[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ana: *
This may all be off topic, but I seriously don't enjoy faulting minor intricacies here and there when more universally glaring issues are trifled with by our ummah. The Qur'an may not be a human psychology or social welfare book, but if we claim to be Muslims, we ought to do it the justice of believing in it first, before going on to bigger and better things.
[/QUOTE]
Well said sis Ana! :)
This was never meant to be a Shia V Sunni thing and I'm sorry if I've offended any Shias by what I have said. I just find the concept of temporary marriages very wrong, but that's my personal opinion. It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Sunni.
Gandolf, you still haven't answered Faisal's question.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by highheelz: *
As for brother Faisal's question regarding the boy and the girl going for a "test drive" if they have followed all the rules to mutah then **YES what they have done is acceptable*. However, just because someone is abusing something that is there for their own benefit, does not mean that it should be disregarded. Allah (swt) has given us many beautiful things and unfortunately it is human nature to misuse and abuse things.
[/QUOTE]
So you say its ok. Fine.
About the only conditions of muttah, that have been mentioned are that there should be niyyat of muttah and there should be some payment involved. There is no discourse on whether it is publicly announced or can it remain a secret (Nikkah, on the other hand HAS to be publicly announced), and whether there need to be witnesses to muttah contract or not. These questions were raised by some members here and are not answered.
Secondly, you say "just because someone is abusing something". Well, correct me if I am wrong, but Gandalf has actually quoted this ("living together before marriage") as one of the benefits/reasons for muttah.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gandalf: *
Getting to know yr partner before marriage is a good use of mutah. Travellers away from their home for long periods of time can do mutah.
[/QUOTE]
So according to him, its not "misusing" muttah, but rather this is what muttah is for.
This was never meant to be a Shia V Sunni thing and I'm sorry if I've offended any Shias by what I have said. I just find the concept of temporary marriages very wrong, but that's my personal opinion. It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Sunni.
Ditto here.
I was just trying not to bring right vs. wrong into it.
Also, Mutah was not for spreading seed Sobi. It was originally conceptualized, I believe, to help satisfy the woman, since so many men were killed that there was a surplus of the female population. That's also why it was not to be administered to non-married women.. only those that have been married before. For health reasons for the woman, I guess. That's prolly why the Prophet SAW did not veto it during his time, but he did not put his seal to it either.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ana: *
to help satisfy the woman
[/QUOTE]
This is interesting. I know that some ppl argue that Islam allowed four marriages so that war-widows can have support. I never realized that there is also a solution for just satisfying the sexual needs of women whose husbands are killed in wars. Really interesting.
Rather.
There are reasons for everything Faisal. U just have to look at it in a different angle.
Allow me to answer my own question, because none of our fellow-posters deemed them important... reason being because there are no answers to those questions.
A modern-day mutah is a licensed exhange of services. You get a permit for it, as far as I know the permit issuer is a broker or mediary who introduces you to the temporary mate. There is no nikah, there need not be any witnesses. The woman is not a wife, nor has the rights or duties of a wife. She has no right of inheritance, only the children that she gives birth to have a limited claim on the father, and need not co-exist with the father in his lodgings. The obligations and rights of a mutah wife in fact are quite ambiguous, even in Shi'ite literature, and I have searched for them high and low, so I know.
Marriage in Islam needs to be witnessed, by five people more or less, for a reason.. so that each spouse knows his/her rights, duties and obligations towards each other, and the children are raised in guarded surroundings. In mutah, in theory as well as in practice, there is no such thing as having a right on the other except for sexual purposes. This is where it differs from a "marriage" (or nikah), and hence can be simply and logically deduced to be a mere sex-trade. But no one will tell you this outright.
Another area where witnesses are missing is during Walima. Walima, as we know, was a sunnah of the Prophet SAW, Nikah being the Farz set by Allah SWT. Walima, signifying consummation, was made a sunnah because men were getting nikafied and then off to war to get killed. The women they left behind, young inexperienced women, who wanted to get married again, could not do so sometimes because the men marrying them would question their virginity. You see, the men didn't simply know who they were marrying, and to some men it made a difference. So the Prophet SAW said to have a walima after nikah, to show that a marriage had been consummated. Quite simple really.
BUT, Shias generally do not have walimas. No walima, no witnesses. Ambiguity reigns.. about many things. It gets quite complicated later. Nowadays I know quiet a few shias do have walimas, but it is more fad and fashion than ideology. Again, it also depends on what sect-within-sect you are from.. Aga Khani, Bhori, Khoja (there are varieties of Khoja), Isnastri, etc.. etc....
Well. It seems you know more about muttah than many of the shia participants here, whose only response to all the questions is a taunt that "you guys don't agree to what the Prophet (Sallalah o Alaihay Wassalam) allowed?" After about the second time, this statement starts reeking of "we don't have any answers". Or maybe they don't want to admit their lack of knowledge or the want to hide some of the mis-conceptions about this whole muttah thing.
Anyway, coming back to your post. This might very well be. I always thought you only need two witnesses to a nikah. Never knew it has to be five. But thats a minor point. The main thing is that there gotta be witnesses and that it should be public. And you can't do nikah for a limited duration.
Interesting theory about walima. So, what you are saying is that a walima confirms that the girl is NOT a virgin anymore. The part before that was doubts about a girl's virginity where the husband goes off on a war before consumating marriage. There seemed a bit of disconnect between that and the reason for making walima a sunnah. Does it mean, that if there is no walima then the marriage is never consumated? I don't think so. But anyway, in present times, this is kinda moot issue, because people schedule walima quite in advance, and it takes place regardless of whether the marriage is consumated or not.
No no Faisal, I just said walima was intended to in a way help clarify that consummation in all likelihood occurred, not necessary that it had to have occurred. Otherwise, why would Huzoor SAW recommend walima at all? He wasn't very big on "spending spree" ideas you know. But also, there is hadith (I think it was hadith, don't remember now...) saying that a man cannot forsake his wife above 3 nights, because it may invalidate their nikah... so that kinda fits into the whole shadi (nikah-cum-walima) equation.
Yes, the main thing is that nikah is not for any fixed duration. It is.. days to the power of x, with x being uncertain.
About the five witnesses, I meant roughly the total number to witness a whole marriage. It was two male or one male and two female witnesses for nikah and feeding atleast five in a walima party.
Assalam Alaykum,
I just wanted to make a few corrections to your post sister Ana.
Mutah is a form of marriage, be it temporary, therefore when a man and woman do engage in mutah the woman does become his wife. She is a wife of temporary marriage, not permanent therefore her “obligations and rights” are a bit different from that of a permanent wife. I’m not sure about what you are referring to when you say “modern-day mutah” however you do not need to get any sort of permit for mutah. For a man and women to engage in a mutah, they can do it by themselves without any witnesses in private and it can just be a verbal contract if they prefer. If the man or woman were to die during the period of mutah, then neither of them have any right to inheritance. If children are born from the mutah then they belong to the man and are his responsibility.
Shias do believe that a walima is a sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw) and yes we do have walimas. We do not see them as a fad and fashion but believe them to be a very important part of the marriage process (for lack of a better word). Also “khojas” are not a different sect, but are of a different culture. The beliefs that I have stated are of the ithna-asheri or twelver shias. The twelver shias are the majority and the others are just a small minority that are not actually sects themselves but have developped into something totally different. Bhora’s are not shias because they are not muslims. (Correction: My apologies, Bhora’s are muslims, please see my next post for an explanation.)
Also you stated you have looked for more information regarding mutah all over and have been unable to find it. I’m not sure if you have already seen this site but it has quite of bit of information that you might find informative:
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta
Wa Salam,
Anila
Thank you Anila. This is invaluable. I was under the impression walimas are not required and only optional. However, some books on Shi'ite literature that I have with me, also do not mention walima, neither in indexes not marriage chapter, so that's how I gleaned it. Also, the Bhori marriages I have attended also did not have walima, and as to your comment about Bhoris being non-muslim, I think they would beg to differ. I call them and Khojas sects because, yes they have a distinct culture, but they also have some different ways of doing things from each other.. my apologies for the semantic error.
The license part I am fairly certain of, because talking to people who have gone to their Karbala pilgrimages etc.., I was told that nowadays they have licenses for these things that both parties need to sign. However, you did answer my question on witnesses, thanks.
Faisal Says:
Without going into a lot of word-play, lets say, a guy wants to have sex with a girl. They say, ok the best way to do it is by a niyyat of "muttah". They agree that it will be protected sex so there will be no pregnancy. He agrees to pay her $100 for one night of muttah (or $300 for 3 nights, whatever). They have sex and sleep together. And the next day they go their separate ways. Both the girl and the guy earn a lot of sawaab from this all. The only stipulation is that the girl can not enter into another muttah for 2 months.
More over, lets say a boy and a girl wanna "test drive" how it feels to live together without a nikkah. So they do a "muttah" for one month for a specified sum of money. They live together, have sex (protected, ofcourse!). After one month, they break off. They get sawaab for the one month they lived together.
You are saying this is perfectly fine? Just say yes or no, and lets wrap up this discussion.<<
Mr Faisal, I mean no disrespect but your assumptions, some of which are wrong, and desire to conclude everything in a single word indicates a certain lack of will in trying or even wanting to understand another’s perspective, on your part. Yes, it is perfectly fine. The sawaab is the same as for following any act of sunnah there is no special reward.
Faisal Says:
Please elaborate in detail the whole procedure for converting to shiasm. I am sure there will be plenty of people who are suddenly very interested now. No kidding. Not only is 'this' allowed, there is extra sawaab as well.<<
While you advise others and quite rightly so, to not attack with ‘cheap’ personal insults, although I am sure you personally can rise above such petty comment, you yourself ridicule the faith and understanding of millions with your equally cheap shot of “procedure for converting into Shiaism” insinuating conversion is due to the allure of sex and not due to the faith and belief of a person. Forgive me for saying so, but I believe that was a most hurtful and ignorant comment.
Dear Ana, I do not agree with you about the Shia sunni statement you made. Shia-Sunni marriages where the husband is Shia and the woman is Sunni, are not null and void. The Shia Ithna’Asheri fiqh, that is the Ja’afri Fiqh, is a recognised and established fiqh (before the time of Abu Hanifa, the founder of the majority Sunni Hanafi fiqh, who was an avid student of the sixth Imam Jafer a.s), especially recognised as the Fifth Islamic School of Thought in the circles of that great Sunni institution and seminary of Jamia Al Azhar, Cairo. There is no shirk in the Shia faith.
As to the rest of the questions, I claim no expert knowledge however I will try and answer the questions the best I can.
To begin with let me state when one debates the rightness or wrongness of something, it is logical to apply and to try and understand the principles which led to it being seen as right or wrong. One does not debate the little details of the act as being right or wrong. So in this respect I will mostly take up the principles of Mutah – is it right or wrong, instead of talking about the little details and conditions pertaining to Mutah, which I will try to include. But it is a lengthy topic. There are the sociological aspects of Mutah, the historical acpects, the religious aspect, in context of the modern world we live in and certainly not in the least the cultural aspects.
WHAT IS MUTAH?
Mutah is a contract between two adult and sane individuals, a man and a woman to enter into a relationship as stipulated by the conditions and fixed time and the amount of dower, Mahr the two have agreed upon. A Seghah is read by the two individuals or by the people appointed on behalf of the couple to consummate the contract. This can be read before witnesses, especially if the girl is getting married for the first time and is a virgin (– this is a question of modesty rather than a lack of an ability to declare a contract due to virginity), or without witnesses where the two read it themselves fully aware of their pledge before The Omnipresent Witness, The Almighty, following the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). The fixed time can be from anything from one hour to years, within the normal lifespan and time limits. When the fixed time is coming to an end the couple can choose to extend their temporary marriage or to change it to a “full”, non-fixed time marriage. Even if they complete the marriage term and go their separate ways, the mother, aunts etc of the woman will remain forbidden to the man and the father, grandfather uncles of the man will remain forbidden to the woman, as in a “full” marriage. Any children born out of the union whilst in a temporary marriage are legitimate and have full inheritance rights. It is the religious duty of the father to provide for their upkeep. Apart from the time duration, the only other difference between Mutah and full marriage is that in Mutah the couple do not inherit from each other. Married men cannot contract Mutah unless they are away from their wives from months on end and I think although I am not entirely sure, married men have to seek the permission of the wife before they are allowed to contract mutah. For married women, Mutah is out of question. I do not believe it is permissible to contract more than one mutah at the same time.
Just for a comparison, WHAT IS NIKAH:
Nikah is a contract between two adult and sane individuals, a man and a woman to enter into a relationship as stipulated by the conditions and the amount of dower, Mahr the two have agreed upon. A Seghah is read by the two individuals or by the people appointed on behalf of the couple to consummate the contract. This is most usually carried out in front of witnesses. There is no time fixed, although it is not a sacrament and can be ended by divorce which is talaq if it is said 3 times by the husband and khula if it is initiated by the wife. Divorce is highly disliked but it is NOT a sin.
So in reality the contracts of Mutah and Nikah are the same with the difference of time and inheritance.
continued
The Principles:
It is agreed by Shia AND Sunni scholars the practise of Mutah was indeed prevalent and allowed by the Prophet during his lifetime. It was even practised during the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakar. I can give many Ahadith reference from Sunni sources where it states Mutah was allowed and not only during war times.
“The first one who legislated Mut'a with all the rules pertaining to it, was the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF), after it was revealed in Quran. All Muslims agree that the Messenger of Allah legislated Mut'a and made it legal after his migration to Medina, and the Muslims practiced it during his lifetime. (see al-Mughni, by Ibn Qudamah, v6, p644, 3rd Edition) Allah revealed it in Quran, and it was being widely practiced to the end of his lifetime and during the period of Abu Bakr and the early days of Umar's rule, until Umar forbade it.” Also see: Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v6, Hadith #43 Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic, v2, p375, v6, p34 Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p436 on the authority of 'Imran Ibn al-Qasir , It is also narrated in Sahih Muslim that:
...] We did Mut'a (of Hajj and women) at the time of the Messenger of Allah. When Umar was installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for his Messenger whatever He liked and as He liked -and its command was revealed in Quran....] And any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration (i.e. Mut'a) I would stone him."
Sunni References : Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter CDXLII, Tradition #2801 Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p885, Tradition #145. --
"Jabir Ibn Abdullah reported: "We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of the dates or flour as a dower during the life time of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until Umar forbade it because of Amr Ibn Huraith."
These are just some the very few references among many to Mutah in Sunni Sources.
The abolition of Mutah is attributed to Hazrat Umar, the second Caliph when he publicly said: “I forbid to you two things the prophet allowed…”. One of the two forbidden things was Mutah. Anyone to contract Mutah was threatened with severe punishment. It would seem the enforcement was a political move rather than a Shari’i injunction. If you see it as a Shar’i injunction then here is the Catch 22: Were the Ashaab and the Prophet himself, God forbid, sinning (prostitution is sin and if you think of mutah akin to prostitution, well there is something to think about) when they contracted Mutah during their lifetimes, some who practised it even after Hazrat Umar forbade it because they did not agree with him. Hazrat Ali’s view on the subject was “had Umar not abolished the Mutah, none but the wretched would have committed adultery”. Was Hazrat Umar more knowledgeable than the Prophet to forbid an act which was seen as his Sunnah and an act which the Prophet allowed? There is no ambiguity about this you either agree that the Prophet allowed it or did not during his lifetime. As a Messenger of God whose actions and words are from God, that is his Sunnah which is incumbent upon us to follow, up until the day of judgement, we believe it was his (pbuh) duty to publicly denounce Mutah if it was so wrong and yet so widely practised during his time. He did not.
A FEW OTHER POINTERS:
Mutah does not need to be contracted for sexual reasons only as Ana mentioned, it can be contracted during Hajj where women who have no Mahrem can perform Hajj, which also is a Saudi condition, you know sexual intercourse during Hajj isn’t allowed. Shia’s regard walima as sunnah of the Prophet. Khoja is not a sect, the majority of them are Ithna Asheris. Licenses or written contracts are just required in Iran where you can show your legal relationship with the man or woman you are holding hands with. So in theory there are no witnesses, yes but in practise, you do have witnesses to your relationship and this is often documented.
Interestingly, the great Sunni Scholar Abul A’la Maududi was of the view that temporary marriage is permissible. I think many would regard Mutah to be more in line with Bertrand Russells theory of Marriage of Companionship rather than Mr Faisal’s theory of Mutah being “custom-built for physical gratification for an agreed amount of money”.
If the “agreed upon money” is in question, one could ask whether the Haq Mahr in a full marriage is just a bride price, purchasing the services of the wife, but since it is not, therefore the agreed upon money, i.e. the Mahr in Mutah too is not a price for the services but just like in a full marriage, is a gift from the groom to the bride.
More pertinent is the case Mr Faisal himself made for Mutah not being prostitution, which is essentially a service business and would very quickly go bankrupt if you could only be allowed to have sex once every two months!
It is a great coincidence I was searching some Archives recently and came upon a post entitled “We Need to Encourage Dating In Our Society” by one Mr Faisal. Dating as in the free intermingling, the chatting to and getting to know of Non Mahrems, a very unislamic behaviour. Yet the self same gentleman condemns an ISLAMIC PRACTICE which can be used to/for the same getting-to-know effect. I apologise if your views have changed dramatically since then Mr Faisal. It was very interesting.
I wonder if we would have much less trouble if young men and women in our free societies, especially when they are still not sufficiently independent of studies, employment and are in their early to late twenties and thirties, contracted Mutah as a basis for further relationships, without the hassles and long term commitments of full marriage and more importantly without the many one-night stands and all the well documented baggage that comes with that.
As someone of the Ithna Asheri faith, I can give arguments AGAINST mutah and believe me, claiming it is prostitution is not of them!
Lastly, I sincerely did not intend to offend anybody.
Another excellent book I would recommend is Murtaza Motahhiri's Women and Her Rights. You may be able to find it on the site Anila referenced.
Assalam Alaykum,
Please accept my apologies because I have made a horrible mistake. In my previous post when I wrote that bhoras are not muslims, for some reason in my head I was thinking bahai's. May Allah (swt) forgive me. Bhoras in fact are shia, they are all actually ithna-asheri now.
As for the khojas having a different way of doing things, I'm not sure what you mean. I've known many khojas and the only difference I see are just cultural, other than that if they are ithna-asheri, or sunni, or ismaili they have the same concepts as their sect.
If now there is a license required for a mutah in karbala or iran, it is probably something regulated by the government, but it is not required islamically to do the actual mutah. People can do mutah all over the world without any licenses.
Every ithna-asheri wedding I've been to has had a walima, be they khoja, pakistani, arab, etc... including mine. :) We do see a walima as a sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw) and it is usually a few days after the nikah.
Sister Rhia's post is also very informative and will give more details about mutah. I also have many other websites if you are interested in them I can PM them to you sister Ana, or anyone else for that matter.
Wa Salam,
Anila
The Qur'an has guidance for many issues it discusses.. if for a moment we assume the verses quoted in support of mutah indeed meen the same, then please guide us to the verses that then talk about the inheritance rights for a 'mutah' wife and children.
Dear Ana, I do not agree with you about the Shia sunni statement you made. Shia-Sunni marriages where the husband is Shia and the woman is Sunni, are not null and void. The Shia Ithna’Asheri fiqh, that is the Ja’afri Fiqh, is a recognised and established fiqh (before the time of Abu Hanifa, the founder of the majority Sunni Hanafi fiqh, who was an avid student of the sixth Imam Jafer a.s), especially recognised as the Fifth Islamic School of Thought in the circles of that great Sunni institution and seminary of Jamia Al Azhar, Cairo. There is no shirk in the Shia faith.
Rhia, your post was informative, thanks. About the above, I was talking from a strictly Hanafi Sunni point of view, where I have consulted a number of places that nullify sect intermarriages. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on all the other points, much appreciate it.
Rhia... people accept different faiths based on any number of reasons. Many low-cast hindus embraced Islam, so they can be rid of their untouchable status or what not. If what you guys are propagating is true, then shia'sm is perhaps only one of the very few religions/sects which actually sanctify temporary relationships (for sex or whatever purpose). There is no insult in that comment. It is what it is. You might as well just accept it, instead of getting all defensive and criticizing people for showing an interest on these issues.
Waisay, Ana.. I personally know an inter-sect marriage. The mother is shia and the father is sunni. The mother raised the kids as shia (I know their sons). So anyway, they'd go to majlis etc (sans dad), and the sons will do all the beating yourself with zanjeer kinda thing. But then the elder son got some severe medical problem, and as part of his healing, his father converted the kids to sunni'sm. Dunno how he did it, but after that, the kids will go to Meelads (with the dad), as well as sneak into Majlis (with their mom) as well. Even after their marriage, the kids are still kinda in the middle right now. This is only one example. I have known a number of shia-sunni marriages. No one ever told me (or them) that it is nullified or not permissible.
Do Shias allow first cousin maariages?
Rhia, just a quick q. U say that Mutah can have a pre-agreed-upon ending as determined by the two parties contracting it, and that is permissible, in fact even was allowed during the Prophet SAW's time (which I agree), but at the same time you highlight the fact that a "full" marriage or Nikah can be ended with a Khula or Talaq, noting that "Divorce is highly disliked but is not a sin".
So tell me, why is Divorce highly disliked, but the ending of Mutah is not disliked.. in fact, is taken for granted?
Do you see the difference?
Ana: from a common sense perspective I would think that the Mutta practice has a finite term and a Nikah, not.
Faisal, I just know a bit about marriage laws in different sects because in Bahrain, where I was raised, we had these issues come up a few times. Not all knowledge is perfect however, and it's nice to learn new things.