Talk:Prostitution in Iran/Archive 1

Nikah mut'ah
Darwinsbulldog: Most people, when talking about nikah mut'ah, do not mention prostitution. Check for instance the difference between this: and this: And only one of those books that do mention both does in fact page mention them in the same context. As you can see here in that one book:, it is not exclusively Sunnis who treat nikah mut'ah as prostitution but it is still not something assumed. This is a common enough belief to be mentioned in the article but it is certainly not something which should be taken for granted.

You can't source to the definition. All you can use the dictionary as a source for is for what the definition is. Applying that definition is a different matter.

You are wording things, making definitions, in such a way that makes easier to make the claim you are trying to. Would you mind saying which dictionary you are using at least? Here on wikipedia the definition of nikah mut'ah is "a fixed-term marriage contract"..."that allows couples to have religiously sanctioned sex for a limited period of time, without any commitments, and without the obligatory involvement of religious figures" and prostitution as "the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire". Just going by those defintions is not enough to give such an interpretation. Munci (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Munci is right. Sigheh (Nikah mut'ah) is not prostitution. It's marriage, but temporary. Not that "In Sigheh, Woman can even ban her husband having sex with her". (not in Nikah, which is everlasting until talaq) Only some of Sunni muslims consider Sigheh as prostitution. In Iranian Popular culture, To Sigheh somone just for having sex is also considered as Kolah Shar'ee. (Kolah Shar'ee means trying to cheating on Islamic laws) Amirreza talk 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Munci and to whom others it may concern;

Please do not take this personally but from my own experience; it has only been Shia Muslims who did not consider Nikah Mutah aka Sigheh to not be a type of Prostitution. Every other person, regardless of their beliefs, classify Sigheh to be a type of "Prostitution". By using logic; we categorize words according to the meaning of the word. For example; we would say an “American Bulldog” is a “Carnivora”. To understand why the American Bulldog is a type of Carnivora we have to understand what relation the “American Bulldog” has to “Carnivora”. Not every “Carnivorag” is an “American Bulldog” but every “American Bulldog” is a “Carnivora”. Why? The definition of a Carnivora is a meat-eating animal. And since the “American Bulldog” eats meat it is put into that classification of “Carnivora”. It is by applying the object to its own definition to that of the class can we organize our logic. If we do not organize the words according by their definition then classes can never be made. We must first find what the definition of the word is and if it fits a class then we must apply it to that class or else we are not applying any order not only to logic itself but to words also. “Prostitution” means the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money. If any word(s) fits this category then automatically it will be assigned to the class of “Prostitution”. Nikah Mutah aka Sigheh is temporary marriage for sex and in exchange the woman, very rarely the man, is compensated money for her/his sex service. According to Shia Muslim scholars; the temp marriage does not need consent of anyone unless the female is a virgin, male virgins are not spoken about, where then the male needs her father’s permission. Majority of the time the divorce time is set to expire after intercourse is over. Before the male can ejaculate into the female he must first give her the due fee, money, for providing her sex service to the male companion. Very rarely is it the female who requests Sigheh and if she does then she must pay the fee for the male sex service. As it is clearly stated; Nikah Mutah aka Sigheh is the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money therefore it belongs to the class of Prostitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinsbulldogs (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ni Original Research! I think your information on this is very limited. You said " Nikah Mutah aka Sigheh is temporary marriage for sex and in exchange the woman, very rarely the man, is compensated money for her/his sex service." I strongly suggest you to read this:

Sigheh can be without having sex and woman can ban the man having sex with her. (for example, see Ruhollah Khomeini's fatwa ) Many Shia Scholars and marjas, Declared that to Sigheh a Prostitute is Haram. (like Fazel Lankarani  and Makarem Shirazi,  for example. I just found their fatwa online) There is nothing recieved by woman in Sigheh but Mehrieh, which can be something different from money and is not for sex service. anyone does what you said under the name of Sigheh, is making a Kolah Shar'ee. (read my past answer) Amirreza talk 14:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any personal views on this matter; rather it is factual evidence I only put forth with logic. Sigheh is a Persian word standing in for the Arabic form Nikah and Mutah. Arabs never used both Nikah and Mutah together; it was only the Persians, Shias, that created this combination "Nikah Mutah". When the last Persian Empire, Sassanid Empire, was defeated by Caliph Omar; the Persians were naturally angry so rejected his rule. Omar saw the Persians practicing the forbidden Mutah Muhammad outlawed and reinstated it illegal for the Persians to use. The Persians covertly made the Muslims think they were also Muslims by practicing Taqiyya and Tabarra, deception and hate, and made a religion Shiaism which counters Islam's original practices and rejecting it's leaders aka Caliphs. Omar is considered by Shias to be worse than Shaitan (Devil), while Sunnis conversely view him as the opposite (the wall blocking Shaitan). According to ELAINE SCIOLINO from the New York Times Sigheh is a form of Prostitution. According to your own Ayatollah Khamenei []; Mutah doesn't need the permission of the virgin girl's guardian for her to have sex with grown old men. Money doesn't necessarily mean "cash", it can be anything of value so it fits with the term "Mahr". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinsbulldogs (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I said anything about your personal views on this matter? I just said your information is limited. Firstly, Sigheh IS NOT A PERSIAN WORD, It's Arabic, but it has a different meaning and usage in Persian. Second: "Omar is considered by Shias to be worse than Shaitan".?! Who said this? Third: I read the New York Times' article and I didn't see anything suggesting that Sigheh is a form of Prostitution. Please show me the sentence. forth: Sign your posts with ~ ! Amirreza talk 17:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to ask: What do you mean "your own Ayatollah Khamenei"?! Amirreza talk 17:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the link via wikipedia's YouTube guidelines WP:YOUTUBE Dwanyewest (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood Dwanyewest. Amirreza; Your reference links to those Shia scholars are only in Persian language. Can you give a ref site that has English so I can understand what they are saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinsbulldogs (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If u wanna verify the links in Persian, you can ask somone who knows Persian or use Google Translator. Amirreza talk 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Expansion
I have expanded the article using many of the sources shown in the previous thread. I think the organization of the article is suitable to the topic, but I am open to any suggestions. If people have more reliably sourced text to add, please do so. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please discuss any topic you want to bring to the article in the talk page, before adding. I am going to revert your edits now. You are welcome to discuss any topic here.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "Expansion" is nothing but a POV fork written like an editorial, synthesizing questionable biased  non-academic neo-con sources like FrontPage Magazine (the mouthpiece of neo-conservative activist David Horowitz)  and Fox News. Stick to the topic, which is "Prostitution in Iran". Use only academic non-political sources which treat prostitution as their main topic, and a social subject, not as some sort of an attack device in their political and ideological "crusades".  Kurdo777 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The restored materials by Kurdo777 are good and informative. I should have paid more attention that the whole content doesn't have problem, so I am apologizing user Binksternet for this.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need some kind of despute resolution here. I'm not entirely in agreement with my esteemed colleague Binksternet on his edits (FrontPageMagazine.com is not WP:RS). But the rvts by Kurdo and aliwiki make the article sound censored and badly written. (This sentence:  Prostitution in Iran may under some circumstances incur various punishments ranging from fines and jail terms to execution for repeat offenders ... is no way to start an article on prostitution in a country) --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "which revts" by me are you talking about? I actually restored the encyclopedic parts of Binksternet's edits. The current article needs improvements, no doubt. But Binksternet's version reads like a sensationalist editorial from NewsMax. We need to stick with basic objective facts, as reported by expert non-political academic sources focused on this topic. By the way, I fail to see what exactly is wrong with the opening sentence on punishments. Be more specific please. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To Boogalouie; just I reverted edits of Binksternet. Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia is based on Consensus. Citing some reliable sources doesn't give an editor the right to write anything s/he wants.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The expansion is not a POV fork, it is an expansion of what was a horribly inadequate article. The deletions by Kurdo777 and Aliwiki are an affront to the reader, as they removed all connection to the temporary marriage that is considered a form of legalized prostitution by many Iranians (and even more foreigners). The massive deletion took out any reference to the government of Iran hiding the severity of it prostitution problems. The article by Donna M. Hughes, a cited scholar expert in human rights, prostitution and women's rights around the world, is a reliable source based on who she is, not on the news source that first printed it. Censored is exactly what this article has been and would be if the massive deletions are left out.
 * More from Hughes:
 * "Women in Iran – A look at President Khatami’s first year in office", (1998) "Temporary marriage, in which a man can marry a woman for a limited period of time, even one hour, in exchange for money, is permitted in Iran. Earlier this year, Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi, a prominent religious leader called for a revival of this practice so clerical officials could have religious sanctioned sexual relationships with women. This practice is an approved form of sexual exploitation of women, and allows the regime to have an official network of prostitution."
 * Teens in Iran cites Hughes regarding prostitution.
 * "Islamic Republic's Sex Scandal"; Iran Press Service quoted the Hughes piece from FrontPage Magazine.
 * What this article must have is expansion to fit the available sources, not contraction to hide the unfavorable parts from view. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Consensus and WP:Ownership. I told you, reliable source is not enough for you to write anything you like. Just read your first sentence: Prostitution in Iran involves two main categories: prostitution which is illegal nationwide, and a form of legalized prostitution instituted by the Shia Islamic government, known as nikah mut‘ah or sigheh.. Such great POV, incivility in writting and impoliteness is not acceptable here. You must bring your topics first here, discuss it with involved users, and after achieving a consensus about each topic, you can add it to the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there are no ownership issues here. Instead there is the issue of ignoring the elephant in the room. There is no need for the slow method you propose to put in place to decide on issues which are so blazingly obvious that they have trickled down to the level of travel guides such as Lonely Planet. You say a "reliable source is not enough" for me to write anything I like, but I did not write anything, I wrote what the reliable sources said. Show me even one instance of my writing straying from what the reliable sources say. I am fully aware that this topic is a sensitive one, but at the same time it is an important one for human rights, and Iran has been the subject of many criticisms about its record on prostitution. This article cannot sweep the mass of criticism under the rug—it cannot ignore the elephant in the room. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I answered you below. in addition, you can't ignore the policies that you don't like such as Consensus, Ownership of articles, and so on, and just lean to WP:RS. I need to sleep for now. --Aliwiki (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You tell me I have ownership issues after you blindly deleted all my 5× additions, and the additions of User:Chrono1084, until the article was back to the recent Kurdo777 version? To me, that looks like you are projecting your practices on me, like it is you that has ownership issues. Regarding WP:RS and WP:Consensus, are you suggesting that there is a consensus regarding what goes in this article? I do not see whatever consensus you are referring to. Without a consensus, well-sourced material trumps a vacuum. Binksternet (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Consideration of all policies are necessary. Reliable source is necessary but not enough.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the expansion of the article after the massive deletions which do not follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines, and I have added the Economist article introduced by Kurdo777. In his version, the Economist was used to say that nobody knows how many prostitutes there are in Tehran. Of course that is true, but there have been estimates offered by expert sources, so I am ditching that bit of non-information from the Economist. Instead, I am bringing in its assertion that the average age is going down, and that runaways from poor families make up the majority. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, your edits are controversial, biased, and clearly against WP:Consensus. You need to seek consensus before implementing such controversial changes,, reverting and re-reverting is not the solution for you. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

US Govt POV
I removed a tag saying this article was too heavily based on the US government viewpoint. I have used a wide array of sources, but ones published in English, so the US and the UK will naturally be represented in the sources. Other sources include French and German news articles, and expatriot Iranians, or their offspring. Certainly, the US government has a series of annual reports about human rights in Iran, and when those human rights reports include prostitution, they are worthy of inclusion. I don't think the article is skewed too heavily in favor of the US government viewpoint, but it is certainly not well represented by, say, Iranian prostitutes. If editors do not like the current level of US government sources, more sources should be brought to bear, not an ineffective tag added to the article. What would be just great would be to have statistics compiled by the Iranian health and police services, but no such information has been released by Iran, making it difficult to get closer to the source. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with topics like Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam? Or maybe you didn't hear about this and thousands of other examples. The ownership of Human being and their rights are not given to few number of countries who want to mispresent themselves as the whole world, especially those who have the worst reputation in the whole human history, and billions of humans (who are living on this planet and have same rights with others) don't recognize dictated human right interpretations . Such matters become crucial when it comes to cultural points; no community can dictate its cultural views to other communities. Citing countries like England, France and so on doesn't legitimate U.S.'s view, else I can cite Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and so on view to legimitate Iran's view. Suppose I am an experienced driver in my country, but traveling to another country where I need to apply for a driving license. Despite the fact that I am a well-experienced driver, if I drive without license there, my action will be considered an illegal action.--Aliwiki (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the Cairo Declaration? None of its articles discuss prostitution. However, The League of Arab States, Arab Charter on Human Rights, May 22, 2004, declared that "forced labor, trafficking in human beings for the purposes of prostitution or sexual exploitation, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or any other form of exploitation or the exploitation of children in armed conflict are prohibited." If Iran followed this charter, successive U.S. secretaries of state would not have such a problem with Iran, and Iran would not be criticized in its annual reports. If you simply brought the information from some source such as the Arab Charter on Human Rights into the article, writing about how Iran does not follow it in practice, you would then be able to say that the article was not primarily the viewpoint of Americans. However, I see you did not do this; instead, you opted to make a massive deletion of well-cited text on the subject.
 * Your link to China's lame Confucius Peace Prize has nothing to do with prostitution in Iran.
 * Your discussion of which countries can dictate to other countries is lost on me; you are discussing the philosophy of how the world works but in my expansion of the article I am describing how the world works. I am not trying to correct the wrongs of the world, I am just telling the reader what is found in reliable sources on the topic.
 * You say that citing French and British sources does not legitimize U.S. views, and of course you are right, but citing French, British and German views as I did in the article means that the US Govt POV tag should not be placed. Your argument about adding information about Iran taken from Iraq, Azerbaijan and Lebanon is a good argument but you did not follow it—you added no views from these countries regarding prostitution in Iran.
 * My main point is that expansion of this article using sources from other countries is the answer, not deletion of U.S. government reports and their conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the prostitituion you are reading in these reports is a regional phenomenon and have nothing to do with Mutah. Don't mix the two concepts.  Also the US human rights report has the same legitimacy as the Confucius peace price in WIkipedia.. Wikipedia should follow strictly academic soucres written by experts in the field.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To Binksternet, my answer was general about cultural points and phenomena (which includes Mutah). Iran is an independent sovereign state. As I don't want to change the wrong world same as you, I can accept to inform readers about UN reports, despite existence of obvious discriminations like United Nations Security Council veto power. But a sovereign like US that has equal right to the other sovereigns (by taking into account its dark reputation in human history) has absolutely no right over other independent countries and can't decide for the whole world. US is neither owner of the world, nor the world kingdom is given to it and its self-interpreted imaginary extra rights don't legitimate any view.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the Shia Islam practice of nikah mut‘ah (temporary marriage) be included in the article prostitution in Iran as a form of legalized prostitution? Nikah mut‘ah is also called sigheh and mut‘a in the sources. Please see the list of sources that say the practice is considered by many Iranians to be legalized prostitution. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The religious practice of temporary marriage has been referred to by "most Iranians" and "most travelers" as legalized prostitution. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Binksert is cherry picking of sources, and none of them are specialist on the subject. None of these authors have a Ph.D. or academic position. Virtually all the quotes random sentence collection from idfferent books. . The first writer is a NY times reporter with no academic credentials. Indeed as a specialist source states (one with a Ph.D. and academic position):  ".. advocate temporary marriages to eradicate prostitution.." The subtle difference are many: which has a different term all together in Arabic and Persian languages. So there are major differences between the two concepts of temporary marriage and prostitution. However, it can be abused but in reality, temporary marriage can also last 99 years or 10 years or 5 years.. There are major differences and simply calling it "prostitution" by some ny times writer or popular article writers is not really the way to summarize it. A thorough investigation (rather than cherry picking) of books on the subject (not books mentioning it in a paragraph) will clearly show the differences. An example of such a book is by the Japanese scholar "S. Murato, "Temporary Marriage (Mut'a) in Islamic Law," Alseral XIII/1 (Spring, 1987),". --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NO The book cited by the Binkstert are not academic/professors and are "popular" non-academic books that have no place in Wikipedia  More academic books clearly state:  (it differed from prostituin).  One example on how it differs is the legal ruling by Ayatollah Sistani.  According to his decree, a man must seek his wife approval before enganging in such a marriage.  Note it has its own special conditions .   There is one academic book on the subject itself   and per Wikipedia rule, WP:FRINGE:"Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. This policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", which is essential to writing an encyclopedia.".  Again the only academically published book on the subject [].  Unfortunately using random news reporters and travellers to push a viewpoint is not the right way to edit wikipedia.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Temporary marriage can last up to 99 years. It is based on a contract by both parties and for example, both couples might not ask for any material things.
 * Children born from temporary marriage must receive inheritance unlike those from prostitution.
 * Temporary marriage is illegal for married Woman. A married man must obtain the permission of his wife (according to the major Shi'i guide Ayatollah Sistatni) to perform such a marriage.
 * I understand the concept might be very bizarre for Westerners, but in reality, most marriages in the West are "temporary marriages" (given the divorce rate).  The temporary marriage (say for 5 or 10 year) is a marriage that allows for divorce (theologically) without a permanent contract.   The issue is much more complex than calling it "prostitution"
 * According to the Shia law (Sunni Islam does not have temporary marriage): Temporary marriage cannot be performed by Muslim Woman with a non-Muslim Man. Similarly, non-Muslim woman must be people of the book and not
 * According to some intrepretations: A Woman in temporary marriage cannot get married after the termination of the contract for a period of half the contract.
 * All of your concerns can be answered by the addition of text and sources helping to define the subject further rather than the removal of temporary marriage as a kind of legalized prostitution. I'm reading your arguments as if they are in support more detail about how temporary marriage differs from prostitution. I can accept that, but I did not bring that kind of detail into the article because there is already an article about nikah mut‘ah. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, please provide just a few academic sources (written by Professors of Universities) that state such a connection. On the phrare "most Iranians", please bring an academic book by a Professor (not a random traveller).  Else I can also marshall a full list of sources from google books that state what temporary marriage is and do not connect it to prostitution.
 * The master's thesis by Sachiko Murata, the one from 1974 that you link to as the "one academic book" on the subject" (really a short scholarly essay), does not say that temporary marriage is not akin to prostitution. It cannot be used to counter allegations by the many reliable sources which equate prostitution with temporary marriage. Any book which does not address the connection to prostitution cannot be used here to say it is not prostitution. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources? The random NY times sources or scholars with no affiliation?  Murato has written another recent book on the topic [Law of Desire: Temporary Marriage in Shi'I Iran (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East) [Paperback]].  There is no word on prositution in these books as they are very different concepts.  I have outlined the details of some of the differences which you ignored.  The only other book you quoted is half misquote and the author does not say it is equivalent to prostitution .  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Binkstert's sources are a lot more academic than the ones Khodabandeh14 has to offer.--Chrono1084 (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How are a specific page in a book written by news paper reporters academic? I am looking at books written on the topic itself   not some random cherry picking from google books (all of the authors cited by Binksternt) have no serious academic position.  I have cited for example Juan Cole, which by itself is more academic than some NY-times reporter.  The only book offered by Binksternt that discusses the topic in detail does not blindly call Mutah as prostitution . Ofxord dictionary of Islam clarifies this concept .  Thus it is very different than prostitution which has another word for it in Persian and Arabic.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me explain more clearly my position: if Binksternet has one or many reliable sources that say that some or most Iranians think that the temporary mariage is legalized prostitution (as it seems to be the case), I support him as long he says who thinks what in the article.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me say it this way then. Please show me the credential of the author who makes such a claim.  I am not looking for a lonely planet google book type source.  Rather indepth analysis from a Full Professor within a decent university who done studies on the topic and makes such a claim.
 * I brought Schiko Murato [] a Full professor who has written a complete book on the topic.  One good source is better than 10 random google books source from non-expert authors with no Ph.D. or Professor positions.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NO. It's Temporary Marriage. not Temporary prostitution. Basically Marriage, in any of its style, is an anti-prostitution action and prostitution is an anti-marriage one. In several Asia African communities, Polyandry or Polygyny is practiced and recognized as Marriage not prostitution for that community. Neither whole Iran population are Shia Muslims, nor the whole Shia Muslims live in Iran. An Iranian Jew can marry his aunt while an Iranian Christian can't even marry his cousin; No one consider the former as prostitution and the latter as an anti-prostitution action.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument appears to be one of personal reaction, not of reliable sources. To counter the sources which say "most Iranians" or "many Iranians" consider sigheh to be prostitution you would have to show sources that contradict. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look here and if it's not sufficient let me know to provide more.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support the inclusion of the Shia Islam practice of nikah mut‘ah (temporary marriage) in the article prostitution in Iran, due the large number of RS Binksternet has marshalled on behalf of this view, AS LONG AS
 * the section is not too long and does not include non-WP:RS editorial/oped-type articles from places like Frontpage as sources (reportage and observations by journalists from New York Times and other reputable newspapers are just fine, no need for full professors, etc.), and
 * includes the opposition to this view (Example: "sigheh  has been called `a sort of legalised prostitution` [cite] and `a form of prostitution` [cite], while others have described it as a means of `curbing free sex and controlling prostitution.`" ) and
 * states (per Kurdo's complaint) that sigheh may/can serve as a form a prostitution, not that it is a form of prostitution. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment* a few good sources are better than large number of non-specialist sources and a website .  I presented a whole book on the topic of temporary mariage by Professor Sachiko Murata.  Let us discuss the academic credentials of the books prsented by Binksternet and narrow them down to the specialist.  Note in Wikipedia, a book on a topic written by Professor is more valuable than 10 books written by travellers with no academic positions.   So WP:WEIGHT works by specialty of the book and its author, and not the number of google books hit you can find.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your linked book by Murata does not address the many who say that temporary marriage is legalized prostitution. Murata cannot be used here. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works by strict academic sources. Not random google book sources.  Please bring the academic credentials of the "many" who claim Mutah is "legalized prostitituion".  I am not looking for some random website or source.  But a source with academic credential.  I brought a Full Professor who has written a specialist book on the subject.  Bring the scholars(not NY times reporter or website) you believe state otherwise who have written specialist book on the subject.  WP:FRINGE:"Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written.".  So just a few good sources instead of random google book sources written by non-specialist on the topic.  Discuss also the academic credentials of the authors (Professor?  Or just a writer for institution?  Or no affiliation?) Thanks.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only other book written by specialist on the topic you quoted is half misquote and the author does not say it is equivalent to prostitution . Read the whole book and analyze the word prostitution in the book.  It is differentiated from Muta' although it does say some secular Iranians consider the two to be the same before the revolution.  Showing random google books with no serious  academic affiliation from the authors is not WP:RS.  Please bring a few good WP:RS sources with the academic position of the author.  Else it doesn't matter what sort of NY times reporter or Lonley planet type book (Andrew Burke..) are brought.  Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have misread or misunderstood the guideline at WP:RS, where it says nothing like your assertion of "Wikipedia works by strict academic sources." If you go there and read it you will see it says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". That guideline tells us that the reliable sources in the list of sources is sufficient to bring in the concept of sigheh as a form of prostitution. These sources need not be academic, though of course scholarly sources are the best ones. And again, if a book about temporary marriage in Shia Islam does not specifically affirm or refute the assertion that the practice is considered by many to be a form of legalized prostitution, then the book is not useful here on this article. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mutah is not prostituion because in English it is translated as "Temporary marriage". Also please read WP:RS.  WP:RS does not mean to be NY times reporter or lonely planet type books.  See: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. ".  As per the books I brought they describe what temporary marriage is and one of them does make a distinction between prostitution and temporary marriage.  On the other hand, you have not provided a single academic source that claims the two are equivalent.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just chipping in here - an article in The New York Times is, in fact, a reliable source. Lonely Planet books probably are, as well, to comment upon the two you mentioned. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NY times is not reliable relative to scholarly journals and publications. It depends on the author of the article perhaps who does not even have an academic position.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read the whole discussion before making decision of undoing. You point of view has already been answered by user Khodabandeh in detail.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Khodabandeh14, the scholarly books would need to specifically refute the widespread assertion that many Iranians consider temporary marriage to be legalized prostitution. The one you say which makes "a distinction between prostitution and temporary marriage" is not one that refutes the sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reliable source I saw was that "Secular Iranians before the revolution" consider it a form.. but this is the majority of Iranians per se. Also these books do not need to refute something that is trivially wrong.  That is, you need to find the viewpoint of Mutah being like prostitution in these highly academic books.  The sort of popular NY-times or Lonely planet type books are not really academic.  I asked you to bring just several academic books with this regard.  Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Who can talk on behalf many Iranians? This is just job of an expert as user Khodabandeh mentioned.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NO, In fact representation of temporary marriage as prostitution is an example of the policy of WP:COATRACK. Mutah(Temporary Marriage) is not all about deriving sexual pleasure, its a complete form of marriage with a set time limit. It requires marriage contract to be pronounced with an agreed Mahr and Iddah (Waiting Period) after termination of marriage. Mahr is fixed in permanent Nikah as well. Since Mutah fulfills all obligations of a legal marriage I do not support it to be included in prostitution.
 * Pls Note - Prostitution requires no contract and no Iddah. A Prostitute can sleep with any person at any time and after intercourse has no waiting period to sleep with another. Including Mutah in prostitution will be a direct attack on a religion. Thanks. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything you said is true, but it does not change the fact that reliable sources are in agreement that many Iranians consider the legal and religious practice of temporary marriage to be a form of state-sanctioned prostitution. It does not matter what the practice is intended to be, or how it is supposed to be, or how it is described in religious texts, if the reality of it is such that many reliable sources say that it works like legalized prostitution in Iran. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong reject, Similarly Nikah Misyar which is an Islamic style of marriage similar to Mutah is practiced by Sunni Muslems in all Islamic world including Iran and nowhere it's interpreted as prostitution. There are many conditions which should be observed, when sombody wants to do Mut'ah. There should be a "Aqd" or legal contract like other kind of marriage. They should observe obligation to know who is the father of whom(Iddah).-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, how you describe the source's reliability in this, I am unable to find out. As you said above that it is state sanctioned prostitution. Please cite any Iranian constitutional source which echos your statement of state sanctioned prostitution. You may include it in this way  " though sanctioned by the Iranian government as temporary marriage many Iranians consider it as a legal prostitution " . This deals with Iranian constitution's legal issue hence those sources are more reliable than the assumptions of others or local masses.

Please Note - Unless the term prostitution is used in Iranian constitution we shall be going against Wiki policies and it will be OR and POV to term it as legal state sanctioned prostitution. I did a search about Mutah and did not find any official Iranian Government or Shiite sources deem it as prostitution.  the sentences need to be framed, if any reliable source claims it to be prostitution though the term is not used in Iranian official documents, we cannot accept that. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is wrong. This article is not entitled Constitutional definition of prostitution in Iran, and it is not entitled Prostitution in Iran as defined in its constitution. It is entitled Prostitution in Iran and it includes popular reactions published in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So you mean to say that only if people think its prostitution then we should say its prostitution, without any logic??? What if tomorrow there are opinions that permanent marriage is also one form of prostitution, will you then include that as well because you have relied on assumptions??? - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean to say that logic cannot help us in getting rid of the reliable sources which say that many Iranians consider temporary marriage to be a form of legalized prostitution. Logic alone cannot eliminate all those sources saying otherwise. Instead, other reliable sources would be needed to counter the mass at Talk:Prostitution in Iran. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Prostitution is a technical term which is defined by law. People's ideas are not the source of law. For example, many people may think relationship between boyfriend and girlfriend is not adultery, but according to law it is adultery. -- Seyyed(t-c) 08:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right, but this article is not limited to prostitution as defined by law. It is limited to prostitution as can be found in reliable sources discussing practices in Iran. People's ideas are the source of articles in this encyclopedia if not Shia Islamic law.
 * Your definition of adultery is not one that is supported by the article about it in Wikipedia. If you want, you can go there and correct everybody. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only academic book that talks about people's idea is "Secular Iranians before the revolution" . It also clearly states: pg 2""nonethess, it would be a mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, or to discuss it primarily from that perspective"  So here is an academic book written by a scholar on the topic itself (not in passing).  It is WP:RS unlike say the NY times report or Andrew Burke, and it is devoted on the topic.  Also for example, lets say 10% of Catholic priests are Phaedophiles and there is a minority of non-religious people who might have negative views on Catholics, does this mean that these peoples viewpoint should go under different articles about Phaeodophilia and related it to the Catholicism?  Of course not.   What I fail to see is really a good academic (Professor written ) book by you on the subject.  Note this is the book you cited but you did not bring the clear statement of the scholar herself.  Please bring couple of good sources from Professors who contradict this simple statement (from a specialist book).  Thanks.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing that book to the forefront of discussion. It is a fantastic book to be included in this article, and I did not investigate it thoroughly enough at first. Law of desire: temporary marriage in Shi'i Iran, by Shahla Haeri, says a number of things about temporary marriage as it relates to prostitution. It says:
 * "Colonialism has tried to equate mut'ah with prostitution". (Dr. Hujjat al-Islam Anvari quote)
 * "Yes. Mut'a is like prostitution, but because it has the name of God, it is permissible." (Dr. Hujjat al-Islam Anvari quote)
 * "Because temporary marriage is a contract of lease and its objective is sexual enjoyment, sigheh women are seen not only as object of exchange (indeed, they are referred to as the object of a lease, musta'jirih) but also as temporary sexual partners. There is thus a close structural association with prostitution. Consequently, the custom of temporary marriage and its propriety involve cultural questioning and conflicting feelings, and women who make use of it are also perceived with moral ambivalence." (pages 200–201)
 * "Outside of the religious establishment and the ongoing disputes between Shi'i and Sunni scholars, the attitude toward temporary marriage has been primarily one of ambivalence and disdain. Before the revolution of 1979, the secular Iranian middle classes dismissed temporary marriage as a form of prostitution that had been legitimized by the religious establishment, who, to use a popular Persian expression, 'put a religious hat on it. (page x)
 * "I have also demonstrated that the tension between the religious acceptance of temporary marriage and its cultural disapproval (because of its close association with prostitution) translates into a widespread moral ambivalence toward the institution and the women, but seldom the men." (page 1999)
 * "Challenged by secularly educated urban Iranian women and men and by the West, the contemporary ulama have been called upon to address themselves to the implications of this custom for modern Iranian society, to respond to the charges that mut'a is legally equivalent to hire or lease, that it is abusive of women, and that it is in fact legalized prostitution." (page 209)
 * Because this book is not shown in its entirety online in Google books, I will hunt it down in a local library. Thanks again for the tip! Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the author gets different opinions. However, "Secular Middle Class Iranians before the revolution" are a minority.  What matters with regards to these different opinions is how the author (who is the Professor) terms it.  He gets different opinions (pro/con) and in the end, she states: pg 2""nonethess, it would be a mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, or to discuss it primarily from that perspective".  Thats the bottom line.  It is a mistake according to the author and thats the bottom line as Wikipedia relies on secondary scholarly sources.  Thanks.  However, you can expand on the topic in an article on Mutah to give the various perspectives, although what matters  is the opinion of the author.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NO. Per my objections on this discussion page. I won't repeat myself, this is not the place for that topic. As somebody else pointed out, this is a clear example of WP:COATRACK. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the reliable source which can be used to clarify Shia viewpoint as well as Iran's Civil Law is "The Rights of Women in Islam". This book is written by prominent Shia scholar, Morteza Motahhari. Surprisingly, part of this book try to answer to the criticisms which resemble Mut'ah and prostitution. This book is a collection of articles which has been published before Iranian Revolution in a feminist magazine, "Zan-e Rooz". Motahhari has tried to cover the issue in three chapters: PART TWO:  FIXED-TERM MARRIAGE, Fixed-Term marriage II and Fixed-Term marriage and the problem of the harem.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Very Strong NO If we are going to include nikah mut‘ah (Shia Islamic temporary marriage) as prostitution in Iran, then we have to include Boy_friend , Girl_friendship in the western countries as severe prostitution in the related articles !! The suggestion of including a normal wedding convention in prostitution article shows the person who suggest has no insight about the community of Iran. That is a classic case of POV . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument that this article should not be one way until other articles conform to the same standard is not a good argument. If reliable sources say that temporary marriage in Iran has been observed by many Iranians to be a form of legalized prostitution, then this is a fact that should be mentioned in the article. Even if it is simply Ayatollah Shari'atmadari saying that foreigners often think that mut'a is legalized prostitution, that much should be present in the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support We seem to have sources supporting 2 points of view. While those seeing temporary marriage are in the minority, they don't exactly seem fringe.  The POV that temporary marriage is prostitution should be reported (briefly) along with the opposing majority view (along with some reasons as this seems the more strongly sourced). --Simon Speed (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support As long as the information is presented in a NPOV manner and has reliabe sources I fail to see the problem I fail to see the outrage. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PLease have a review to the whole discussion or at least to User Khodabandeh' comments. Reporters of some American or Israelian newspapers's view don't prove temporary marriage is prostitution. We need an academic source for such biased subjects.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * CommentAlborz Fallah I think you will find many western critics view Nikah mut‘ah as a form of prositution., , , , ,  Dwanyewest (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By definition, prostitution is sex in return for payment . The present political situation between Islam and west in general and Iran and west in particular is not good and western media has a special point of view about Iran that is not positive , then so many western critics who interpret the Shia-Iranian customs as negative are not reliable . First we have to make it clear if is it possible to classify any form of marriage under prostitution category ? I'm asking if hundred thousand critics say 2*2 makes 5 , can we use it as a fact ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support IMHO, after reading much of above it seems to me that the old traditional form of nikah mut‘ah implied a legitimate longer term relationship like the american term "living together". This was not prostitution. However it has now degenerated into a reference to short term paid sex relationship which is prostitution. The term has now been hijacked by Hookers and Johns.-Marcus334 (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any regular relationship between men and women can be manipulated as simple marriage can be abused for economical gains, but that does not means if many marriages became abused we can classify the word marriage under prostitution . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To User:Marcus334. nikah mut‘ah is completely different from short term paid sex. All styles of Islamic marriage, including nikah mut‘ah, have Mahr which is a gift of the man to the woman and it's not necessarily money; It can be anything that both agree. About its duration, nikah mut‘ah can last 100 years or even more! it's not necessarily short. A woman can't sleep with a another man after marriage expiration; and lots of other rules which make distinction between this marriage, along with other styles of marriage, and prostitution.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, reject - I doubt people participating in nikah mut‘ah would refer to it as prostitution. It would strike me as a potentially non-neutral attempt to label the practice if we were to call it prostitution on WP. Are their any real reliable sources supporting this idea or is it entirely original research? NickCT (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As user Khodabandeh mentioned in his comments on Jna. 7, just there are some reports by non-experts of this phenomenon, and there isn't any academic source.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * NickCT, the RfC clearly refers to a list of sources, and links to the list which can easily be found here on this talk page, at list of sources. Because you are asking whether there are any sources, I do not give your 'no' !vote any weight. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I don't really give anything you say any weight, so I guess we are even.  I've been over the offered sources.  The vast majority of them are either of dubious quality or are only making the a vague analogy (i.e. "nikah mut‘ah could be seen as prostitution") rather than explicit statement (i.e. "nikah mut‘ah is a form of prostitution").
 * That said, I'm not sure I'd be against some very qualified language about nikah mut‘ah in this article. Something like "It's been suggested by some sources that some nikah mut‘ah marriages constitute a kind of prostitution". NickCT (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: "sigheh has been called `a sort of legalised prostitution` [cite] and `a form of prostitution` [cite], while others have described it as a means of `curbing free sex and controlling prostitution.`" ? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment... I do not think people have understood the rule of wikipedia. One does not use a website.  Mainstream academic writing on the subject states: "nonethess, it would be a mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, or to discuss it primarily from that perspective"..  This is a specialized book on the topic (not some random quote from a website or a book), but written by a specialist on the topic.  One good source has more weight than 100s of random non-specialist book and articles.  Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @BoogaLouie - I would "weak support" that language.
 * @Khodabandeh14 - It strikes me that you are cherry picking your sources. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, BoogaLouie is pointing in a useful direction. It seems as if Khodabandeh14 wants to use a small portion of Shahla Haeri's book but not the majority of it. I think the whole book can be tapped for references. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one cherry-picking Shahla Haeri's words out of context, in order to advance your POV. This is also true about most of your non-specialized "sources" mentioning this topic in passing, which you cherry-picked from Google Books, with the primary objective of objecting anything I say or do  (WP:Wikihounding for which you were blocked), even though you have no background or expertise whatsoever on this topic. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How rude. Tell me you disagree with the accuracy of these words by Haeri: "Outside of the religious establishment and the ongoing disputes between Shi'i and Sunni scholars, the attitude toward temporary marriage has been primarily one of ambivalence and disdain. Before the revolution of 1979, the secular Iranian middle classes dismissed temporary marriage as a form of prostitution that had been legitimized by the religious establishment, who, to use a popular Persian expression, 'put a religious hat on it.'" This is taken from the book's Preface on page x. The context is that she is introducing the topic of the Shi'a practice of temporary marriage; introducing its ambiguities and interpretations, its "underlying logic" and its public perception. The quote is perfectly presented here in context, not out of context or cherry-picked. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * She is talking about a subjective perception among a tiny minority, before the revolution, 30 years ago. Nowhere does she support your assertion that sigheh is a form prostitution, as an objective fact. She makes that clear when she says "nonethess, it would be a mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, or to discuss it primarily from that perspective". In other words, you can discuss this "perception" held by a minority of Iranians about sigheh, on sigheh, but not here. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All we need to have in this article is the acknowledgment that sigheh has been perceived as state-sanctioned legalized prostitution in the distance past, the recent past and the present, by whatever demographic group is mentioned in the reliable sources, starting with Lord Curzon in the 19th century, following through various perceptual changes in the 20th century, and some information about the current situation within Iran and as perceived about Iran by foreigners. None of these sources is required to prove an objective fact; if mass perception is proved, that is enough to bring to this article. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again Shahla Haeri states it is not prostitution. It is not cherry picking as it is the only specialist source on the topic.  She does provide different perspectives, but what matters is that her own scholarly perspective rejects such a conclusion.  Thus you have no specialist source on the topic and couple of books with one paragraph on the subject do not meet WP:RS relative to Shahla Haeri's book.  One can find all sorts of opinions in google books, what matters is the summary of scholars for Wikipedia, and not random news reports.  Mass perception (which is not proven from any authoritative source) is not equal in weight to opinion of scholars on the topic.  Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment An Encyclopedia may not confuse the definition of a term with emotional reactions to that.As an example, many can call the proficiency of a lawyer as "a license to rob" , Yes , that can be right in some cases , but including "lawyer" in the article of robbery is wrong . At most I think we can add "It's been suggested by some sources that sometimes nikah mut‘ah marriages becomes a cover for a kind of prostitution".--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There is a paradox brought about by the comparison between marriage (largely as the West defines it), and the "temporary marriage" provided under Shia Islam. The word "marriage" connotes dedication, commitment, bonding, affection, unity, family and love (agape, eros, philia, storge) - none of which except for eros are found in the concept of nikah mut'ah. In the West we would refer to nikah mut'ah as simply "dating," or in purely carnal cases we would say it is simply "sex." Sex and dating are not marriage, just a part of it. This is why the above listed writers have made natural comparisons between nikah mut'ah and dating, sex, and where compensation is exchanged, prostitution.

Note that the idea of 'short term marriages' is an oxymoron - i.e. it is an oxymoronic usage of the word "marriage." If we follow the common definition of marriage, we must find that nikah mut'ah is not "marriage" at all, and the translation between Farsi/Arabic and English is incomplete.

There is of course something interesting in the concept of nikah mut'ah in that short-term satisfaction of lust is in fact genuine love albeit of the solely erotic kind. And it may be true that all marriages eventually come to some conclusion, either in this life or in the afterlife, and the nikah mut'ah concept reflects on this aspect. But given the common definition of marriage as a virtuous covenant, "short marriages" must be regarded as the antithesis of "marriage." Hence "short marriages" fall into the same category as other "short" erotic relationships, hence the comparisons to prostitution are natural. -SC (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't judge about the westerners understanding of marriage , but Shia "temporary marriage" can have no lust element : as an example a commercial male agent of a female boss can simply have nikah mut'ah with his boss only to have no problems in communications and they can mention "no sexual contacts" in they marriage document . When there is no dating and the social connections between opposite sexes are limited , the solution of incomplete marriage is a kind of answer . The Christian concepts of "living together forever" and "one sole in two body" needs a very careful selection and practical examination before marriage that are not allowed in Islamic society : the religious solution for that is to recognize it and write it down and acknowledge the possible consequences ( [accidental] baby , legal outcomes and etc) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note; There is distinct difference between the two terms Short and temporary. A temporary phenomenon can be long while a permanent one can be short. As a relevant example, we can compare a forty-year temporary marriage with a permanent marriage which can lead to divorce just a day after marriage.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the mean and median durations for sigheh in Iran? Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Statistical data is not reliable, but long duration temporal marriage ( 99 year ) is not rare among sigheh marriages. Most times used to get rid of legal aspects of permanent marriage .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I wanted to know mean and median, so the difference between the great number of short marriages could be judged against the lesser number of long ones. At any rate, nobody is connecting the long duration ones to any kind of prostitution—it is only the short ones that are considered this by "many Iranians". Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make clear what your are talking about. Since the beginning of the discussion you were talking about Temporary marriage. Now you are talking about a new topic, Short temporary marriage, which I have never heard in my life. Please cite a reliable source that has categorized temporary marriage in two types: short and long ones, and defines the short temporary marriage and long temporary marriage expressions.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the conversation has been wandering, but it was not me who got off track. As far as reliable sources goes, I note you have not offered any yourself while I have a long list. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The conversation got off track when some editors put forward the idea that sigheh cannot be at all related to prostitution because sometimes it is for a long period of time, certainly longer than the shortest of marriages that are thought of as permanent. However, the sources we have consistently discuss prostitution in relation to the shortest of short-term marriages. It seems to me that the sources are saying that only the most extremely short sigheh is what makes "many Iranians" consider the practice, or perhaps only that aspect of the practice, as a form of "state sanctioned prostitution". Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The size of your list doesn't prove anything. Google engine list size is much more longer than yours. Wikipedia is not a place for reporting users interpretations. There isn't any source that has categorized temporary marriage to short and long ones.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...And no source attempts to characterize the longest temporary marriages as prostitution; it is only the short term sigheh that gets such treatment. I pointed out the many good sources I brought to this discussion because you have asked me for sources but you have not brought any yourself. I think the source I have are perfectly suitable for bringing the subject of sigheh into this article. The real question in my mind is how to present this information, not whether it should be presented or not. This RfC should answer the question of whether it should be presented, and after that comes the discussion about how it is presented. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No we do not put people's preception but scholars viewpoint. This is demonstrated from the book of Shahla Haeri who repudiates your claim, and we do not use non-specialist soruces. Wikipedia uses specialist sourcer over non-specialist sources when possible (no matter how many random non-specialist sources are found). That was demonstrated to you already.  For example many people might have preceptions on Catholic priests, many Afro-American people might have preceptions on Caucasian Americans (and vice versa),and etc.   Thanks.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the sources in my list, including the sources discussing "people's perception" about the topic, are all suitable for us to use if we choose to mention sigheh in this article. The sources are all considered reliable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Scholarly sources are best, and we do use them, especially if other sources are in conflict and require the most objective voice. That does not mean we throw away the other reliable sources. Your interpretation of how we can use Shahla Haeri's book is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. If Haeri reports on a perception, that report gives it substance enough for inclusion here. We can compose our version of sigheh-perceived-as-prostitution-in-Iran using every relevant bit of Haeri's book, including her conclusion. I place less trust than you in her conclusion which I consider a bit of scholarly apology whose purpose is to wrap the subject up neatly for establishment critics. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines to prevent us from using Haeri as a reference to say, for instance, that "Before the revolution of 1979, the secular Iranian middle classes dismissed temporary marriage as a form of prostitution that had been legitimized by the religious establishment", or "While tacitly—and sometimes explicitly—acknowledging the similarities between prostitution and temporary marriage, the Shi'a ulama distinguish the former from the latter on the basis of their implications for individual well-being and for the social order." Haeria continues: "Ideologically, in an authoritarian, patriarchal and apparently sex-segregated society like Iran, prostitutes are perceived to be antisocial and disobedient women. Prostitution is a negation of social order and ...is viewed as detrimental to the society's general health and welfare... On the contrary, the ulama maintain that temporary marriage, while performing a similar sexual function for the individual, symbolizes social control, that it finds its harmonious niche within the social order." Haeri tells us that, though the religious distinction between sigheh and prostitution are clear, the cultural distinction is not. Haeri says that sigheh is judged by different people to fall in different places on the continuum "between the two poles of permanent marriage and prostitution, between purity and pollution, corruption and legitimacy." Haeri says that, in general, educated urban Iranians think of sigheh as closer to the prostitution side, as "legalized prostitution", and the "more religiously inclined" Iranians consider sigheh to be "divinely rewarded activity". All of this and more from the Haeri book will be useful in constructing whatever information about temporary marriage that consensus here establishes. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User Binksternet, it's tree times that you've repeatedly used the expression short and long temporary marriage. Such categorization has never been done for temporary marriage and it's obviously your self-interpretation. Nowhere in Wikipedia it's written I'm to provide source for interpretations of other users. Before proceeding you must provide RS that has done such categorization and clearly has defined each of them. Hope it won't be necessary for me to repeat this matter anymore. Thank you in advance.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @Binksternet.  Yes the author gets different opinions. However, "Secular Middle Class Iranians before the revolution" are a minority. What matters with regards to these different opinions is how the author (who is the Professor) terms it. SHe gets different opinions (pro/con) and in the end, she states: pg 2""nonethess, it would be a mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, or to discuss it primarily from that perspective". Thats the bottom line. It is a mistake according to the author and thats the bottom line as Wikipedia relies on secondary scholarly sources. Yes I can find many citations from say even some liberal professor claiming all that a certain segment of this society are all racist, or that many people might perceive a religious institution with Paedophilia and etc.. However, in the end, specialist sources on the matter claim it is a mistake to claim it is a variation of prostitution.  You have not brought any expert books on the topic that the author of the book claims otherwise.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Khodabandeh14, it is a mistake to take one statement by the author and use it to dismiss every other statement in the book. Shahla Haeri does not make this mistake. She says it would be "a mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution", but we are not trying to dismiss it that way, and we are not trying to discuss it primarily from that perspective. We are saying that temporary marriage has been considered by many to be a form of legalized prostitution, but of course that leaves others who disagree, and that leaves the official ulama position on the topic, so of course we are not trying to define temporary marriage "primarily from that perspective". Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This RfC is not asking any question about short or long duration. This RfC is not slowed or halted by my not pointing out a source which compares short vs long, or attempts to define short vs long. This is a straw man argument, a side issue which is unimportant for our discussion. The sources all agree that "temporary marriage" in Iran has been considered by many people to be prostitution. It does not matter to us right now whether we are able to find sources pointing out the notional difference between short and long. Marcus334 brought up the topic in his 'support' statement, and you brought up the difference about the modern practice. Because you brought up the subject of long vs short, I would expect that you supply the sources proving your point. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope you are mistaken. The author gets a variety of opinions but what matters is her own scholarly opinion.  It is like for example doing a survey about people's preception of Catholic brotherhoods, but in the end, what matters is the expert opinion.  For example majority of people might see a certain country as a tyrant, but against what matters is scholarly opinion rejecting or accepthing that fact.  Your "many" is some of the middle Class secular Iranians before the revolution (based on Ha'eri).  Also it does matter what the scholars state about an issue.  Because in Wikipedia when discussing a topic, only scholars and not common people can summarize a point of view.  In an article about "prostitution in Iran", you will need scholars (not journalists) who have termed it as "prositution".  And right now the most specialized sources dismiss your viewpoint.  Thus the "many" part can be put in another article about preceptions of some people on the institution of temporary of marriage, but you are arguing your point in the wrong article.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Khodabandeh14, when I read a scholarly assessment of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union defending itself against Nazi Germany, the scholar will tell me that the conclusion is that the Soviets won. In this case will the Wikipedia article about the Eastern Front (World War II) contain only one sentence, "The Germans attacked but the Soviets won"? No, what we have is an entire article describing the conflict, with descriptions of different parts of the conflict, and a summary at the end. I am proposing the same treatment here, where we describe which people said what things about sigheh-as-prostitution at what times, beginning with Lord Curzon in the 19th century. We will describe the various points of view and we will summarize them. This is how Wikipedia articles are written, a point you are certainly aware of as you were the editor who wrote the articles Afdal al-Din Kashani, Iranshenasi and Mohammad ibn Ba'ith. Your arguments here go against WP:NPOV where we are directed to include all significant viewpoints. It does not say to delete significant viewpoints and simply summarize them dismissively. Even Shahla Haeri does not say to dismiss the viewpoint of so many people who consider sigheh to be a form of legalized prostitution. She says it would be "a mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution" which tells me that it would be a mistake to dismiss the whole subject with one summary sentence. The topic is complex, and its complexities should be described and summarized, just like the Great Patriotic War. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we all write articles however WP:RS, we need to use secondary scholarly sources. And per WP:Fringe, materials specialized on the topic have more weight than random passings by say Lord Cruzon.  Significant viewpoints refers to the viewpoints of scholars on the topic, not the average layman.  However, you are discussing the wrong article.  The fact is if scholars do not know it as prostitution, then it has no weight in this article.  It has to go into a separate article about common preceptions about Mutah (say in the actual Mutah article).  And Haeri is clear: "it is a mistake to dimiss Mut'a as merely another varitation of prostitution".. that is crystal clear and so it has no place in this article.  If you have another scholar that claims it is prostituion (specialized source and not random websites, articles, books, but specialized sources on the topic dealing with the specific topic in terms of an extensive article or book), then please bring it.  Else since we both agree Haeri's book is the specialized book on the topic, its various aspects can be described in the Mut'ah article under a general title: "Common precepetions and mispreceptions about Mutah".  So it belongs to that article rather than this article.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:RS is too narrow. It says "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." We are certainly intending to use secondary sources. At WP:SECONDARY, more guidance is given: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Our best secondary sources include the following:
 * There is also the well-researched article in the leftist magazine Mother Jones:
 * These are all considered reliable sources, secondary sources which draw from a multiplicity of primary works to arrive at their analysis. If we go to WP:IRS to see which sources are considered more reliable than others, we read: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." It continues, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Finally, WP:IRS emphasizes that views from both the mainstream and from significant minorities should be brought to the article—we are to make sure "that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". Nowhere in the guideline is there an instruction that we should only have Shahla Haeri's book, and especially that we should only quote Haeri's conclusion eliminating all other portions of the book. Your admonition against non-scholarly sources is not supported by the guideline; we can use both scholarly and non-scholarly sources to describe the various viewpoints. And you are far from reality in assuming Lord Curzon made his statement in passing. Shocked by what he saw, he wrote an extended report about temporary marriage in Iran. Lord Curzon will serve as the initial historic reference for a paragraph discussing Western views over time. Finally, this article is certainly the right place to discuss how nikah mut‘ah is perceived by many as prostitution. Even if the nikah mut‘ah article was expanded to include all this information, a section summarizing that information would be appropriate here. I have not seen, however, anyone running over to the nikah mut‘ah article to add these perceptions of prostitution. If someone resisting its inclusion here added the information there instead, I would see that as a great indication of good faith debate. And if this article about prostitution is where the main portion of the perception information is added, then the nikah mut‘ah article should have a summary and a link back here. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also the well-researched article in the leftist magazine Mother Jones:
 * These are all considered reliable sources, secondary sources which draw from a multiplicity of primary works to arrive at their analysis. If we go to WP:IRS to see which sources are considered more reliable than others, we read: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." It continues, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Finally, WP:IRS emphasizes that views from both the mainstream and from significant minorities should be brought to the article—we are to make sure "that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". Nowhere in the guideline is there an instruction that we should only have Shahla Haeri's book, and especially that we should only quote Haeri's conclusion eliminating all other portions of the book. Your admonition against non-scholarly sources is not supported by the guideline; we can use both scholarly and non-scholarly sources to describe the various viewpoints. And you are far from reality in assuming Lord Curzon made his statement in passing. Shocked by what he saw, he wrote an extended report about temporary marriage in Iran. Lord Curzon will serve as the initial historic reference for a paragraph discussing Western views over time. Finally, this article is certainly the right place to discuss how nikah mut‘ah is perceived by many as prostitution. Even if the nikah mut‘ah article was expanded to include all this information, a section summarizing that information would be appropriate here. I have not seen, however, anyone running over to the nikah mut‘ah article to add these perceptions of prostitution. If someone resisting its inclusion here added the information there instead, I would see that as a great indication of good faith debate. And if this article about prostitution is where the main portion of the perception information is added, then the nikah mut‘ah article should have a summary and a link back here. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also the well-researched article in the leftist magazine Mother Jones:
 * These are all considered reliable sources, secondary sources which draw from a multiplicity of primary works to arrive at their analysis. If we go to WP:IRS to see which sources are considered more reliable than others, we read: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." It continues, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Finally, WP:IRS emphasizes that views from both the mainstream and from significant minorities should be brought to the article—we are to make sure "that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". Nowhere in the guideline is there an instruction that we should only have Shahla Haeri's book, and especially that we should only quote Haeri's conclusion eliminating all other portions of the book. Your admonition against non-scholarly sources is not supported by the guideline; we can use both scholarly and non-scholarly sources to describe the various viewpoints. And you are far from reality in assuming Lord Curzon made his statement in passing. Shocked by what he saw, he wrote an extended report about temporary marriage in Iran. Lord Curzon will serve as the initial historic reference for a paragraph discussing Western views over time. Finally, this article is certainly the right place to discuss how nikah mut‘ah is perceived by many as prostitution. Even if the nikah mut‘ah article was expanded to include all this information, a section summarizing that information would be appropriate here. I have not seen, however, anyone running over to the nikah mut‘ah article to add these perceptions of prostitution. If someone resisting its inclusion here added the information there instead, I would see that as a great indication of good faith debate. And if this article about prostitution is where the main portion of the perception information is added, then the nikah mut‘ah article should have a summary and a link back here. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also the well-researched article in the leftist magazine Mother Jones:
 * These are all considered reliable sources, secondary sources which draw from a multiplicity of primary works to arrive at their analysis. If we go to WP:IRS to see which sources are considered more reliable than others, we read: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." It continues, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Finally, WP:IRS emphasizes that views from both the mainstream and from significant minorities should be brought to the article—we are to make sure "that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". Nowhere in the guideline is there an instruction that we should only have Shahla Haeri's book, and especially that we should only quote Haeri's conclusion eliminating all other portions of the book. Your admonition against non-scholarly sources is not supported by the guideline; we can use both scholarly and non-scholarly sources to describe the various viewpoints. And you are far from reality in assuming Lord Curzon made his statement in passing. Shocked by what he saw, he wrote an extended report about temporary marriage in Iran. Lord Curzon will serve as the initial historic reference for a paragraph discussing Western views over time. Finally, this article is certainly the right place to discuss how nikah mut‘ah is perceived by many as prostitution. Even if the nikah mut‘ah article was expanded to include all this information, a section summarizing that information would be appropriate here. I have not seen, however, anyone running over to the nikah mut‘ah article to add these perceptions of prostitution. If someone resisting its inclusion here added the information there instead, I would see that as a great indication of good faith debate. And if this article about prostitution is where the main portion of the perception information is added, then the nikah mut‘ah article should have a summary and a link back here. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also the well-researched article in the leftist magazine Mother Jones:
 * These are all considered reliable sources, secondary sources which draw from a multiplicity of primary works to arrive at their analysis. If we go to WP:IRS to see which sources are considered more reliable than others, we read: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." It continues, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Finally, WP:IRS emphasizes that views from both the mainstream and from significant minorities should be brought to the article—we are to make sure "that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". Nowhere in the guideline is there an instruction that we should only have Shahla Haeri's book, and especially that we should only quote Haeri's conclusion eliminating all other portions of the book. Your admonition against non-scholarly sources is not supported by the guideline; we can use both scholarly and non-scholarly sources to describe the various viewpoints. And you are far from reality in assuming Lord Curzon made his statement in passing. Shocked by what he saw, he wrote an extended report about temporary marriage in Iran. Lord Curzon will serve as the initial historic reference for a paragraph discussing Western views over time. Finally, this article is certainly the right place to discuss how nikah mut‘ah is perceived by many as prostitution. Even if the nikah mut‘ah article was expanded to include all this information, a section summarizing that information would be appropriate here. I have not seen, however, anyone running over to the nikah mut‘ah article to add these perceptions of prostitution. If someone resisting its inclusion here added the information there instead, I would see that as a great indication of good faith debate. And if this article about prostitution is where the main portion of the perception information is added, then the nikah mut‘ah article should have a summary and a link back here. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also the well-researched article in the leftist magazine Mother Jones:
 * These are all considered reliable sources, secondary sources which draw from a multiplicity of primary works to arrive at their analysis. If we go to WP:IRS to see which sources are considered more reliable than others, we read: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." It continues, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Finally, WP:IRS emphasizes that views from both the mainstream and from significant minorities should be brought to the article—we are to make sure "that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered". Nowhere in the guideline is there an instruction that we should only have Shahla Haeri's book, and especially that we should only quote Haeri's conclusion eliminating all other portions of the book. Your admonition against non-scholarly sources is not supported by the guideline; we can use both scholarly and non-scholarly sources to describe the various viewpoints. And you are far from reality in assuming Lord Curzon made his statement in passing. Shocked by what he saw, he wrote an extended report about temporary marriage in Iran. Lord Curzon will serve as the initial historic reference for a paragraph discussing Western views over time. Finally, this article is certainly the right place to discuss how nikah mut‘ah is perceived by many as prostitution. Even if the nikah mut‘ah article was expanded to include all this information, a section summarizing that information would be appropriate here. I have not seen, however, anyone running over to the nikah mut‘ah article to add these perceptions of prostitution. If someone resisting its inclusion here added the information there instead, I would see that as a great indication of good faith debate. And if this article about prostitution is where the main portion of the perception information is added, then the nikah mut‘ah article should have a summary and a link back here. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note WP:FRINGE:"Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. This policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", which is essential to writing an encyclopedia." Among the sources you just liked, ony Ha'eris book deals with the issue at length and she dismisses the connection between prostitution and mutah. Lord Cruzon is an out-dated source and unless it is discussed by modern sources, it is irrelavent. We are not here to write essays but to simply present the viewpoint of mainstream scholars on the subject. Thus far you only presented one specialized book on temporary marriage, and the author while presenting different viewpoints, concludes is it not prostituion. Now, simply just going fishing in google books to find any far-fetched source from people who have no scholarly credentials nor any professor position nor specialized books on the topic is simply violated of weight, """Elaine Sciolino, Elena Andreerva, Nasrin Alavi..". Because one good source like Ha'eri outweights 20+ bad sources with no credential on the matter. One can do this about anything. For example "Catholicism and Phaedophilia", "Islam and Terrorism", "White Europeans and Racism", "Iranians and Terrorists", "Chinese and hard working".. all sorts of steoretypes (which Hae'ri discusses with regards to Middle class Iranians).. and find negative sources. So in order not to make Wikipedia a stupid place, one should rely on mainstream academics who have specialized on the topic itself. Ha'eri's book can be of use in the Mutah article...but the other sources you brought are not specialized on the topic. So we will use the books specializing on the topic rather than NY times journalist and I believe the book makes it clear that temporary marriage is very rare, although some middle class Iranians consider it prostitution, the religious class Iranians do not, and more importantly, the final verdict by Ha'eri is clear. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a quick look at the article and you'll see the "the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written". We have (in the non-sigheh version) three declarations issued by the US State Department, one magazine article from the Economist and two news reports. My suggestion that a bunch of books and a couple of news sources be added to provide more text about sigheh is not at all a violation of WP:FRINGE.
 * You are misinterpreting Shahla Haeri to fit your preference. The paragraph you keep quoting as her "conclusion" is not that at all; it is only about the legal aspect. She wrote, "Although an apparent legal safeguard for mother and child is provided, the law almost negates its own spirit by supporting the father should he deny his child's legitimacy. ...Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to dismiss mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, or to discuss it primarily from that perspective. The problem is more complex than the apparent similarities might suggest. In addition to this legal distinction between the two types of sexual unions, further conceptual and ideological distinctions exist, which I shall discuss." Haeri makes it clear that non-legal distinctions between prostitution and mut'a are worthy of discussion, and she goes on in the book to discuss all aspects: legal, religious, social, conceptual, etc. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also: Lord Curzon is discussed by Elaine Sciolino, so you are mistaken that I was looking at his 19th century writings. Even so, I could have hunted down and used Lord Curzon's original book to describe his reaction at the time, if I cared to. A book is never outdated if it is used to say what the viewpoints of the time were. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Elaine Sciolino is a NY times reporter and Lord Curzon is no scholar on the topic. However, Hae'ri is clear: "Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to dismiss mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, or to discuss it primarily from that perspective. The problem is more complex than the apparent similarities might suggest. In addition to this legal distinction between the two types of sexual unions, further conceptual and ideological distinctions exist, which I shall discuss.''". I do not see why this matter is hard to comprehend. She is clearly stating that it is a mmistake to dismiss mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution or to discuss it primarily from that perspective. I mean I believe the matter is clear but you think she is saying something else. She is not only talking about legal distinction, but conceptual and ideological distinctions between the two. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating one of Haeri's sentences, out of context, but even if the sentence was a summation of everything she thought about the topic, it does not prevent us from discussing temporary marriage's secondary (not primary) perspective as a form of legal prostitution. We say temporary marriage is primarily a legitimate part of Shi'a culture, supported by law, but secondarily it is thought of as a form of legalized prostitution by many Iranians and many foreigners. Haeri is not stopping us from describing temporary marriage in this article. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but that belongs to an article on Mutah. Because unless there are specialized scholarly sources(note one good book on the topic overwhelms one or two sentences in random books) that discuss Mutah as a prositution, it should not be in this article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It belongs in both articles, each one hosting the more relevant details. This one would discuss how prostitutes sometimes use sigheh to legitimize their actions, how the outside world and most educated middle class Iranians view sigheh as legalized state-sanctioned prostitution, how the holy cities and especially the most prominent shrines have the densest populations of sigheh-seeking women who can be picked up for a short marriage with the exchange of money for sex. At the nikah mut‘ah article, the practice can be described as having certain people at certain times think of it as legalized prostitution, how the legitimacy offered to the woman's possible child from sigheh is not very strong—the man is supported by law if he denies the connection but the woman can be stoned to death for adultery if she presses charges, how some teenagers choose to have unlawful sex because if they choose sigheh to make it lawful, the girl cannot get a permanent husband afterward. There are many more aspects of the topic which are not covered in the two articles, and they both can be expanded to include these details. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "outside world" is non-existent and is a stupid concept. The Middle class Iranians are a minority.  What matters again in the end is that a scholar specializing on the topic repudiated the fact that Mutah is not prostitution.  Mutah can last for 99 years and has many legal aspects.  For example, all the current major Marja's Ayatollahs state that a Mutah marriage for a married man is only permissble if their wife allows it.  So it is a much more complext issue than prositution and since we have a specialized book on the topic which states clearly it should not been as prostitution, then it has no place in this article.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Foreigners, also known as "the outside world", often think that mut'a is legal prostitution, or so says Ayatollah Shari'atmadari. What matters for the reader is that the details are discussed for their understanding. There is no 'fact' that mut'a is not prostitution if many people think it is; there is instead the religious and legal definition, the varying interpretations of the religious definition, the actual practice by citizens and the attitudes Iranian and non-Iranian people hold about it. The temporary marriages which have 99 years duration are not what makes people think, "this is very much like prostitution". Your repetition about 99 years has no bearing on this argument. You say that temporary marriage is more complex than prostitution? That cannot be the case, as prostitution is quite complex as it is. Perhaps equally complex... Let go of your supposition that Haeri states any so clear about sigheh. She does not: she says that "it would be a mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution". We are not dismissing mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, we are embracing it as a legally sanctioned marriage which is also considered by many to be prostitution. She says it would be a mistake "to discuss it primarily from that perspective" and this does not stop us either—we are free to discuss it fully including its primary legal and religious aspect and its secondary aspect of being considered by many to be prostitution. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the quote by Ha'eri was very clear: "mistake to dismiss Mut'a as merely another variation of prostitution, or to discuss it primarily from that perspective". Yes you are free to discuss it in other forums but for this article, the main scholarly source on the subject has dismissed it discussion of it from that perspective. "Outside World" and "International Community" etc are words with no uniform defition. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * RFC Comment: This is a WP:RS that says that "Many Iranians regard sigheh as little more than legalized prostitution". Since this appears to be a contentious issue, we shouldn't say that the practice is prostitution, just that many people consider it to be, and why others don't consider it to be. Note that this source doesn't take a position on whether it is or isn't prostitution, just that many Iranians view it that way. NYT should be a RS for saying what many Iranians think, despite what I'd say are anti-Iran biases in the NYT. --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * After the long discussion now the problem is when many [ordinary and non-experts] consider the sigheh to be a kind of prostitution, is it reasonable to include it in the prostitution article (and/or) the article about the sigheh. I think the answer is clear : although it can be mentioned in an article with the title of "various views about the mut'a" (See also Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah) , but it can't be used in the prostitution article (and/or) the article about the sigheh . Compare it to many that think The Moon is made of green cheese , that is not mentioned in the articles about Moon or cheese , but mentioned in separate article about the popular belief .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've not read the whole talkpage, but if the question is "Should the Shia Islam practice of nikah mut‘ah (temporary marriage) be included in the article prostitution in Iran as a form of legalized prostitution?"; I would say No. Prostitution, is Illegal in Iran Officially and I don't see Prostitution having a form. Prostitution is Prostitution, and nikah mut‘ah is marriage. Any phrase saying that "nikah mut‘ah is legal Prostitution in Iran" is wrong, as Prostitution is Illegal in Iran. what these sources are tryig to say about legalized prostitution, Is "trying to cheat on Islamic law" referd as Kolah Shar'ee I think. (another example of it is considered Usury and Interest, and the issue of Riba in Iranian Banks have been controversial) I don't know how to explain, It's a little Special! :) Some may use Sigheh (nikah mut‘ah) in Iran to overcast their sexual relationships with prostitutes legally and religiously. Sigheh is mostly done by will of costumers and not prostitutes. there are limits for a Sigheh woman to have sex with her next husband, (or her next costumer as your side). for example, She must wait 2 months to do Nika Mut'ah again. caring about Islamic law, means to have 6 costumers a year! on the other hands, the Sigheh won't be registered legally & Officially under government rules according to the law. So what's the point of prostitution? Amirreza talk 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Restart discussion: clearly differentiate legal from social sciences definitions
Conditional support. Legally, temporary marriage in Iran ist not prostitution. A sound, well researched case based on reliable secondary sources has been made, though, that the institution of temporaray marriage is used in Iran (among other things) as a legal container for what relevant scholars on the topic regard functionally as prostitution. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sugested wording for the intro:


 * "While prostitition is illegal, the Shia Islam practice of nikah mut‘ah (temporary marriage) may facilitate sexual practices that are functionally regarded as prostitution by social scientists familiar with the topic."

Then there would be a subsection in the article that elaborates on the relation of temporary marriage and prostitution in some more detail.

Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I think it is a reasonable approach. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I did insert a small section now. I think the main point is the following: Sigheh is not prostitution in the sense that both concept mean the same thing. The higher degree of contractual requirements of the institution in fact argues strongly against it. However, it can hardly be disputed that is institution is being used as a cover for prostitution in Iran. This fact is well supported by the cited scientific literature. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Trinitrix; When did you get consensus to write such a paragraph which has several errors and self-interpretations?!. Before doing so again, please bring your logic, discuss you points in detail with addressing reliable sources. And please read the above discussions. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that Trinitrix was bold and added the material. This could indicate a shift in consensus. I support the idea that this article should mention sigheh. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Aliwiki, the above discussion convinced me that prostitution in the legal sense is illegal in Iran. However, "prostitution" is not only a legal, it is also a social sciences (and a colloquial) term. Several of the respectable references provided state with respect to such a social sciences definition of prostitution that sigheh is currently being used as a legal cover for what sociologically amounts to prostitution. This is an existence claim proved by one example; it is of course not an claim that all sigheh contracts act as a legal cover for prostitution. And this is well-supported by the sources. An article on prostitution on Iran that is not exclusively dedicated to the wording of the Iranian law (which would be a rather dull article) needs to cover also the sociologoical meanings of the concept. Otherwise a severe POV would be introduced. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I ask what's the difference between WP:OR and WP:POV and considering functional similarities between items (and adding it to the article)?! Many ordinary people inside Iran consider the current normal relationship between unmarried western couples to be a functional variety of prostitution : can we also add that paragraph to the articles Boyfriend and girlfriend that many consider it as a functional prostitution? No we can't!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference between boyfriend/girlfriend and Iranian temporary marriage is that one of them has been identified as being analogous to prostitution in many reliable sources, and the other has not. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Analogy, being the same and having functional similarities , all need a process of verification (Merging) . According to Reliable_source_examples , two sources of Elena Andreeva and Shahla Haeri is only their point of view , that is neither reliable nor verificable . Why the new editor ( Trinitrix ) rejects the strong consensus to delete ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear friend, at times it is useful if someone with a fresh view but keen scientific understanding enters an editing conflict. I had no clear view on the issue before I read the article for the first time. Initially, I sided with a wording that more strongly associates sigheh with prostitution. The counter-arguments have a point with respect to the legal situation and with respect to an important facet of Iranian culture, though. I think we have a very reasonable and stable version now, that fully acknowledges the available evidence. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

German newspaper article
http://www.bz-berlin.de/archiv/huren-im-tschador-sie-stehen-an-kreuzungen-bus-stopps-die-prostitution-im-iran-blueht-jetzt-wollen-die-mullahs-das-laster-legalisieren-in-staatlichen-bordellen-so-genannten-keuschheitshaeusern-article164447.html The Berlin Newspaper Berliner Zeitung of 11. August 2002 tells about many women in Tschors seeking for sex work stand at bus-stops or crossings of main streets in Tehran and other big cities of Iran. Estimated 300.000 in Iran. And writes about 3 juridical cases. --Helium4 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Prostitutes in Iran?
There are betweeen ten thousands until hundred thousands of women, men and children from Afghanistan who work as prostitutes in Iran.--95.114.39.239 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Nice try but there is no evidence of prostitutes coming from neighboring countries especially Afghanistan into Iran. They are all native Persians and ur source is Iranian which is anti-Afghan.180.222.143.242 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)