 | | Introduction | | What is Mut'ah? | | The necessity of Mut'ah | | Quranic Evidences for the Legitimacy of Mut'ah | | The Argument that Mut'ah is Immoral- I | | The Argument that Mut'ah is Immoral- II | | Examples of Sunni morality | | Was Mut'ah Abrogated by the Quran? | | Was Mut'ah Abrogated by the Sunnah? | | The Truth: That Umar banned Mut'ah | | The misuse of Shi'a Hadeeths to demonstrate the prohibition of Mutah | | The status of slave-girl in Shia madhab | | Conclusion: An appeal to justice | | Appendix |
| |  | | | | You can email the details of this article to a friend. | |  |
| Chapter 5: The Argument that Mut'ah is Immoral -I
For the easiness of our readers, here we are pasting the headings used in this chapter discussing various topics:
[1]. Dr Salamah's notion that Mutah is immoral
[2]. Answering the claim that Mut'ah was gradually outlawed as the Sahaba needed to adjust from Jahiliyya to Islam
[3]. The argument that Mut'ah does not meet the criterion of chastity (ihsan), nor does it qualify as marriage
[4]. Inheritance of the child born from Mut'ah
[5]. Ibn al-Hashimi's anxiety that a man will reject the parentage of the child born from Nikah al-Mutah
[6]. Iddah (Waiting Period) in Mut'ah Marriage
[7]. Mut'ah with Christians/Jews Women
[8]. The mockery by Ibn al-Hashimi at the traditions calling the woman in mutah as rented
[9]. Ibn al Hashimi's assertion that Mutah is tantamount to rented 'booty by the hour'
[10]. Ibn al-Hashimi's indigestion in stipulating the timing of meeting between husband and wife in marriage contract
[11]. Dr. Salamah's Statements Concerning Dowry
[12]. Ibn al-Hashimi's interpretation that the dowry in Mutah is just like a payment for sex in prostitution
[13]. Nawasib's discussion that there is no need to make enquiries about a woman before Mut'ah
[14]. Dr Salamah's discussion on Mut'ah with a Young Girl
[15]. Nasibi objection that you can contract Mut'ah with countless women
[16]. The Sunni marriage with the intention of divorce - The Fatwa of Wahabi Leader Bin Baz
[17]. Dr. Salamah's Discussion on the rewards for physical contact between a husband and wife
[18]. Dr. Salamah's Discussion on the blessing of Mut'ah
[19]. Dr. Salamah & Ibn al-Hashimi's discussion that those that practise Mut'ah shall be with the Prophet and Imams
[20]. Dr. Salamah's Discussion on the rewards for Nikah Mut'ah and performing Ghusl afterwords
[21]. Dr Salamah's discussion on the Commission of Mut'ah
[22]. Refuting the questions posed by Dr Salamah al Nasibi
In spite of the fact that Mut'ah is legislated in the Holy Qur'an, there are those who have attempted to argue that Mut'ah is immoral, illegitimate, and leads to fornication. One of the main problems in all debates surrounding the legitimacy of Mut'ah is the degree to which people's minds have been clouded on this issue. If one goes into a debate believing that temporary marriage is fundamentally immoral, than it will be impossible for such a person to accept the Qur'anic and hadeeth proofs for its legitimacy. Such a person has already closed off his mind to the truth, and no amount of Islamic evidence will be able to sway him. A critical issue which needs to be dealt with, then, is whether or not Mut'ah constitutes a moral outrage, or whether (as the Prophet and Imams (as) have taught) Mut'ah is a blessing and grace (lutf) given by Allah (swt) to the believers.
Dr Salamah's notion that Mutah is immoral
The Wahabi author Dr. Salamah wrote the following about Mut'ah:
| Dr Salamah states: | "Except for these, all others are lawful, provided you seek them [in marriage] with gifts from your property, desiring chastity, not lust. So for whatever you have enjoyed from them, give them their compensation as an obligation." (4:22) This verse clearly emphasizes the concept of chastity through regular marriage. Mut'ah, on the other hand, is an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford. The women who engage in Mut'ah are hired women; thus, it can be performed with all women irrespective of their age, character, conduct or religion. It requires no witnesses, nor is there any obligation on the man's part to provide food and shelter to the woman. The only precondition is that the woman agrees to the price and the length of the Mut'ah and that the man pays her the compensation when he has relations with her. One can discern for himself whether such a practice leads to sheer promiscuity or promotes chastity.
 www.islamicweb.com
|
This argument is thoroughly non-sensical. If the author means to imply that Mut'ah is bad because the woman could be considered to have the status of a "hired woman," than certainly the purchase of concubines (slave-girls) should be even worse, since such woman are "bought." A man may buy as many concubines as he wishes, nor does the purchase of a concubine require witnesses; in fact, it does not even require a reading of seegah an-Nikah. Rather, the woman is automatically halaal to the one who purchases her. In al Muhalla Volume 6, part 9, page 467, Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Ibn Hazm affirmed this stating:
"No one is allowed to wed to more than four women, but he is permitted however, in addition to them he can purchase as many women as he wants"
All Muslims agree on this fact, as it is certainly referred to by the Qur'an:
Successful are the believers, who are filled with awe in their salat, who turn away from vein talk, who give in charity, and who protect their chastity, except with their wives *OR* those whom their right hands possess.
Al-Qur'an, Surah 23, Ayah 1-7
There is also no limit as to the number of slave-women that one may possess, and even the Prophet (s) was allowed to take slave-woman after he was prohibited from marrying any more wives:
"No woman are permitted to you [the Prophet] in the future, nor is it allowed for you to change your wives for other women, even if there beauty may stun thee, except for those whom your right hand possess".
Al-Qur'an, Surah 33,Ayah 52
Clearly, then, marriage is not the only form of halaal sexual activity in Islam. Slave-girls are not wives; otherwise Allah (swt) would not have used the word "or" (au). Yet what the Wahabis are arguing is that the only form of sexual relation that is not fornication, which does not contradict chastity, is permanent marriage (Nikah). Yet the poverty of this argument is made unavoidably clear by these words of Allah (swt). Is the permissibility of sexual relations between slave-master and slave-girl, then, what the Wahabis would call "an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford"? We know from fiqh that the only limit on the number of concubines one may purchase is his financial strength. Yet such a relationship would seem to fall precisely in line with the condemnation that these Wahabis have issued against Mut'ah, viz., that "it is an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford." Put in its most basic terms, the permissibility of concubinage is nothing other than this: yet all agree that it is halaal, and its permissibility is born witness to again and again in the Holy Qur'an. If the Wahabis seek to deny that this verse refers to the permissibility of a slave-master having sexual relations with his slave-woman without a marriage, then they should refer to Ibn Kathir, who writes about this verse:
(And those who guard their private parts. Except from their wives and their right hand possessions, for then, they are free from blame. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors.) means, those who protect their private parts from unlawful actions and do not do that which Allah has forbidden; fornication and homosexuality, and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives. One who seeks what Allah has made permissible for him is not to be blamed and there is no sin on him.
Reference at Tafsir.com
Yet the Wahabis are claiming that there is sin on such a person, for he has entered into a sexual relationship outside of "regular marriage." Furthermore, the right of a slave-master over his slave-girls is so strong that the slave-master even has the right to break the marriage of his slave-girls and take them for himself, as referred to in the same set of verses under discussion:
"Also prohibited to you are all married women, except those whom your right hand possesses".
Al-Qur'an, Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 24
Ibn Kathir, the oft-quoted Mufassir who is beloved by the Wahabi movement, writes:
Allah said: "(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, (except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed: "(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women."
This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih.
Reference at Tafsir.com
As such, we see that Islam has allowed a form of sexual practice that is not considered to be marriage, and furthermore has given this relationship precedence over the marriage relationship. The Wahabi authors continually return to the moral importance of permanent marriage, and insult all other forms of sexual relation, which Islam has allowed. Is concubinage debauchery? Is it fornication, and evil, because it violates the institution of Nikah? A man may buy as many slave women as he wants, and in most cases sell them when it suits him. He may even take a slave woman who is already married, by cancelling her marriage and taking her for himself. Is this debauchery? The Wahabis attempt to claim the moral high ground on the issue of Mut'ah inevitably leads them to insult other practices which all Muslims (Sunni and Shi'a) agree is halaal.
In any case, the fact that the author is insulting the practice of Mut'ah is, even according to Sunni belief, a direct insult on the Holy Prophet (s). The Wahabi author is making a basically ethical argument that Mut'ah is the same as fornication, and is therefore prohibited. However, until recent years absolutely none of the Sunni 'ulama ever denied its original permissibility. Until the coming of the Wahabi movement, the Sunni argument was always that Mut'ah was abrogated, but that it was originally permissible. Ibn Kathir writes:
"Mujahid stated that, (So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,) was revealed about the Mut`ah marriage. A Mut`ah marriage is a marriage that ends upon a predetermined date. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that the Leader of the Faithful `Ali bin Abi Talib said, "The Messenger of Allah prohibited Mut`ah marriage and eating the meat of domesticated donkeys on the day of Khayber (battle).'' In addition, in his Sahih, Muslim recorded that Ar-Rabi` bin Sabrah bin Ma`bad Al-Juhani said that his father said that he accompanied the Messenger of Allah during the victory of Makkah, and that the Prophet said, (O people! I allowed you the Mut`ah marriage with women before. Now, Allah has prohibited it until the Day of Resurrection. Therefore, anyone who has any women in Mut`ah, let him let them go, and do not take anything from what you have given them.) Allah's statement, (but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you.) is similar to His other statement".
Reference at Tafsir.com
As such, Ibn Kathir, who is quoted again and again by Wahabi authors and who was known for his staunch hatred of the Shi'as, states clearly that it was originally permissible. Ayatullah Maghniyah also discusses many references for this reality in the Sunni books:
We find in Sahih al-Bukhari, volume nine, the section on marriage, that the Prophet (s) said to his companions during some of the wars:
"You have been given permission to do Mut'ah, so do Mut'ah".
"A man and woman come together and agree to intimacy for three nights. If they desire to increase then they may increase, and if they desire to leave it, they may leave it."
We find also in Sahih al-Muslim, vol. 2, the chapter on Mut'ah, that Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Ansari narrates:
We did Mut'ah on the covenant of the Prophet (s) and Abu Bakr and 'Umar." On the same page we find another hadeeth from Jabir, where he adds: "But then 'Umar forbid us from this."
After we have established that the Muslims have all agreed on the legislation and permissibility of Mut'ah in the covenant of the Glorious Prophet (s), they disagree as to when it was made impermissible. Did it become haram after the Allah the Glorious made it halaal? The Sunnis would argue that it was abrogated, and made haram after permission was given for it. Ibn Hajir Al-'Asqalani writes in his Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 11, p. 70 of the 1989 edition:
"We have numerous ahadith which are explicit in prohibiting Mut'ah after permission was given for it."
In the sixth volume of Kitab al-Maghni of Ibn Qadamah, page 645, third edition:
"Imam Shafi'i said: I don't know anything that Allah permitted, then forbid, then permitted, then forbid again except Mut'ah"
The Shi'a say: All of the Muslims are agreed on the permissibility of Mut'ah, but they only disagree on its abrogation. This abrogation is not based on certainty, and we cannot deny Mut'ah based merely on whim or doubt. This abrogation must be based on certainty, and yet we have many narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt (as) that say that there was no such abrogation. Much of this is mentioned by Hurr al-'Amali in his Wasa'il. These narrations include the following hadeeth of Imam as-Sadiq (as), where he was asked if anything had come to abrogate the ayat of Mut'ah. He said: "No, and if it had not been denied by 'Umar, then no one would fornicate except a truly wretched person"
Reference at Mutah.com
Elsewhere, the issue of whether or not Mut'ah was abrogated is discussed. But here, the Wahabi is making a claim that Mut'ah is fundamentally evil, even though the Sunni 'ulama have all acknowledge that it was originally halaal. The question that must be asked, then, is this: do the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) believe that Allah (swt) permits fornication and debauchery? If so, then they are contradicting the express text of the Holy Qur'an where Allah (swt) says:
Allah does not order debauchery (fuhsha)
Al-Qur'an, Surah 7, Ayah 28
Yet we read in Sahih Bukhari that the Holy Prophet (s) ordered the Muslims to do Mut'ah:
You have been given permission to do Mut'ah, so do Mut'ah
Bukhari Volume7 , Book 62 , Number52
The Wahabi Muhsin Khan translates it as follows:
You have been allowed to do the Mut'ah (marriage), so do it.
Sahih Bukhari, Translation by Muhsin Khan at USC.edu The Online Bukhari
Answering the claim that Mut'ah was gradually outlawed as the Sahaba needed to adjust from Jahiliyya to Islam
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.
|
One would assume that such absurd comments by Sunni and Nasibi scholars would suffice, but then a moron called Ibn al-Hashimi also seeks to evidence his stupidity:
| Ibn al Hashimi states: | Likewise, Mutah was a hobby of the pagan Arabs. Hence, it was not forbidden in the beginning. This is because Islam was in a transitional stage. The Prophet (s) initially allowed Mutah on a few occassions because there were many new converts to Islam who had weak faith.
|
 Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi's artice - top
Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi's artice - text
Reply - Had the Sahaba still not abandoned the traits of jahiliyya in the 8th Hijri?
The comments of Qaradawi, Islamic Voice Magazine and Ibn al-Hashimi 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? Should we accept the assertion of Ibn al-Hashimi they the Sahaba remained were weak in faith right upto the 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'. All three 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?
Answering the claim that Mut'ah was gradually outlawed in the same way that alcohol and usury was
| Yusuf al Qaradawi states: | | "We may recall that the Qur'an adopted a gradual course in prohibiting intoxicants and usury, as these two evils were widespread and deeply rooted in the jahili society. In the same manner the Prophet (peace be on him) adopted a course of gradualism in the matter of sex, at first permitting temporary marriage as a step leading away from fornication and adultery, and at the same time coming closer to the permanent marriage relationship". |
The Islamic Voice journal made similar comments:
| Islamic Voice states: | | "The gradual implementation of prohibition of sex outside (permanent) marriage can be compared with the gradual implementation of prohibition of intoxicants. Though the wines were never permitted in any Shariah of any prophet, the total prohibition was imposed in three stages. The difference between the prohibition of intoxicants and the prohibition of illegal sex is that while the former was implemented in stages by Qur'an, the Prophet (naturally with the consent of Allah) was also instrumental in its phased implementation in case of latter". |
Reply
Our response to such logic is there is a world of difference between allowing a practise to continue, and ordering a practise to be carried out. Keeping in mind the authentic Sunni traditions having the testimony of the Sahaba that Prophet [s] 'ordered' them to do temporary marriage (Muta), for example Imam Fakhruddin Razi records:
عمران بن الحصين فانه قال: نزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله تعالى ولم ينزل بعدها آية تنسخها وأمرنا بها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتمتعنا بها
Imran Ibn Husain narrated: "The verse of Mut'a was revealed in Allah's Book, and there did not came any other verse after that to abrogate it; and the Prophet ORDERED US to do it, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle…"
Similarly we read the testimony of Sabura in Sahih Muslim:
عن أبيه، عن جده، قال أمرنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالمتعة
(Sabura al-juhanni): "Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to contract temporary marriage"
Sahih Muslim (Arabic), Kitab al-Nikah, Hadith 3490
Also the next Hadith:
سبرة بن معبد أن نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عام فتح مكة أمر أصحابه بالتمتع من النساء
"Sabra b. Ma'bad reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) ordered his Companions to contract temporary marriage with women"
Sahih Muslim (Arabic), Kitab al-Nikah, Hadith 3491
Note: These two traditions can be read in the English version of Sahih Muslim at 3257 and 3258 respectively but the Saudi-paid translator of Sahih Muslim has used "permitted" instead of "ordered" or "commanded" while the Arabic text of the Hadith uses "ordered / commanded" as the Arabic word 'Amarna' has been used. The hypocrisy of the translator can be proved if you read hadiths containing the word 'Amarna' where he translated it correctly as "commanded" (see Tradition Nos. 803, 2391, 2634, 2797, 2798 etc..)
The issuing of an order is a significant matter. Let us for arguments sake accept the argument of Qadrawi and Islamic Voice, namely Mutah's historical roots were from the times of the Pagain Arabs, and the Prophet (s) was seeking to gradually remove it from the sex drives of the Sahaba – don't you think the Prophet (s) would have sort to:
a. do his utmost to discourage its practice?
b. Repel Mutah fans by setting out the 'negative' aspects of Mutah as todatys opponents of Mutah do?
c. Advance permanent marriage as the viable alternative?
Clearly adopting such methods would be completely logical, if Rasulullah (s) was indeed seeking to gradually extinguish and old pagan practice. At a minimum, Rasulullah (s) would have sought to evidence his opposition to this 'pagan' practice by maintaining silence, passing no comment that 'might' give the green light to the sex starved Sahaba to practice this pagan practice. If Rasulullah (s) was merely seeking to meet the needs of the sex craven Sahaba, he (s) might have sought to offer a concession, namely 'if you are feeling sexually aroused, perform Mutah'. This type of statement would not have evidenced the personal stance of Rasulullah (s); it would have merely been a conciliatory gesture. The entire landscape of our discussion however changes when conciliatory words that provide an option are replaced with an ORDER, since an order is something that followers must do, and this evidences that Rasulullah (s) himself supported the matter. Let us give an example:
A father gets into his car with his children. They are going to the shops. The father turns around and says 'kids the journey may be a little unsafe, so if you want you can wear a seat belt'.
This statement is merely offering the children the option of wearing a seatbelt. The father is not making any comment of whether he believes in the importance of wearing seat belts. The onus has been placed on the children; they can choose what they want to do, because the father has not expressed his preferred option.
The scenario changes completely, if we analyse it as follows:
A father gets into his car with his children. They are going to the shops. The father turns around and says 'kids the journey may be a little unsafe, so I'm ordering you all to wear seat belts.
In the first scenario the father had no personal position. In the second scenario he was enforcing his view onto his children, by ordering them to wear his seat belts. The father was affirming his belief that car seat belts must be worn when making journeys. The order reflected the view of the father, and was informing the children that they had to implement the order of their father.
If we now return to our discussion, an order to practice Mutah, in effect means that the Sahaba were implementing a directive that the Prophet (s) had issued. This is not an optional matter; it is something that must be done, because this is the express will of Rasulullah (s). We appeal to justice, today's Nasabi deem Mutah a pagan practice that is in fact prostitution, tell us do you believe that Rasulullah (s) was ordering the Sahaba to re-ignite the pagan practice of sleeping with whores? Nawasib would lead us to believe that Rasulullah (s) was responding to the high testosterone levels by ordering the pagan practice of Mutah, so:
'Show us a single hadith wherein Rasulullah (s) had ordered the Sahaba to gamble, drink alcohol or eat pork'.
If Rasulullah (s) had issued an edict allowing in fact 'ordering' the practice of Mut'ah on a joyous occasion such as the victory of Makka, why did he not also order Sahaba to also indulge themselves in gambling and alcohol consumption and swine meat also? After all, Dr Salamah's logic suggests that Mut'ah is prostitution, gambling is not worse than prostitution so why didn't Rasulullah (s) authorize this type of indulgence?
We will debate elsewhere whether or not Mut'ah was abrogated; the point is that all Sunni 'ulama have acknowledge that temporary marriage was halaal, and we read in the hadeeth literature that the Prophet (s) even commanded it. Are all the Companions who narrated these hadeeth liars? Are they condemned as disbelievers for implying that the Prophet (s) ordered debauchery? Even if we reject this hadeeth, as Wahabis always do when confronted with their own hadeeth literature, we are still faced with the verse of Qur'an:
"Allah does not order debauchery (fuhsha)".
The issuing of permission for Mut'ah qualifies as an "order." It may not be an order that is wajib, in the sense that Allah (swt) has made Mut'ah obligatory, but any issuance of this kind qualifies as an order (Amr), in this sense that Allah (swt) has made a command and established something in reality, namely that Mut'ah is halaal. We see that Allah (swt) says:
Indeed, His command (Amr) is such that, if He desires something, than all He must say to it is: "Be!" And it exists!
Al-Qur'an, Surah 36, Ayah 82
As such, anything that is given existence is something which Allah (swt) has commanded, and just as He has commanded the creation of the heavens and the Earth, so He commands that certain things are haram, certain things are wajib, and certain things are halaal. The command that Mut'ah is halaal is one of these, and there is no doubt from this if we read the Holy Qur'an with sincerity. There is no doubt, then, that according to the Sunnis the permissibility of Mut'ah existed, and so therefore its permissibility was commanded to be. However, the Wahabis are claiming that Mut'ah is debauchery. Do they not then, believe that Allah (swt) does order debauchery? Their attacks on Mut'ah demonstrate the ultimate contempt for the Holy Prophet (s) and for the Qur'an. By believing that Mut'ah is debauchery while simultaneously being forced to acknowledge at least its original permissibility, they are ascribing injustice and debauchery to Allah (swt). This is out and out kufr, without a doubt.
The argument that Mut'ah does not meet the criterion of chastity (ihsan), nor does it qualify as marriage
Shah Abdul Aziz in Tauhfa p. 03 Chapter 10, whenever usage of a women is used in the Quran, the words 'chaste' is also used. He argues, without evidence, that Mut'ah is not chaste, so therefore it does not count as marriage. Yet, once again, we read in Tauhfa p. 6 Chapter 2 part 9
The Ahl as-Sunnah do not deny that in the beginning Mut'ah was halaal, they deny that its still lawful.
This is enough to refute Shah Abdul Aziz. Would Rasulullah(s) deem sex with unchaste women to be halaal?
The Shah shoots himself in the foot by acknowledging that Mut'ah was halaal. Now we ask our Sunni friends, if Mut'ah was haram, then how was it halaal for the Sahaba at the beginning of Islam? If Sunnis claim Mut'ah isn't conducted with chaste women, and is hence haram, then we should point out that Abu Bakr's daughter Asma practised Mut'ah and Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Ibn Jurraya contracted Mut'ah with 70 women. Mu'awiya also did Mut'ah, as did many famous Sahaba and Taabi'een (all these points shall be elaborated on in later chapters).
Dr Salamah cites similar objection:
| Dr. Salamah continues with his lies: | But first, the verse the Shi'as present in support of their belief in Mut'ah, describing the classes of women with whom marriage is forbidden, should be examined. The last part of the verse reads: "Except for these, all others are lawful, provided you seek them [in marriage] with gifts from your property, desiring chastity, not lust. So for whatever you have enjoyed from them, give them their compensation as an obligation. " 14 This verse clearly emphasizes the concept of chastity through regular marriage. Mut'ah, on the other hand, is an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford.
|
There is no question amongst Sunni 'ulama that Mut'ah is a type of Nikah (marriage), and therefore meets the criterion of being a chaste relationship. We read in Tafseer Qurtubi Volume 5 page 32, Surah Nisa:
لم يختلف العلماء من السلف والخلف أن المتعة نكاح إلى أجل لا ميراث فيه، والفرقة تقع عند انقضاء الأجل من غير طلاق
All the early and recent scholars have no disputes that Mut'ah is Nikah for a set period of time, this Nikah has no inheritance and man and woman separate when the time expires without Talaq.
Online Tafsir Qurtubi, Surah Nisa verse 24
Qurtabi is a great Sunni Scholar, who acknowledges the early scholars deemed Mut'ah to be Nikah. Then how can anybody say that it is not chaste? As Mut'ah has been acknowledged to be a form of marriage, then there is no doubt that Dr. Salamah's argument makes no sense. We also know that Nikah saves one from adultery. Sunni scholar Shaykh Mansoor al-Bahuti al-Hanbali (d. 1052/1642) has reocrded in his book 'Kashaf al-Qena' Volume 5 page 5:
The reason for which Nikah is wajib or mustahab is the fear of Zina or existence of lust.
Since Mutah is a type of Nikah, hence performing Nikah al-Mutah (temporary marriage) would by definition, keep one from committing zina. As such, it is a form of ihsan. Shah Abdul Aziz further argues in the Tauhfa states that the Qur'an stipulates that men unable to maintain wives should have captives, and if you cannot maintain justice to more than one then release the others and marry the remaining one. No reference is made to marrying women via Mut'ah, it is therefore haram just like Zina.
Once again, however, we read in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari Volume 2 part 9 page 34:
The Ahl as-Sunnah do not deny that in the beginning Mut'ah was halaal.
If it was halaal, then it was a type of marriage, since the Qur'an does not mention any other type of halaal sexual relationship except marriage (whether it be permanent or temporary) or concubinage. As such, there can be no doubt that it was considered marriage at the beginning of Islam. We will deal with this issue further in our discussion on the supposed abrogation of Mut'ah.
Inheritance of the child born from Mut'ah
One of the lies that Dr Salamah resorts to is the argument that a child is not entitled to inheritance if he is born from Mut'ah. He quotes the following "hadeeth" of the Imams (as):
| Dr Salamah states: | The narrator asked Imam [sic] Baqir about the women of Mut'ah. The Imam said, "She is not among those four [women classified as wives] because she neither needs a divorce, nor is [a child born of her] entitled to any inheritance. She is like a hired woman!"
|
Ibn al-Hashmi in his article at www.ahlelbayt.com also exhibted the filth (Nijasah) of his Nasibism by copy pasting the content of Dr Salmah without examining it:
Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi's article -top
Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi's article -text
Notice that the words "a child born of her" have been placed in brackets by Dr Salamah and Ibn al-Hashmi. This is because the phrase does not occur at all in the original text! Rather, the hadeeth reads:
Muhammad ibn Muslim asked Imam al-Baqir (as) about Mut'ah. The Imam (as) said: "She is not considered to be one of the four, because she cannot be divorced nor can she inherit. Indeed, she is a hired woman.
Wasa'il ash-Shi'a, vol. 21, pp. 18-19, hadeeth #26409
The hadeeth in Arabic reads:
عن أبي جعفر ( عليه السلام ) ، في المتعة : ليست من الاربع لانها لا تطلق ولا ترث وإنما هي مستأجرة
Anybody with the most rudimentary understanding of the Arabic language sees that the verb inherit (turath) is being used in the feminine form, with the letter "ta" at the beginning. There is no doubt that it refers to the women, not to the child. In fact, there is absolutely nothing here about the child not inheriting, and in fact a child is not even mentioned. Nor are the words "women classified as wives" mentioned in the hadeeth; this is another blatant act of tahreef. Unable to mount a successful argument, and humiliatingly contradicting himself on the ayat al-Mut'ah, the author has now moved on to blatant lies. It is well known amongst the Shi'a that the child of Mut'ah is considered legitimate and has all rights of inheritance. Ayatullah Maghniyah writes:
"…the children of a temporary marriage are like the children of a permanent marriage in terms of inheritance and support, and all the rights which accrue to a child. A person asked Imam as-Sadiq (as) about what happens if a woman he is doing Mut'ah with becomes pregnant, to which he said: "That child is your child."
Reference at Mutah.com
The sincere reader should now ask himself: if the prohibition on Mut'ah is so clear, then why does the author have to use lies in order to defame the Family of the Prophet (s)? Why does he have to engage in forging ahadith? The answer is clear: because there is no sound argument for the prohibition on Mut'ah.
Other authors have attempted to make similar accusations. Azam Tariq leader of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan [SSP] in his Nasibi classic 'Khutbah Jail' pages 256 - 257 states:
"If a child is born he will not inherit from his father, and neither will the father inherit his child's possessions, the child's situation will be just like that of bastard kids born in America and Europe".
To claim that the children of Mut'ah do not inherit from their father is an out and out lie and this Nasibi clearly has not consulted hadith or books of fiqh. Nasibis claim that the products of Mut'ah have no idea who their fathers are. What this Nasibi needs to recognize is that many children of the Sahaba were the products of Mut'ah, carried out during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s). They were not illegitimate; rather they had correct parentage, and inherited from their fathers accordingly.
Ibn al-Hashimi's anxiety that a man will reject the parentage of the child born from Nikah al-Mutah
First, Ibn al-Hashimi al-moron stated:
| Ibn al Hashimi states: | If the woman becomes pregnant during Mutah, then the husband has the option of seizing custody of the child:
"If the woman becomes pregnant such that the pregnancy derives from the period of mut'a, the child belongs to the husband , even if he performed coitus interruptus."
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm)
|
Screen shot of Ibn al Hashimi's article
Firstly, custody can only be seized of something that exists, how can the 'seizing the custody of the child' arise when it has not been born? Moreover, the ignorant author has cited the Shia source to backup his claim but we cannot understand how he concluided that a husband has the option of seizing custody of a child while the Shia text proves the utter ignorance of the author since it is clearly stating that the child belongs to the husband.
| Ibn al Hashimi states: | So the man has the right to seize the custody of the child, but in Shia Fiqh, the man can have his cake and eat it too. If he simply wants to deny the child, then he can also do that. In other words, the man has the right to either seize the custody of the child or simply abandon the child, based upon his own whim. We read:
"However, if the man should deny the child, then it does not belong to him; the 'sworn allegation' required in permanent marriage is not necessary…sworn allegation is unnecessary in mut'a…his word alone will be accepted and there is no need for him to make a sworn allegation (i.e. that the child is not his)…in the case of denying parentage, by a consensus of the ulama' it is unnecessary for the man to make the sworn allegation."
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm)
In other words, a man can have sex with a woman by "renting" her, but absolve himself of all responsibilities; if the woman should get pregnant as a result of the Mutah, he can simply deny it and the Shia court would not even require the man to take an oath to God about the matter! In fact, the Shia Fiqh is very specific on this point, namely that the man is excused from swearing to God about such a matter. The consequence is that the poor woman would be forced to take care of the child as a single mother without support from the father.
|
Screen shot of Ibn al Hashimi's article
Reply One- Unlike the propaganda of Nawasib, under Shia fiqh a man cannot just deny the parentage of the child born from Nikah al-Mutah
First of all, we have already proved that the first practice that the ignorant author is trying to attribute to the Shia fiqh, is from his own twisted mind, no where in the text does it state that the man has the right to seize custody of the child.
As for the issue of abandoning the child, the author in his argument has tried to show that a man would 'always' abandon the child, but again we fail to understand from where the ignorant author got the impression that a man 'must' abandon the parentage of the child by citing the aspect of Shia fiqh that a sworn allegation is not compulsory in temporary marriage. If a sworn allegation is not compulsory in temporary marriage, that does not mean that a man has got an easy and simple way of rejecting the parentage of the child rather he must possess precise and authentic evidence before even contemplating such action, thus such a conclusion drawn by the author shows his biasness and it would have been much better if he had quoted the explanation by Shaykh Zainuddin al-Jubi al-Amili, the Shaheed Thani (d. 966 AH) written on the very webpage that makes this point clear:
Al-Shahid al Thani adds that although sworn allegation is unnecessary in mut'a, this is the outward and exoteric statute, and there is another 'statute' established between man and God. In this second respect it is not permissible for the man to deny the child just because he performed coitus interruptus or suspects his wife of adultery. He must have definite knowledge that the child does not belong to him. Hence it is incumbent upon him to observe what exists between him and God, even though his word alone will be accepted and there is no need for him to make a sworn allegation. [Masalik, 1,542]
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm#r15
So, rejecting the parentage of the child born from Nikah al-Mutah is not that simple as the anti-Shia author is trying to suggest to his readership. The hadiths from the Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] are clear in the issue that the child born from temporary marriage is the child of the man.
Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Abi Nasr narrated from Asim bin Hameed narrated from Muhammad bin Muslim who narrated from Abi Abdullah [as] that he asked Him [as]: 'What if she gets pregnant?'. He [as] replied: 'He is his son'.
1. Sayyed Rohani graded it 'Sahih' in Feqh al-Sadiq, Volume 22 page 43
2. Sayyed Tabatebai graded it 'Sahih' in Riadh al-Mesael, Volume 10 page 294
If this is not sufficient then let us cite the words of Imam Ali Raza [as] wherein he offered his concern over any attempt of denying the child born from Mutah:
Muhammad bin Yahyah narrated from Ahmad bin Muhammad who narrated from Muhammad bin Ismaeel who said that a man asked Abul Hasan al-Raza [as]: 'If a man performs Mutah with a woman on the condition that she shall not demand a child from him and then if a child is born then what will be the ruling?' When the Imam [as] heard that, He [as] prohibited him for denying the child and stated: 'Oh, will he deny the child?'.
1. Al-Kafi, Volume 5 page 454
2. Men la Yahderhu al-Faqih, Volume 3 page 460
3. Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 270
4. Allamah Mejlesi graded it 'Sahih' in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 20 page 235
5. Sayyed Rohani graded it 'Sahih' in Feqh al-Sadiq, Volume 22 page 43
Similarly the Shia ulema are in no doubt about the ruling over the parentage of the child born from Nikah al Mutah. We read in Al-Muqna by Sheikh Seduq, page 340
"If she gives birth to a child, you don't have the right to deny the child."
Likewise we read in 'al-Mutah al-Nikah al-Munqate' by Sayyed Murtadha Ardibili, page 270:
"It is not permissible for him to deny the child"
We read in 'al-Feqh al-Islami' by Sayyed Muhammad Taqi Muddaresi, volume 2 page 413:
لو حملت المتمع بها ألحق به الولد ، ولا يجوز له أن ينفيه عن نفسه
"If the temporary wife gets pregnant, the child will be attributed to him (the husband), and it is not permitted for him to deny him (the child)."
Sayyed Jaffar al-Amili records in 'Zawaj Mutah' Volume 1 page 288:
"According to the jurists of Imamia there is no disagreement about attributing him (the child) to his father because it is legal and lawful marriage"
Ali al-Qumi records in Jam'ea al-Khelaf wa al-Wefaq, page 456:
"The child is attributed to the husband and it is obligatory (wajib) on him (the father) to recognize the child and he has to attribute the child to himself."
al-Sharif al-Murtadha records in 'Al-Entesar' page 276:
"The child through Mutah contract is attributed, whoever thought other than that has misunderstood us"
Sayyed Khoei in 'Menhaj al-Salehin' Volume 2 page 273 Problem No. 1307, Sheikh Fayadh in 'Menhaj al-Salehin' Volume 3 page 46 Problem No. 101 and Sayyed Rohani in his 'Menhaj al-Salehin' Volume 2 page 305 Problem No. 1258 recorded:
"The child is attributed to the husband of the temporary wife, if he had sexual intercourse with her"
In Shia school there are certain conditions for attributing or rejecting the child Sayyed Rohani records in 'Menhaj al-Salehin' Volume 2 page 312 Problem No. 1293:
The woman's child is attributed to her husband in permanent or temporary (marriage) on these conditions:
The first: To have sexual intercourse with ejaculation or the possibility of it, or ejaculating on the edge of vagina.
The second: To pass six months after they had sexual intercourse (for minimum child birth).
The third: Not to pass the pregnancy beyond the maximum limit of which is nine months or ten months or a year and the popular is the first (i.e. nine months).
Reply Two – Under Sunni fiqh a man can deny the parentage of his child born from his salve-women via word of mouth
The deceitful author fabricated a concept and then made a fruitless attempt to attribute it to the madhab of Ahlulbayt [as] – a man can just have sex with a woman via Nikah al-Mutah and then if she gets pregnant, he can simply reject the child, while the truth is that the very concept is the element of school of thought that the treacherous author belongs to. i.e. one can purchase slave-girls, have sex with them and if she gets pregnant, he can simply deny the child whilst a Sunni court would not even require the man to take an oath to God about the matter! We read in Ahle Sunnah's authority work Al-Mabsut, Volume 2 page 152 by 'Sun of Imams' i.e. Imam Muhammad bin Ahmad Sarkhasi (d. 483 H):
وولد أم الولد ثابت من المولى ما لم ينفه لأنها فراش له وقال عليه الصلاة والسلام الولد للفراش ولكن ينتفي عنه بمجرد النفي عندنا
"The son of a slave woman is attributed to the master as long as he didn't deny it, because she had been on a bed with him, He (s) said that the son belongs to the bed, but he (the child) will be not be attributed to him if he just denied him according to us."
We read in 'Fath al-Qadeer Sharah Hidayah' Volume 10 page 329:
أم الولد بسبب أن ولدها ، وإن ثبت نسبه بلا دعوة ينتفي نسبه بمجرد نفيه ، بخلاف المنكوحة لا ينتفي نسب ولدها إلا باللعان .
The slave woman's son, even if his attribution is proved without a claim (from the father), his parentage is dissassociated just by a denial, unlike the wife in Nikah whose son's parentage cannot be dissociated except through "le'an".
One of the favorite scholars of Salafies Imam Showkani records in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 77:
وروي عن أبي حنيفة والثوري وهو مذهب الهادوية أن الأمة لا يثبت فراشها إلا بدعوة الولد ولا يكفي الإقرار بالوطئ ، فإن لم يدعه كان ملكا له
It is narrated from Abi Hanifa, al-Thawri and it is the Hadwiyah madhab that the slave womans (son) attribution cannot be proved without the claim (from the father), the acceptance of performing the sexual intercourse is not suffice, if he didn't claim the attribution, he (son) will become a slave for him.
Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 77
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Mahmood bin Ahmad bin Umar bin Abdulaziz al-Bukhari popularly known as Burhanuddin Mazeh (d. 570 H) records in his authority work 'Al-Muhit al-Burhani' Volume 10 page 392:
وإذا نفى المولى نسب أم الولد ينتفي نسبه بمجرد النفي
"If the master denied the parentage of a child of his slave woman, the parentage will be dissociated just by a denial"
We read in 'Al-Bahr al-Raiq' Volume 4 page 454:
وولد أم الولد ينتفي نسبه بالنفي
"The parentage of a son of the slave woman can be dissociated just by a denial'
Reply Three- Under Sunni fiqh, a child born from a woman is to be attributed to her husband even if the husband isn't the actual father
Since Ibn al-Hashimi had the audacity to attribute a false practice to the Shia madhab, let us take things a step further to help his realize the gravity of his mistake. Ibn al-Hashimi implicitly offered concerns over the 'possibility' of a Shia man performing Mutah and then rejecting any child born from that union, the only reason we could comprehend for his concern is the fact that his school is so merciful that it makes it obligatory on a man to accept the child born from an extra marital affair. The following aspect of Sunni jurisprudence might be hilarious for some of our readers but we would ask that they look at it in a serious manner. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Nawawi records in his famed work Al-Majm'oa, Volume 17 page 409:
وقال أبوحنيفة وبعض أصحاب أحمد لا يكون الولد للواطئ وإنما يكون للزوج
"Abu Hanifa and some of Ahmad (ibn Hanbal's) companions said that the child is not attributed to the one who performed sexual intercourse rather it is attributed to the husband"
On the contrary, in Shia fiqh the child is attributed to the one who performed sexual intercourse not to the husband (Hedayat al-ebad by Sayyed Goulpaygani, v2 p400 & Serat al-Najat by Sayyed Khoei, v1 p351).
We read in one of the esteemed Hanafi works 'Bedaye al-Senaye' Volume 2 page 332:
لو تزوج المشرقي بمغربية فجاءت بولد يثبت النسب وان لم يوجد الدخول حقيقة
If an eastern (man) marries a western (woman) and she gives birth to a child, he (the child) will be attributed to the husband even if they didn't perform sexual intercourse.
It meant that if the man lives in the east and the woman in west and they never meet, while under Shia fiqh to quote Shaykh Tusi "According to us this is false, because transferring the sperm from one country to another far country and enter it (in the vagina) and then create a child from it is something unusual" (Al-Mabsoot, v5 p232). Also if an eastern (man) marries a western (woman) and bears a child after six months from the contract, (the child) will not be attributed to him due to impossibility (Tatimat al-Hadaeq by Hussain Ausfoor, v1 p103). Also see Tahrir al-Ahkam by Allamah al-Heli, v4, p148.
This does not suffice, then allow us to cite Imam Ibn Qudama's authority work Al-Mughni, Volume 6 page 397:
لو أن امرأة أتت بولد وزوجها غائب عنها منذ عشرين سنة لحقه ولدها
"If a woman gives birth to a child and her husband has been absent for 20 years, the child will be attributed to him."
Al-Mughni, Volume 6 page 397
While according to Shia fiqh a child cannot be attributed to an absent husband see 'Resael al-Murtada' by Sharif al-Murtada, v1 p288 and 'Jawaher al-Feqh' by al-Qazi ibn al-Baraj, p261.
Iddah (Waiting Period) in Mut'ah Marriage
One of the biggest propaganda methods of Nasibis is this that there is no "Iddah" (waiting period) in Mut'ah, so it's prostitution. But this is a blatant lie, as there are many Ahadith, which evidence that a woman must observe 'iddah before engaging in Mut'ah marriage. Along the same lines, a woman must observe 'iddah after the Mut'ah, before she can remarry.
When Nasibis don't find any such hadeeth (either in Sunni Sources or Shi'a sources), they try to deceive people by misquoting the Ahadith. Dr. Salamah has adopted such deception by 'presenting' the following hadeeth about the marriage formula for Mut'ah:
| Dr Salamah states: | When Hisham Salim asked how one should contract Mut'ah, Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq 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."
|
Reply One-: Passing Iddah by a woman is obligatory according to Shia fiqh
The author has, once again, lied. The hadeeth contends several important words which Dr. Salamah has failed to include. The actual hadeeth reads "There is no 'iddah for you upon me ('alayya)". What this means is that, just as in Nikah, if the man decides to re-marry the woman during her 'iddah than this is allowed to him, whereas it is not allowed to anybody else. This means that the woman must finish her 'iddah before marrying another person, whereas she does not have to observe 'iddah if she is going to re-marry her previous husband. There is no difference in this regard between permanent or temporary marriage, and Sunni fiqh makes the same conditions for a permanent marriage. It is shocking, but in spite of Dr. Salamah presenting himself as an Islamic scholar he seems to be incapable of telling the truth.
If the author is attempting to imply that Shi'as believe that there is no 'iddah for a Mut'ah in which sexual relations occur, then he clearly did not even read the next hadeeth on the page of Al-Kafi or Wasa'il where this hadeeth occurred:
Abu Basir (one of the companions of Imam as-Sadiq (as)) said: "It is necessary that one say the following conditions: I marry you in a Mut'ah for such and such number of days, and for such and such number of dirhams, seeking marriage and not fornication, based on the book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Prophet, and that I will not inherit from her nor will she inherit for me, and that she await an 'iddah of 45 days, and some say: One menstrual cycle.
Wasai'l, vol. 21, p. 44, hadeeth #26489
Furthermore, we have numerous narrations' stating the 'iddah of a woman after a Mut'ah has finished, viz.:
Imam as-Sadiq (as) was asked about the 'iddah of Mut'ah, to which he said: "If she menstruates, then one menstrual cycle, and if she does not menstruate, then one and a half months."
Wasa'il, vol. 21, p. 51, hadeeth #26509
Imam ar-Rida (as) said: Imam al-Baqir (as) said that the 'iddah of Mut'ah is 45 days, and the precaution is 45 nights.
Wasa'il, vol. 21, p. 51-52, hadeeth #26510
Imam as-Sadiq (as) was asked about the 'iddah of Mut'ah, to which he said: 45 days, or a proper menstrual cycle.
Wasa'il, vol. 21, p. 52, hadeeth #26512
Abd ar-Raham ibn al-Hajjaj asked Imam as-Sadiq (as) about a woman who marries in Mut'ah, and then the period finishes. He asked: Does she have an 'iddah? The Imam (as) said: "She must observe an 'iddah of 45 days."
Wasa'il, vol. 21, p. 52, hadeeth #26513
Muhammad ibn Abi Nasr said: "I heard Imam ar-Rida (as) saying: Imam al-Baqir (as) said that the 'iddah of Mut'ah is a menstrual cycle."
If the husband dies during the Mutah perioid, the woman has to observe iddah for four months and ten days. The narrations regarding the Iddah of a woman in Mutah can also be read in 'Mustadrak al Wasail' volume 2 and 'Tahdeeb al Ahkam' volume 3.
Finally, there has always been universal consensus (ijma') between the Shi'a Fuquha about the 'iddah of Mut'ah. Ayatullah Maghniyah sums up this position when he writes:
The woman who does Mut'ah must observe a waiting period after the end of the time of the temporary marriage, though there is no waiting period if there has been no sexual relations. This is the same as in a permanent marriage, when a woman is divorced without sexual relations. A woman in a permanent marriage and temporary one must both observe the complete waiting period if her husband dies, whether or not there has been sexual relations.
Reference at Mutah.com
Here, we see a number of hadeeths (and there are many more) where the Imams (as) discuss the ruling on 'iddah. The Wahabi author has chosen to ignore all of these hadeeths, however, and focus on a single narration that does not refer to a Mut'ah marriage where there are sexual relations. Even if we are to assume that the hadeeth does refer to a Mut'ah with sexual relations, it would obviously be rejected as it conflicts with mutawattir narration's establishing the 'iddah of Mut'ah. Furthermore, none of the Shi'a 'ulama have ever ruled that there is no 'iddah for Mut'ah or that a child does not inherit. These are superstitions that any knowledgeable Shi'a knows to be false, and the Wahabi author should be ashamed for not even referencing the complete hadeeth literature or the fatwas of the Shi'a 'ulama. A sincere reader must ask: why has the Wahabi author attempted to conceal these narrations, and why has he attempted to trick his readers into believing that Shi'as believe that there is absolutely no 'iddah for Mut'ah? The author has committed atrocious acts of undeniable deceit.
Reply Two: Sunni sources also confirm the obligation to observe Iddah in Mutah
We should point out that the ignorant Dr. Salamah is contradicted by the writings of another Sunni on Mut'ah, in an article at Islamic Voice Magazine. He writes:
| Islamic Voice 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. Muta' possessed some psychological, social and moral respectability over unattatched sex. Firstly the psychological word of Nikah was attached to it. Secondly there was provision of Mehar for the woman in Muta'. Thirdly woman was required to pass the waiting period (Iddat) after the expiry of temporary marriage so that the parentage of the child (if the woman became pregnant) could be known. The child born out of Muta' was considered legitimate and was accepted as legal heir of his father. |
Here, we see that Mut'ah was considered a legitimate Nikah, that there was dowry, that there was 'iddah, and that the child was considered legitimate. Iddah has to be observed in Mut'ah, and this was practiced accordingly during the life of Rasulullah (s). In fact, there is a tradition in Ahl'ul Sunnah's own esteemed work that confirms 'iddah in Mut'ah. Imam Fakharuddin al-Razi writes in "Tafseer-e-Kabeer" Volume 4, page 41:
Ibn Abbas was asked: Is Mut'ah fornication or marriage? He answered: Neither the one nor the other. The questioner then asked: Well then, what is it? Ibn Abbas replied: It is Mut'ah, just as God has said. The questioner continued: Is there a waiting period in Mut'ah? He replied: Yes, a menstrual period. He was also asked: Do the husband and wife inherit from each other? He answered: No.
Tafseer-e-Kabeer, Volume 4 page 41
In his commentary of Sahih Muslim, Fath al Muhallim Volume 3 page 44, Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani also acknowledged that Mut'ah carries iddah:
When separation after Mut'ah takes place, to say that a woman cannot automatically practise Mut'ah with another man is wrong, there needs to be the passing of a menstrual cycle, it should therefore not be called Zinah.
Reply Three: Asserting that there is no Iddah in Mutah would deem the Sahabah adulterers
We invite the people of wisdom to just think logically if 'iddah was practised for Mut'ah during the times of Rasulullah (s) or not? The verses about 'iddah are revealed at the very early stage of "Madinian Life". For example the following verse of Surah Baqara:
[Yusufali 2:228] Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods.
Now according to the Ijma of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Mut'ah was practised until (at least) the 7th Hijri (victory of Khayber). We want Nasibis to answer these questions, if there really is no 'iddah in Mut'ah:
- Did the Sahaba, who practiced Mut'ah until 7th Hijri, sleep with those women who had not yet been purified from their earlier men?
- And what about female Sahaba who practised Mut'ah until 7th Hijri? Did they just jump into bed with the next man, before being purified from their earlier husbands?
Furthermore, we know from the fiqh that women who are past menopause do not have to await an 'iddah, whether it is in a permanent or temporary marriage. Does this Qiyas imply, then, that marrying a middle-aged woman is an act of fornication?
Mut'ah with Christians/Jews Women
Another lie of the Wahabi author is this:
| Wahabi author: | | Mut'ah is allowed with all types of women. She may be a virgin, married, widowed or may belong to any sect, group or religion. She may be a Christian, Jew or Muslim.34 However, Mut'ah with a Majusi (Magian) woman is permissible only when one is helpless. |
Does this Nasibi have any idea what he is talking about? Let us read the fatwa of Ayatullah Maghniyah:
…it is necessary that in both kinds of marriages the women must be mature, of sound-mind, and be free from any kinds of prohibitions on marriage. It is not permissible to marry a married woman, nor is it permissible to marry a woman who is in the waiting period of divorce or death, and not with a woman with whom marriage is forbidden because of family relationship, marriage or nursing. It is not permissible to marry a polytheist. Similarly, it is not permissible for the woman to marry any one except a Muslim who does not have any prohibitions on him in terms of marriage.
Reference at Mutah.com
The author has heaped lie upon lie. No Shi'a has ever argued that it is permissible to do Mut'ah with a married women, nor with a polytheist. As far as it being allowed to perform Mut'ah with a Christian, or Jew, then how can anybody criticize this when Allah (swt) says:
Lawful to you are the chaste women from the believers, and the chaste woman from those who have been given the Book from before you [i.e., the People of the Book, Christians and Jews].
Al-Qur'an, Ayah 5, Surah 5
This Nasibi should know that many of the Sahaba that he venerates had Jewish and Christian wives. Abu Bakr Jasas cites the names of the Sahaba and Taabi'een who had such wives, in his Tafseer Ahkaam al Qur'an Volume 1 page 333 [Beirut edition]:
"A group from amongst the Sahaba agreed on the legality of marrying women from the people of the Book… Uthman married a Christian called Naila bint al-Farasefa al-Kalbya and he married her while his other wives were present, it has been narrated that Talha bin Ubaydullah married a Syrian Jew, Hudhayfa bin Yamani also married a Jewish woman, and its lawfulness has been narrated from the majority of Taabi'een, Hasan al Basri, Ibraheem Nakh'ai and Shaybee."
Online Ahkam al Quran al Jassas, Surah Maidah
We have no knowledge of anyone amongst the Sahaba and Taabi'een who deemed marriage with the people of the Book to be haraam, on the contrary Uthman, Talha, Hudhaifa married Jewish women, if the Sahaba deemed such a marriage to be a sin, they would have opposed such marriages, this proves that all the Sahaba agreed to this type of union.
Putting all this non-sense aside, these enemies of the Ahl al-bayt (as) have not insulted the Shi'a, but rather have insulted the Prophet (s). For they believe, contrary to the truth, that the Prophet (s) himself allowed Mut'ah with polytheists. The Allamah Ismaeel writes:
| Allamah Ismaeel states: | | In fact the Mut'ah permitted occasionally before its final prohibitions did not require the female to be a Muslim or even one from the People of the Book which makes it completely distinguished from marriage. |
Now the Shi'a reject this belief altogether. However, according to these enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as), the Prophet (s) permitted temporary marriage with polytheists. This is obvious immorality, and in complete contrast to the explicit text of the Qur'an; yet this does not stop them from attributing it to the Holy Prophet (s). Who, then, is supporting immorality, and who is not?
As for Mutah with Majoosi women, we don't know why Nasibies cry so loud about Magians when their master Umar Ibn Khattab according to the Prophetic injunctions allowed the Sahaba to treat Magians in the manner that the Ahle Kitab are treated. Imam Shaf'yee recorded:
"Once the people asked Umar Ibn Khattab about Magians. Umar replied that he didn't know what are the orders about Majoos. Upon that Abdur Rehman bin 'Auf said: "I heard Rasool Allah (saw) say that we should deal with Majians in the same way as Ahle-Kitab". And Umar bin Al-Khattab accepted this Hadith."
Ar-Risalah by Imam Shaf'yee, page 430
Muqadimmah of Urdu translation of Sahih Bukhari by Salafi Scholar Fakhar Raz, page 80, (published by central Ahle-Hadith Jamiat India).
The mockery by Ibn al-Hashimi at the traditions calling the woman in mutah as rented
| Ibn al Hashimi states: | The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says:
"On this point there are specified hadith as well as the general hadith which state that a woman who enters into mut'a is 'rented'."
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm)
In another place, Al-Islam.org continues:
"In other words, she has been 'rented' for the purpose of sexual intercourse"
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm)
If one reads Shia Hadith, it becomes very clear that the woman is treated as "rented" property. In fact, the Shia books of Fiqh contain a section entitled "The Loaning of Vaginas." It is perplexing that the Shia scholars of Hadith would use terminology (i.e. "renting women by the hour") that perhaps only a street hoodlum would use.
|
Screen shot of Hashimi's article- top
Screen shot of Hashimi's article- text
Reply
By citing these Shia excerpts, the Nasibi has tried to show to his brethren that according to Shia fiqh the logic and words used in the laws pertaining to objects and properties are also applicable to a woman engaged in Nikah al-Mutah. We cannot understand why this is objectionable since the logic used behind the laws pertaining to the transactions of objects/properties are also applicable to the laws pertaining to marriage (be it permanent or temporary one), hence there should be no objection if we compare the logic of both of these matters. The very website Ibn al-Hashimi al-Nasibi has tried to mock at has made the point clear:
Mut'a is considered a kind of 'rental' because in general a man's basic aim in this kind of marriage is the sexual enjoyment of a woman, and in return for his enjoyment the woman receives a certain amount of money or property. In defining 'rental' the jurisprudents say: 'It is to gain possession of a benefit in exchange for a specified sum.' [10] This definition applies equally to temporary marriage.
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm
Having said that, we shall once again quote the words of Ibn al-Hashimi wherein he attacked the Shia fiqh and Shia scholars for using the word 'rental' for the woman in Nikah al-Mutah:
| Ibn al Hashimi states: | It is perplexing that the Shia scholars of Hadith would use terminology (i.e. "renting women by the hour") that perhaps only a street hoodlum would use.
|
Had he put aside shia-hatred and bothered to look into his own fiqh he would have not humiliated himself by making such a comment. If the Shia Ulema have made a 'logical' comparison between the laws of objects and those of woman in Nikah al-Mutah he should know that according to Nasibi fiqh, the very word 'rented' can be used in a marriage contract as a term to make the Nikah valid. We read the rulings of the great Hanafi Imam Abul Hasan al-Karkhi (d. 340 H) in Tafseer Ruh al-Ma'ani, Volume 22 page 52:
واستدل أبو الحسن الكرخي من أصحابنا بقوله تعالى { إنا حللنا لك أزواجك اللاتي آتيت أجورهن } على أن النكاح ينعقد بلفظ الإجارة كما ينعقد بلفظ التزويج
From amongst our companions Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi has construed Allah's statement {have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers } [033.050] that marriage contract is valid with term 'renting' as it is valid with term of 'marrying'.
One of the reasons for the Shia scholars comparing the logic behind Nikah al-Mutah as rent could be the fact that the verse of Mutah (4:24) contains the words 'give unto them their dowers [UJUR]' . The original Arabic term for dowry used in the verse is UJUR which is the plural of UJAR which literally means 'rent'. See
The Hans Wehr dictionary, page 5
The prestigious Hanafi Imam Abul Hasan al-Karkhi (d. 340 H) used the same logic and deemed it permissible to treat marriage as a rent. We read in an esteemed Hanafi work Badaye al-San'aei by Imam Abu Bakar al-Kashani (d. 587 H), Volume 2 page 230:
وحكى عن الكرخي أنه ينعقد بلفظ الإجارة لقوله تعالى { فأتوهن أجورهن } سمى الله تعالى المهر أجرا ولا أجر إلا بالإجارة فلو لم تكن الإجارة نكاحا لم يكن المهر أجرا
It is narrated from al-Karkhi that it is valid with the term 'rent', according to Allah's statement {give unto them their dowers} [004.024] . Allah Almighty called the dower rent, there is no rent without being rented, so if renting wasn't a marriage, the dower would not be rent'
Ibn al-Hashimi the liar has stated that Shia books contain chapters with the name of 'loaning of vaginas' but didn't mention any precise source to support his claim and we have proved the fabrication of this claim in our chapter on slave-girls. It is worthy to note that apart from marriage being a rental agreement according to Hanafi Imam Karkhi, he also believed that marriage was a 'loaning' contract, Imam Burhanaldeen Mazeh whilst discussing the rulings on the permissibility of marriage by using the term 'loaning' records:
روي عن أبي الحسن الكرخي رحمه الله أن ينعقد، وكان يقول: الإعارة تفيد ملك المنفعة
It is narrated from Abi al-Hassan al-Karkhi (may Allah's mercy be upon him) that it is valid, he used to say: 'Loaning refers to ownership, commutative contract'.
Al-Muhit al-Burhani, Volume 3 page 70
Beside treating marriage as a rental transaction, we also read that Ibn al-Hashimi's sect treat marriage as a sale/purchase/gift or transfer of ownership's transaction hence it can also take place by using terms like hiba (gift), sadaq (charity) and tamlik (transfer of ownership). Shaykh Abdurehman Jazri records in 'Al-Fiqh ala Madahib Arba' Volume 4 page 14:
لا خلاف في الانعقاد به عند الحنفية وهو ما كان بلفظ الهبة أو الصدقة أو التمليك أو الجعل ، فإذا قالت وهبت نفس لك ناوية معنى الزواج وقال قبلت ، انعقد النكاح ، وكذا إذا قالت تصدقت بنفسي عليك أو جعلت نفسي صدقة لك أو قالت ملكتك نفسي أو قال جعلت لك ابنتي بمائة فإن كل ذلك ينعقد به النكاح بلا خلاف.
There is no disagreement in the validity of (marriage) contract according to Hanafies which is with the term hiba (gift), sadaqa (charity), tamlik (transfer of ownership), j'al (devote), if she said: 'I grant my self to you' and by that she meant becoming wife and he said: 'I accept' the marriage is valid and so will be if she said: 'I give my self as charity to you' or 'I made my self charity to you' or she said: 'I transfer my ownership to you' or he (the father) said: 'My daughter is for you in reward of one hundred (money)' in all of these cases Nikah will take place without any disagreement.
Regarding the use of terms such as 'buying' and 'selling' used in a Nikah contract we read on the same page:
في الانعقاد به خلاف ولكن الصحيح الانعقاد وهو ما كان بلفظ البيع والشراء
There is disagreement about the validity but the correct view is about the validity which is with term of 'selling and buying'.
Imam Muhammad bin Ahmad Sarkhasi (d. 483 H) who enjoys the title of 'Shams al-Aimah' (Sun of Imams) in his acclaimed work al-Mabsut records:
"Marriage with the terms hiba (gift), sadaqa (charity), tamlik (transfer of ownership) is correct according to our scholars"
Al-Mabsut, Volume 5 page 59
In another prestigious Sunni book Al-Muhit al-Burhani by Burhanaldeen Mazeh we read:
"Marriage with the terms hiba (gift), sadaqa (charity), tamlik (transfer of ownership) is valid"
Al-Muhit al-Burhani, Volume 3 page 69
By now, Ibn al-Hashimi should be better informed as to whose scholars are 'street hoodlums'!
Ibn al Hashimi's assertion that Mutah is tantamount to rented 'booty by the hour'
Ibn al Hashimi sought to mock the Shi'a concept of Mutah by relying on American rap lyrics!
| Ibn al Hashimi states: | A "gangsta" rapper once said that he would "rent booty by the hour"; one can understand such vulgar speech from a hoodlum, but it is very perplexing when the Shia Ulema and scholars of Hadith use similar terminology whereby they claim that man "rent" women, and that too by the hour!
|
Reply One – Booty by the hour can also be attained via Nikah and Misyaar
For those who are not aware of such gutter language, it refers to an American musician bragging about his ability to have sex with a different woman every hour.
We have already cited Sunni Ulema that defined Nikah as a rental, lease, selling and buying and transfer of ownership's agreement, so we await Ibn al Hashimi's Fatwa that these great Ulema were early prototypes of "gangsta" rappers. The irony is this same result can in theory be reached by Nikah and Misyaar since what a Sunni man needs to do after having sex is recite talaq three times and the marriage is annulled. If this Nawasib wishes to ignore this argument then allow us to being matters closer to home for him
Reply Two – According to Sunni sources booty by the hour is the Sunnah of Prophets
We read the following hadith in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:
Narrated Qatada: Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).
Bukhari placed within the Book of bathing, the chapter "Having Sexual Intercourse and repeating it. And engaging with one's own wives and taking a single bath (after doing so)" - now that means that this would either begin after Fajr and end at Zuhr or from Asr to Maghrib or Isha to Fajr. Rasulullah (s) would in theory offer one Salaat sleep with nine wives and then perform Ghusl in time for the next Salat. Either way at maximum it would not be more than 7 hours. Would this come within the Gangsta rappers comments of booty by the hour?
If this Nasibi author is still not ashamed then allow us to take one better than that from Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 169:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
(The Prophet) Solomon son of (the Prophet) David said, "Tonight I will go round (i.e. have sexual relations with) one hundred women (my wives) everyone of whom will deliver a male child who will fight in Allah's Cause." On that an Angel said to him, "Say: 'If Allah will.' " But Solomon did not say it and forgot to say it. Then he had sexual relations with them but none of them delivered any child except one who delivered a half person. The Prophet said, "If Solomon had said: 'If Allah will,' Allah would have fulfilled his (above) desire and that saying would have made him more hopeful."
Tell us Ibn al-Hashimi, is this not multiple booty by the hour? Whilst we believe that such narrations are blasphemies against these great Prophets, Ibn al Hashimi will proudly laud this as a Sahih narration, and will no doubt argue that such sexual indulgence is fine since multiple polygamy was allowed under the Shariah for both Prophets, and was sound as it is within the confines of a Nikah. If the Nikah allows a man to have in the gangsta rapper's word 'booty by the hour' with a legal spouse – and there is no objection to such a sexual practice, then by the same token there should be no objection if a man does indeed have sex with different women through Mutah – since this is a valid Nikah in the sight of Allah (swt) and as such anything done within that time is halal. If standard Nikah entitles a man to sleep with his polygamous wives, and this is not a matter of ridicule then the same goes for Nikah Mutah, since both are halaal forms of Nikah, any sexual intercourse performed is halal.
Having said this, we shall also point out that Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] always discouraged their adherents to engage in Nikah al-Mutah with multiple women at a time in order to avoid any mistreatment with them, we have discussed this point in the next chapter under the topic of Qiyas No. 13.
Ibn al-Hashimi's indigestion in stipulating the timing of meeting between husband and wife in marriage contract
| Ibn al Hashimi states: | In the Shia Mutah, the man can regulate when he wants to see the woman; it is very common, for example, for the man to stipulate that he only wants to see her at night-time. In other words, he simply wants to have sex with her and does not want to have anything else to do with her for the rest of the day. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says:
"It is permissible for the contract to stipulate as a condition a particular time for meetings between the husband and wife, such as daytime or night-time. As already mentioned, it is also permissible for a given number of sexual acts for a given period to be stipulated, as for example, during one day or over the whole period of the marriage."
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm)
|
Screen shot of Ibn al Hashimi's article
Had the ignorant author occupied his time with learning about his own fiqh, rather than wasting his time in fabricating and twisting Shia texts, he would have not been humiliated in front of his Nasibi readership, but since both the author and his Nasibi readership are shameless, we doubt that they will ever accept their ignorance. The author has suffered indigestion by Shia texts that stipulate the timings of meetings between husband and wife in relation to a marriage contract, whilst Sunni fiqh is not different than this, but first of all to paraphrase Ibn al-Hashimi:
In the Sunni Nikah, the man can regulate when he wants to see the woman; it is very common, for example, for the man to stipulate that he only wants to see her at day time. In other words, he simply wants to have sex with her in day time and does not want to know what she does at nights.
Because according to an esteemed Hanafi work 'Al-Bahr al-Raiq' Volume 3 page 190:
وقالوا ولا بأس بتزوج النهاريات وهو أن يتزوجها ليقعد معها نهارا دون الليل
They said there is no harm to marry a day wife, namely to marry her just to stay with her at day without night.
Imam ibn Qudamah records in his authority work 'Al-Mughni' Volunme 7 page 450:
ونقل عنه الأثرم في الرجل يتزوج المرأة ويشترط عليها أن يأتيها في الأيام يجوز الشرط
"Al-Athram narrated from him (Ahmad bin Hanbal) that a if a man marries a woman and stipulates the condition to meet her during the days, the condition is valid."
Al-Mughni, Kitab al-Nikah, Volume 7 page 450
On the next page we further read:
وكان الحسن وعطاء لا يريان بنكاح النهاريات بأسا وكان الحسن لا يرى بأسا أن يتزوجها, على أن يجعل لها من الشهر أياما معلومة
Al-Hassan and Atta stated that there is no harm in marriage with a day wife. Al-Hassan said that there is no harm (if a man) marries (a woman) on a condition to stay with her only for a specified number of days in the month.
We read in 'Fatawa Hindyah' by Sheikh Nidham popularly known as Fatawa Alamgiri, Volume 7 page 17:
ولا بأس بتزوج النهاريات وهو أن يتزوجها على أن يقعد معها نهارا دون الليل ، كذا في التبيين
And there is no harm to marry a day wife which is to marry her on a condition of staying with her at day without night as it is mentioned in Tabyyen.
Fatawa Alamgiri, Volume 7 page 17
We read in another prestigious Hanafi work 'Fath al-Qadir Sharah Hidayah' by Imam ibn al-Humam, Volume 6 page 444 as well as in "Majm'a al-Anhar" by Abdulrahman Muhammad Sulaiman, Volume 3 page 77:
ولا بأس بتزوج النهاريات وهو أن يتزوجها على أن يكون عندها نهارا دون الليل
"There is no harm in marrying a day wife, namely to marry her and meet her at day without night"
Dr. Salamah's Statements Concerning Dowry
Dr. Salamah quotes the following hadeeths, which are supposed to prove that Mut'ah is somehow immoral:
| Dr Salamah states: | The narrator asked Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, "What should be the minimum compensation for Mut'ah The imam said, "Anything that the two parties agree upon."
The narrator asked Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq what the minimum compensation for Mut'ah could be, and he answered, "One fistful of wheat."
Mut'ah is 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).
|
Reply One - The Shari'ah does not stipulate what dowry should be
As any Muslim knows, there is no minimum / maximum limit of mahr in Islam. In fact, it is well known that it is mustahab for a woman to ask for a small dowry. If this Enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) does ever bother to read independently it would be advisable for him, to pick up Sahih Bukhari, where it is written in Volume 7, Book 62, Number 80:
"Narrated Sahl bin Sad: The Prophet said to a man, "Marry, even with (a Mahr equal to) an iron ring."
We also read that, during the time of Rasulullah (s), a handful of dough would suffice as mahr for Nikah Mut'ah. We read in Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3249, Bab ul Nikah:
"Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (dates or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)."
Nawawi in his Sharh Muslim Volume 12 page 13, has the testimony of Ibn Masud:
"Rasulullah permitted us to do Mut'ah, using cloth (as dower)"
We also read Rasulullah (s) allowed a pair of shoes to be given as mahr. We read in Sunan Tirmidhi Volume 1 page 152:
"A woman from Banu Fazhar was married with a pair of shoes being accepted as Mahr. Rasulullah (s) asked the women 'Are you happy to give your possessions and soul in exchange for a pair of shoes? She replied 'Yes'. Rasulullah (s) then deemed this Nikah valid".
A Nikah is also valid without the giving of a monetary mahr, as giving the Qur'an as mahr shall suffice, Ibn Hajr al Asqalani in Fathul Bari Volume 9 page 174 comments:
"Some individuals know the whole Qur'an by heart, others knew some of it, and there marriages were carried out on this basis".
The Sunni Imams of fiqh such as Imam Shaafi, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Sufyan Thuri and Imam Isaac have ruled that mahr carries no limitation; on the contrary anything that can be counted as a possession, can be counted as mahr. See:
1. Mujmooa Sharh al Mahadhib Volume 15 page 482 by Imam Nawawi [Beirut edition]
2. Al Maghni Volume 6 page 680 by Ibn Qudhayma [Cairo edition]
Imam Ibn Hazm clearly records that anything can be dowry the only condition is the two parties agree no it:
"It permitted to be the dowry all his property, less or more, though price of wheat or malt etc, also every halal work such as teaching some thing from Quran or from knowledge or building, tailoring etc, if they agreed on it"
Al-Muhala, Volume 9 page 497, Kitab al-Nikah, Problem No. 1851
Reply Two - According to the Ahl as-Sunnah alcohol and pigs can be included as dowry!
Going a step further, we see that in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Prophet (s) and Imams, that according to the Ahl as-Sunnah alcohol and pigs can be counted as mahr. The classical Hanafi text Sharh Waqaya Volume 2 page 31, Kitab al Nikah (and it should be noted that this book is a key text in Deobandi Madrassas) we read:
"If alcohol or a pig is given as Mahr the Nikah is valid".
Sharh Waqaya, Volume 2 page 31
In another authority Hanafi work 'Fath al-Qadeer Sharah Hidayah' we read as follows:
فإن تزوج الذمي ذمية على خمر أو خنزير ثم أسلما أو أسلم أحدهما فلها الخمر والخنزير
"If a Zimmi man marries a Zimmi woman, pig or alcohol is decided as the dowry, now if both or one of them becomes Muslim then the woman will still get pig or alcohol as dowry"
Fath al-Qadeer Sharah Hidayah, Vol 5 page 53 Kitab al-Nikah, Chapter of Mahr
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hazm records that even dogs and cats can be included as dowry (mahr):
"Whatever is permitted to possess from donation or inheritence that is also permitted to be a dowry and Khula or counter value it, also the things that are permitted to sell or not such as water, dog, cat and fruit"
Al-Muhala, Volume 9 page 497, Kitab al-Nikah, Problem No. 1850
If things that are not allowed to sell can also be included as dowry then business of prostitues is Haram in Islam (at least in Shia Fiqh), so our astute readers can better conclude!
So we found that there is nothing for the Nawasib to yap at the Shia traditions on dowry when they themselves have laid the foundation of having 'pleasurable' weddings with alcohol being served and pigs being eaten with dogs and cats around!
Ibn al-Hashimi's interpretation that the dowry in Mutah is just like a payment for sex in prostitution
| Ibn al Hashimi states: |
According to Shia Fiqh, a man "rents" a woman for a specified number of hours or days during which he can have sex with her. But if on certain days she doesn't have sex with him, then the price he pays for her goes down. The exception is her menstruation days since it is impermissible to have sexual relations on those days. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, says:
"A man came to the Imam Ja'far and said: 'I concluded a contract of mut'a with a woman for one month for a given amount, But the woman only came to me for part of the month, and part she stayed away.' The Imam replied: 'An amount should be held back from her dower equivalent to the amount she stayed from you, except for the days of her menstruation, for those belong to her.'"
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/3.htm)
The price the man pays the woman (i.e. the dower) goes down if she doesn't have enough sex with him; it would not be a stretch to say that the Shia scholars are nothing but pimps who closely regulate the institution of prostitution under the guise of religion.
|
If Ibn al-Hashimi has interpreted these comments to suggest that the dowry for sex in Mutah is like the payment for sex in prostitution, and hence the Shia scholars are merely pimps who closely regulate the institution of prostitution under the guise of religion, then by the same token we shall point out to Ibn al-Hashimi al-Nasibi that 'the scholars of his school are too nothing but pimps who closely regulate the institution of prostitution under the guise of religion because they draw the same connection between the sexual intercourse and both 'alimony & dowry' that is given to the wife. Shaykh Abdurehman Jazri records in 'Al Fiqh ala Madahib Arba' Volume 4 page 84:
فإذا أعطاها الصداق وأبت تسليم نفسها بلا عذر فللزوج استرجاعه
'If he gave her the dowry and she refused to offer herself (for sexual intercourse) without any reason then the husband can retrieve it'
Al Fiqh ala Madahib Arba, Volume 4 page 84
Imam Merdawi records in 'al-Ensaf' Volume 13 page 137:
فَسَلَّمَ الصَّدَاقَ فَلَهُ طَلَبُ التَّمْكِينِ .فَإِنْ أَبَتْ بِلَا عُذْرٍ فَلَهُ اسْتِرْجَاعُهُ .
'He paid the dowry so he can ask for sexual intercourse, if she refused without grounds, he can retrieve it'
Shaykh Mansoor al-Bahuti al-Hanbali (d. 1052/1642) records in 'Kashaf al-Qena' Volume 19 page 368:
قَالَ فِي الْمُبْدِعِ ( أَوْ لَمْ تُمَكِّنْهُ مِنْ الْوَطْءِ أَوْ مَكَّنَتْهُ مِنْهُ ) أَيْ الْوَطْءِ ( دُونَ بَقِيَّةِ الِاسْتِمْتَاعِ ) كَالْقُبْلَةِ وَالْمُبَاشَرَةِ ( أَوْ لَمْ تَبِتْ مَعَهُ فِي فِرَاشِهِ ) فَلَا نَفَقَةَ لَهَا ، لِأَنَّهَا لَمْ تُسْلِمْ نَفْسَهَا التَّسْلِيمَ التَّامَّ
He (ibn Muflih al-Hanbali) said in 'al-Muabde' (book) ( if she didn't allow him to perform sexual intercourse) or she allowed him sexual intercourse ( but without the other enjoyments) such as kissing and fondling ( or she didn't sleep with him in the bed ) she doesn't deserve the alimony, because she didn't completely offer her 'self''.
al-Bahuti also records in 'Al-Rawd al-Muraba' Volume 1 page 104:
ولو أقبضه لها وامتنعت بلا عذر فله استرجاعه
"If he paid her (the dowry) and she refused (sexual intercourse) for no reason, he can retrieve it"
Imam Ibn Qudamah records in 'Al-Eda Sharh al-Umda' Volume 2 page 169:
( إن كانت صغيرة لا يمكن الاستمتاع بها أو لم تسلم نفسها إليه أو لم تطعه فيما يجب له عليها أو سافرت بغير إذنه أو بإذنه في حاجتها فلا نفقة لها عليه ) لأن النفقة تجب للتمكين من الاستمتاع
'(If she was young and incapable of enjoyment, or she didn't offer her self to him, or she didn't obey him about which he has right on her, or she traveled without his permission or with his permission but for her own business, she doesn't deserve alimony) because the alimony is a reward of allowing enjoyment (to the husband)'
Imam Ibn Qudamah also records in 'Al-Kafi fi Feqh Ahmad ibn Hanbal' Volume 3 page 223:
وللأمة المزوجة النفقة في الزمن الذي تسلم نفسها فيه فإن سلمت إليه ليلا ونهارا فلها النفقة كلها كالحرة وإن سلمت ليلا دون النهار فلها نصف نفقتها
'The married slave woman deserves alimony during the time that she offers her self, if she offers herself to him during the night and day she deserve the full alimony just like a free woman, and if she offers herself at night and not the day, she deserves half of the alimony'
Lastly, we read in 'Fiqh al Sunnah' by Sayed Sabiq Volume 2 page 170:
وكذلك إذا لم تسلم نفسها إلى زوجها، أو لم تمكنه من الاستمتاع بها، أو امتنعت من الانتقال إلى الجهة التي يريدها، ففي هذه الحالات لا تجب النفقة
And if she didn't offer her self to her husband or she didn't allow him to enjoy her, or she refused to relocate to the destination which he wanted, in these cases the alimony is not deserved.
Nawasib's discussion that there is no need to make enquiries about a woman before Mut'ah
Various Nawasib have quoted traditions from Shia book and have advanced their objections, for example:
| Ibn al Hashimi and Dr Salmah quoted: | Aban bin Tughlaq related that he said to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, "Often during my travels I come across a very beautiful woman and am not sure if she has a husband or if she is an adulteress or if she is one of dubious character," The Imam responded, "Why should you worry about all of these things? Your duty is to believe what she [says]. Engage in Mut'ah with her."
|
Screen shot from Ibn al-Hashimi's article
| Azam Tariq quoted: | Ali bin Yaqtin stated: 'I asked Abu Abdullah [as]: 'How are the women of Madina?'. He replied: 'They are Fasiq'. I asked: 'Shall I perform Nikah al-Mutah with them?' He replied: 'Yes. If a man performs Nikah al-Mutah then he does not need to do investigiation, rather he should accept what the woman tells him'. (Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 253 Hadith 1091)
Muhamad bin Ahmed bn Yahyah narrated from Ali bin Sendi from Uthman bin Isa from Ishaq bin Ammar from the servant of Muhammad bin Rashif namely Fadhl who said: 'I said to Abi Abdullah [as]: 'I performed Mutah with a woman then I got the feeling that she is married, thus, she actually had a husband'. He [as] said: 'Why did you do investigation?'(Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 253 Hadith 1092)
[Khutbaat-e-Jail, pages 263-264]
|
Reply One - Did the Sahaba conduct such investigations?
The question needs to be directed at the Sahaba, who contracted Mut'ah upon the p |
Mut'ah, a comprehensive guide
Original articles against Mut'ah
Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi's artice - top
Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi's artice - text
Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi's article -top
Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi's article -text
Screen shot of Ibn al Hashimi's article 
Screen shot of Ibn al Hashimi's article 
Tafseer-e-Kabeer, Volume 4 page 41
Muqadimmah of Urdu translation of Sahih Bukhari by Salafi Scholar Fakhar Raz, page 80, (published by central Ahle-Hadith Jamiat India). 
Screen shot of Hashimi's article- top
Screen shot of Hashimi's article- text
The Hans Wehr dictionary, page 5
Screen shot of Ibn al Hashimi's article
Sharh Waqaya, Volume 2 page 31