It is recognised by sunni sharia that if a divorced woman and man wish to get together again, then the woman has to marry a second man, get divorced from him, in order to remarry her first husband.
This is where the Nikah is for a limited time WITH the intention and knowledge of divorce. The situation is similar to the question in the original post. If this is allowed, as a rule, I see no reason why the situation outlined in the question shouldn't be allowed.
Legally, this situation is not the same as Muta because there is no divorce prouncement in Muta. After the time period stipulated in the Mutah Sigah, the relationship is automatically dissolved, unless the two parties wish to extend the timeframe.
Anjjan, I'll try to dig some info. as much as I can, and post my response later. But reading ur post, which supports the case of temporary marriage, pls. tell me if temp. marriage is preached in Quran, why isn't practiced by majority of Muslim all over the world?
If Sunnis make a case against it, why aren't all the Shia's following it widespread? This actually suggests that any man and woman of marriage age can get into this temp. contract and basically live together until they want or have fixed and then move onto a new one. What disgusted me more in this interpretation in ur posts, that suggests that you can just take some gifts (and sign whatever contract) and the woman is ready to spread ... to you. At least the western version of relationship is based on more of liking and equal involvement.
Your post clearly misinterpreted the Quran 4:24. I'll try to find some more info and post a detailed response later (inshaAllah).
Only Allah knows the best and may He guide us, ameen.
hhp: The concept of Hilalah, or marrying another person and getting divorced before getting back to first husband is not as u portrayed. A woman has to marry another person but it’s not as pre-agreed or signed that there will be a divorce. If the second husband doesn’t want to divorce, the woman cannot justify that oh, leave me, I wanna get back with my first hubby. It doesn’t work like that. Or people be simply doing these things for money or even otherwise. Just think about it, God forbid, you divorce your wife and want to get back to her. Would you ask a friend, oh yaar can u pls. marry my ex-wife, have her briefly and then divorce her so that I can re-marry her? Here pls. have my ex-wife and then give her back to me :Ddoes it make sense to you?
Gudday guddy ka khel nahin hai ye!
Larki-NY the issue is not a pre-agreed contract. Its about intent. The basic point is that in this situation there is acknowledgement of need and knowledge of outcome. Whether or not the 2nd husband agrees to a divorce is not really a valid point. The mechanism for 'hilalah' is as prescribed. You know it exists. I know it exists. Otherwise a divorcee remarrying again without the intention of getting back with her ex would be what is simply known as 'Nikah'.
Brother, Pls. try to know the logic behind Hilalah and you wud know why it is not called Nikah. The whole point is not having the woman getting another title of married, and divorced. There is a philosophy behind the whole Hilalah concept, as to WHY? when you understand that WHY, you won't call it a pre-agreed married-divorced contract or ask why it is not caled Nikah.
May Allah guide us all, ameen.
so you reckon the whole point of hilalah is to 'save' a woman from being disgraced with the 'married again, divorced again' title?
Maybe u've forgotten what the discussion is about. Look up at the original question. Then look at my analogy of Hilalah which is very similar to the situtation outlined.
Everybody is jumping around saying what a bad evil thing this is.
However the question is, is there a precedent or a ruling in Islamic Law for people to marry for limited period of time and then divorce?
Yes there is - in the form of 'hilalah'
Therefore islamically this principle is not illegal or even wrong as a general rule.
Anjjan, I don't want to get into any shi'a-sunni debate, but I'll only refer to the translation/interpretation of Quran mentioned in your post. Regardless of who interpreted it, since you are posting it here, means you are spreading this info. in association with Quran.
I searched two references. English translation of Quran by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali (former Professor of Islamic Faith and Teaching, Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarrah), and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (former Director University Hospital, Islamic University Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarrah). Second, translation of Quran by Dr. Israr Ahmad.
Reference to Quran, 4:24, Surah An-Nisa: The discrepency I found in your post and the above mentioned resources is of calling "Mahr", as a gift; not mentioning salves, which even with my limited knowledge I wud read "malakat" as something which you possess, i.e. slaves; and lastly the issue of extending the contract, which I found translated as giving more "mahr" than agreed. Let me write down the translation I found, and then it wud be easy to compare the two:
"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (birdal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, given them their Mahras prescribed; you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.
These are simple guidelines for marriage for men about which women they can marry and in the ayat before this, it describes in detail which in the family a man should not engage in marriage. Among others with whom he can, one should make a nikkah with and fix a Mahr. Then it mentions that you can marry those women, whom your right hand possess, meaning slaves women living in their household.
*W*e all know the concept of "Mahr", which is fixed at the time of marriage (that's why I put the word Prescribed in bold above). In the last part of the ayat, it mentions that if there's mutual agreement as to a little less or more than the agreed Mahr, there's no sin.
It is important to note that the very next ayat mentions that if you cannot afford Mahr, then marry a slave (muslim) woman, with the permission of whoever possess that slave.
If this ayat (4:24) was about temp. marriage, why wud it mention (in 4:23) the women you cannot marry like your mothers, sisters, daughters ........ etc. To my understanding, this ayat is explaining the rules of general marraige and not temp. marriage.
I don't want to go into any further detail of your post, because just reading this one part of translation and my limited knowledge, I could see they are translated/interpreted much differently than what I had read in so many other places. To rule out any doubt, I went ahead and referred to two sources and ur posted interpretation is not in coherence with either of them.
I am not a scholar or authority over Islam so I don't want to enter into any further debate, for the mere fear of misquoting or giving any wrong info, in relation to Quran. May Allah forgive me if I had mentioned anything wrong and may He gives us all the ability to know more and abstain from advocating anything that Quran has not mentioned, ameen.
I am not spreading any misinformation. In fact I have come with some doubts over this matter. And thanks for your efforts.
First of all I can not make out if http://www.imamreza.net/eng/ is an anti-Islamic web site and the authors are making discriminatory statements. Kindly make it clear!
As per your statement after narrating An-nisa 4:24
I could not understand whom you are misleading or convincing about the sanctity of the above verse. No, it is not clear at all if the verse negates temporary marriage or how does it justify a temporary marriage.
Moreover it does not say anything if the consent of the one ‘whom your right hand possess’ is necessary.
^ its a shiaa website, and shiaas always supported temporary marriages....
they say mut'ah is allowed, but go to any shiaa who says mut'aa is allowed and tell him that u want to marry his sister/daughter for 3 days and see what he does to u....
but he himself wud like to go and enjoy it with other women claiming Islam allows it....
a man came to the Prophet (saw) and asked him to permit him to commit adultery....
the companions got angry by such a question, but the Prophet (saw) remained calm and asked him "wud u like it for ur mother?", to which he replied "no"....
then he asked him the same for his sister and daughter to which also he replied the same....
then he told him that how can he think of doing such things to others' mothers, sisters and daughters when he does not like such a thing for his own women....
i think if someone seriously looks at mut'ah or any temporary marriage in the light of the hadith and the way the Prophet(saw) explained it to the bedouin his heart wud conclude that temporary marriages can never be allowed....
Maybe u've forgotten what the discussion is about. Look up at the original question. Then look at my analogy of Hilalah which is very similar to the situtation outlined.
Everybody is jumping around saying what a bad evil thing this is.
However the question is, is there a precedent or a ruling in Islamic Law for people to marry for limited period of time and then divorce?
Yes there is - in the form of 'hilalah'
Ar-Raj’a - Taking back a wife after a divorce
If a man divorces his wife and this is the first or second talaaq, referred to as talaaq raja, and she has not ended her Iddah, then hecan take his wife back by saying: I am taking you back or I am keeping you. Apart from verbalising he is taking her back; the husband may do some action intending thereby to take her back, such as having intercourse with the intention of taking her back. The Sunnah is, taking back the wife should be done in the presence of two just Muslims, according to Quran (At-Talaaq S:52 , V:2 ). If the Iddah has ended following a first or second divorce, there has to be a new marriage contract. In this case he has to propose marriage like any other man, to her guardian and to her. When she and her guardian agree and they agree upon a mahr (dowry), then the marriage contract is completed. This must be done in the presence of two just witnesses. If however, he divorces his wife for a third time, she becomes unlawful to her first husband until she marries a second husband in a genuine marriage, which is consummated. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): The divorce is twice, after that, either you retain her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness& and He also said: And if he has divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has married another husband.
The last divorce, known amongst Muslim Jurists as Talaaq Baa-in, refers to the third divorce according to the overwhelming majority of the scholars. This is in light of the hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim whereby a woman came to the Prophet (saw) saying: O Messenger of Allah, Rifaaah divorced me thrice, then I was married to Abd al-Rahmaan ibn al-Zubayr al-Qurazi, but he has nothing with him except something like this fringe. The Prophet (saw) said: Perhaps you want to go back to Rifaaah? No, (it is not possible), unless and until you enjoy sexual relations with him (i.e. Abd al-Rahman), and he enjoys the sexual relation with you.
An-Nawawi said: This hadith indicates that the woman who has been divorced by a third talaaq is not permissible to the man who has divorced her until she has been married by another husband, who has intercourse with her then separates from her, and she completes her Iddah. Merely drawing up the marriage contract with her does not make her permissible to the first husband. This is the view of all the scholars among the companions, the taabieen (their direct successors), and those who came after them.
Shias belive in mutah and they have authentic shia and sunni sources (and u know that) to back them up. but that does not automatically mean a) every shia wants to practise it themselves, or b) or that they shuold allow and any aira ghaira to come ask for their daughters hand and that too in that manner.
It is the same priniciple for normal marriage; if u went and asked in the same crude way, you'd prolly would get your head knocked in and a whole lot more. It doesnt work that way. Lets just say; if you are not worthy enough for a proper marriage, then you are definately not worthy enough for this one either.
Mut'ah is not permissible according to the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaah. Yes, mut'ah was however permissible at certain times (specifically twice) by the Prophet salallah aleihi wasallam and the Prophet Salallah aleihi wasallam was the one who abolished it as the hadith in Bukhari shareef narrated by Syedina Ali (ra) saying that Nabi (salallah aleihi wasallam) has forbade Mutaah, he also has in the same hadith said that he has forbidden the eating of wild donkeys.
