Sorry if it seems like I’m beating a dead horse, but after reading the addendum, it seems to me Sh. Hatem’s position is not completely at odds with what you’re saying. Granted, I haven’t read his full 100+ page essay on this issue, so I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think he insists on the mut’ah being permanent or semi-permanent. I think he’s happy to stipulate it as a lump sum, similar to how some Muslim governments do it (according to him, they set the price equal to 1-3 years of nafaqah). And he says he doesn’t use the word alimony; that wording came from Dr. Yasir Qadhi on The Thinking Muslim Podcast (though he does defend YQ’s statement, but he himself is not committed to the term or concept of alimony).
You say that for a wealthy man the amount of mut’ah could be on the order of tens of thousands of dollars, and that it provides “a financial cushion to transition to a new life post marriage”. Is that really all that different from what Sh. Hatem is proposing here? Of course you could say this is just one minority fiqhi opinion, but Sh. Hatem is not claiming ijma’ on the opinion.
Someone asked Sh. Hatem under one of his posts about a hypothetical scenario, how much should the man give his wife if she has no support structure, is an old woman, he divorces her arbitrarily, etc.? Sh. Hatem said 150k, a third of his total assets/equity. Perhaps you think this is way too much and his lack of an upper limit is where you two actually disagree?
I get that you’re focused on the motive behind this proposal and a philosophical critique of Western alimony, which you deem to be the actual source of the current conflict. But it’s not clear to me that Sh. Hatem is just trying to import Western solutions behind a smoke screen of fiqh. I do have more doubts about YQ based on his past statements, but Sh. Hatem claims that what he’s proposing here is not re-thinking classical fiqh at all and is actually just applying it correctly to our situation. Putting aside motives, is there a fiqhi argument against the hakim or arbitration committee obligating a man to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in mut’ah (if the wife has no support structure, is divorced arbitrarily, etc.)?
My focus has consistently been on the underlying principles, not specific individuals. The health of our intellectual tradition depends on engaging with ideas, not personalities. The core issues at stake go far beyond any single opinion.
The fundamental disagreement is methodological: it is the clash between a system of predictable, bounded rules and one of unbounded, discretionary power. The leap from a large consolatory gift to an award of one-third of a man’s total assets is not a difference of degree; it is a shift in kind, transforming mut'ah into a forced, ad-hoc division of property.
The fiqhi argument against such power is the sanctity of private wealth (hurmat al-mal). Islamic law is so protective of this that it voids even contractually agreed-upon excessive penalties, limiting them to actual damages (ḍarar). The question, therefore, is stark: if the Shari'ah restricts excessive penalties that were agreed to, how can it empower an arbitrator to impose an even greater one that was never agreed to at all?
This philosophical shift from a system of rules to one of arbitrary power is the different level at stake, with consequences for the entire community.
I get your point on ideas vs personalities. I’m not interested in personalities either - I’m interested in the arguments and validity of methodologies. But in a discussion between opposing viewpoints I think it’s necessary to be specific about exactly who and what one is responding to, in order to avoid talking past each other, strawmanning, and going on tangents.
In my ideal world, we would organize live discussions between scholars with differing views so that they can directly and more efficiently get to the bottom of their disagreement and show how they came to their conclusions. Then the interested layman like myself can evaluate both sides and go with what makes sense (granted most laypeople should probably just follow their local trusted scholar but a curious person may want to see how well their scholar’s views stack up against academic challenges - especially on high stakes issues).
Otherwise what we end up with is a controversial short snippet from so and so personality on a podcast, a bunch of people responding to said snippet indirectly in short form tweets, people responding to the responses without even knowing exactly what’s being referred to, and overall just a whole lot of unnecessary, beside the point, and redundant discourse that doesn’t move the needle forward.
Alhamdulilah your posts have been insightful and beneficial contributions to the discourse, both from the underlying philosophical perspective and the fiqh discussion.
My conclusion for now is that Sh. Hatem and AMJA’s position may be problematic due to going against the spirit of Islamic law, even if one can technically make a fiqhi argument for a large divorce payment in certain cases, and its application has the potential to be immoral if it results in arbitration committees unjustly taking large amounts of wealth from men.
I totally agree. Allah bless you, Shaykh.
لا فض فوك
Assalamualaikum Sh. Joe,
Hamza here from X.
Sorry if it seems like I’m beating a dead horse, but after reading the addendum, it seems to me Sh. Hatem’s position is not completely at odds with what you’re saying. Granted, I haven’t read his full 100+ page essay on this issue, so I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think he insists on the mut’ah being permanent or semi-permanent. I think he’s happy to stipulate it as a lump sum, similar to how some Muslim governments do it (according to him, they set the price equal to 1-3 years of nafaqah). And he says he doesn’t use the word alimony; that wording came from Dr. Yasir Qadhi on The Thinking Muslim Podcast (though he does defend YQ’s statement, but he himself is not committed to the term or concept of alimony).
You say that for a wealthy man the amount of mut’ah could be on the order of tens of thousands of dollars, and that it provides “a financial cushion to transition to a new life post marriage”. Is that really all that different from what Sh. Hatem is proposing here? Of course you could say this is just one minority fiqhi opinion, but Sh. Hatem is not claiming ijma’ on the opinion.
Someone asked Sh. Hatem under one of his posts about a hypothetical scenario, how much should the man give his wife if she has no support structure, is an old woman, he divorces her arbitrarily, etc.? Sh. Hatem said 150k, a third of his total assets/equity. Perhaps you think this is way too much and his lack of an upper limit is where you two actually disagree?
I get that you’re focused on the motive behind this proposal and a philosophical critique of Western alimony, which you deem to be the actual source of the current conflict. But it’s not clear to me that Sh. Hatem is just trying to import Western solutions behind a smoke screen of fiqh. I do have more doubts about YQ based on his past statements, but Sh. Hatem claims that what he’s proposing here is not re-thinking classical fiqh at all and is actually just applying it correctly to our situation. Putting aside motives, is there a fiqhi argument against the hakim or arbitration committee obligating a man to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in mut’ah (if the wife has no support structure, is divorced arbitrarily, etc.)?
My focus has consistently been on the underlying principles, not specific individuals. The health of our intellectual tradition depends on engaging with ideas, not personalities. The core issues at stake go far beyond any single opinion.
The fundamental disagreement is methodological: it is the clash between a system of predictable, bounded rules and one of unbounded, discretionary power. The leap from a large consolatory gift to an award of one-third of a man’s total assets is not a difference of degree; it is a shift in kind, transforming mut'ah into a forced, ad-hoc division of property.
The fiqhi argument against such power is the sanctity of private wealth (hurmat al-mal). Islamic law is so protective of this that it voids even contractually agreed-upon excessive penalties, limiting them to actual damages (ḍarar). The question, therefore, is stark: if the Shari'ah restricts excessive penalties that were agreed to, how can it empower an arbitrator to impose an even greater one that was never agreed to at all?
This philosophical shift from a system of rules to one of arbitrary power is the different level at stake, with consequences for the entire community.
I get your point on ideas vs personalities. I’m not interested in personalities either - I’m interested in the arguments and validity of methodologies. But in a discussion between opposing viewpoints I think it’s necessary to be specific about exactly who and what one is responding to, in order to avoid talking past each other, strawmanning, and going on tangents.
In my ideal world, we would organize live discussions between scholars with differing views so that they can directly and more efficiently get to the bottom of their disagreement and show how they came to their conclusions. Then the interested layman like myself can evaluate both sides and go with what makes sense (granted most laypeople should probably just follow their local trusted scholar but a curious person may want to see how well their scholar’s views stack up against academic challenges - especially on high stakes issues).
Otherwise what we end up with is a controversial short snippet from so and so personality on a podcast, a bunch of people responding to said snippet indirectly in short form tweets, people responding to the responses without even knowing exactly what’s being referred to, and overall just a whole lot of unnecessary, beside the point, and redundant discourse that doesn’t move the needle forward.
Alhamdulilah your posts have been insightful and beneficial contributions to the discourse, both from the underlying philosophical perspective and the fiqh discussion.
My conclusion for now is that Sh. Hatem and AMJA’s position may be problematic due to going against the spirit of Islamic law, even if one can technically make a fiqhi argument for a large divorce payment in certain cases, and its application has the potential to be immoral if it results in arbitration committees unjustly taking large amounts of wealth from men.
جزاك الله خيرا