EXPOSING MUTAH -
A Challenging Shia Perspective
PART 1- HOW MUTAH CONTRADICTS THE QURAN
How is it that when the Quran in verse 5:5 has forbidden Muslims to take secret or private lovers we still believe that mutah is halal in Islam?
The verse 5:5 is categorical and leaves no room for ifs and buts! The instruction not to take 'secret lovers' applies universally and so even nikkah cannot be done in secret. The verse stops all sorts of miscreants to exploit sex in secret as much exploitation happens behind the loopholes of laws & traditions.
So why do we still have people insisting in allowing mutah or temporary marriage?
Mutah is referred to as ‘temporary marriage’ and is mostly done in secret as you don’t want society or your wife to find out! How convenient it is for people to circumvent the Quran and yet believe that they are with the Quran.
Anybody who reads the verse 5:5 sees that the verse is precisely hitting the nail on the head as first it bans fornication and then it says that it is also forbidden to take any kind of secret lovers which is a direct reference to secret marriages.
So the question is: Is not mutah (which is a secret practice) not in contradiction to the Quran?
And this is not the only verse that throws out Mutah. Everything about mutah is against the Quran including the fact that in the Quran there is a limit to the number of ‘wives’ you can have but in mutah there is no limit. This is the second categorical evidence against mutah and yet we still have people who insist in defending it as a Shia Islamic practice.
Remember, the Quran places a limit on the number of wives a man can have in order to stop the treatment of wives as commodities. The time before the limits on polygamy was a dreadful time for women as men could take as many wives as they could buy or rent. In Mutah it is the same as it was before Islam. In mutah there is no limit to the number of temporary wives a man can have and so clearly mutah wive are not the wives that come in to the jurisdiction of the Quran. Their rights and treatment are based on traditions, beliefs and laws that came before the Quran.
Clearly, those who believe in mutah have a version of Islam that is intertwined or mixed up with pre-Islamic practices were women were commodities and could be rented for sex. To, therefore, argue that mutah is a Shia Islamic practice is to deny what is historically a pagan practice. Not only is it a misuse of the name of Shia Islam but it is also undermining the very reason why the Quran puts a limit of polygamy.
So the second Quranic point against mutah is that it not only violates the Quranic limit on polygamy but it also undermines the Quranic purpose to stop treating of women as commodities.
There are now new moves to say that mutah wives are counted with the nikkah wives and that the limit applies to mutah wives. Some people are trying to so this to make mutah count with nikah and thereby make it acceptable. But the issue with this is that in nikkah the wives all have equal treatment. If one wife is mutah wife then she is inferior as written in many books that the status of a mutah wife is less than nikkah wife. Hence, the Quranic idea of equality and fairness between the wives does not work if the mutah wives are now counted with the nikkah wives.
Thirdly, in the Quran the waiting period of Idda is 3 months while in mutah the idda is 2 months which is not in the Quran. So who decided that IDDA can be 2 months which is less than the period in the Quran?
The 3 months of IDDA in the Quran start only after all the divorce matters are finalised. In other words, the 3 months are a final chance to either repair the marriage or settle any final legal issues that may have been overlooked. This provision or reconciliation period is not in mutah. The Idda of mutah of 2 months has a different purpose than in the Quran. The purpose is only to give the woman the time to see if she is pregnant. After the 2 months the man does not have to take responsibility of her being pregnant.
Fourthly, in the Quran a wife who is pregnant cannot be denied by the husband. This is not the case in mutah. As most mutah is done in secret the ultimate right is of the man to deny that the child is his. If he denies it then his word is final!
There are many other contradictions against the Quran of Mutah Marriages and so it begs the question of how any body can claim that mutah is endorsed in the Quran. How can something that goes against the Quran even in one thing be labelled as Islamic when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against it!
TASK: Can you remember the 4 contradictions of Mutah marriage with the Quranic marriage?
REFLECTION ON KEY FACTS
Naturally, all these contradictions with the Quran are never mentioned in the books that promote mutah to us as a Shia thing. It is similar to when slavery was promoted; beating wives was promoted; child marriages were promoted; throwing people from towers was promoted; stoning was promoted .... All these were justified by cross sectarian polemics which occupied their minds. They did not get out of the box that they wanted to stay in for their own purposes.
Today we regard slavery as unIslamic which means that much has changed from the time when they were saying that 'Halal E Muhammadi will always remain Halal!' Phrases like this were used to justify all sorts of things so that Muslims don't think of the momentum of social progress the Prophet had brought. Today, again we remain oblivious to how bad mutah is and so, like slavery and infant marriage, we think we are right to continue with it.
But so much has changed since the time slavery was banned by the Western powers. How bad that it took Western powers to ban slavery in the Muslim world when we should have banned it in the Western world due to the social momentum ignites by the Messenger of Islam! We waited for others to reform us and bring us closer to Islam. Even now so many women's & children's reforms are opening up Islam to us but it is done through charters headed by non-Muslims. How ironic that we have the Quran which we use to change wordings so that we can cojole war widows in Iran & Iraq in to the sex-trade while the Quran is a trend setter teaching high values and dignity for all women.
We Muslim never gave fuel to the momentum of social progress brought by the Messenger. We only gave him lip service! We have never been serious or honest in our Islam. Even in the 21st Centry we preferred to be zombie like and so blindly accept phrases and subservience. If we just read a few pages of the Nahjul Balagha we will see how Imam Ali (as) condemned those who were passive, blinded by phrases & rhetoric and who were against the Islamic social momentum. Shame on us that even when the Quranic is so explicit that mutah is not in Islam we insist in keeping it; like holding on to a dead rat to secretly put in to our biriyani!
But time to change! Is it not time to challenge & change by learning from past mistakes? Anything that we see going against the Quranic laws, principles and edicts in our era we must challenge & change for the better. In our era we have our struggle to ensure the Quran is not given lip service. Otherwise, we will be raised with those who blindly & passively accepted slavery as Islamic even though they knew the story of Bilal and how much Islam promoted equality and worked against slavery. In our era we know that Islamic marriage is a sacred institution as the relationship between a husband & wife is sanctified by Quranic law. We cannot make our own laws up and then falsely say our Imams endorsed it. We know mutah marriage is not Quranic. We know none of our Imams ever did it. We know it leads to so much evil. In fact it is an insult to the Quran which tells us to value our relationships. We know mutah contradicts every law in the Quran. We know it also undermines the Quran. So surely we cannot remain docile as it would be hypocritical. Surely, we need to reject it as much as past Muslims should have rejected slavery, child marriages and stoning of human beings!
PART 2 - THE CHANGING OF WORDINGS & MEANING OF 4:24
The books that promote mutah have had the audacity to even alter verse 4:24 of the Quran by changing it’s wording and even adding new words in to it to convince us that this verse is about mutah. This is how unscrupulous the books are! The basic fact is that there is no mention anywhere in the Quran of Mutah Marriage. There is not one verse that says marriage has a time limit. Even the word MUTAH is not anywhere in the Quran. Yet verse 4:24 is labeled in the books as the Mutah Verse. How dishonest is this! The verse which has no mention of mutah has been labelled as the Mutah Verse!
In fact, books and articles that promote mutah almost always quote the verse 4:24 by first altering it. The verse has no mutah (temporary marriage) in it nor a time limit. Yet in the altered verse you see mutah and a time limit. As time limit is essential in mutah the claim in books is that one of the uncles of the holy Messenger called Abbas attested that Umar had removed the word 'Time Limit' from the verse and so these words don't exist anymore in today's Quran.
Here is an example of the altered verse 4:24 using the words Temporary Marriage even though these words do not exist in the verse.
Altered Verse Version 1 in Shiapen
The excuse to turn the verse 4:24 in to MUTAH verse is based on changing the word ISTIMTATUM in to TEMPORARY MARRIAGE even though ISTIMTATUM does not literally mean temporary marriage.
In the verse 4:24 the word ISTIMTATUM (pleasure or fulfilment or compliance) is used. Our books change it to MUTAH marriage saying they are the same words as they are rooted together. This play on words is done by claiming that 'rooted' words are okay to change in the Quran. Hence, the books tell us that it is okay to interchange the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM to MUTAH as both words have the same root.
But there is a fault in this argument because even if the words ISTIMTATUM and MUTAH are rooted they both mean pleasure or fulfilment or compliance. Neither of them literally means temporary marriage!
Honest transparency is important here! Say now the argument is that MUTAH means Temporary Marriage in the context of the society in 6th Century Mecca. Then why did Allah use ISTIMTAUM and not Mutah? Clearly the context is lost when Allah used Istimtatum and not mutah!
Let us examine the double contradiction properly: First fact is that Mutah literally means pleasure not temporary marriage! So you can have mutah of watching TV. So by changing the word Istimtatum to mutah is meaningless.
The only reason it is changed is to deceive us in believing that mutah means temporary marriage.
So first they change the wording in the Quran and then they change the meaning of the word they changed! Is this not a double inverted argument and is, therefore, totally dishonest.
For those who then say that the argument is based on context of the word mutah as their claim is that mutah was used in those days to mean temporary marriage. But then as Allah did not use the word mutah then surely he did not want to use that context!
But here is a killer argument against changing the word ISTIMTATUM to mean Temporary Marriage. People are never told that in verse 46:20 the word ISTIMTATUM is used again but here if you interchange the wording then it means that those who seek Temporary Marriage in this world are kafirs and for them is hellfire. This verse proves that ISTIMTATUM is not temporary marriage as otherwise verse 4:24 would permit it and then verse 46:20 would promise to throw in to hell those who seek mutah in this life.
Furthermore, those who have told us that the word ISTIMTATUM is the same as MUTAH marriage are shown to be ignorant of verse 46:20 as they would have never argued the 'root word' logic if they knew what was in verse 46:20. This then proves that they have never made a proper study of the subject matter and are just regurgitating arguments from one source to another. Clearly, their's is not a scholarly feat of a proper analysis or scrutiny. At most they rely on parrot fashion arguments said in the passive forceful manner!
PART 3 - THE DIRT IN THE BOOKS
A proper scientific dissection of the books show how shallow, deceiving and non-sensical the arguments are that justify converting Shia Muslim women - divorcees & widows - in to sex mistresses, part time lovers and even prostitutes. In traditional societies those women who became widows or divorced were stigmatised and marriage with them was taboo. This despite the fact that the Prophet and Imam Ali (as) married widows & divorcees to remove the stigma. Shamelessly, our traditional societies dealt with widows & divorcees similar to how Hindus did it.
The fact is that the whole history of mutah is actually very dirty and our so called Shia books contain some shameful content. Here is an example:
The concept of loaning or hiring vaginas is in our books. Yes people are denying that it was allowed but the books are full of mixed stories of whether loaning of vagina is allowed. What is clear is that the idea is in our books, and we can't get away from it no matter how we now deny that it was allowed under the name of mutah. The question still remains that if it is not allowed then what is the status of a woman who contracts mutah to 'give' her body to you for a time period: If this is not loaning then what is?
References:
To see how our people (Sunni and Shia) use filth from both sides to slur each other use this link:
https://shiapen.com/blog/chapter-thirteen-the-status-of-slave-girl-in-shia-madhab
We now have people who say that stories of men who went from village to village 'hiring the vaginas' of widows in mutah are all 'weak narrations' even though these stories are quotes to justify mutah. These stories are not in Shakespeare but in our books of Shia Islam! The issue of loaning vaginas is definitely in our books and to deny their use or dismiss them as 'weak narrations' is to avoid the main question: Why does this concept get mentioned repeatedly in books that were supposed to be giving us moral guidance and teach us high values of the relationship between men & women?
THE GREAT DIVERSON
To divert from the above issues the arguments about mutah have always & tactfully been turned in to a Sunni versus Shia issue while the real issue is how we have turned Shia Islam in to a capricious religion where the sacred relationship of marriage is reduced to cold temporary sexual contracts that disguises prostitution as a form of marriage.
MUAWIYA & YAZID - THE MUTAH STUDS!
An interesting admission in our books is that while Imam Ali (as) never did it his staunch enemies did it with impunity. Men like Muawiya were known to love it as it gave them the licence to womanise. Is this therefore not a scam where we are told to follow the Ahlul Baith while our books are justifying the Sunnah of Muawiya?
How strange that what is a practice of the enemies of Shia Islam is being promoted to Shias.
PART 4 - REDUCING MARRIAGE TO A MERE CONTRACT
Often people will say that in Islam marriage is a contract as though relationship is a business. By doing this they are reducing marriage and putting it against the Quran which tells us that marriage is a sacred relationship. Here is one verse that defines marriage as a commitment for a life long relationship.
[30:21] “Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have peace and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think.”
Note the four key words in this verse regarding marriage: Love, care, peace and contentment. Are these words for life-long commitment or for contracts?
And here are more verses from the Quran on the subject:
[24:32] You shall encourage those of you who are single to get married. They may marry the righteous among your male and female servants. If they are poor GOD will enrich them from His grace. GOD is Bounteous, Knower.
[25:74] And they say, "Our Lord, let our spouses and children be a source of joy for us, and keep us in the forefront of the righteous."
[40:8] "Our Lord, admit them into the gardens of Eden that You promised for them and for the righteous among their parents, spouses, and children. You are the Almighty, Most Wise.
Is there any doubt in these verses about what marriage is in Islam as opposed to what we have made of it? In one of the verses the Quran is telling us that an ambition of marriage is to meet again in the garden of Eden. Surly no such ambition is there in contract!
So when the question is: What is the Nikka Namma?
It is a security document not a contract. It tries to mitigate the risks to the life long commitment in the marriage. If it was a contract it would be fickle and open to negotiating the terms, like in a business. Husband & wife would try to outdo each other like in so many business partnerships.
So for example the nikkah namma can state that the woman will cook for her in-laws only as a shared responsibility with other daughters-in-law but cannot say that it if others don't cook then she can sue for divorce. The whole point of the marriage is to be soul partners and mitigate anything that could hinder this life-long partnership. It is not a contract where you are grabbing selfish advantages for yourself and are under threat of divorce if you don't fulfil the contract!
Clearly the idea of mitigating risks is different to that of a contract. The best way to describe nikkah nama is a security document to mitigate against the risk of divorce.
DISSECTING VERSR 4:24
So not let us go deeper and dissect the verse 4:24 which the books have change in to the MUTAH VERSE even though the word MUTAH does not exist in it.
Evidence 1: Mutah is an Arabic word for pleasure, enjoyment or fulfilment. When we go for Hajj then the relaxation period after Hajj E Tamatu is called the Mutah of Hajj. Hence, does not mean marriage but means pleasure of fulfilment. You can say I got mutah from my marriage or pleasure from my marriage but you cannot say I did mutah as it mean I did Pleasure which will be wrong grammar,
Hence to use mutah or any root to mean ‘marriage’ is meaningless and yet in the tafsirs it it used in this context which means that the grammar is compromised.
Evidence 2: In order to correct the grammar we now have a new phrase Nikkah Mutah. By adding the word Nikkah the word mutah is now being qualified. This further proves that without the addition of the word Nikkah the word Mutah alone is not a correct use for any form of marriage.
Evidence 3: But the Quran has no such words: In Arabic the word of marriage is AKAD and so AKAD MUTAH is also missing from the Quran which means that the concept of it does not exist in the Quran.
So how is mutah brought in to the Quran?
One of the most acclaimed Shia tafseer Al Mizan inserts the word mutah in the tafsir to convince the reader that verse 4:24 is about mutah even though the word is not in the verse. The way this is done is by substituting the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM in the verse by the word MUTAH. The justification given is that the two have the same root. So the obvious question is that did God use the wrong ‘root’ word by using the word ISTMTATUM?
There is now a bizarre claim that mutah is not mentioned in the Quran because people in the 6th century used a different word for it called ISTIMTATUM. He says this to explain why the Quran does not have the word Mutah in it.
This claim is actually a contradictory claim to that of Al Mizan which says that the word mutah was ‘in vogue in the life and time of the Prophet.’
In addition, the verse 46:20 of the Quran uses the word ISTIMTATUM thus: ‘The infidels seek istimtatum in this world and for them is hell.’ So if ISTIMTATUM meant temporary marriage then it would mean that it is the infidels who ‘seek temporary marriage’ and for them is hell.
May be the advocates of temporary marriage need to get back to the drawing board!
PART 5 – THE SUNNI FACTOR
Let us now turn to Sunni books and give them also a goodly scrutiny!
The Sunni books have several suspicious stories about mutah and them. First one is that the Prophet allowed ‘mutah’ up to and until the Battle of Khybar. The story says he also forbad donkey meat and garlic during that battle without giving any reasons for it.
The second story is of two ‘Companions’ who became desperate for sex after mutah was forbidden. They were in the middle of the desert and they pleaded to the Prophet to allow them to ‘castrate’ themselves due to them having an uncontrollable urge for sex now that mutah was forbidden.
The third story is at the time of Umar who went to whip a man who did mutah. Umar said: “I forbid you what Muhammad allowed you in the early days.”
So let us examine all these as these are the three main stories repeated in our books to justify mutah from Sunni sources.
Firstly, we are asked to believe that at Khybar the Prophet suddenly forbad mutah but later when the two men got desperate he changed his mind and allowed it to them. So the first question is that why did the two men think that mutah was forbidden if it was only forbidden temporarily in Khybar? In fact since they were so desperate it shows the Prophet had not told them that it was allowed, which puts doubt on the way the Prophet broadcasted his rulings to those people.
It also means that the Prophet was making impromptu decisions to ban things and then allowed then when his banning did not work. Are we, therefore, to believe in dirty things that cast slurs on the Prophet? And since he is doing this then where does it leave the Quran which he is supposed to be modelling?
Here are some more proofs against these stories:
Proof 1: The Quran forbids Muslims to mutilate themselves. In fact it says “don’t even mutilate animals!” Yet the Companions who came to ask the Prophet to allow castration were ignorant of this verse. They wanted to castrate themselves which is the worst form of mutilation for a man. Hence what the stories are saying is also a slur on the Companions as it depicts them as ignorant, sexually out of control and ready to blackmail the Prophet for not getting sex for a few days in the desert.
Proof 2: The stories continue to say that the two men were allowed mutah and so they found a lone woman sitting in the desert in a desolate place where the young man did mutah with her. This makes the two men ‘sex predators’! It also does not answer what the old man did as he did not get sex. Did he castrate himself or just ejaculate by himself instead: self ejaculation would have been an easier option than castration!
It also does not say how the young man checked out who the woman was and how much to pay her depended on what she would do for him …. The story is therefore a total nonsense and a major slur on the Prophet and his Companions. In addition as we are supposed to follow the Sunnah it would mean that it is okay to approach women for sex if they are sitting alone somewhere. In modern terms it is called Sexual Harassment! So will we teach this to our boys and tell them how Islam is against the West and does not belive in the concept of sexual harassment of women!
Proof 3: The story of Umar starts with an old man called Amr Harith who coerced a young girl in to sex. When Umar found out he went to whip him. But Amr claimed that the Prophet had allowed such things to which Umar angrily reacted and said: “But I now disallow you what you claim Muhammad allowed to you!”
Ultimately Umar even turned to Imam Ali who (even according to Shia narrations) said that it was forbidden. Why don’t the advocates of mutah ever mention this? And why did Imam Ali also forbid it during his Caliphate if Umar was going against the Prophet?
One popular excuse for Mutah is the report that Imam Ali said that if Umar had not forbidden Mutah then only the wretched would commit adultery. But one group of people who are not allowed mutah are our wives. So maybe they would not be wretched if they commit adultery! Can you imagine a body of female scholars who would give ruling on this basis that a married woman in adultery is not wretched!
Even the most ardent supporters of Mutah say that the Prophet forbad mutah at Khybar, which means the Prophet caused wretchedness at Khybar, be it temporarily!
Thirdly, it is like the false argument that if prostitution was not allowed then rape will increase even though prostitutes get raped all the time. There is no correlation showing rape is reduced by prostitution just as mutah does not reduce wretchedness. In fact in Iran a man was caught doing mutah with a mother and her daughter as neither of them knew that he was renting their bodies. Is this not an example of how mutah has brought the worst form of wretchedness in to society while it outwardly claims to follow the high moral standards of the Alhul Baith who never engaged in this filth?
QUESTION?
Why is so much evidence from the Quran never quoted in our books on Mutah, particularly the 4 contradictions of mutah with the Quran?
Why is the whole definition of marriage turned away from the Quran by claiming that in Islam marriage is a contract when the Quranic verses show that marriage by definition has to have the intention of the life long commitment from both sides?
Why is what Muawiaya did regarded as a Shia thing to do, after all, none of the Imam did it?
Why is mutah regarded as modern when it is about sex grooming, rape, prostitution and a guise of mistresshood?
Why are inadequate and fake stories in Sunni and Shia books used to interchange words and meaning in Quranic verses like 4:24 which then contradicts 46:20?
Why is the sanctified relationship between husband & wife cheapened as a 'hire or bought deal' where temporary wives are on 'hire' while permanent wives have been 'bought?'
Why is the concept of 'hiring vaginas' in our books while people are in denial that such narrations promote the notion of temporary fix on sex?
Why do we blame the West for sexual immorality when it is inbuilt in our books and preached in our mosques and marriage guidance books: is this not hypocrisy?
CONCLUSION
As the notion of temporary marriage has no Quranic basis the advocates of mutah marriages are left changing Quranic words, giving wrong meaning to words and hiding key facts about mutah like the fact that it was a pre-islamic practice called 'hire of vaginas;' then if nothing works then turning it in to Sunni versus Shia diatribe.
All the main arguments of mutah have shown to be inadequate and 'hilarious' at times like the story of the men who wanted to castrate themselves until mutah saved one of them from castration.
Ultimately, mutah is proven to perpetuate the stigma on widows to be used for sex and promotes the sex trade in Shia communities including in ziyarats where men from the West get offered secret sex deals with young 'mutah' girls? Most of these young girls are in hijab but sexually exploited for being women and poor.
The advocates of mutah have come will all sort of passivity, dismissals and phrases which is now entrenched in their psyche. Remember mutah is now an international sex business and so it has a lot of money to lose for those who advocate for it. The same was in the past. But just because they dont merit the tawfiq or divine guidance to move on does not mean that we should not clean up the act to give the true guidance of Islam to our children and especially to our young boys & girls whom we want to secure in stable loving relationships of marriages. Otherwise, we too will be a generation that refused to take the challenge until some Western forces will force the change on us like they did with Slavery. But by that time we too will lose the tawfiq for change and another generation will be lost to the pundit of casual sex contracts called mutah marriages.
How is it that when the Quran in verse 5:5 has forbidden Muslims to take secret or private lovers we still believe that mutah is halal in Islam?
The verse 5:5 is categorical and leaves no room for ifs and buts! The instruction not to take 'secret lovers' applies universally and so even nikkah cannot be done in secret. The verse stops all sorts of miscreants to exploit sex in secret as much exploitation happens behind the loopholes of laws & traditions.
So why do we still have people insisting in allowing mutah or temporary marriage?
Mutah is referred to as ‘temporary marriage’ and is mostly done in secret as you don’t want society or your wife to find out! How convenient it is for people to circumvent the Quran and yet believe that they are with the Quran.
Anybody who reads the verse 5:5 sees that the verse is precisely hitting the nail on the head as first it bans fornication and then it says that it is also forbidden to take any kind of secret lovers which is a direct reference to secret marriages.
So the question is: Is not mutah (which is a secret practice) not in contradiction to the Quran?
And this is not the only verse that throws out Mutah. Everything about mutah is against the Quran including the fact that in the Quran there is a limit to the number of ‘wives’ you can have but in mutah there is no limit. This is the second categorical evidence against mutah and yet we still have people who insist in defending it as a Shia Islamic practice.
Remember, the Quran places a limit on the number of wives a man can have in order to stop the treatment of wives as commodities. The time before the limits on polygamy was a dreadful time for women as men could take as many wives as they could buy or rent. In Mutah it is the same as it was before Islam. In mutah there is no limit to the number of temporary wives a man can have and so clearly mutah wive are not the wives that come in to the jurisdiction of the Quran. Their rights and treatment are based on traditions, beliefs and laws that came before the Quran.
Clearly, those who believe in mutah have a version of Islam that is intertwined or mixed up with pre-Islamic practices were women were commodities and could be rented for sex. To, therefore, argue that mutah is a Shia Islamic practice is to deny what is historically a pagan practice. Not only is it a misuse of the name of Shia Islam but it is also undermining the very reason why the Quran puts a limit of polygamy.
So the second Quranic point against mutah is that it not only violates the Quranic limit on polygamy but it also undermines the Quranic purpose to stop treating of women as commodities.
There are now new moves to say that mutah wives are counted with the nikkah wives and that the limit applies to mutah wives. Some people are trying to so this to make mutah count with nikah and thereby make it acceptable. But the issue with this is that in nikkah the wives all have equal treatment. If one wife is mutah wife then she is inferior as written in many books that the status of a mutah wife is less than nikkah wife. Hence, the Quranic idea of equality and fairness between the wives does not work if the mutah wives are now counted with the nikkah wives.
Thirdly, in the Quran the waiting period of Idda is 3 months while in mutah the idda is 2 months which is not in the Quran. So who decided that IDDA can be 2 months which is less than the period in the Quran?
The 3 months of IDDA in the Quran start only after all the divorce matters are finalised. In other words, the 3 months are a final chance to either repair the marriage or settle any final legal issues that may have been overlooked. This provision or reconciliation period is not in mutah. The Idda of mutah of 2 months has a different purpose than in the Quran. The purpose is only to give the woman the time to see if she is pregnant. After the 2 months the man does not have to take responsibility of her being pregnant.
Fourthly, in the Quran a wife who is pregnant cannot be denied by the husband. This is not the case in mutah. As most mutah is done in secret the ultimate right is of the man to deny that the child is his. If he denies it then his word is final!
There are many other contradictions against the Quran of Mutah Marriages and so it begs the question of how any body can claim that mutah is endorsed in the Quran. How can something that goes against the Quran even in one thing be labelled as Islamic when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against it!
TASK: Can you remember the 4 contradictions of Mutah marriage with the Quranic marriage?
REFLECTION ON KEY FACTS
Naturally, all these contradictions with the Quran are never mentioned in the books that promote mutah to us as a Shia thing. It is similar to when slavery was promoted; beating wives was promoted; child marriages were promoted; throwing people from towers was promoted; stoning was promoted .... All these were justified by cross sectarian polemics which occupied their minds. They did not get out of the box that they wanted to stay in for their own purposes.
Today we regard slavery as unIslamic which means that much has changed from the time when they were saying that 'Halal E Muhammadi will always remain Halal!' Phrases like this were used to justify all sorts of things so that Muslims don't think of the momentum of social progress the Prophet had brought. Today, again we remain oblivious to how bad mutah is and so, like slavery and infant marriage, we think we are right to continue with it.
But so much has changed since the time slavery was banned by the Western powers. How bad that it took Western powers to ban slavery in the Muslim world when we should have banned it in the Western world due to the social momentum ignites by the Messenger of Islam! We waited for others to reform us and bring us closer to Islam. Even now so many women's & children's reforms are opening up Islam to us but it is done through charters headed by non-Muslims. How ironic that we have the Quran which we use to change wordings so that we can cojole war widows in Iran & Iraq in to the sex-trade while the Quran is a trend setter teaching high values and dignity for all women.
We Muslim never gave fuel to the momentum of social progress brought by the Messenger. We only gave him lip service! We have never been serious or honest in our Islam. Even in the 21st Centry we preferred to be zombie like and so blindly accept phrases and subservience. If we just read a few pages of the Nahjul Balagha we will see how Imam Ali (as) condemned those who were passive, blinded by phrases & rhetoric and who were against the Islamic social momentum. Shame on us that even when the Quranic is so explicit that mutah is not in Islam we insist in keeping it; like holding on to a dead rat to secretly put in to our biriyani!
But time to change! Is it not time to challenge & change by learning from past mistakes? Anything that we see going against the Quranic laws, principles and edicts in our era we must challenge & change for the better. In our era we have our struggle to ensure the Quran is not given lip service. Otherwise, we will be raised with those who blindly & passively accepted slavery as Islamic even though they knew the story of Bilal and how much Islam promoted equality and worked against slavery. In our era we know that Islamic marriage is a sacred institution as the relationship between a husband & wife is sanctified by Quranic law. We cannot make our own laws up and then falsely say our Imams endorsed it. We know mutah marriage is not Quranic. We know none of our Imams ever did it. We know it leads to so much evil. In fact it is an insult to the Quran which tells us to value our relationships. We know mutah contradicts every law in the Quran. We know it also undermines the Quran. So surely we cannot remain docile as it would be hypocritical. Surely, we need to reject it as much as past Muslims should have rejected slavery, child marriages and stoning of human beings!
PART 2 - THE CHANGING OF WORDINGS & MEANING OF 4:24
The books that promote mutah have had the audacity to even alter verse 4:24 of the Quran by changing it’s wording and even adding new words in to it to convince us that this verse is about mutah. This is how unscrupulous the books are! The basic fact is that there is no mention anywhere in the Quran of Mutah Marriage. There is not one verse that says marriage has a time limit. Even the word MUTAH is not anywhere in the Quran. Yet verse 4:24 is labeled in the books as the Mutah Verse. How dishonest is this! The verse which has no mention of mutah has been labelled as the Mutah Verse!
In fact, books and articles that promote mutah almost always quote the verse 4:24 by first altering it. The verse has no mutah (temporary marriage) in it nor a time limit. Yet in the altered verse you see mutah and a time limit. As time limit is essential in mutah the claim in books is that one of the uncles of the holy Messenger called Abbas attested that Umar had removed the word 'Time Limit' from the verse and so these words don't exist anymore in today's Quran.
Here is an example of the altered verse 4:24 using the words Temporary Marriage even though these words do not exist in the verse.
Altered Verse Version 1 in Shiapen
The excuse to turn the verse 4:24 in to MUTAH verse is based on changing the word ISTIMTATUM in to TEMPORARY MARRIAGE even though ISTIMTATUM does not literally mean temporary marriage.
In the verse 4:24 the word ISTIMTATUM (pleasure or fulfilment or compliance) is used. Our books change it to MUTAH marriage saying they are the same words as they are rooted together. This play on words is done by claiming that 'rooted' words are okay to change in the Quran. Hence, the books tell us that it is okay to interchange the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM to MUTAH as both words have the same root.
But there is a fault in this argument because even if the words ISTIMTATUM and MUTAH are rooted they both mean pleasure or fulfilment or compliance. Neither of them literally means temporary marriage!
Honest transparency is important here! Say now the argument is that MUTAH means Temporary Marriage in the context of the society in 6th Century Mecca. Then why did Allah use ISTIMTAUM and not Mutah? Clearly the context is lost when Allah used Istimtatum and not mutah!
Let us examine the double contradiction properly: First fact is that Mutah literally means pleasure not temporary marriage! So you can have mutah of watching TV. So by changing the word Istimtatum to mutah is meaningless.
The only reason it is changed is to deceive us in believing that mutah means temporary marriage.
So first they change the wording in the Quran and then they change the meaning of the word they changed! Is this not a double inverted argument and is, therefore, totally dishonest.
For those who then say that the argument is based on context of the word mutah as their claim is that mutah was used in those days to mean temporary marriage. But then as Allah did not use the word mutah then surely he did not want to use that context!
But here is a killer argument against changing the word ISTIMTATUM to mean Temporary Marriage. People are never told that in verse 46:20 the word ISTIMTATUM is used again but here if you interchange the wording then it means that those who seek Temporary Marriage in this world are kafirs and for them is hellfire. This verse proves that ISTIMTATUM is not temporary marriage as otherwise verse 4:24 would permit it and then verse 46:20 would promise to throw in to hell those who seek mutah in this life.
Furthermore, those who have told us that the word ISTIMTATUM is the same as MUTAH marriage are shown to be ignorant of verse 46:20 as they would have never argued the 'root word' logic if they knew what was in verse 46:20. This then proves that they have never made a proper study of the subject matter and are just regurgitating arguments from one source to another. Clearly, their's is not a scholarly feat of a proper analysis or scrutiny. At most they rely on parrot fashion arguments said in the passive forceful manner!
PART 3 - THE DIRT IN THE BOOKS
A proper scientific dissection of the books show how shallow, deceiving and non-sensical the arguments are that justify converting Shia Muslim women - divorcees & widows - in to sex mistresses, part time lovers and even prostitutes. In traditional societies those women who became widows or divorced were stigmatised and marriage with them was taboo. This despite the fact that the Prophet and Imam Ali (as) married widows & divorcees to remove the stigma. Shamelessly, our traditional societies dealt with widows & divorcees similar to how Hindus did it.
The fact is that the whole history of mutah is actually very dirty and our so called Shia books contain some shameful content. Here is an example:
The concept of loaning or hiring vaginas is in our books. Yes people are denying that it was allowed but the books are full of mixed stories of whether loaning of vagina is allowed. What is clear is that the idea is in our books, and we can't get away from it no matter how we now deny that it was allowed under the name of mutah. The question still remains that if it is not allowed then what is the status of a woman who contracts mutah to 'give' her body to you for a time period: If this is not loaning then what is?
References:
To see how our people (Sunni and Shia) use filth from both sides to slur each other use this link:
https://shiapen.com/blog/chapter-thirteen-the-status-of-slave-girl-in-shia-madhab
We now have people who say that stories of men who went from village to village 'hiring the vaginas' of widows in mutah are all 'weak narrations' even though these stories are quotes to justify mutah. These stories are not in Shakespeare but in our books of Shia Islam! The issue of loaning vaginas is definitely in our books and to deny their use or dismiss them as 'weak narrations' is to avoid the main question: Why does this concept get mentioned repeatedly in books that were supposed to be giving us moral guidance and teach us high values of the relationship between men & women?
THE GREAT DIVERSON
To divert from the above issues the arguments about mutah have always & tactfully been turned in to a Sunni versus Shia issue while the real issue is how we have turned Shia Islam in to a capricious religion where the sacred relationship of marriage is reduced to cold temporary sexual contracts that disguises prostitution as a form of marriage.
MUAWIYA & YAZID - THE MUTAH STUDS!
An interesting admission in our books is that while Imam Ali (as) never did it his staunch enemies did it with impunity. Men like Muawiya were known to love it as it gave them the licence to womanise. Is this therefore not a scam where we are told to follow the Ahlul Baith while our books are justifying the Sunnah of Muawiya?
How strange that what is a practice of the enemies of Shia Islam is being promoted to Shias.
PART 4 - REDUCING MARRIAGE TO A MERE CONTRACT
Often people will say that in Islam marriage is a contract as though relationship is a business. By doing this they are reducing marriage and putting it against the Quran which tells us that marriage is a sacred relationship. Here is one verse that defines marriage as a commitment for a life long relationship.
[30:21] “Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have peace and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think.”
Note the four key words in this verse regarding marriage: Love, care, peace and contentment. Are these words for life-long commitment or for contracts?
And here are more verses from the Quran on the subject:
[24:32] You shall encourage those of you who are single to get married. They may marry the righteous among your male and female servants. If they are poor GOD will enrich them from His grace. GOD is Bounteous, Knower.
[25:74] And they say, "Our Lord, let our spouses and children be a source of joy for us, and keep us in the forefront of the righteous."
[40:8] "Our Lord, admit them into the gardens of Eden that You promised for them and for the righteous among their parents, spouses, and children. You are the Almighty, Most Wise.
Is there any doubt in these verses about what marriage is in Islam as opposed to what we have made of it? In one of the verses the Quran is telling us that an ambition of marriage is to meet again in the garden of Eden. Surly no such ambition is there in contract!
So when the question is: What is the Nikka Namma?
It is a security document not a contract. It tries to mitigate the risks to the life long commitment in the marriage. If it was a contract it would be fickle and open to negotiating the terms, like in a business. Husband & wife would try to outdo each other like in so many business partnerships.
So for example the nikkah namma can state that the woman will cook for her in-laws only as a shared responsibility with other daughters-in-law but cannot say that it if others don't cook then she can sue for divorce. The whole point of the marriage is to be soul partners and mitigate anything that could hinder this life-long partnership. It is not a contract where you are grabbing selfish advantages for yourself and are under threat of divorce if you don't fulfil the contract!
Clearly the idea of mitigating risks is different to that of a contract. The best way to describe nikkah nama is a security document to mitigate against the risk of divorce.
DISSECTING VERSR 4:24
So not let us go deeper and dissect the verse 4:24 which the books have change in to the MUTAH VERSE even though the word MUTAH does not exist in it.
Evidence 1: Mutah is an Arabic word for pleasure, enjoyment or fulfilment. When we go for Hajj then the relaxation period after Hajj E Tamatu is called the Mutah of Hajj. Hence, does not mean marriage but means pleasure of fulfilment. You can say I got mutah from my marriage or pleasure from my marriage but you cannot say I did mutah as it mean I did Pleasure which will be wrong grammar,
Hence to use mutah or any root to mean ‘marriage’ is meaningless and yet in the tafsirs it it used in this context which means that the grammar is compromised.
Evidence 2: In order to correct the grammar we now have a new phrase Nikkah Mutah. By adding the word Nikkah the word mutah is now being qualified. This further proves that without the addition of the word Nikkah the word Mutah alone is not a correct use for any form of marriage.
Evidence 3: But the Quran has no such words: In Arabic the word of marriage is AKAD and so AKAD MUTAH is also missing from the Quran which means that the concept of it does not exist in the Quran.
So how is mutah brought in to the Quran?
One of the most acclaimed Shia tafseer Al Mizan inserts the word mutah in the tafsir to convince the reader that verse 4:24 is about mutah even though the word is not in the verse. The way this is done is by substituting the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM in the verse by the word MUTAH. The justification given is that the two have the same root. So the obvious question is that did God use the wrong ‘root’ word by using the word ISTMTATUM?
There is now a bizarre claim that mutah is not mentioned in the Quran because people in the 6th century used a different word for it called ISTIMTATUM. He says this to explain why the Quran does not have the word Mutah in it.
This claim is actually a contradictory claim to that of Al Mizan which says that the word mutah was ‘in vogue in the life and time of the Prophet.’
In addition, the verse 46:20 of the Quran uses the word ISTIMTATUM thus: ‘The infidels seek istimtatum in this world and for them is hell.’ So if ISTIMTATUM meant temporary marriage then it would mean that it is the infidels who ‘seek temporary marriage’ and for them is hell.
May be the advocates of temporary marriage need to get back to the drawing board!
PART 5 – THE SUNNI FACTOR
Let us now turn to Sunni books and give them also a goodly scrutiny!
The Sunni books have several suspicious stories about mutah and them. First one is that the Prophet allowed ‘mutah’ up to and until the Battle of Khybar. The story says he also forbad donkey meat and garlic during that battle without giving any reasons for it.
The second story is of two ‘Companions’ who became desperate for sex after mutah was forbidden. They were in the middle of the desert and they pleaded to the Prophet to allow them to ‘castrate’ themselves due to them having an uncontrollable urge for sex now that mutah was forbidden.
The third story is at the time of Umar who went to whip a man who did mutah. Umar said: “I forbid you what Muhammad allowed you in the early days.”
So let us examine all these as these are the three main stories repeated in our books to justify mutah from Sunni sources.
Firstly, we are asked to believe that at Khybar the Prophet suddenly forbad mutah but later when the two men got desperate he changed his mind and allowed it to them. So the first question is that why did the two men think that mutah was forbidden if it was only forbidden temporarily in Khybar? In fact since they were so desperate it shows the Prophet had not told them that it was allowed, which puts doubt on the way the Prophet broadcasted his rulings to those people.
It also means that the Prophet was making impromptu decisions to ban things and then allowed then when his banning did not work. Are we, therefore, to believe in dirty things that cast slurs on the Prophet? And since he is doing this then where does it leave the Quran which he is supposed to be modelling?
Here are some more proofs against these stories:
Proof 1: The Quran forbids Muslims to mutilate themselves. In fact it says “don’t even mutilate animals!” Yet the Companions who came to ask the Prophet to allow castration were ignorant of this verse. They wanted to castrate themselves which is the worst form of mutilation for a man. Hence what the stories are saying is also a slur on the Companions as it depicts them as ignorant, sexually out of control and ready to blackmail the Prophet for not getting sex for a few days in the desert.
Proof 2: The stories continue to say that the two men were allowed mutah and so they found a lone woman sitting in the desert in a desolate place where the young man did mutah with her. This makes the two men ‘sex predators’! It also does not answer what the old man did as he did not get sex. Did he castrate himself or just ejaculate by himself instead: self ejaculation would have been an easier option than castration!
It also does not say how the young man checked out who the woman was and how much to pay her depended on what she would do for him …. The story is therefore a total nonsense and a major slur on the Prophet and his Companions. In addition as we are supposed to follow the Sunnah it would mean that it is okay to approach women for sex if they are sitting alone somewhere. In modern terms it is called Sexual Harassment! So will we teach this to our boys and tell them how Islam is against the West and does not belive in the concept of sexual harassment of women!
Proof 3: The story of Umar starts with an old man called Amr Harith who coerced a young girl in to sex. When Umar found out he went to whip him. But Amr claimed that the Prophet had allowed such things to which Umar angrily reacted and said: “But I now disallow you what you claim Muhammad allowed to you!”
Ultimately Umar even turned to Imam Ali who (even according to Shia narrations) said that it was forbidden. Why don’t the advocates of mutah ever mention this? And why did Imam Ali also forbid it during his Caliphate if Umar was going against the Prophet?
One popular excuse for Mutah is the report that Imam Ali said that if Umar had not forbidden Mutah then only the wretched would commit adultery. But one group of people who are not allowed mutah are our wives. So maybe they would not be wretched if they commit adultery! Can you imagine a body of female scholars who would give ruling on this basis that a married woman in adultery is not wretched!
Even the most ardent supporters of Mutah say that the Prophet forbad mutah at Khybar, which means the Prophet caused wretchedness at Khybar, be it temporarily!
Thirdly, it is like the false argument that if prostitution was not allowed then rape will increase even though prostitutes get raped all the time. There is no correlation showing rape is reduced by prostitution just as mutah does not reduce wretchedness. In fact in Iran a man was caught doing mutah with a mother and her daughter as neither of them knew that he was renting their bodies. Is this not an example of how mutah has brought the worst form of wretchedness in to society while it outwardly claims to follow the high moral standards of the Alhul Baith who never engaged in this filth?
QUESTION?
Why is so much evidence from the Quran never quoted in our books on Mutah, particularly the 4 contradictions of mutah with the Quran?
Why is the whole definition of marriage turned away from the Quran by claiming that in Islam marriage is a contract when the Quranic verses show that marriage by definition has to have the intention of the life long commitment from both sides?
Why is what Muawiaya did regarded as a Shia thing to do, after all, none of the Imam did it?
Why is mutah regarded as modern when it is about sex grooming, rape, prostitution and a guise of mistresshood?
Why are inadequate and fake stories in Sunni and Shia books used to interchange words and meaning in Quranic verses like 4:24 which then contradicts 46:20?
Why is the sanctified relationship between husband & wife cheapened as a 'hire or bought deal' where temporary wives are on 'hire' while permanent wives have been 'bought?'
Why is the concept of 'hiring vaginas' in our books while people are in denial that such narrations promote the notion of temporary fix on sex?
Why do we blame the West for sexual immorality when it is inbuilt in our books and preached in our mosques and marriage guidance books: is this not hypocrisy?
CONCLUSION
As the notion of temporary marriage has no Quranic basis the advocates of mutah marriages are left changing Quranic words, giving wrong meaning to words and hiding key facts about mutah like the fact that it was a pre-islamic practice called 'hire of vaginas;' then if nothing works then turning it in to Sunni versus Shia diatribe.
All the main arguments of mutah have shown to be inadequate and 'hilarious' at times like the story of the men who wanted to castrate themselves until mutah saved one of them from castration.
Ultimately, mutah is proven to perpetuate the stigma on widows to be used for sex and promotes the sex trade in Shia communities including in ziyarats where men from the West get offered secret sex deals with young 'mutah' girls? Most of these young girls are in hijab but sexually exploited for being women and poor.
The advocates of mutah have come will all sort of passivity, dismissals and phrases which is now entrenched in their psyche. Remember mutah is now an international sex business and so it has a lot of money to lose for those who advocate for it. The same was in the past. But just because they dont merit the tawfiq or divine guidance to move on does not mean that we should not clean up the act to give the true guidance of Islam to our children and especially to our young boys & girls whom we want to secure in stable loving relationships of marriages. Otherwise, we too will be a generation that refused to take the challenge until some Western forces will force the change on us like they did with Slavery. But by that time we too will lose the tawfiq for change and another generation will be lost to the pundit of casual sex contracts called mutah marriages.
No To Secret LoversQuran 5:5 forbid secret lovers. So why is mutah allowed to be done in secret without registration?
Is ISTIMTATUM the same as Temporary Marriage?In both verses 4:24 and 46:20 the word ISTIMTATUM is mentioned. If it meant temporary marriage then in verse 46:20 it says that the Kafirs get ISTIMTATUM in this world and so will enter hell. But verse 46:20 is never quoted in books which argue that ISTIMTATUM means Temporary Marriage which proves that there is deliberate ploy to mislead the Muslims.
A solution for desperate menIn verse 4:25 desperate men are told to have 'self control' or marry a slave-girl. What is mutah not given as an option if it was endorsed by the Quran?Limitation to PolygamyThe Quran limits polygamy but mutah has no limit. Why is mutah above the laws of the Quran?
An Insult to Hijab valuesThe hijab is supposed to inculcate a strong moral character. How can a woman who falls in to bed with ,men who rent her out temporarily as a wife be a woman of strong moral character when such a life-style is of prostitutes, marriage wreckers, gold diggers and women of no sexual control?
|
Definition of WifeSheikh Thani says that a wife is bought or rented. This is not in the Quran which tells us that couples are guides, helper & protectors of each other and are part of the same soul. Which definition should we follow: That of Sheikh Thani or that of the Quran
What Imam Ali is supposed to have saidWe are told that Imam Ali (as) said that if Umar had not forbidden mutah then only the wretched would commit adultery. But married women are not allowed mutah and so if they commit adultery then they are not wretched; A man can end up sleep with a woman and her son can also end up sleeping with her as mutah is done in secrecy: Is this not wretchedness within mutah? Furthermore, virgins are not allowed mutah without the permission of their fathers and so if they commit adultery then is it not wretched?
Changing RulesReligious argument often reply on blanket quotes and one such quote is that Halal E Muhammad will always remain Halal and Harram E MUhammad will always remain Haram. So why are scholars now beginning to forbid married men from doing mutah when the books tell us that it is halal for married men? Why change the rules if Halal is always Halal?
Rule of Thumb by Imam Ali (as)As a rule of thumb Imam Ali said that if anything leads to injustice then it cannot be allowed in Islam. Since mutah leads to prostitution & abuse then how can it be allowed in Islam?
Turning war widows in to ProstitutesIt is a grave injustice that the widows of men who were killed fighting for Islam are exploited as prostitutes or sex workers. Their daughters also fall prey to pimps. Is this what is allowed in Islam for the family of those who have given their lives for Islam when they merit respect and honor?
The Scholars Can Answer it!Well they must do, especially as they have studied for such a long time and have gone through so many books! So please send the questions raised above to any office of any reputable scholar to see if you can get any answers.
10 Questions against changing verse 4:24 in to a mutah verse - click |
|