Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Pyroturban313

Why Is Mutah Allowed?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Why is such an act allowed? To form a temporary union with another party for the sole purpose of pleasure only for said union to dissolve in a matter of time. It's sick how many are considering it 'halal' and good for the Umma! It literally parallels that of generalized western dating to where the couple forms a relationship with no real substance, eventually engage in non-marital sex, and if a baby accidentally results, a full commitment (marriage) may be the only option. In Mutah this exact same process follows. 

It makes me sick that there are "Muslims" out there contracting Mutah for as short as one night. It is prostitution. And don't deny it is! You pay a woman something of some value to engage in "lawful" sexual intercourse for a certain interval of time. 

 

 I know there are certain forms of Mutah you can contract where restrictions may exist, but why is the Mutah specified above Islamically legal? Because a loose interpretation of one verse in the Qur'an allows for it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving religion aside, what is the problem with that type of unions? I mean, some people may not want to marry and commit their whole lives, just prefer to have some sex which is in fact a normal human natural need.

Why would you prefer someone who is just looking for sex to marry another person who may not only be looking for sex but flr something more serious.

Interesting part of mutah is that there is common consent between both parties, they agree to the same terms and most likely are looking for the same. What's the problem with that?

Because if you are just sharing a conservative view but not religious or common sense opinion, then anyone here can share his counter-conservative opinions, and believe me, they will most likely make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with the OP.  This what I wrote on another thread on this site:

On 3/29/2015 at 11:14 PM, coldcow said:

Yes.  I honestly believe that it served a purpose for a specific point in time and was never meant to be continued.  My understanding is it became lawful when an army full of new Muslim men were in a foreign city away from their wives, and my presumption is that in order to prevent disorder and allegations of unlawful "relations" with the locals, mutah was allowed.  However, similar to the step-wise prohibition on alcohol, mutah was eventually stopped by the prophet at some point.  Then, my understanding on it becomes a little murky, but I believe it was allowed again, and then off again, with Sunnis believing that it was finally prohibitted and Umar (I think) reaffirming it not being allowed, while Shias say the last command was that it was allowed and that Umar had no right to ban something that was allowed.

Regardless, I think marriage should be viewed as a life long bond and should not be cheapened for quick thrills because you're feeling frisky (or the common excuse: can't control your desires and don't want to commit zina).  I know people say that mutah can lead to permanent marriage, and that it allows for two people to get to lawfully know each other, yada yada, but I do not agree with it.  

Also, it's not unique to Shias.  Here's a quick scoop on prostituion in Dubai.  It's not under the guise of mutah, but it's prostitution none-the-less.  And if anyone tries contending that only westerners are partaking in that, they're delusional.

[Mod Note: Video no longer works; removed.]

Edited by Hameedeh
Mod Note in the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take the silent majority view, which is thus: 

I personally couldn't do it (at least now for personal reasons), but I am 100% convinced its halal and is of harmonious social benefit, and those who try to obfuscate that fact are doing an immense disservice.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutah was never prohibited under Muhammad's (pbuh) rule, and during Abu Bakr's time, the second calipha is the one who decided to prohibit such, do not confused history, my brother, when the history is clear. Mutah is not "loosely" mentioned in the Qur'an, for example:

 

“For the enjoyment you have had from them thereby, give them their dowries, by way of settlement.”1

The wording {alfaz} of this verse testifies that something has been revealed about mut‘ah because:

First: The word “istimta‘”apparently refers to “temporary marriage”. If it meant permanent marriage, there would be a need for analogy {qarinah}. 

Second: The word “ujurahunna” which means “their dowries” is a clear proof that it is about mut‘ah because in the case of permanent marriage, such words as “mahr” or “sadaq” is used.

Third: The Shi‘ah and Sunni exegetes {mufassirun} are of the opinion that the said verse is about mut‘ah.

Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, in his exegesis {tafsir}, Ad-Durr al-Manthur, narrates on the authority of Ibn Jarir and Saddi that the abovementioned verse is pertaining to mut‘ah.2

Also, Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari, in his exegesis, narrates on the authority of Saddi, Mujahid and Ibn al-‘Abbas, that this verse is related to temporary marriage.3

Fourth: The compilers of SahihMusnad and Jami‘ books of hadith have also accepted this fact. For example, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj in his Sahih narrates on the authority of Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah and Salmah ibn Aku‘ that they have said:

"خرج علينا منادي رسول الله رسول أنّ فقال الله قد أذن لكم أن تستمعوا يعني متعة النساء."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muta, is the solution to the crisis in west, the crisis of children without father. Even now, western countries are trying to recognize some form of temporary marriage contracts. This is what people want too.

Islam of Ali is the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it sickening? In prostitution and nikah jihad etc. there is no affection nor loyalty or the period of iddah or a plan or order while in contrast in marriages there are those things and to the society a marriage not only fits like a shoe it is rather imperative for the very existence of social fabric. What is rather sickening is this: O well its like one verse! Lets ignore it~ Thats the squalor of the hearts thats pulling us all the way down. 2200+ commands exist in the Quran and people have chosen and adopted 5 or 10 out of the baseless argument that commands need be repeated over and over to carry any effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2015 at 12:50 AM, coldcow said:

Totally agree with the OP.  This what I wrote on another thread on this site:

The problem with this is that there were no steps for its gradual removal from society. Not a single one. On the contrary, when other Muslims started abandoning the practice saying it was prohibated the Imams continued to say it was permissible. 

"mutah was eventually stopped by the prophet at some point."

This didn't happen, though. At least not according to the Imams [as].  Why didn't they tell us the Prophet (S) stopped it? They, contrary to this, upheld it's permissibility. Shouldnt we be trusting the Imams judgement on this, especially when we regard them as Masoom?

"Also, it's not unique to Shias.  Here's a quick scoop on prostituion in Dubai.  It's not under the guise of mutah, but it's prostitution none-the-less. "

It's nothing like prostitution, and your comments alluding to it being so are distasteful, at the very least.  If it is more or less the same thing (which it clearly is not) a reasonable question arises: Why is prostitution condemned but Mut'a marriage allowed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2015 at 12:16 PM, hasanhh said:

(salam)

Here is a question:

Would you want your daughter to marry for a short period of time and then come back home?

That's a cultural and personal question, rather than a religious one.  Which is why girls need permission of the father.  And in most cases, the answer from them will probably be no.  So that personal/cultural preference is already somewhat built into the religious injunction. 

In some cultures, especially liberal Western cultures, many families have no issue with their daughters going out and having relationships.  It's considered acceptable.

Since a majority of Muslims are derived from Eastern cultures, this is a foreign concept for many.  But perhaps there is a culture out there, without the above mentioned baggage, but follows Islamic rules.  And maybe that culture is more open to the idea of these kinds of relationships.  And if that's so, can you make the argument that a culture is intrinsically more "Islamic" than the other one?  And on what basis?  Conflation to the MAX. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have personally recommended mutah for my female relatives. To be honest even to my sister, in the past. I worry more about their happiness than the cultural pressure to be honest. Whatever people want to say, they are free to say it. Sooner or later people will stop talking when they see no reaction to their pointless backbite and useless repressive cultural imposition. It is only when you give importance to culture and what others have to say when culture becomes powerful in your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today’s world and temporary marriage:

 Regardless of the fact that Mut’ is permitted according to Islamic Shari’a   if we consider both the permission of Muta’, as a legal relationship between man and woman, and the current life style in the modern time we will reach to the following conclusion:

Islam is a religion which has capacity to solve human problems in different circumstances and situation, and to provide suitable answer for all conditions, so, it indicates the power of Islam and discover it’s divinely aspect.

It’s clear and undeniable that in today’s world boys and girls are not ready to marry when they are Studding at the university, when they graduate they are at least 25 years old, then after graduation they can’t find a job immediately to provide for their needs, so, in reality, matrimony is impossible for them   till they are thirty years old.

The question which raise here is that how they can fulfill their sexual desire during this period? There is no   more than tow option: having lawful relationship, and having illegal relationship, which one is rational and accepted?

Edited by Hameedeh
[Mod Note: Moderators can increase or decrease the size of excessively small or large fonts to a standard size of 12 or 14.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question.  If mutah doesn't become an option for people (for various reasons or pressures), how many will turn to illegal relationships or something haram?  If even one person does so, wouldn't that be a tragedy?  And should the people here denouncing mutah hold some responsibility for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pyroturban, these kind of moral questions are difficult to explain because morality itself is a difficult concept. I always wondered what is wrong with two homosexual adults engaging in sexual intercourse? Or what is wrong with a brother and sister engaging in an incestuous relationship if children are not involved? Or even what is wrong with a woman earning a living from prostitution if she practices safe sex? Heck, some fathers are accepting even of that.

As a believer, you must have enough faith to submit to that which is revealed even if it doesn't make sense to you. That which is permitted must be good or neutral; and that which is forbidden must be evil. Alternatively, you can abolish these inherited ideas and follow your reason and innate conscious that led you to God in the first place.

I find it strange how some users here are forwarding a subjective argument against people's aversion to Mut'ah, and yet the Quran tells us that Islam is a religion that is congruous with the human fitra (innate nature and conscious).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2015 at 3:20 PM, Sea Ocean said:
I find it strange how some users here are forwarding a subjective argument against people's aversion to Mut'ah, and yet the Quran tells us that Islam is a religion that is congruous with the human fitra (innate nature and conscious).

The quran also speaks about wass wass (whispering of saytan) and how it affects our inner self. The quran also speaks about how we must train our inner self to abstain from sin, which implies our conscious is not always filled with "God consciousness". Not all innately inherit things are good and true, there is the ego and desires.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is great that the shia faith allows two consenting adults to engage in these sort of relationships, they can be utilized for all sorts of purposes, some might find certain legal uses of mutah immoral, but the good thing is that it is at least consensual, so from an objective point of view it isn't inherently immoral.  It is great to have options, whether or not individuals pursuing these options tend to exercise good judgement when availing them is best left to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2015 at 3:27 PM, Ethics said:

The quran also speaks about wass wass (whispering of saytan) and how it affects our inner self. The quran also speaks about how we must train our inner self to abstain from sin, which implies our conscious is not always filled with "God consciousness". Not all innately inherit things are good and true, there is the ego and desires.

So whenever our conscious goes against the moral precepts of Islam, we have to assume our conscious is corrupt. But whenever it agrees with Islam, then our conscious is sound. Masha'Allah, good argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, if our conscious contradicts or goes against GOD, then we are in the wrong. Unless, you are implying, we are above God???? Remember, God's religion is divinely decreed. Our consciousness is subjected to our limited free will. God did not make us as robots with a pre-filled conscious, nor did He leave us with no consciousness. This innate spirit, is the foundation God has set forth upon all of mankind. Lying is bad, killing is bad, its good to do good, its bad to do bad. It is how our roots build that connect our consciousness, and whether we become "God conscious" in itself.

Edited by Ethics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2015 at 12:27 PM, magma said:

That's a cultural and personal question, rather than a religious one.  Which is why girls need permission of the father.  And in most cases, the answer from them will probably be no.  So that personal/cultural preference is already somewhat built into the religious injunction. 

In some cultures, especially liberal Western cultures, many families have no issue with their daughters going out and having relationships.  It's considered acceptable.

Since a majority of Muslims are derived from Eastern cultures, this is a foreign concept for many.  But perhaps there is a culture out there, without the above mentioned baggage, but follows Islamic rules.  And maybe that culture is more open to the idea of these kinds of relationships.  And if that's so, can you make the argument that a culture is intrinsically more "Islamic" than the other one?  And on what basis?  Conflation to the MAX. 

It is not just a cultural/personal objection. There are psychological and other significant implications to temporary relationships.

Often when people have a negative or positive attitude about something, there are underlying factors for the attitude. The factors may be so subtle, that even the subject cannot articulate what they are unless they give it some thought.

Some reasons why people may dislike mutah:

1, It cheapens marriage.

2, The danger of attachment.

3, More likelihood of spreading diseases.

4, Pregnancy.

There are some circumstances where things like the above are not going to occur, but in some other circumstances they will occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

(bismillah)

(salam)

Musa

so it becomes necessary sometimes to engage with someone on a level that goes beyond the first defence of the ignorant ('because it just is!').

I'm sure you'd agree.

(wasalam)

(wasalam)

Yes, but this is not how I understood the OP's objection. They said: I know there are certain forms of Mutah you can contract where restrictions may exist, but why is the Mutah specified above Islamically legal? Because a loose interpretation of one verse in the Qur'an allows for it?  - which I understood to mean: what evidence is there? Their description of Muta was just their feelings towards the practice. Since they made reference to the Qur'an - a text we use for law along side the ahadith - I gathered (perhaps wrongly if they did not intend this) that OP was referring to naqli (textual) sources and what textual basis we - the Shia - have for such a practice. 

This aside, you're correct. A deeper discussion is required. But that's not what I understood the OP was after. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2015 at 1:13 AM, coldcow said:

Shias who take Abu Hurairah serious.Nothing more to say.

From the link:According to Abu Huraira:

The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance. [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

There is no divorce or inheritance in temporary marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2015 at 12:16 PM, hasanhh said:

(salam)

Here is a question:

Would you want your daughter to marry for a short period of time and then come back home?

This is what you guys always ask.

Muta is not mandatory, even permanent marriage is not mandatory, unless one fears he/she might fall into sin. 

The father and the daughter both have a choice, if they don't want to, then no one's gonna bother them, but the truth is truth that Muta is permissible in the Quran(4:24) which it alone is enough for me to believe in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2015 at 3:48 AM, mina313 said:

There is no divorce or inheritance in temporary marriage.

Correct, there is no divorce or inheritance for the woman who entered into temporary marriage. However, if she became pregnant and had a baby, that child would inherit from the father, just as any other children inherit from him.

Quote

The child of the temporary marriage whether boy or girl is to be ascribed to the father as the other offspring of the continuous marriage. There is no difference between the child of the temporary marriage and that of the continuous marriage in the legal verdicts such as inheritance (Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females 4:11), the relationship with the sisters and brothers and their children, the uncles and aunts and their children (and those who are akin are nearer one to another in the ordinance of Allah 8:75) and all the other legal laws.

http://www.al-islam.org/juristic-questions-sayyid-abdul-husayn-sharafuddeen/temporary-marriage#1-way-marriage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be very curious to know what percentage of men are vehemently opposed to mutah, compared to what percentage of women. I'd really like to see the results of that survey.

Do an unoffical ShiaChat poll. I think the forum can do those.

One dude right here vehemently opposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2015 at 1:13 AM, coldcow said:

Good read - 

From what I've perceived, no one is answering my question. I asked why this act is made permissible under Islamic law - also implying the morality behind Mutah

Most of the responses consisted of:

  • The Prophet and Ahlulbayt decree Mutah as halal, therefore it is fine
  • Mutah is intended to bring those will tendencies out of haram by having them sign a contract with a dowry. Only after these really anticlimactic rituals can one have sex. 
  • Serial Monogamy is fine because pleasure is good!
  • This is a verse from the Quran, these words imply temporary marriage! Let's ignore the complexity of the Quran!

Mutah = Pleasure. Its premise is hedonistic in nature. Therefore no matter what "answer" you give me I will never believe Mutah as being "morally correct"

To think that something as Haraam as Zina (non-marital sex) can be made halal by such a simple ritual is disgusting. To say this is fine and "halal" would be foolish.

I, among others, believe the Prophet had banned Mutah in stages, as he had banned Wine in stages. It was pronounced prohibited on the day of Khaybar. 

I don't know how to convince anyone otherwise. Maybe our awaited Imam will clear this up for us? 

Oh and one more point to those that claim scholars and clerics know much more than we could possibly ever learn in a lifetime, therefore we must acknowledge their rulings on Mutah, they are not infallible! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutah is one of the practices of 12er shia I couldn't accept when I studied it.  Anyway great thread, good reading, useful information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Pyroturban313.  Additionally, I have yet to see any evidence that Imam Ali reversed Umar's ruling while Imam Ali was the caliph.  If Umar had made that ruling in error, or out of misguidedness, then Imam Ali should have publicaly reversed it.  As far as I can tell, he never did that.  The argument I've heard instead is that "why would he need to reverse it when Umar had no authority to change it in the first place."  That's a pretty lame argument, because if someone changes the law, and people start following the new law regardless of if that person had the authority to change the law, they're going to continue following that law until the law is publically changed again.   I've seen some weak arguments stating the Imam Ali did partake in mutah, but I don't know how reliable they are. 
 
Abu-kadijah, I like your thing under relgion - "To deem a thousand disbelievers Muslim is safer with God than to deem one Muslim a disbeliever.” – Imam Abu Hanifah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...