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

Mutah

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Wa alaikum as salam

Yes, assuming she fulfills the other criteria for who temporary marriage can be contracted with.

Note that in the Islamic sense, the one who isn't a virgin refers to women who lost their virginity in a legitimate way (divorcees or widows)

These are the ones who don't require approval of a guardian for marriage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/18/2021 at 5:34 AM, Mahdavist said:

These are the ones who don't require approval of a guardian for marriage. 

No guardian and no witnesses, what would happen if a group of people were to accuse them of Zina? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You must get permission of her parents if she is a virgin. Even if she was not, she would have to have lost her virginity in a marriage and not through zina. 

If I were you I would try to get married normally, because there is a real risk of you getting someone pregnant. Contraceptives do not have a 100% rate of success, it's 99%. I know a couple who had several children even though the woman was on birth control. And there are many, many people out there who were born even though a condom was used properly. You may be not prepared to get married right now, but are you prepared to raise a child?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
47 minutes ago, realizm said:

:salam:

Good question, also applies in permanent marriage since ja`fari law allows marriage without witnesses. 

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

But if any of you cannot afford to marry a free believing woman, then ˹let him marry˺ a believing bondwoman possessed by one of you. Allah knows best ˹the state of˺ your faith ˹and theirs˺. You are from one another.1 So marry them with the permission of their owners,2 giving them their dowry in fairness, if they are chaste, neither promiscuous nor having secret affairs. If they commit indecency after marriage, they receive half the punishment of free women.3 This is for those of you who fear falling into sin. But if you are patient, it is better for you. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [4:25] 

 

In respect to the particularity of the non-virgin, the issue of there not being (a) permission from the guardian and (b) present witnesses is one that shouldn’t be undermined. I don’t recall a marriage, even by (twelver) divorcees who work and are non-virgins that has been undergone without witnesses and a judge - if not the approval of a guardian as well, thankfully. However, when it comes to technicalities you would agree that the علة is undoubtedly present. Perhaps this is to justify mutah, but it certainly does not safeguard both parties, as I mentioned from being accused of Zina and not having a means to defend themselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

They would state that they are married. 

In which proof for this “marriage” would be inquired about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, realizm said:

:salam:

Good question, also applies in permanent marriage since ja`fari law allows marriage without witnesses. 

Salaam, 

Do you know of any narrations from Imam Jaafar or anyone else, that supports this thought? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

They would state that they are married. 

Yes. In Pakistan, the law states that if a man and a woman are being accused of zina and they claim they are shia and have just done mutah and there are no witnesses, they cannot be prosecuted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

They would state that they are married. 

Brother with all due respect. Mutah topic is repeating like 1000 times and you havent locked them, such topics arent bringing new informations. It repeats too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
21 hours ago, Zaidism said:

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

But if any of you cannot afford to marry a free believing woman, then ˹let him marry˺ a believing bondwoman possessed by one of you. Allah knows best ˹the state of˺ your faith ˹and theirs˺. You are from one another.1 So marry them with the permission of their owners,2 giving them their dowry in fairness, if they are chaste, neither promiscuous nor having secret affairs. If they commit indecency after marriage, they receive half the punishment of free women.3 This is for those of you who fear falling into sin. But if you are patient, it is better for you. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [4:25] 

 

In respect to the particularity of the non-virgin, the issue of there not being (a) permission from the guardian and (b) present witnesses is one that shouldn’t be undermined. I don’t recall a marriage, even by (twelver) divorcees who work and are non-virgins that has been undergone without witnesses and a judge - if not the approval of a guardian as well, thankfully. However, when it comes to technicalities you would agree that the علة is undoubtedly present. Perhaps this is to justify mutah, but it certainly does not safeguard both parties, as I mentioned from being accused of Zina and not having a means to defend themselves. 

:salam:

I guess that rule must be for extreme cases where no one agrees and the two believers are given no choice.

As for reality you are right almost all marriages are done with people attending. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, realizm said:

I guess that rule must be for extreme cases where no one agrees and the two believers are given no choice.

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

It tends to get narrower and narrower Akhi, in respect to such an exceptional circumstance one would have to first worry about migrating to a country in which marriage is not so difficult and the only option is to commit Zina, respectively. 

When the angels seize the souls of those who have wronged themselves—scolding them, “What do you think you were doing?” They will reply, “We were oppressed in the land.” The Angels will respond, “Was Allah’s earth not spacious enough for you to emigrate?” It is they who will have Hell as their home— what an evil destination! [4:97]

• A land which forces you to commit Zina is oppressive 

• A land where no one is willing to be witness over a legitimate contractual bond that ensures sanctity is mischievous 

• Those who oppress themselves are they who succumb to sin, following the illogical doctrines of a school that propagates a “marriage” which has been abrogated in the same way drinking was abrogated, when it was permitted outside the realm of prayer. 

Every Shi’a sect and Sunni sect, save the twelver sect consider mutah to be an illegitimate bond for aforementioned reasons and more. That and the twelver sect has conflicting traditions in its own corpus regarding the permissibility and impermissibility of this “marriage”. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Zaidism said:

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

It tends to get narrower and narrower Akhi, in respect to such an exceptional circumstance one would have to first worry about migrating to a country in which marriage is not so difficult and the only option is to commit Zina, respectively. 

When the angels seize the souls of those who have wronged themselves—scolding them, “What do you think you were doing?” They will reply, “We were oppressed in the land.” The Angels will respond, “Was Allah’s earth not spacious enough for you to emigrate?” It is they who will have Hell as their home— what an evil destination! [4:97]

• A land which forces you to commit Zina is oppressive 

• A land where no one is willing to be witness over a legitimate contractual bond that ensures sanctity is mischievous 

• Those who oppress themselves are they who succumb to sin, following the illogical doctrines of a school that propagates a “marriage” which has been abrogated in the same way drinking was abrogated, when it was permitted outside the realm of prayer. 

Every Shi’a sect and Sunni sect, save the twelver sect consider mutah to be an illegitimate bond for aforementioned reasons and more. That and the twelver sect has conflicting traditions in its own corpus regarding the permissibility and impermissibility of this “marriage”. 

:salam:

Even in Muslim countries, you have stories of girls who 'fled', thus married against their awliya's permission. 

Regarding abrogation of Mut`a, even though I am not that supportive of it, I would not compare its abrogation like you did to the consumption of alcohol, because one is Muhkam and one is only in ahadith. 

Edited by realizm
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته 

5 hours ago, realizm said:

Even in Muslim countries, you have stories of girls who 'fled', thus married against their awliya's permission. 

It would depend on whether this fleeing was for a legitimate cause or not, i.e her family not allowing her to marry whatsoever, extreme abuse, etc. She could then have a scholar of the community she’s flees to have her married in place of the guardian. 

5 hours ago, realizm said:

Regarding abrogation of Mut`a, even though I am not that supportive of it, I would not compare its abrogation like you did to the consumption of alcohol, because one is Muhkam and one is only in ahadith. 

I completely understand, I gave that example because we (Zaidis) believe that mutah has been abrogated and we have traditions from Imam Ali and the sons of Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein indicating that this act has been forbidden at khaybar, and to persist in it would undoubtedly be Zina.

There’s often misconceptions over how a marriage is made haram when it was initially halal and that is why I gave the example of Al-Quran in relation to Al-Naskh Wal-Mansookh. I mentioned the Hadiths because we even have indications through twelver works, such as Imam Al-Sadiq prohibiting this act as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nobody

Salaams

Mut'ah can't be zinaa because everyone knows Allah allowed it at some point and it's disputed if He abrogated it later. It's also wrong that everybody except Shias forbid mut'ah. The early school of Mecca who learnt fiqh from Ibn Abbas who himself was a close companion of Imam Ali allowed mut'ah and refused to believe Mut'ah was abrogated. In fact some hadeeths like some in Sahih Bukhari show it was Umar who stopped mut'ah and not the prophet.

Even if we assume it was abrogated it wouldnt mean that doing it was zinaa because Allah would never ever legitimize zinaa but He did legitimize mut'ah. Either the act is a moral disgrace or it's not. If you want to say it is then too bad for you 'cause the prophet allowed it. But if realize that it's not a moral disgrace then don't act like it is. By all means argue it's abrogated, but don't shame people with the concept of zinaa. The Shias who enter into this contract are just practicing something many companions of the Prophet did by his permission and some hadeeth tell us those companions had children from their mut'ah wives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
13 hours ago, Zaidism said:

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته 

It would depend on whether this fleeing was for a legitimate cause or not, i.e her family not allowing her to marry whatsoever, extreme abuse, etc. She could then have a scholar of the community she’s flees to have her married in place of the guardian. 

Yes. And maybe in extreme conditions, l like say, two converts in a non Muslim environment, who would testify for them in an islamic sense ? I guess as they say, lal darura ahkam. 

Just a fiqh issue... 

Quote

I completely understand, I gave that example because we (Zaidis) believe that mutah has been abrogated and we have traditions from Imam Ali and the sons of Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein indicating that this act has been forbidden at khaybar, and to persist in it would undoubtedly be Zina.

There’s often misconceptions over how a marriage is made haram when it was initially halal and that is why I gave the example of Al-Quran in relation to Al-Naskh Wal-Mansookh. I mentioned the Hadiths because we even have indications through twelver works, such as Imam Al-Sadiq prohibiting this act as well. 

Again, conflicting ahadith, what are we expecting lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/25/2021 at 5:08 AM, Zaidism said:

A land which forces you to commit Zina is oppressive 

Yes the land is oppressive, but the zani himself is the actual and real culprit for his own zina.

A land can make it easy to do zina and can make it difficult to get married, but cannot force anyone to do zina. If someone indulges in zina, he should blame himself for not being patient enough, instead of blaming the land.

Even if a land makes it impossible for him to get married or do mutah, even this extreme situation will still not be any valid excuse or justification or leeway to do zina.

Fulfillment of sexual desire is not an absolute necessity of life and Islam tells us that no matter why a person is unmarried, or for how long he is unmarried, he still cannot justify having any sexual pleasure before marriage. 

Simply, no matter how difficult the land may make it to avoid zina, Islamic law requires and expects unmarried men to remain chaste and sin free. The law does not accept that a person is allowed to do zina if the society is making it impossible for him to get married, because the law expects that an unmarried person must be chaste no matter how difficult the situation is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/26/2021 at 12:50 AM, Zaidism said:

completely understand, I gave that example because we (Zaidis) believe that mutah has been abrogated and we have traditions from Imam Ali and the sons of Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein indicating that this act has been forbidden at khaybar, and to persist in it would undoubtedly be Zina.

The problem here is that a hadith is not enough to validate that a verse was abrogated if it just talks about the abrogated verse and not it's newer version. 

Basically, Quran should also have the Nasikh to a verse which is Mansookh. In case of the verse of Mut'a, it isn't. Saying that it was forbidden in khayber, doesn't abrogate the verse. And saying that it was abrogated is also not enough. 

So, Mut'a is completely valid and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows what these threads would be if mut'a was not allowed.

Maybe: "Oh No, I committed Zina, help me!!!" and like that.

(though I am not debating with you and I can respect your opinion)

The problem that we see is with the low standards of society. It is real problem that people don't get any suitable woman for marriage easily now. And a similar issue is with women also that they don't get a trustworthy, comfortable guy very easily.

Muta happened in the time of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) while it is much needed today than it was at that time.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...