Osama Abdallah And Temporary Marriage:
Revisiting Muhammads Permitting a Form of Prostitution known As Muta
Osama Abdallah has produced two audio files where he tries to refute my charge against Nadir Ahmad (bottom of this page) that Muta in Islam is nothing more than a form of prostitution:
In this rebuttal we will examine Osamas defense and see how well he does in addressing my claims.
Does the Bible Really Teach Muta?
As a sheer act of desperation and an obvious attempt of trying to justify Muhammads perversions, Osama distorts the following text in order to prove that the Bible condones Muta:
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and lies with her, he shall give THE BRIDE-PRICE for her and make her HIS WIFE. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to THE BRIDE-PRICE for virgins." Exodus 22:16-17
Anyone reading this passage can obviously see that this has absolutely nothing to do with Muta. Rather, this is dealing with a situation in which two parties engage in premarital sex. The verses demand that the person must marry the maiden whom he has seduced into having sex and pay her the bride price. Now in situations where the father of the young maiden refuses to give his daughter to the man then the father is to still receive the bride price, and the reason for doing so should be clear to the readers. By accepting the bride price the persons would be classified as husband and wife, with the sexual act being that which consummated their marital union. The fathers refusal to give his daughter to her seducer would function as a notice that the couple ended up getting a divorce in order to protect his daughter from being shunned by the community which would prevent her from ever remarrying.
In light of the foregoing, how in the world can anyone claim that this is analogous to Muta? As we will discuss in more detail shortly, the main purpose for Muta was to permit men to satisfy their lustful, perverted desires by temporarily marrying a woman for a sum of money or fee. The text in Exodus, on the other hand, is dealing with the unfortunate situation of persons who engage in premarital sex and has nothing to do with a man pretending to marry a maiden for a sum of money with the intention of leaving her as soon as the specified time period for this sexual perversion has terminated.
In other words, Muta is a contract where the man pays a certain price beforehand for the temporary marriage (sexual service) that the woman will then deliver for a certain period of time. That is what makes it legalized prostitution.
The above passage, on the other hand, specifies the punishment for the man who did something forbidden. He has to pay a hefty sum for doing what was not allowed. In Muta the man pays for sexual service that is then legally his. In the Bible passage the man has to pay a penalty for doing what was forbidden.
With the same logic, one could claim that buying a car is equivalent to stealing it and then paying a fine when getting caught.
Osamas gross reading of this text reminds us of the following passage:
"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled." Titus 1:15
It is only those whose hearts and minds are perverted who can distort Gods Word in the manner in which Osama distorts it.
Osama complained that the Holy Bible prescribes no physical discipline such as flogging for fornicators, or for those who engage in premarital sex, like that found in the Quran. The answer is rather simple, why should there be a specific punishment for this sin? Is God required to prescribe physical punishments for every specific sin a person commits? Isnt Gods command that the person must marry the young maiden who he has slept with punishment enough in that it shows that one cannot simply sleep with someone without being bound to that individual for life?
What is even more amazing about Osamas objection is his selectivity. Osama has no problem with the fact that the Quran nowhere prescribes specific physical punishments for acts of homosexuality, lesbianism or bestiality like the Holy Bible. It is grossly inconsistent for him to complain about the lack of physical correction regarding a specific sin but have absolutely no problem with the Qurans utter failure to explicitly address perverted acts such as homosexuality, lesbianism or Muhammads permitting prostitution, let alone prescribe any specific punishments for such acts.
Osamas Challenge for Me
Apart from his gross lies and distortions of what the Holy Bible says about marriage and divorce, Osama presented the following challenge to me:
Where in the Bible are non-virgin girls forbidden from having sex with their boyfriends?
I was expecting that Osama would have given me a rather hard challenge, but I am not surprised that this is the best he could do. Here is the answer from Gods true Word, the Holy Bible:
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, EACH MAN SHOULD HAVE HIS OWN WIFE AND EACH WOMAN HER OWN HUSBAND. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, THEY SHOULD MARRY. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." 1 Corinthians 7:8-9
"Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned." 1 Corinthians 7:25-28
"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free TO BE MARRIED to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:36-39
"Or do you not know, brothersFOR I AM SPEAKING TO THOSE WHO KNOW THE LAW--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman is bound BY LAW to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. Accordingly, SHE WILL BE CALLED AN ADULTERESS if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress." Romans 7:1-3
Paul plainly states that a person who burns with desire MUST GET MARRIED, not engage in premarital sex. Paul even says that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives and that she would be an adulteress if she were to live with another man while her husband is still alive. Paul then says that widows can be married if they want, but doesnt say that they are free to find a boyfriend to sleep with.
Here is what we find regarding divorce and remarriage:
"When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some INDECENCY in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance. When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken." Deuteronomy 24:1-5
"It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:31-32
"And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. Mark 10:10-12
"To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should REMAIN UNMARRIED or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11
The above citations assume that if specific individuals have legitimate grounds for divorce then they are to remarry if they desire intimacy. In fact, Jesus goes so far as to condemn individuals that have divorced for reasons other than sexual immorality, and classifies any of their subsequent marriages as adultery. If God condemns such marriages then how much more would he condemn and despise divorcees from engaging in premarital sex?
In order to summarize the preceding points, here is what we gather from the foregoing:
Basically, what all these passages are teaching is that a person has the option to either marry or remain single. There is no other option that allows for a person, whether single or divorced, whether male or female, to engage in pre-marital sex. That is why Exodus 22:16-17 demands that a person who has engaged in premarital sex marry that person.
For a more in depth look on what both the Holy Bible and Islam say about these specific issues please read the following: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/remarriage1.htm
Now that Osamas challenge has been addressed we turn our attention to Muhammad permitting Muslims to engage gross immorality.
The Meaning of Muta
Osama failed to prove his case from the Quran that Muta has been abrogated. Out of sheer desperation he tried to appeal to the Sunni narrations in order to convince his listeners that Muhammad canceled out Muta. Before we proceed to refute his arguments we need to first provide an explanation of what Muta actually is:
WHAT IS TEMPORARY MARRIAGE?
It is a temporary marriage upon agreement of the two parties. This temporary marriage was a custom amongst eastern countries, as it was also practised by some men at the dawn of Islam on their missions / trips.
Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.a.) said: "Temporary marriage was at the beginning of Islam. A man comes by a town where he has no acquaintances, so he marries for a fixed time depending on his stay in the town, the woman looks after his provisions and prepares his food, until the verse was revealed: "Except to your wives or what your right hands possess." Ibn 'Abbas explained that any relationship beyond this is forbidden. [narrated by Tirmidhee]
As temporary marriage was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.
It is well established that temporary marriage does not agree with the interests of people because it causes loss to the offspring, uses women for fulfilment of the lusts of men, and belittles the value of a woman whom Allah has honoured. So temporary marriage was forbidden. (Source)
Is Muta Really Prostitution?
Osama objects to my classifying Muta as prostitution in the guise of marriage. Instead of refuting him personally, I will allow his own Muslim brothers and sisters do that for me. After specifying what real marriage is according to the Quran, this next Salafi website comes to the following conclusion regarding Muta:
On these grounds, Mutah marriage IS CONSIDERED TO BE ZINAA (ADULTERY OR FORNICATION), even if both parties consent to it, and even if it lasts for a long time, and even if the man pays the woman a mahr. There is nothing that has been reported in shareeah that shows that it may be permitted, APART FROM THE BRIEF PERIOD when it was allowed during the year of the conquest of Makkah. That was because at that time there were so many people who has newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates, BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN USED TO COMMITTING ZINAA the Jaahiliyyah. So this kind of marriage WAS PERMTITED for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection, as was narrated by Muslim, 1406. (Source; capital emphasis ours)
Mutah or temporary marriage refers to when a man marries a woman for a specific length of time in return for a particular amount of money.
The basic principle concerning marriage is THAT IT SHOULD BE ONGOING AND PERMANENT. Temporary marriage i.e., mutah marriage was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became haraam until the Day of Judgement
Allaah has made marriage one of His signs which calls us to think and ponder. He has created love and compassion between the spouses, and has made the wife a source of tranquility for the husband. He encouraged us to have children and decreed that a woman should wait out the iddah period and may inherit. None of that exists in this haraam form of marriage. (Source)
See also their following responses:
The following story is found on these websites (*, *) and recounts the experience of a young Sunni girl who was duped into having sex under the guise of Muta. Here are some of her comments which are relevant to the issue being raised here regarding Muta being nothing more than legalized prostitution:
It all changed when I met him. It was fascinating to know that a college student would care so much about me. He was the most wonderful person. He treated me like a queen, and soon we became the best of friends. I felt I could tell him anything. As our friendship progressed, we talked about different topics including religion. He had different beliefs than me; he was Shia while I was Sunni. We always argued upon the differences. He had a way with making things sound better than what they were. Soon I became very confused.
One day he mentioned the idea of Mut'a. He told me that it was a type of temporary marriage, which was halal even in Sunni books. At first I didnt believe him, but he used sources such as Bukhari and Muslim. I took his word for it, and before I realized, I was into a lot of trouble. I was in Mut'a for four years. As time went by, I learnt that I had lost my honor and dignity to someone who had done this to several other girls. Allah helped me open my eyes and realize what I had gotten myself into. By now, I was on the verge of switching beliefs to be a Shia. At this point, I decided to really search for the truth. Since I cannot present the whole research, I have tried to give a very brief idea about Mut'a
Mut'a is a form of temporary marriage where a man can marry a woman for an agreed amount of time and money (mahr). In Mut'a, the husband is not financially responsible for the wife. There are no set limits in this kind of marriage by the Shias. According Shia beliefs, no witnesses nor a permission of the guardian is needed (the Sunni father does not believe in Mut'a), and there is no limit on the number of Mut'a one can do.
Also, the time period can be AS LITTLE AS ONE HOUR to as long as sixty years. In addition, a man who is permanently married can do as many Mut'a as he feels like, even with married women. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO PROSTITUTION
Ninety-nine percent of the companions followed this opinion, but there was one percent who believed Mut'a can be performed in extreme case of necessity in the land of war. This one percent is divided into two groups. One says, it is allowed with the Caliph's permission, and the other says there is no need for the permission. Those who do not believe in Caliph's permission say that it was Umar who made it haram. Their proof is based upon an opinion by a companion namely Ibn Abbas. People misused this opinion of Ibn Abbas until he clarified himself and said, Wallahi I did not mean what they did! I meant similarly to what Allah meant when he allowed the meat of dead animals and pork to be eaten in extreme necessity. This is referring to the time when people abused the rule of necessity at time of Umar, following the understanding of the one percent. Finally, Umar declared and taught it to be haram when a lady came to Umar complaining about how her husband in Mut'a, who was married, would not take responsibility of the child. He realized how the society was becoming corrupt with similar conditions to adultery. Thus, he had to teach people and make Mut'a haram even in the case of the one percent opinion
IF MUT'A IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR SATISFYING LUST, THEN WHAT IS IT! IT SEEMS TO BE THE EASIEST SOLUTION FOR ADULTERY. If Mut'a really was to be done in case of need THEN WHY IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MARRIED PERSON TO DO MUT'A? Also, if one cannot marry due to financial insecurity then how can one be responsible for supporting the child and not be able to support the wife? And how is he going to know if the child is actually his, not someone else's?
In Mut'a, THERE IS NO DIVORCE; once you pay the set amount of money and the assigned time ends there is no rights, no duty, no inheritance laws, or divorce process. The only law is that the woman waits for a period of 45 days before she enters into another Mut'a, while the man can have immediate one, even while he is married or in another Mut'a. This goes against what Allah assigned for marriage in the Qura'n. In Surah 2 Ayah 228 Allah says, Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods and it is not lawful for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs. If they have faith in Allah and the last day." In Mut'a she can be pregnant with the child of her first Mut'a husband and be married to her second Mut'a husband or the permanent. In the book of Mustadrak-Alwasa il (Shia authentic hadith book) vol. 7 book 3 pg. 506 rewayah 8762, it states that the prophet said that who ever cannot find the ability to get married let him fast, my ummah s protection is fasting. Also in Beharul-Alanwaar (Shia hadith book in vol.14 pg. 327 rewayah 50:21) it states that Imam Ali said and seek protection from women desire by fasting. What is the need for fasting if Mut'a is OK? It is obvious that this contradict this idea. I hope and pray that we will take this matter seriously. (Capital, bold and underline emphasis ours)
This Muslim woman mentioned that Muta could last as short as an hour, a position supported by the following Shiite source:
Q1: Can Someone Contract Mut'a Marriage for 1 hour?
I would say theoretically yes! Much in the same way that it is possible for some one to marry a woman permanently and then divorce her in one hour or even less. Logically, since the possibility of this action does not invalidate the regular marriage, therefore, it should not be applied in the case of Mut'a either! (Source)
Notice the candid admission of these Muslims. These sources have no hesitation classifying Muta as fornication, adultery and prostitution! They also warn Muslims from engaging in this sick, filthy, and perverted act. Yet at the same time these sources are aware that Muhammad permitted Muta for a time, which is an indirect admission that Muhammad permitted fornication, adultery, and prostitution.
The reader should easily see that their reasoning and justification for Muhammads permitting this perverted practice is utterly weak, with Osamas logic being even worse. In order to expose the utter shallowness of their defense let us apply their reasoning to other sick, filthy practices:
Islam allowed the raping of young girls and boys at the beginning, because at that time there were so many people who had newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates, because they had been used to committing sexual acts with children during the Jaahiliyyah (Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance). So this kind of sex was permitted for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection. As child molestation was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.
The only shortcoming with the above analogy is that the Quran does allow for the raping and divorcing of young, prepubescent girls. It even has the audacity to call this marriage:
O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period. Count the period, and fear God your Lord. Do not expel them from their houses, nor let them go forth, except when they commit a flagrant indecency. Those are God's bounds; whosoever trespasses the bounds of God has done wrong to himself. Thou knowest not, perchance after that God will bring something new to pass As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three months; and those who have not menstruated as yet. And those who are with child, their term is when they bring forth their burden. Whoso fears God, God will appoint for him, of His command, easiness. S. 65:1, 4 Arberry
The waiting period for the divorcing of women who havent even menstruated is three months, showing that these arent even women but are young girls who havent even attained puberty! Now a woman can only be divorced if she was first married, so it is clear that this injunction assumes that young girls can be married and divorced and remarry before they reach puberty. Even more, the purpose of this waiting period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant, or if she is to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this verse presupposes that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls have sexual intercourse with them.
The renowned Muslim commentator Abu-Ala Maududi, in his six volume commentary on the Quran, confirmed this when he wrote:
"Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible." (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)
Let us therefore use another example:
Islam allowed incest at the beginning, because at that time there were so many people who had newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates, because they had been used to sleeping with their family members during the Jaahiliyyah (Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance). So this kind of practice was permitted for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection. As incest was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.
Would anyone buy this logic? Can there really be any justification for such perverted and heinous acts to be permitted, even if it is for a short while? Doesnt this prove that Muslims will say just about anything to exonerate Muhammad from all the gross perversions he permitted in the name of God?
Sunni Narrations That Claim Muta is not Abrogated
The following verse is believed to have permitted Muta:
O ye who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, and transgress not, Lo! Allah loveth not transgressors. S. 5:87 Pickthall
The hadith states:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract AND RECITED TO US: -- O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression. (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o)
Another passage which Muslims claim allowed for Muta is Sura 4:24:
And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess. This has ALLAH enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you may seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there is no blame on you what you do by mutual agreement after the fixing of the dowry. Surely ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise. Sher Ali
Noted Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir commented on the above text and claimed that:
"... <And how could you take it back and you have gone in unto each other.> (4:21): the general meaning of which was given as evidence for Mut'a Marriage (Marriage for an intended short time) which was, undoubtedly, PREVALENT at the onset of Islam, but was abrogated thereafter. Ash-Shafi'i and a group of scholars were of the opinion that Mut'a Marriage had once been permitted but was later invalidated on two occasions. Some were more assertive than that, while others have made it lawful only if necessary. The majority of scholars, however, have opposed this view. The correct statement is mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Ali Ibn Abu Talib: The Prophet forbade Mut'a Marriage and the meat of local skylarks (a type of bird) on the Day of Khaibar.
"It is narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Ar-Rabi' Ibn Sabrah Ibn Ma'bad Al-Juhani, who had quoted from his father, who had participated in the Conquest of Makkah with the Prophet who said: 'O, People! I have permitted you to do Mut'a Marriage and Allah has forbidden it until the Day of Judgment. Therefore, whosoever is married to a woman through this type of marriage, should release them and should not take anything back from Mahr you have given them.' According to Muslim, it was said during Hujjatal Wadaa' (Farewell Pilgrimage). This Hadith has other meanings in the Book of Al-Ahkaam." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London; First edition 2000], part 5, pp. 29-30 underline and capital emphasis ours)
The following Shiite site quotes a slew of Sunni references admitting that this passage initially included an additional clause not found today which justified Muta:
Sunni Doubts as to the Correct Recitation of this Verse
Beyond these facts, we see that not only do the majority of Sunni 'ulama accept that this verse was revealed about Mut'ah, but a large majority also believe that there has been tahreef (change, distortion) in this verse in order to create confusion as to its real meaning. A number of Sunni hadeeth claim that this verse was read in a different way than it is today, in a way that makes it clear that it refers to Mut'ah. Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Abu Hayyan Andalusi in his commentary of Sharh Afhaq 'al Bahar al Maheet' Volume 3 page 218 states:
"Ubay ibn Ka'b, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Jabeer would read the verse with the words 'for a prescribed period'.
A number of Sunni Tafsir claim that the words "for a prescribed period" were read by the Sahaba when they recited this verse:
- Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume2 P. 40 -
- Tafseer Tabari Volume 5 p.
- Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 p. 94
- Fathul Qadeer Volume 1 p. 14
- Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 1 p. 84
- Tafseer Ruh al Maani Volume 5 p.
- Tafseer Kashaf p. 20
- Tafseer Mazhari Volume2 p. 4
- Tafseer Ahkam al Quran Volume2 p. 47
- Tafseer Mu'alim al Tanzeel p. 63
- Mustadrak Al Hakim volume 2 p. 47
- Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani p. 3
- Tafseer Mawahib al Rahman page 4 part 5
- Tafseer Haqqani volume5 p.
- Tafseer Jama Al Bayan Volume1 p. 66
- Neel al Authar Volume2 p. 53 Kitab Nikah
- Tafseer Qurtabi Volume5 p. 30
- Dhurqani Sharh Muwatta Volume1 p. 54
- Kitab al Musahaf page 342
- Al Bahar al Maheet Volume 3 page 218
In later chapters when pages of sources are not mentioned then we are referring to references from above pages.
Specifically, the companion Abdullah ibn Masu'd is cited as reading the verse on Mut'ah with the additional words 'for a prescribed period' confirming its legitimacy, as well as testifying to tahreef in Uthman's compiled Quran. This is cited in the following sources:
- Tafseer Maar Volume5 p. 5
- Tafseer Jama al Bayan Volume6 p. 9
All of these sources agree that Ibn Masud would read the verse of "Istimatum" followed by the words 'for a prescribed period'. Can we conclude that these Sahaba were liars or were they suggesting that words were missing in the Quran collected by Uthman? The companion Ubay Ibn Ka'b is also said to have stated that the verse of Mut'ah included the words "for a prescribed period" and that the Companions remained silent when he recited the verse in this way. We read in Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 p. 94:
Its proven that this verse came down about Mut'ah, first reason for this is Ibn Kaab would read the verse on Mut'ah with the "Ajol Masomee", Ibn Abbas would also read it in the same way and the Ummah did not order them to stop reading verses in this way.
The implication of the hadeeth is this: that the Ummah accepted the addition of the words "for a prescribed period". According to Sunni aqa'id, ijma' (consensus of the Ummah) is a source of Islamic law. We see that the Ummah consented to these additional words in the recitation of these important companions. In a later discussion, we will see how ijma' is used by the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) to justify 'Umar's prohibition of Mut'ah, arguing that the Companions were silent about 'Umar's innovation and that, therefore, they were pleased with it. However, we see the Sunni hadeeth literature claiming ijma' for something which contradicts the version of the Qur'an constituted by 'Uthman, which clearly supports the position that Mut'ah was halaal and that verse 4:24 was revealed in order to legitimise the practice of temporary marriage.
Further evidences in this regard:
- Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Sulayman bin Ashash Sijistani the son of the author of Sunan Abu Daud in his renowned Sunni work 'al Musahaf' page 286 records as follows: "Ubay bin Ka'b and Saeed bin Jabeer would read this verse with the words 'for a prescribed period'"
- Ibn Abbas would read the verse of Mut'ah with the words "for a prescribed period' and openly declared this to be halaal.
Tafseer Al Baghawi, Al Musami Mualim al Tanzeel, p. 414 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_albaghawi_p414.jpg)
- 'Abu Nadhra asked Ibn Abbas about Mut'ah and he replied "haven't you read the verse in Surah Nisa:- "those women for prescribed period"' Abu Nadhra said "I did not read the verse in this way". Ibn Abbas replied that "Allah has revealed the verse in this manner". Ibn Abbas swore that this verse was about Mut'ah.
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume2 P. 40
This recital was also recorded in Tafseer Tabari, on the authority of Ibn Ka'b:
Tafseer al-Tabari, p. 14 & 15 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_altabari_p14_15.jpg)
- Allamah Sijistani in al Musahaf page 342 records that: Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas (RA) recited the verse 4:24 with the addition of "to an appointed time". I said to him: "I did not read it this way." Ibn Abbas replied: "I swear by Allah, this is how Allah revealed it," and Ibn Abbas repeated this statement three times."
This tradition has been similarly recorded in Tafseer Durre Manthur
- Ibn Abbas claimed that the other Sahaba also read the verse on Mut'ah with the words 'for a prescribed period'
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur Volume 2, P. 140 & 141 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_dur_almanthur_v2_p140_141.jpg)
- We also read in Durre Manthur that Ibn Abbas said: "Mut'ah was practised from the outset of Islam and the Companions would read the verse of Mut'ah with the words 'for a prescribed period'.
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur Volume 2, P. 140 & 141 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_dur_almanthur_v2_p140_141.jpg)
We have seen that many narration's claim that Ibn Abbas recited the verse in a fashion that clearly refers to Mut'ah. The famous hadeeth narrator and scholar Al-Hakim in Mustadrak al Hakim volume 1 page 305 graded the words of Ibn Abbas claim that the verse of Mut'ah included the words 'for a prescribed period' to be a Sahih narration. After recording the words of Ibn Abbas, reading the words 'for a prescribed period' in the verse he grades the narration Sahih according to the criterion of Muslims. No Sunni can deny the status of Hakim within their sect; the famous scholar Shah Waliyullah graded Hakim as the mujadid (reviver of the faith, perhaps the highest praise that can be given to a Sunni 'alim by his community) in the fourth century. In Izalathul Khifa p. 77 part 7, al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah stated:
A Mujadid appears at the end of every century: The Mujtahid of the 1st century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah, Umar bin Abdul Aziz. The Mujadid of the 2nd century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Muhammad Idrees Shaari the Mujadid of the 3rd century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Abu Hasan Ashari the Mujadid of the 4rth century was Abu Abdullah Hakim Nishapuri. (Mutah, A Comprehensive Guide, "Quranic Evidences for the Legitimacy of Mutah"; Source)
Osama cited certain hadiths to show that Muhammad abrogated this perverted practice. What Osama failed to tell his readers is that there are Sunni narrations that say that this practice was being observed all the way till the time of Umar ibn Al-Khattab who stopped it, but then later reinstated it. Basically, this means that Muhammad didnt abrogate Muta at all, but some Muslims lied and claimed that he did. For instance, ar-Razi wrote of Muta:
"Mutah marriage involves a man hiring a woman for a specific amount of money, for a certain period of time, to have sex with her. The scholars agree that this Mut'ah marriage was authorized in the beginning of Islam. It is reported that when the Prophet came to Mecca to perform umrah, the women of Mecca dressed up and adorned themselves. The companions complained to the Prophet that they had not had sex for a long time, so he said to them: Enjoy these women." (At-tafsir al-kabir, Q. 4:24)
"No Muslim disputes that Mut'ah marriage was allowed in early Islam, the difference is whether it has been abrogated or not." (Ibid.)
The hadith collections affirm that there was debate regarding whether this practice had been abrogated:
Narrated Abu Jamra:
I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Muta with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Muta). On that a freed slave of his said to him, "That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce." On that, Ibn Abbas said, "Yes." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 51)
Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248)
Urwa b. Zubair reported that Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: Just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Muta and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu 'Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him); then he forbade us to do Muta. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. Abd al-Aziz and I was sitting there. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3261)
Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'a (Tamattu of Hajj 1846 and Tamattu with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3250)
One narration even says that, during the caliphate of Umar, a woman got pregnant as a result of Muta:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, "Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she is pregnant by him." Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, "This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it!" (Maliks Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.18.42)
Another renowned Sunni exegete and historian al-Tabari claimed that Umar rescinded his prohibition:
According to Muhammad b. Ishaq - Yahya b. Main Yaqub b. Ibrahim - Isa b. Yazid b. Dab - Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Zayd Imran b. Sawdah: I said the morning prayer with Umar, and he recited the Subhan chapter and one other. Then he left. I went off with him, and he asked if there was anything he could do. I told him there was, so he asked me to join him. I did so and, when he entered [his house], he gave me permission [to enter]. There he was on a bed with nothing on it. I told him I wanted to give him some advice. His reply was, "The person giving good advice is welcome anytime." I said, "Your community finds fault with you on four counts." (Umar) put the top of his whip in his beard and the lower part on his thigh. Then he said, "Tell me more." I continued, "It has been mentioned that you declared the lesser pilgrimage forbidden during the months of the [full] pilgrimage. The Messenger of God did not do this, nor did Abu Bakr, though it is permitted." He answered, "It is permitted. If they were to perform the lesser pilgrimage during the months of the pilgrimage, they would regard it as being in lieu of the full pilgrimage, and (Mecca) would be a deserted place that year, and the pilgrimage would be celebrated by no one, although it is part of God's greatness. You are right." I continued, "It is also said that you have forbidden temporary marriage, although it was a license (rukhsah) given by God. We enjoy temporary marriage for a handful [of dates], and we can separate after three nights." He replied, "The Messenger of God permitted it at a time of necessity. Then people regained their life of comfort. I do not know of any Muslim who has practiced this or gone back to it. Now anyone who wishes can marry for a handful [of dates] and separate after three nights. You are right." I continued, "You emancipate a slave girl if she gives birth, without her master's [consent to] the emancipation." He replied, "I added one thing that is forbidden to another, intending only to do some good. I ask Gods forgiveness." I continued, "There have been complaints of your raising your voice against your subjects and your addressing them harshly." He raised his whip, then ran his hand down it right to the end. Then he said, "I am Muhammad's traveling companion"- he [in fact] sat behind him at the raid on Qarqarat al-Kudr (The History of al-Tabari: The Conquest of Iran, translated by G. Rex Smith [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1994], Volume XIV, pp. 139-140; bold emphasis ours)
To add to this mass confusion, this next hadith says that the Quran never abrogated Muta:
Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:
The Verse of Hajj-at-Tamatu was revealed in Allahs Book, so we performed it with Allahs Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (who regarded it illegal) just expressed what his own mind suggested. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43)
The Saudi translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, has changed the word Mut'a to Hajj-at-Tamatu, even though the Arabic text of the Hadith that is placed next to the English says Mut'a. Yet even here the point is still clear since the expression Hajj-at-Tamatu refers to the practice of Muta during the time of Hajj, i.e. Muta of Hajj.
The practice of Muta may account for why the following text is worded in the way that it is:
And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, WHEN THEY DESIRE TO KEEP CHASTE, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. S. 24:33 Shakir
From the way this passage is worded one can easily conclude that prostitution is only a sin when the slave girl desires chastity. Otherwise, if she does not desire to be chaste then it is okay for her to prostitute herself for gain. This interpretation makes sense in light of the practice of temporary marriages. After all, there must be women who are willing to be used and degraded in this manner for Muta to even be possible.
As anyone can see, this practice is nothing more than a form of legalized prostitution since its sole aim is to gratify the carnal perversions of men.
Despite the Sunni claim that Muta has been cancelled one will still find Shiite Muslims condoning and practicing it, as the following links show:
Osama tried to brush the Shiite view aside by making the fallacious appeal to what the majority of Muslims (who being Sunni) believe and hold to. This desperate response proves absolutely nothing except that Osama thinks that just because the majority believes a certain way then this automatically must mean that their view is correct. Osama needs to refute all the arguments, quotes, sources, facts etc., produced by the Shiite in order to convince us that the Sunni position is the correct view.
Refuting Osamas Objections
Osama raised some issues which he thinks refute my claim that Muta is nothing more than prostitution in the guise of marriage. Osama tried to draw the erroneous conclusion that since the iddah (waiting period) for divorced women is three months this means that if prostitution was allowed then this would only be permitted four times out of the year:
Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what God Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in God and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise. S. 2:228 Y. Ali
What Osama has assumed is that the same rules for regular marriage apply to Muta also, but fails to prove his case that this is necessarily so. Muta is not a normal marriage since its sole purpose was for perverted Muslim men to satisfy their perverted desires:
We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139)
Interestingly, this next Sunni writer even states that there is no iddah in Muta according to specific Shiite sources:
The Proceeded for Contracting Mutah
When Hisham Salim asked how one should contract mut'ah, Imam Ja'far as-Sdiq answered that one should say, "I am marrying you for this period of time for this amount of money. When the prescribed period is over, there will be annulment, and there will be no 'iddah after this." 25
The Least Costly Mut'ah
Mutahis a marriage that may last for a very short time. It needs no witnesses, and it has no period of 'iddah. The minimum compensation that could be paid to the woman for sexual relations is one dirham (i.e., less than 25 cents)."29 (Dr. Ahmad Abdullah Salamah, Shiah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mutah): source)
Seeing that Muta was for a different purpose than regular marriage we shouldnt therefore be surprised that the same rules wouldnt apply.
In fact, we will allow the same Muslim girl who was duped into doing Muta answer Osama on this very point:
In Mut'a, THERE IS NO DIVORCE; once you pay the set amount of money and the assigned time ends there is no rights, no duty, no inheritance laws, or divorce process. The only law is that the woman waits for a period of 45 days before she enters into another Mut'a, while the man can have immediate one, even while he is married or in another Mut'a. This goes against what Allah assigned for marriage in the Qura'n. In Surah 2 Ayah 228 Allah says, Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods and it is not lawful for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs. If they have faith in Allah and the last day." In Mut'a she can be pregnant with the child of her first Mut'a husband and be married to her second Mut'a husband or the permanent. In the book of Mustadrak-Alwasa il (Shia authentic hadith book) vol. 7 book 3 pg. 506 rewayah 8762, it states that the prophet said that who ever cannot find the ability to get married let him fast, my ummah s protection is fasting. Also in Beharul-Alanwaar (Shia hadith book in vol.14 pg. 327 rewayah 50:21) it states that Imam Ali said and seek protection from women desire by fasting. What is the need for fasting if Mut'a is OK? It is obvious that this contradict this idea. I hope and pray that we will take this matter seriously.
More importantly, it is irrelevant whether a woman who has committed Muta must observe iddah, which means that she could only engage in Muta four times out of the year. The fact is that the iddah didnt stop the Quran or Muhammad from permitting Muta, nor does it prevent Shiites from engaging in this perversion:
Iddah (Waiting Period) in Mut'ah
Iddah is obligatory upon women in Mut'ah, just like in Nikah i.e.
- A woman cannot enter into Mut'ah marriage, till the time she has become pure by observing the 'iddah (waiting period) from her earlier husband.
- And after expiration of Mut'ah marriage, again she has to observe 'iddah, before getting married (either Nikah or Mut'ah) to any other person.
(Mutah, A Comprehensive Guide, "What is Mutah?"; source)
Basically, this implies that when a man is finished with one woman he could then find another one to prostitute while the first one waited for her iddah to finish.
Osama has confused a question of fact with a question of relevance in an attempt of trying to blow some smoke in order to prevent his audience from seeing the real issues. We are not surprised that he would try to do this nor surprised that he didnt bother to address, but conveniently ignored, the fact that a womans waiting period did absolutely nothing to prevent Muhammad from condoning legalized prostitution called Muta. I guess he knows more than his own prophet did on this subject.
Osama asks where would these public prostitutes exist in the Islamic society and which caliph would allow them to flourish in Muslim society. The answer? The same place where the Muslim men found women to engage in prostitution which Muhammad passed off as temporary marriage!
Osama again has confused a question of fact with a question of relevance. It is simply irrelevant to raise the issue of where prostitutes would live when the fact remains that Muhammad permitted Muta, plain and simple. It is quite obvious that neither Muhammad nor the Muslims were worried about the public proliferation of prostitutes since they were too busy engaging them in Muta!
Osama also appealed to Sura 24:2 which states that fornicators are to be punished as a way of proving that prostitution is not sanctioned in Islam:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. Y. Ali
Osama fails to tell his readers that not all filthy perverted sexual acts are classified as fornication or evil by Osamas false god:
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. S. 4:24 Pickthall
Here, Osamas deity allows adulterous acts with captive married women. Muhammads god also allowed him to marry his adopted sons divorcee, a clear act of incest and adultery:
And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed. S. 33:37 Shakir
Hence, Muta happens to be one of those perverted acts which Allah made lawful and called good.
The Shiites which we have been referencing address some other passages often used to refute Muta such as Sura 23:5. We cite some of these points here since they equally refute Osamas pathetic rebuttal:
Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Yusuf al-Qaradawi in his article on Nikah, takes the opportunity to attack the concept of Mut'ah and advances this rational:
|Yusuf al Qaradawi states:|
|"The reason it was permitted in the beginning was that the Muslims were passing through what might be called a period of transition from jahiliyyah to Islam. Fornication was very common and widespread among the pre-Islamic Arabs. After the advent of Islam, when they were required to go on military expeditions, they were under great pressure as a result of being absent from their wives for long periods of time. Among the Believers were some who were strong in faith and others who were weak".|
Similarly the Islamic Voice Magazine, in their article on Mut'ah claimed:
|Islamic Voice Magazine states:|
|History tells us that the Prophet (Pbuh) permitted Muta' on a few occasions of long collective journeys but finally forbade it forever in 10 AH after the last Hajj in his lifetime. The Nikah of Muta' (Contract of marriage for a limited period) was an ancient practice among Arabs. Arabs were sunk in fornication and adultery while Islam did not permit sexual relations outside the genuine wedlock. The binding was so harsh on them that sensing their weakness, the Prophet (Pbuh) permitted them on four occasions of long journeys, the Muta' which had a social sanction in their eyes. He had sensed that all of them could not bear to keep away from women for months so the temporary permission of Muta' was granted as it was better than indiscriminate sex. It may be noted that the permission of Muta' was on all four occasions granted on long journeys. There is not one occasion when the Prophet announced the permission while in town. It is a matter of interpretation whether the permission remained in force after those journeys or not. Those who believe in Muta's prohibition should also learn from the Prophet (Pbuh) the wisdom of gradually implementing the laws that are hard to practise for the beginners.|
Reply - Had the Sahaba still not abandoned the traits of jahiliyya in the 8th Hijri?
The comments of Qaradawi and Islamic Voice Magazine are indeed an insult of the noble companions, were they still embedded in jahiliyya, at the time of the conquest of Makka in the 8th Hijri or as Islamic Voice claim 10th Hijri? Are these authors suggesting that the great Sahaba who were willing to sacrifice their lives / possessions upon every order of Rasulullah (s) were (at this late stage of the Prophetic mission) so influenced by the practises of jahiliyya that they could not control their sex drives upon an order of Rasulullah (s)? Is it not insulting to suggest that as Qaradawi suggests, this 'period of transition from jahiliyya to Islam' had not been attained by the Sahaba in 8 Hijri, just two years before the death of Rasulullah (s)? According to the Islamic Voice magazine the beloved Sahaba were so 'weak' that Rasulullah (s) 'sensed that all of them could not bear to keep away from women for months so the temporary permission of Mut'ah'. Both authors are suggesting that the same Sahaba that had turned their back on their families, who would willingly accept every word of Rasulullah (s) without raising any objections, were unable to let go of the jahiliyya practise of Mut'ah. And what can we say about Islamic Voice comments 'Those who believe in Muta's prohibition should also learn from the Prophet (Pbuh) the wisdom of gradually implementing the laws that are hard to practise for the beginners'. Were the Sahaba who stood shoulder to shoulder with Rasulullah (s) who (according to Sunni accounts) always stood faithfully at his side through thick and thin were merely 'beginners' when Mut'ah was banned at the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage in the 10th Hijri? Are comments such as these not slurs against the Sahaba? (Mutah, A Comprehensive Guide, "The Argument that Mutah is Immoral"; source)
This is a very weak argument for several reasons. The first and most glaring mistake is chronological. It is indeed very sad that individuals such as Dr. Salamah, in their efforts to protect Umar they haven't bothered contemplating their claim before publishing it in an open forum. The verse of Mut'ah 'Istamatum' that has allegedly been attributed to Ayesha and Ibn Abbas is in Surat an-Nisa and this is verse was revealed while the Prophet (s) was in Madinah. Surah Momineen and Surah Maarij, the verses quoted above, both descended in Makka
As anybody with even the most basic knowledge of Islam knows that the Prophet (s) migrated from Makka to Madinah, meaning he was in Makkah first. Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani in Fath al Mulhim, Sharh Muslim Volume 3 page 221 in his discussion of the verse, 'And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses' - states:
"The verse being referred to descended in Makka"
Whilst these verses descended in Makka, Sunni traditions confirm that Mut'ah was practised much later, during the battle of Khayber. This means that, according to Dr. Salamah, the abrogating verse (nasikh) was revealed before the abrogated verse (mansukh). This is, of course, a logical impossibility: how can the verse of Mut'ah be abrogated by the verses from Surat al-Mu'minun when the verse of Mut'ah was revealed after those verses? It is like trying to defend the legitimacy of Mu'awiya by acknowledging that he was conceived first and his parents married after.
Allamah Baghdadi in his discussion of the verse 'And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses' also acknowledges this fact in his Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani Volume 9 page 10:
"This verse is Makkan and descended before the Hijrah [migration], since Mut'ah was halaal after the Hijrah, it is difficult to advance this as evidence of the illegality of Mut'ah".
Renowned Deobandi scholar Allamah Waheed'udeen az Zaman Hyderabadi in Lughath al Hadeeth Volume 5 page 9 said:
"Mut'ah existed at the outset of Islam and this is a proven fact, when this verse descended 'And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses' it became haraam. This may lead to objections being raised due to the fact that the verse is Makkan and the practise of Mut'ah afterwards is an established fact"
Also in Lughath al Hadeeth Volume 3 page 105, az Zaman, in his discussion of the word 'Shaqee' states:
"The verse 'except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess' appears in two Surah's and both are without a doubt Makkan. The practise of Mut'ah existed after the descent of these verses".
In his Tayseer al Bari Sharh Bukhari, Volume 6 page 116 Allama az Zaman said:
"Those who rely on 'except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess' are in error as this is a Makkan verse and there is agreement that Mut'ah was halaal after this".
Maulana Sayyid Abu'l Maudoodi in his discussion of the verse of Surah Mu'minun in Tafheem ul Qur'an Volume 8 page 12 footnote 4 states:
"Some commentators have proved the prohibition of Mut'ah (temporary marriage) from this verse. They argue that the woman with whom one has entered into wedlock temporarily, can neither be regarded as a wife nor a slave girl. A slave girl obviously she is not, and she is also not a wife, because the legal injunctions normally applicable to a wife are not applicable to her. She neither inherits the man, nor the man her; she is neither governed by the law pertaining to 'iddah (waiting period after divorce or death of husband), divorce, sustenance nor by that pertaining to the vow by man that he will not have conjugal relations with her. She is also from the prescribed limit of four wives. Thus when she is neither a 'wife' not a 'slave girl' in any sense, she will naturally be included among those 'beyond this', whoso seeker has been declared a 'transgressor' by the Qur'an.
This is a strong argument but due to a weakness in it, is difficult to say that this verse is decisive with regard to the prohibition of Mut'ah. The fact is that the Holy Prophet enjoined the final and absolute prohibition if Mut'ah in the year of the Conquest of Makkah, but before it Mut'ah was allowed according to several authentic traditions. If Mut'ah had been prohibited in this case, which was admittedly revealed at Makkah several years before the migration, how can it be imagined that the Holy Prophet kept the prohibition in abeyance till the conquest of Makkah?"
Tahfeem ul Quran, Volume 8, Page 12 (http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafheem_ulquran_v8_p12.jpg)
Allamah Uthmani in his commentary of the Mut'ah narrations in Fath al Mulhim, Sharh Muslim Volume 3 page 440 states:
"Nikah Mut'ah was a lesser type of marriage that was Mubah and then made haraam in general terms, when this type of Nikah brought no benefits - Talaq, inheritance or other rights were not proven as was the case with (standard) Nikah. Although from one angle this is also a type of Nikah, women in Mut'ah were 'Zawaaj Naqsa' which is why their rights were not established, as was the case until Allah revealed the verse 'except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess'. This verse does not make Mut'ah unlawful / batil, Mut'ah women can also come within the definition of wife in some respects, as we've proven Mut'ah is applicable in such circumstances as a means of separating oneself from Zina. How can it be advanced that this verse proves the illegality of Mut'ah, the verse is Makkan and according to our knowledge no scholar has claimed that Mut'ah was prohibited before Khayber, although different views have been aired amongst scholars over the prohibition after Khayber".
These comments are sufficient in refuting the argument of Dr. Salamah that the verse of Mut'ah was abrogated by Surat al-Mu'minun, and furthermore demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge and awareness about the Holy Qur'an: one only has to look in the table of contents of the modern Saudi Arabian edition of the Qur'an (the ubiquitous "green" Qur'an found in all mosques) to discover what sequence these verses came down in. As such, we are left with two possibilities as to how to interpret Dr. Salamah's work: either he is entirely ignorant about the Holy Qur'an (something his comment about the verse of Mut'ah demonstrates), or he is simply lying. Either way he has already disqualified himself as an Islamic scholar.
Besides this obvious blunder with regards to the Qur'anic text, it should also be noted that Dr. Salamah has once again contradicted well-known Sunni 'ulama. Qadhi Badr'adeen A'ini and the world-famous Allamah Maudoodi declared that no
verse has abrogated Mut'ah. We read in Umdah' thul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari Volume 8 page 311 Bab Ghazwa Khayber:
If it is said that one who practises Mut'ah should be punished, it should be noted that most of Imam Malik's students asserted that no penalty should be applied, as there is no evidence that Mut'ah was made haram by the Qur'an.
On page 310, Qadhi then states:
The 'ulama have claimed that there is an ijma on the permissibility of Mut'ah, there is no evidence from the Qur'an that Mut'ah is haram.
In addition to this, we have the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, Maulana Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi stating in his Tafheem ul Qur'an [English translation] Volume 8 page 12 footnote 4:
The correct position therefore is that the prohibition of Mut'ah is not based on any express law of the Qur'an, but is based on the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s).
Does Dr. Salamah, then, hold himself above this scholar? Of the many weaknesses in Dr. Salamah's article, one is most certainly his crude emotionalism. He does not seek to prove that Mut'ah is haram according to the Shari'ah as a matter of mere law, but rather spends most of his time arguing that Mut'ah is a fundamentally immoral and evil practice. Yet here we see one of the most famous scholars in modern Sunni Islam arguing that:
- Mut'ah was made halaal by the Qur'an
- Mut'ah was not abrogated by anything in the Qur'an
As such, the Qur'an upholds Mut'ah. Dr. Salamah's belief that Mut'ah is a moral vice and sin, something no pious person could countenance, therefore becomes a direct insult against the Qur'an and its Creator, Allah (swt). But in any case, it is possible that somebody such as Dr. Salamah may reject the words of these 'ulama. But it would be difficult for any Sunni Muslim to wholly reject the belief of the Prophet (s)'s Companions and Successor (Taabi'een). From this group of people, we find narration's that state that at least eight of the companions and three of the Taabi'een continued to believe that Mut'ah was halaal, and therefore did not hold to Dr. Salamah and others belief in Mut'ah's abrogation. We read in Ahlul Sunnah's authority Neel al Authar Volume6 p. 53 B Nikah Mut'ah
"Those Sahaba who deemed Mut'ah halaal after Rasulullah(s) were Asma binte Abu Bakr, Jabir bin Abdullah, Abdullah bin Masud, Abdullah bin Abbas, Mu'awiyah, Umro bin Harith, Abu Saeed and Salma binte Umayya. Amongst the Taabi'een who deemed Mut'ah to be Halal were al Taus, Ata and Saed Bin Jabeer." (Ibid., "Was Mutah Abrogated by the Quran?"; source)
The foregoing shows that it is Osamas god and his false prophet that prostitute women and try to pass it off as marriage. It is his false religion that puts people at a greater risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and in having illegitimate children from prostitution called Muta. Therefore, in light of the foregoing we can now conclude with the following challenge:
OUR CHALLENGE TO OSAMA
PLEASE PRODUCE AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT FROM THE QURAN FORBIDDING MUTA, OR AT LEAST ABROGATING IT. BASICALLY, WE WANT YOU TO SHOW US WHERE THE PASSAGES PERMITTING MUTA, I.E., SURAS 4:24 AND 5:87, HAVE BEEN ABROGATED AND ALSO PRODUCE THE QURANIC VERSES WHICH DID THE ABROGATING. QUOTING THE HADITH WILL NOT ANSWER OUR CHALLENGE SINCE WE HAVE DOCUMENTED THAT THERE ARE MANY SUNNI NARRATIONS WHICH DENY THAT MUTA HAS BEEN ABROGATED. THEREFORE, THE HADITH LITERTAURE IS CONTRADICTORY AT BEST AND DOES NOTHING TO PROVE YOUR CASE THAT MUTA HAS BEEN PROHIBITED.
Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page