce their vows and lead lives as one of the billions of laity. No problem. It is a choice of those people who enter clergy or religious/consecrated offices that is at issue. Once the person has made the choice, then they either stick with it or they give up. There is no judgment passed on either those who continue or those who give up. It is up to the individual. In that specific light, the definition of "cult" fails. The US Military is more of a cult than anything in the Catholic Church. Leadership can choose to be very strict, moderately strict or just plain strict. No one takes on a consecrated life or a life within the clergy unless they are willing to sacrifice all for Jesus Christ. The rules of each order, of each "branch," are clear. The person can choose or not choose to participate. So when you hear people leaving and they start grumbling, they often are assuaging their own guilt or feelings of failure. Why? Because most of the people in clergy and consecrated orders DON'T give up or fail. Almost all of them do not give up or fail. The handful that do give up or fail should not be judged, but then the press would not have a salable story unless it was peddling "trial by public opinion." Would it? Of course not. Another point. Maciel was known to have allegations of sexual impropriety against him for much of his life. The press will tell you the Church did nothing about it until after he died. That is a lie. The Church always takes sexual abuse allegations seriously and attempts to rehabilitate or reject the priest/nun. It will not talk about that to anyone just like law enforcement will not talk about it according to their code of police ethics and such. Doesn't mean nothing is being done. Means the press is clueless. The Catholic Church has given the world of psychology a chance to prove it can rehab people who can't live up to vows of chastity. The number of clergy and consecrated who fail to live up to this vow are few. But they are expensive to rehabilitate. It's about time the Church realized that if a person cannot give up hedonism, they probably can't live a Christ-like life. The guilty need to sit in the pews and pray like the rest of us as sinners who were unable to follow Christ in the apostolic example. They need to seek professional help on their own, not expect the Church to guard and protect them for a lifetime. . .

Question: Miscegenation laws in the 1600's in Italy.? does anyone know where i can find anti-Miscegenation laws. i need a website because it's for a research paper.

Answer: Perhaps this may help: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=SFa&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=miscegenation+laws+in+1600s+in+Italy&spell=1

Question: Why do some parents abuse their children with racial heterogeneity? Children of different race grow feeling left out. They know what they are, who to date, where to live, and who to associate with. This one the reasons miscegenation was outlawed. Children are stricken with mental anguish. Will abuse your children this way or will you do the holy thing and mate only with yo pr own kind? Would you be one of those heartless parents? Why do some parents abuse their children with racial heterogeneity?

Answer: Hah! This isn't a question, it's KKK propaganda. Sorry, but most of us are heterogenous, and descended from "miscegenation", even if we look pure. Only the most aboriginal Asians and Africans are even close to being a "pure race". White people are the most mixed of all.

Question: Should the anti-miscegenation laws be reenacted? It is for school. Best answer to the correct one. Should they be reenacted for Americans?

Answer: This is probably terribly ignorant, what were they?

Question: Miscegenation-means interracial marriage between a white person and a negro? Give feedback on definition? The definition is given by Black Law Dictionary

Answer: I think that you should have rephrased your definition of the word. FYI your definition is wrong. This is the definition: a mixture of races; especially : marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race. NOTICE that it does not say negro, neither does it name a specific race that a white person is involved with. Check yourself.

Question: Is it racist to date only your own kind or is it Bible ? It is a persons business to date who ever they feel comfortable with . If they want to do miscegenation and muddy the water, then its their business .

Answer: The race / skin color of the other person was not the issue, then it is not racist. There are verses in the Bible against a believer to marry or date people of another religion, to marry or date non believers.

Question: Was slavery legal when the US Constitution was first written? What was the Amendments that makes slavery illegal in the US? What about miscegenation? Why do people still believe that Southerners are sometimes racist?

Answer: Slavery was legal at the time the constitution was ratified. The 13th amendment banned it. The south is still sometimes considered racist as a residual effect of history - they were the ones who *didn't* want to end slavery, and slaves were almost exclusively black. There was also the "Jim Crow" era after slavery was banned and then the fact that states like Arkansas resisted desegregation in the 1950s (look up the Little Rock Nine, for example). I've lived in the south my entire life (Arkansas/Tennessee) and racism is still real. We're not all racists, thankfully, but it still has an unfortunate effect down here.

Question: Why are people so clueless about miscegenation (race mixing) in the U.S.A.? I mean, why do people speak of miscegenation as though it's something that started long after blacks and whites came to America? Blacks and whites were having relations and marrying before laws were created to forbid such relationships.

Answer: Regardless of what a few morons have said, I understand where you're coming from. A lot of people talk about ''miscegenation'' in the U.S. like it's something that initially began with "white" slave masters raping their "black" female slaves. And, despite what someone said above, this (and other) misconceptions about ''miscegenation'' are NOT limited to "non-whites". This ignorant belief is actually quite popular among ALL groups INCLUDING "blacks". You are quite right- Those whom society refers to as "blacks" and "whites" did engage in romantic relationships (including marriage) before laws were enacted to forbid them. There were several people on this land who, as a matter of fact, produced what we call "bi-racial" (or "mixed") babies long before the U.S. (or rather what would later become the U.S.) became entirely dependent upon "black" slave labor. This occurred long before racism and ideas of "racial" superiority/inferiority became fixated in our history. Ignorant people piss me off. But I try to consider the fact that they've been programmed to swallow all kinds of poo (including the fallacy that there's even such a thing as biological race). REPOSTING FOR THE GAZILLIONTH TIME-- Race is only valid as a social concept. In other words, we can divide ourselves according to culture, nationality, etc... and group these differences together according to "race". This is a logical concept. I.e., it's within the nature of logic to refer to different cultures, nationalities, etc... as different races. But, as a scientific classification, it only applies to other species. To suggest otherwise is to be of the opinion that the Homo-sapien species can be divided into sub-species, which it cannot. There aren't enough biological differences between the so-called races to consider them separate and readily distinguishable races. (NOTICE that I said, "...aren't ENOUGH differences." Only an idiot would claim that there aren't ANY differences between people. However, as I said, there aren't ENOUGH differences to determine that there are sub-species of humans. There are genetic differences between Calico and Tabby cats, for example; but that doesn't change the fact that Calicoes and Tabbies are NOT sub-species of the Felis-catus. Understand my point?) The idea of biological race is ridiculous and was introduced by the master class for the purpose of division- to cause the rest of us to buy into the fallacy of "racial" superiority and inferiority. This led to "racial" hatred. Race based prejudice (i.e. racism), as we know it here in the United States, began during slavery. When Africans arrived as slaves, they entered into a society in which it wasn't uncommon for masters to beat their "white" slaves to death. Owning "white" slaves was prevalent. Likewise, there weren't only "white" slave owners but "Indian" slave owners as well- and, later, "black" slave owners. (Yes, since slavery wasn't initially a race based institution, "blacks" and "Indians" who assimilated into "civilized" society could own slaves.) Were they equal in number? No, but they did exist. Inequality flourished, but it wasn't due to a racial divide or a racial superiority complex. In fact, it was more common to push "white" slaves past the point of human endurance, because "white" slaves were cheap and thought to be of lesser quality than "blacks". The "black" slaves were more expensive, and, being from Africa, they were thought to have more strength and stamina. Therefore, to lose a "black" slave was to lose a tidy investment. It wasn't until after slavery began to shift to an order of racial inequality that "white privilege" and contempt for "blacks" had fully developed. "White privilege" as we know it and contempt for "blacks" were unforeseen results of a divide and conquer method implemented by the slave masters. Up until this point, "whites" and "blacks" shared common problems. Both were oppressed and abused in ways that we can only imagine. Whites and blacks worked side by side. They socialized with one another. And, eventually, they revolted together. The master class started to fear that, together, slaves would become capable of overcoming their masters. And, thus, racism was born by planting seeds of fictional "black inferiority". "Blacks" were chosen as the inferior race for two reasons: 1) With Africans being lesser in number, it was anticipated that they could be easily controlled and forced to remain in slavery, which was the most desired outcome since 2) they were more valued as slaves. The above shift occurred at different times in different colonies and regions due to various factors. The master class polluted the land with lies of "white superiority" and began offering benefits to the socially inferior "whites". Laws were enacted which forbid relations between "whites" and "blacks", which required that "white" servants whose indentures were complete be given food and land (The same didn't apply to "black" servants when their indentures were up.), and which imposed strict restrictions on "black" servants and slaves. Some masters freed their "white" slaves or permitted them to purchase their freedom. This created a loss of labor which was a problem addressed by extending the indentures of "black" servants indefinitely- leading to the end of servitude and the dawn of a society completely reliant upon "black" slavery, a society that also systematically destroyed American Indian life, and a society that embraced "white privilege". The master class didn't anticipate that their successful divide and conquer method would later also succeed in destroying their slave system. Convincing "white" people of their "superiority" led to hatred of "non-whites". There were some "whites" who opposed slavery for moral reasons, but many opposed slavery because their hatred for "non-whites" was so intense that they wanted them out of the picture (hence the KKK, Jim Crow, etc...). Understandably, many "blacks" grew to resent "whites". But the master class used this to their advantage. And, thus, racism has infected both "whites" and "blacks". Likewise, as this nation became more and more of a melting pot, what began among "whites" and "blacks" spread to all other groups of people- which was/is encouraged by the master class. Racism was, and still is, a ploy to support the rich and powerful- to guarantee that they remain wealthy and in control (while the rest of us suffer from poverty and injustice, buy into the lies that only one "side" is suffering, and then blame the other "side" for that very suffering- suffering that was caused, and is perpetuated, by the master class). Racism isn't going anywhere unless people remove their blinders and realize what the master class has done. The powers that be have always regarded us as inferior- all of us who are "low rank", "uncivilized", "unworthy", etc... Nothing will ever change if we continue to swallow the lies, play the blame game, and fight amongst each other. They want to keep us right where we are in order to ensure that we remain oblivious to the fact that they've never really been motivated by so-called "race". We're all being manipulated, just as we've always been. The master class still lives. And yes, they primarily consist of those labeled as white people. But white isn't why they continue to rule. They continue to rule because they've managed to keep most of us ignorant, which is precisely why history isn't taught and reported accurately. Awareness of "white slavery" would fly in the face of "white superiority" and threaten to destroy the master class.

Question: When a Misyar or Mutah marriage ends who gets the kids? If the mother gets them, is the father obligated to support his children? If the father gets them, is the mother obligated to support her children? @noor: No, yo momma.

Answer: Under Misyar, the mother is more entitled to the rights of the children, and the father is obliged to support his children, as happens under normal marriage. As for Mut'ah, the question of identifying the father of the particular child/ren should arise first before the rights of custody.

Question: Is Misyar marriage commonly accepted in Egypt? I would highly appreciate some honest answers from Egyptian guys out there for the following questions: •How common is misyar marriage in Egypt? •Is it normally accepted in the society for a guy to be in such a relationship when he can’t afford a normal marriage? •Is it required of the guy to tell his first wife/girlfriend that he is having such a relationship with another woman? (Say if he was in a relationship or married to someone overseas for example and he is visiting Egypt.) •Is it not considered a fancy way of legalizing open prostitution? •I understand it was acceptable in the time of the Prophet (pbuh) due to traveling etc…but how do the girls (and guys) of this century feel about this issue as these relationships do the following: oGive the green light to the guy to walk out anytime oHave sexual relationship with whoever he chooses oNo husbandly responsibilities, hence no security that normal wives deserve oNo way of stopping the guys even if they are married as they use Islam as an excuse :( PS PLEASE understand that this is not an attack on any one culture etc. I am very aware that this happens in most Arab countries but I am really looking to understand this issue from an Egyptian point of view. Just trying to figure out what is considered “normal” for them which may not be in other Islamic cultures. Thank you.

Answer: 1-It's not common in Egypt while it's more common in the Arabian gulf area 2-Socially it's not acceptable and people who feels the problem of both men and women who need it can accept it for them and may be not to be for everybody. 3- Not obliged to tell his girlfriend. According to the Egyptian law he must inform his first wife if he is married. If he didn't inform her that doesn't spoil his new marriage, but his wife may use it against him in court. From the Islamic view, I can't answer and you should ask a specialist for Fatwa. 4- It can be used as you said and it can also solve many widows and divorced women problems, it depends on how it's used. 5- It's your point of view, but there are many points of views either the scholars or the women who consider such marriage is better than nothing while they are getting old. The conditions of valid marriage in Islam is fixed and it doesn't matter whatever the society call it. I provide here different links that you can find what you want about it. I didn't find Fatwa from Egyptian Dar El Ifta about it, but I expect they allow it according to the conditions of valid marriage in Islam. You can send them your question in different languages, but just one question in each message. My personal opinion is : If Egyptian Dar El Ifta allow it, it's not forbidden. Socially I accept it for men or women who are not married and can't afford normal marriages.

Question: Is there such a thing as "Misyar" Marriage in Islam? Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim - Salaam Alaikum wa Rahmatullah I just wanted to comment on the "misyar" marriage in Islam. It came up in connection with the "muta'ah" question. There is NO such thing as a misyar marriage in Islam. It is a made up phrase similar to the "urfi" marriage that is practiced in some countries. The Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, never referred to it or practiced it and neither did his Companions or those who came after. It is a modern invention. That being said, the components of a "misyar" marriage are NOT haraam. If a man and a woman make a contract, they are free to include ANY stipulations they wish as long as those stipulations do not go against the Qur'an and Sunnah. For instance, if I want to marry but I want to stay in my parents' home, I can stipulate that in the contract, and a man can either agree to that and we marry or he can disagree and we don't. I can give up some of my rights as I prefer..... I can write that I give up my right to financial support. I can give up my right to equal time if my husband to be has another wife. I can agree to live in a separate country. All these things are permissible in a contract between two people as long as the openly agree to it. It is still a marriage, a normal marriage, and there is no need to name it "misyar". As long as the fundamentals are observed, meaning, wali, mahr, agreement, and announcing the marriage, then it is a 100% valid marriage contract. The one big thing that makes a contract invalid is a time limit, which would make it the forbidden "muta'ah" marriage. Allah has made marriage a simple process and has left open the possibility to modify the marriage contract to deal with our particular circumstances. The forms are simple and unalterable; the details are open to whatever permissible changes the couple wish to make. There is no need to invent a new term to confuse people. And Allah knows best. Fi Aman Allah You Know Who, it might seem odd to you and me, but it might fit the circumstances of the couple involved. Like he's in college and living in a small dorm room with a roommate. We don't restrict the small details one can make because people have different personalities and what might work for one might not work for another. Zeinab, yes, a nikah should just be called a nikah without this made-up word, and then whatever specifics are in the contract are the stipulations or conditions or terms or whatever one chooses to call it. There may be specific legal terms that have arisen over time and of course it is dependent upon what language one is using. Civil, thank you for the clarification. It is true that a woman can seek to "reinstate" her rights that she has given up in the contract. It's like renegotiating the contract of a baseball player after he's had a great season, lol. Both parties are free to amend the contract at any time as long as they are in agreement. So if a wife wanted to take back her right for financial support, she would communicate in a loving manner to her husband and they can come to a new arrangement. Of course, he can decline and divorce her if he chooses.

Answer: sorry dear i dont understand what u mean well.do u mean to say muta'ah is harram? if yes u shud know that it is not...muta'a was halal in prophet's time and always it was...Umar the khalifa said that it was halal in prophet's time but i say that it is harram... u can see it in the history of islam...

Question: mut'aa marriage vs. al misyar marriage? I know about all that Sunni and Shaii fights here and I DON'T want to start one. My question is; what is the difference between "mut'aa marriage" = temporary marriage for Shiaa and "zawaj al misyar" which is also a temporary marriage for Sunni?? I personally disagree with both too. But I don't see why one is acceptable by one sect and the other is totally not acceptable by the other sect. that's what I'm trying to understand. My question has nothing to do with the validity of those marriages. I just want to know why Sunni think Shiaa are bad for allowing "mut'aa" and why Shiaa think Sunni are bad for allowing "misyar" while they are both the same.

Answer: Mutah marriage was allowed in the time of the Prophet (SAW) and Shias and educated Sunnis believe afterwards too. Mutah is permitted by the law of Allah, the Shariah. In Islam there was no such thing as 'misyar' in the time of the Prophet (SAW). Misyar is a Sunni biddah - it is a temporary marriage but the groom doesn't tell the bride when he will divorce her - what a joke.

Question: Ramadan, what to say after reading this article on misyar marriage, they are cruel to women beyond imagination? Ramadan, what to say after reading this article on misyar marriage, they are cruel to women beyond imagination? http://www.zawaj.com/misyar-marriage-legalized-promiscuity/ Any children born go to the man's family AFTER AGE SEVEN -- SHE RAISES THE KID FOR 7 YEARS AND THEN HER CHILD IS TAKEN FROM HER!!!!!!!!! DOES IT MAKE YOU WANT TO SCREAM IN OUTRAGE? What else can you say about it? What excuses will be offered for why it is right to take a mother's child from her? How anti-love and anti-Islam and anti-Christ will the defenders of misyar and mutaa be? Roger, I don't see that type of marriage described by Allah in Qur'an.

Answer: To the above poster, it's not talking about marrying a child.. Jeez. I find it absolutely appalling that in this day and age there exist societies in which women are so oppressed that they must enter into a part-time marriage simply to have a man to give them permission to make a living for themselves. ... and Muslims wonder why we westerners find their religion archaic.

Question: Is Misyar marriage widely practiced in Saudi? What do you think about it?:-) Thanks lol@Dino;-) LOL@Hamad: Great answer;-))) Have fun;-P

Answer: I have to dissagree with Hamad if he sees a Misyar marriage as "Islamic Prostitution" in general. Only if misused I would consider it as this. First of all you should see where this kind of marriage got it's roots. It from times where men were away from home for a long time. Well, I don't want to get into it, why men can't wait to be back home, but this is the case since men exist. Anyway, it is right, that these marriages often are secret (at least the 1st wife mostly doesn't know), but also this you can not only see from a Westerner's view. 1. There are still many arranged marriages in the Islamic world, so that many women see things different and are not so emotional involved as long as they are financial secure and supported. In Islam a wife HAS to have s....if he wants it and having a headache 7/7 won't work. 2. There are circumstances where a couple is seeking for a Misyar marriage on purpose. For example if both are not financial stable, both still live at home, but want to be together openly. A Misyar marriage can also lead into a regular marriage with all the benefits/rights for the woman. 3. If a woman in a Misyar marriage becomes pregnant, she is a married woman and doesn't have to face the nasty consequences of getting pregnant without being married. 4. There are certain woman who are looking for a Misyar marriage or at least don't mind to be in one. Think about the older women, widows and divorced women. For these women it's hard to find a partner in strict Islamic countries. But also these women have desirers. They might be happy to be independent and not having their husband at home all the time. 5. Of course a Misyar marriage can be misused and it is. But - these days often also from women, receiving dohwries, getting "supported" for a while and then look for the the next "husband". As paradox it may sound, but if more women would do it that way, the less men may look for a Misyar marriage:)) 6. I also disagree with Hamad, because their is no reason to call an (for example only) American girl a prostitute because she has maybe 4 or 5 boyfriends before she gets married and receives gifts from them. Same the other way around. 7. Where Misyar marriages are really misused is, when men travel to poor countries and parents give their young girls away for 3 or for weeks into this kind of marriages and receive money for it. Otherwise, if grown ups know what they are doing and no one is forced, it's a way to beat the system for certain people in certain situations and isn't for anybody to blame them for their decision. Sorry, I don't know how widley Misyar marriages are spread in KSA. In the UAE they were on the rise before the economic crisis started. Prices jumped up so that many men sent their families home and got themselves another "wife" to share the appartment with, share the rent, spend time, etc and at the end, the men returns back home and the woman also. Take care.

Question: what is misyar marriage and are sunnis allowed it?

Answer: It's a marriage where the husband and wife live separately. Sunnis are allowed it as long as it fulfills the requirements of Shariah law.

Question: which is marriage website for zwaje misyar in saudi arabia? i want zwaje misyar how i find that information about girls.

Answer: Mr.Choudhry is that you?

Question: Who came up with Misyar marriage? Does my question anywhere talk about Mutah? Where does it ask about Mutah? Why change the subject to Mutah? Im asking about Misyar, NOT Mutah. I dont understand how much more clearer can my question be, im asking about Misyar, i know all about Mutah, im not asking about Mutah, im asking about Misyar, WHO CAME UP WITH MISYAR MARRIAGE? is it really that hard to understand a simple question? I'll ask it again if i have to

Answer: i think the practice originated in Saudi Arabia & now its becoming more & more frequent in other Islamic countries. Islamic scholars are debating whether it is permissible or not. More info: http://www.islamonline.net/english/Family/2005/07/article04.shtml

Question: I go vacation to Amerika and want vacation marriage (Misyar), how much? I love Alllllah he make me happy I ment to put this in R&S.

Answer: Las Vegas. You can get anything there.