Forums / Learn/Ask about Islam / temporary marriage

4:24

And for those whom you enjoy, (istamta`) give them their appointed wages as due. There is no sin in what you do by mutual agreement.

istamta` - to seek, enjoy, obtain pleasure from, hence mut`a - marriage of pleasure/ temporary marriage  

Thanks for the info. Since it's a controversial subject, there are different ways to look at it. The following links give alternate views. 

http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/en/index.php

 Thanks for the different translations of the verse.

Sunnis and Shi'is agree to the early practice of mut`a in the beginning of Islam. In fact, men were able to contract temporary and permanent marriages. There were two types of temporary marrriages, one entered during pilgrimage and the other mut`a. Shi`is say this verse confirms an existing intsituion. This particular type of marriage is referred to as istamta` - the word in the Qur`anic verse.

Can't both permanent and temporary marriage be 'pleasurable?'

http://www.leader.ir/langs/en/index.php 

Q: What is mut‘ah marriage? Is her father’s permission necessary?
A: Temporary marriage like permanent marriage is permissible and requires a marriage contract. Moreover, there is no difference between permanent marriage and temporary marriages except in some aspects of the law, such as there is no divorce in temporary marriage - it terminates with the expiration of the period. Likewise, neither spouse in a temporary marriage inherits from the other. In both permanent marriage and temporary marriages, she should not have another husband and not to be in ‘iddah for marriage with another man. If she is virgin, the permission of her father/paternal father is required based on obligatory caution.

According to the Jafari School of Law, mut`a is the solution for prostitution as they believe it is an Islamically correct way of channeling desire. In this light, mut`a would not be prostituion or lustful.

 Most of the Sunni sahih collections contain this hadith:

"Verily the Prophet of God banned the mut‘a of temporary marriage and the eating of the meat of domesticated asses."

The Shi`a say Ali was exerting taqiyya when he said this and in most of the Sunni sahih and some Shi'i hadith the words ‘on the Day of the Battle of Khaybar’ are added.

Since all Muslims agree that mut‘a was permitted in the year Mecca was conquered, ‘Ali could not have claimed that mut‘a was banned on the Day of Khaybar which was three years prior to Mecca’s conquest.

 If Umar didn't prohibit it, then how can we explain this sahih Muslim hadith: “We did them both with the Messenger of God. Then ‘Umar prohibited them, and we have not returned to them."

As it's so expensive to get married these days, people get married in their late 20s or 30s.  Islam prohibits zina, so Shi`i Muslims are able to enter temporary marriages. Since they believe 4:24 justifies it as well as hadith, temporary marriage is permissible for them.

Most Sunnis believe 4:24 discusses permanent marriage but some Sunnis believe that if it did refer to temporary marriage, the verse was abrogated.

Many hadith have been related by the sahaba confirming verse 4:24 discusses temporary marriage.

Ibn `Abbas said when asked about mut‘a: ‘Have you not read the sura Women? The questioner replied: ‘Of course I have.’ He said: ‘Did you not read: “So those of whom you enjoy to a specified term…”’ He answered: ‘I did not read the verse like that.’ Ibn ‘Abbas replied: ‘I swear by God, this is how God revealed it’, and repeated the statement two times.     

There are so many points to support each side; how do Muslims make sense of it all?

what weird reasons, if u married, dont have to be expensive, ask them to read the experience of the sahabah when their married, and also check the sunnah of The Prophet.. come on, and about late married, did Allah said that He always with the one who always patient. i just dont get it.

they just want to cover the bad things (zina). thats the reason. Allah Knows.

sister how about simple logic?

1- wat does islam teach?

2- wat is the purpose of marriage?

 3- how degrading is it for a woman that enters temporary marriage to fill the desire of a lustful man who doesnt want to commit Zina, oo oh yeah  and he is willing to pay for her for the night, or maybe if she is good enough maybe a month?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage is not about fullfiling lustful desires,  its about building a family, its about mutual respect between the husband and wife.

* sister if the most hated halal to Allah swt is divorce, how can mut3a marriage even be considered halal?

May Allah guide the Umma

Perhaps the 'you' is referring to the Shi`a. If so, in Shi'i Islam, sura 4:24 is interpreted as permitting mut`a. Therefore, according to Shi`ism it would not be considered zina. Actually, some Sunni ulama do agree with the Shi`i interpretation of 4:24 addressing mut`a. However, they subsequently believe the verse was abrogated.

Mut'a is a union between two consenting parties contracted for an agreed upon sum - mahr (similar to the mahr in permanent marriage) and a set amount of time. For the Shi`a, it is a religious and legal institution with strict rules and regulations governing the contract.   There are certain parties that fulfill the requirements of concluding a mut'a contract. Traditionally, it is recommended that a marriage be contracted with only chaste (afifa) women. As a monetary gift is given by the man to the woman in a permanent marriage, how can the act of monetary exchange be used to determine haramness?  

Sheikh: Can you prove the lawfulness of mut'a? Can you prove that Caliph Umar violated the Qur'anic injunction and the sunna of the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: The strongest proof is furnished by the Holy Qur'an. In the sura of Nisa (The Women) Allah says: "...then as to those by whom you benefited (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." (4:24)

Obviously the Holy Qur'an's command is obligatory forever unless it is abrogated by the Qur'an, itself. Since it has not been abrogated, this command holds good forever.

Sheikh: How is this verse not related to permanent wedlock? It is this same verse that gives instruction about paying back dowry.

Well-Wisher: You have confused the main point. Your own prominent ulema, like Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir, part V and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, part III, have confirmed that this verse refers to mut'a.

Apart from the explicit interpretation of your ulema and commentators, you are also aware that throughout the entire sura of Nisa, several kinds of marriage and wedlock have been mentioned: nika (permanent marriage), mut'a (temporary marriage), and marriage with mulk-e-Yamin (servants). For permanent marriage the Holy Qur'an says in the sura of Nisa: "Then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then only one or what your right hands possess." (4:3)

About Mulk-e-yamin (servants), Allah says: "And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are sprung the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters and give them their dowries justly." (4:25)

The command in verse 4 of sura Nisa to the effect that: "...as to those by whom you benefitted (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." was for mut'a, or temporary marriage. It could not be for permanent wedlock, for otherwise, it would mean that in the same chapter the decree regarding permanent wedlock has been repeated twice, which is against the rule, and if it is for mut'a, then it evidently is a permanent and separate decree.

Second, not only Shias but all Muslims agree that mut'a was practiced during the early days of Islam. The distinguished companions practiced it in the time of the Holy Prophet. If this verse refers to permanent wedlock then which is the verse for mut'a? Evidently this is the verse regarding mut'a, which your own commentators have accepted. There is no verse in the Holy Qur'an which abrogates this command.

It is reported in Sahih of Bukhari and the Musnad of Imam Ibn Hanbal from Abu Raja on the authority of Imran Ibn Hasin that "...the verse of mut'a was revealed in the Book of Allah. So we acted in accordance with it during the time of the Holy Prophet. No verse was revealed to make it unlawful, nor did the Holy Prophet ever prohibit it." One man decided to change this law. Bukhari says that the man was Umar.

Muslim in his Sahih, part I, in the chapter of Nikatu'l-Mut'a, says "Hasan Halwa'i reported to us that he was told by Abdu'r-Razzaq, who was informed by Ibn Jarih, who was told by 'Ata that Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari came to Mecca for the Umra and they went to him at his residence. People asked him many questions. When they came to the question of mut'a he said, 'Yes, we used to practice mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet and during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar.'" Also in the same book in part I, in the chapter of al-Mut'a Bi'l-Hajj wa'l-Umra, it is narrated on the authority of Abu Nazara that he said: "I was in the company of Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari when a man came and said, 'There is a difference of opinion between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair concerning the two mut'as, Mut'atu'n-Nisa and Mut'atu'l-Hajj.' Then Jabir said, 'We have performed both of these during the time of the Holy Prophet. Thereafter, when Umar forbade it, we could not do it.'"

Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, part I, p.25, narrates Abu Nazara's report in another way. Also both narrate another report from Jabir that he said: "In the days of the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr, we used to practice mut'a for the consideration of a handful of dates and flour until Umar forbade it in the case of Amr Bin Harith."

Hamidi, in his Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain, narrates from Abdullah Ibn Abbas that he said: "We used to practice mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet. When Umar was caliph, he said that 'Allah Almighty made lawful whatever He liked for His Holy Prophet. Now he is dead, and the Qur'an takes his place. So when you begin the Hajj or the Umra, you should complete them as Allah has ordered you. You should repent of and abstain from mut'a. Bring him who has practiced mut'a to me so that I may stone him.'"

There are many such reports in your own reliable books showing that mut'a was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet. The companions practiced it until Umar made it unlawful.

Besides these reports, some of the companions, like Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Sa'id Ibn Jabir and Sa'd have recited the verse of mut'a in this way, "And as such of them you had mut'a with until such time as was fixed."

Jarullah Zamakhshari reports in his Kashshaf from Ibn Abbas and also Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, vol.III, writing about this holy verse and Imam Nuwi in his Sharh-e-Muslim, chapter I, Nikatu'l-Mut'a report from Nazari that Qazi Ayaz stated that "Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, the writer of wahi (i.e., recorder of revelations), used to recite this verse in the same way, that is, 'until such time as has been fixed.'"

Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi, after quoting the statement of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and Ibn Abbas, said: "The community did not reject their recitation of the verse in this way, so what we have said has been accepted through consensus." Again on the next page he argues in this way: "This reading evidently proves that mut'a had the sanction of religion. We have no difference of opinion that mut'a was permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet."

Note: Mut'a has many strict rules and regulation and is not something that can be played with.

A small question that I'd like to add, why is that mut'a is deemed haram but the u'rfy marriage is ok??

Salam aliekum. Xb you gave no evidence nor from where you obtain those quotes about what "some shia" say about marriage.

I could not find that quote that your provided anywhere in Al Kafi.

The shia do not believe that mutah is mustahab, something that you stated in your post. Mutah has strict rules and no one is allowed to practice it freely.

Again, I would like to question why sunnis pratice urfy marriage if they claim that mutah is haram?  

Further reading... :)

Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, Salama Ibn Akwa', Abu'dh-Dharr Ghifari, Subra Bin Ma'bad, Akwa' Bin Abdullah Al-Aslami and Imran Bin Hasin have stated that the ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated. Moreover, your eminent ulema have also held that it was not abrogated. For instance, Jarullah Zamakhshari, in his Tafsir-e-Kashshaf regarding Abdullah Ibn Abbas's statement that the verse of mut'a was one of the clear ordinances of the Holy Qur'an, says that this verse was not repealed. Imam Malik Bin Anas also said that the permissibility of mut'a had not been repealed.

Mulla Sa'idu'd-din Taftazani in Sharh-e-Maqasid, Burhanu'd-din Hanafi in his Hidaya, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Fathu'l-Bari and others also have reported the statement and verdict of Malik who says: "Mut'a is lawful. It is permitted by religion. Its lawfulness, as confirmed by Ibn Abbas, is quite well known and most of his companions from Yeman and Mecca have practiced it. At another place he says: "Mut'a is lawful since it has been permitted and its lawfulness and permissibility hold good unless it is repealed." You will notice that until Malik's death there was no evidence that the ordinance of mut'a had been annulled.

Moreover, your prominent commentators, like Zamakhshari, Baghawi, and Imam Tha'labi have adhered to the position of Ibn Abbas and other distinguished companions and have believed in the lawfulness of mut'a.

Sheikh: Besides the holy verse there are also a large number of hadith which say that the ordinance concerning mut'a had been abrogated during the time of the Holy Prophet.

Well-Wisher: Kindly let us know about that order of abrogation.

Sheikh: It has been narrated with some variations. Some reporters say that it was decreed on the day of the conquest of Khaibar, some say it happened on the day of conquest of Mecca, some reports say that it was on the occasion of the Last Pilgrimage, and some say that it was on the day of Tabuk. Others, however, are of the opinion that the order of nullity was revealed on the occasion of Umratu'l-Qaza (The Farewell Pilgrimage).

Well-Wisher: The contradictory reports clearly prove that there was no such order of abrogation. And how can those reports be relied upon when, on the contrary, there are many hadith reported in Sahih-e-Sitta, Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain, Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahih-e-Sitta, Musnad, etc, from distinguished companions which prove that this verse was not abrogated until the caliphate of Umar.

The most compelling argument that your own ulema have themselves cited is the statement of Caliph Umar, who said: "I make both those two mut'as which were current in the days of the Holy Prophet, unlawful." Had there been any verse, or order of the Holy Prophet, the caliph would have said: "According to the instructions of the Holy Prophet, which is supported by the Qur'anic verse, if any one committed the unlawful act in violation of the abrogated ordinance, I will punish him." Such a statement would have been more impressive for the people. But he merely said: " Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet, I make them unlawful."

If, however, your claim is correct and the verse of mut'a was abrogated, why didn't the pupils of the Holy Prophet, like Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Imran Bin Hashim and other companions act upon it. Your own great traditionists and historians, including Bukhari and Muslim, have recorded this fact. All these things clearly prove that from the time of the Holy Prophet to the caliphate of Umar the companions followed this ordinance.

So it is clear that mut'a shall continue to be lawful forever. Abu Isa Muhammad Bin Sawratu't-Tirmidhi in his Sunan, which is regarded as one of the six Sahih by you, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, PART II, p.95, and Ibn Athir in his Jam'u'l-Usul have reported that a Syrian man asked Abdullah Bin Umar Bin Khattab what he considered about Mut'a-e-Nisa. He said: "Of course, it is lawful." The man said again, "But your father, the caliph, forbade the people to do it." He said, "It was ordered by the Holy Prophet; so if it has been prohibited by my father that order cannot supersede the order of the Holy Prophet. I am the follower of the Holy Prophet's order."

For the reports which have been narrated, perhaps people later forged hadith in order to support Caliph Umar's statement. The matter is too clear to call for any further elucidation. The fact is that you have no real evidence for the unlawfulness of mut'a except the statement of Caliph Umar.

Sheikh: Caliph Umar's statement in itself is the strongest evidence for Muslims, and they must follow it. If he had not heard it from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said that.

Well-Wisher: Is Caliph Umar's statement so compelling that Muslims must follow it? I have not seen a single hadith in your books, in which the Holy Prophet said that Umar Bin Khattab's statement was a confirmed source or that Muslims should follow it. On the other hand your books are filled with reliable hadith saying that we should follow the descendants of the Holy Prophet, particularly Ali. I have referred to some of these hadith on previous nights. The Ahle Bait of the Holy Prophet have said that the ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated.

You said that had Caliph Umar not heard about the order of cancellation from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said what he did. But this is easily disproved. First, if Caliph Umar had heard of the cancellation of the order of mut'a from the Holy Prophet, he should have spoken about it during the life of the Holy Prophet up to the period of his own caliphate. This would have been especially important since he saw prominent companions had been practicing it, and it was his duty to tell the people that the practice of mut'a had been annulled. Why did he not perform the duty of prevention of evil?

Second, the practice, which had been current among the community by order of the Holy Prophet, could only be nullified by the Holy Prophet. There should have been no delay in this case. Does it stand to reason that if an order for the Community had been circulated and was later abrogated, would the Holy Prophet have spoken about it to no one except Umar? And would it have made sense that Umar would not have told anybody about it until late in his own caliphate? During all this period when the community continued to follow this (so-called) abrogated order, did no responsibility lie with Umar?

You say that the prohibition of "nullified and irreligious " practice could not be made known to others and therefore the community continued to follow it. Can anybody else except the Holy Prophet be held responsible for not proclaiming the abrogation of an order, having told only Umar of it? Is it not infidelity to say that the Holy Prophet neglected to perform his mission and that the community because of its ignorance, continued acting upon an abrogated order for a long time?

Third, if the order of mut'a had been annulled during the time of the Holy Prophet and Umar had heard of this from the Holy Prophet, Umar could have said when he prohibited it that he had himself heard the Holy Prophet say that the practice of mut'a had been banned. Obviously, if he had referred to the Holy Prophet's statement, the community would have been much impressed by it. But he said, "During the time of the Holy Prophet, two mut'as were permitted, but I make them unlawful. Now I will stone those who do it." Is it not the duty of the Holy Prophet to declare things lawful or unlawful? Or, can it be the right of a caliph who has been appointed by the people?

I don't understand on what basis Umar declared unlawful what Allah made lawful. How strange it is that the Holy Prophet never said that he made a certain thing lawful or unlawful. Whenever he announced any order, he said that Allah had ordered him to convey it to the people. How bold Umar is when he says: "Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet. I make both of them unlawful. I will punish those who commit those acts." 
 

Taqiyyah is a concept unique to Shi'i Islam. Although Sunnis do not believe Ali was practicing dissimulation, in most of the hadith and some Shi'i hadith, the words 'on the Day of the Battle of Khaybar’ are added. Since all Muslims agree that mut‘a was permitted in the year Mecca was conquered, Ali could not have claimed that mut‘a was banned on the Day of Khaybar which was three years prior to Mecca’s conquest.

Some hadith support the view that mut'a was prohibited by Umar ibn al-Khattab. Several hadith refer to Umar’s forbidding such as the hadith related by Jabir, given in reply to a discussion on the two mut'as:

       “We did them both with the Messenger of God. Then Umar prohibited them, and  we have not returned to them.” Muslim

Although it is an important work in Shi'i Islam, the lack of a mut`a discussion in it does not bolster a stance for mut`a's illegitimacy. 

According to Shi'i Islam, the Qur'an and both Sunni Sahih and Shi'i hadith justifies temporary marriage.   

 Salam, I read your post, JazakAllah khair. Allah gave us a brain for a reason, we can decide for ourselves. May Allah swt guide us towards the right path InshaAllah.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

SiratalmustaqeemPlease read again. I have given you the Haqq. Whether you accept it or not, is between you and Allah {Azza Wa Jal}. Ma'salama.

 Salam, I read your post, JazakAllah khair. Allah gave us a brain for a reason, we can decide for ourselves. May Allah swt guide us towards the right path InshaAllah.

Wrong. I didn't impose my beliefs on you. I said I gave you the Haqq, and therefore you're free to decide whether to accept it or not. You're correct, Allah {Azza Wa Jal} did give us the brain to think. So use it accordingly. Wa Jazak Allahu Khairan. Ameen to your Du'a.

Salam aliekum. I did not say you imposed your beliefs on me or anyone else for that matter. I apologize for the misunderstanding.