For the ease of our readers, we are pasting the headings used in this chapter discussing various topics:
[1]. Dr Salamah’s notion that Mut’ah 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 a child born from Mut’ah
[5]. Ibn al-Hashimi’s anxiety that a man will reject the parentage of a child born from Nikah al-Mut’ah
[6]. Iddah (Waiting Period) in Mut’ah Marriage
[7]. Mut’ah with Christians/Jews and Zoroastrain women
[8]. Ibn al-Hashimi’s mocking traditions describing the woman in a Mut’ah contract as rented
[9]. Ibn al Hashimi’s assertion that Mut’ah is tantamount to rented ‘booty by the hour’
[10]. Ibn al-Hashimi’s abhorrence to the notion that partners to the Mutah contract stipulate when they will meet
[11]. Dr. Salamah’s statements concerning dowry
[12]. Ibn al-Hashimi’s interpretation that the dowry in Mut’ah is just like paying a prostitute for sex
[13]. Nasibi propaganda 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 concept of ‘marriage with the intention of divorce’
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 verses 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 Mut’ah is a blessing and grace (lutf) given by Allah (swt) to the believers.
The Wahabi author Dr. Salamah wrote the following about Mut’ah:
“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.
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 women 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 more than four women, but in addition to them he is permitted to 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, 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 Saeed 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 takes 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 canceling 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 Mughniyah in his book Fiqh al-Imam Jaffar al-Sadiq, Volume 5 pages 270-271 also discusses many references for this reality in the Sunni books:
As it is recorded in Sahih Bukhari, 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.”
also in Sahih Muslim, 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 abrogated. Did it become invalid after the Allah the Glorious made it valid? The Sunnis belief that it was abrogated, and made invalid after permission was given for it. Ibn Hajir Al-’Asqalani writes in his Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari:
“We have numerous ahadith which are explicit in prohibiting Mut’ah after permission was given for it.”
In al-Mughni book of Ibn Qadamah, is written:
“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 they (Shia) 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”
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
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, 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
It is precisely for this reason that one of the Salafi Sect’s very own founding forefathers Ibn Qayim had to concede that:
ونكاح المتعة ﻻ تنفر منه الفطر والعقول ولو كانت نفرت منه لم يبح في أول الاسلام
”Nikah al-Mut’ah neither contradicts instinct nor intellect, had it been so then it would not have been deemed lawful during the first period of Islam”
Eghathat al-Lahfan, page 260
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 rationale:
“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 in their article on Mut’ah, Islamic Voice Magazine claimed:
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:
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
It is strange to see that some stubborn Nawasib have formed an opinion that Mut’ah was the practice of the pre-Islamic era [Jahiliyah] and hence it was (gradually) outlawed Islam. But the question arises, on what basis do they claim Mut’ah to be the practice of Jahiliyah? Rather than having evidence that Mutah dates back to the era of Jahilyya, we see that Ayesha explained ‘ALL’ forms of marriage that were prevalent during Jahiliyya but at no place does she refer to anything resembling Mut’ah. We read in Sahih Bukhari:
“Narrated Urwa bin Zubair: Aisha the wife of the Prophet told him that there were four types of marriage during the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance. One type was similar to that of the present day, i.e. a man used to ask somebody else for the hand of a girl under his guardianship or for his daughter’s hand, and give her dowry and then marry her. The second type was that a man would say to his wife after she had become clean from her period, “Send for so-and-so and have sexual relations with him.” Her husband would then keep away from her and would never sleep with her till she gets pregnant from the other man with whom she was sleeping. When her pregnancy became evident, her husband would sleep with her if he wished. Her husband did so (i.e. let her wife sleep with some other man) so that he might have a child of noble breed. Such marriage was called Al-Istibda. Another type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relation with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them and none of them would refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her, she would say to them, “You (all) know what you have done, and now I have given birth to a child. So, it is your child, O so-and-so!” naming whoever she liked, and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him. The fourth type of marriage was that many people would enter upon a lady and she would never refuse anyone who came to her. Those were the prostitutes who used to fix red flags at their doors as signs, and he who wished, could have sexual intercourse with them. If anyone of them got pregnant and delivered a child, then all those men would be gathered for her and they would call the Qaifs (persons skilled in recognizing the likeness of a child to his father) to them and would let her child follow the man (whom they recognized as his father) and she would let him adhere to him and will be called his son. The man could not refuse all that. But when Muhammad (s) was sent with the Truth, he abolished all the types of marriages observed in the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance except the type of marriage the people recognize today”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2 Chapter 37, pages 44-45
We have previously proved that Allah (swt) revealed verse 4:24 in relation to Nikah al-Mut’ah if we read that alongside the above testimony of Ayesha, there remains no room to assert that Mut’ah was something related to the Pre-Islamic era.
After citing this tradition, let us probe and challenge our opponents a little further. First and foremost why have you chosen to abandon Islamic rulings on the Islamic Mut’ah and opted for a practice that allegedly harkens back to Jahiliyya? The fact of the matter is all because a practice existed during the era of Jahiliyya does not mean that it was outlawed with the onset of the Islamic Shariah. The Islamic Shariah includes practices reminiscent to the era of Jahiliyya, but the difference is they are codified with rules, thus distinguishing them from the unregulated practices of Jahiliyya. By way of example consider the practice of eating slaughtered meat, was a favorite dish of the Makkan Kuffar, we for example read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin ‘Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, “I do not eat anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah’s Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering.” Zaid bin ‘Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say, “Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as something abominable.
Did the eating of slaughtered meat end with the Islamic Shariah brought by Prophet Muhammad (s)? Do todays Mullah’s opt for vegetarian meals when they eat? Looking at their bellies that are reminiscent to the size of the equator that seems highly unlikely! The answer is it did not, the eating of meat was regulated by the Shariah, it needs to be slaughtered in the name of Allah (swt), and must be from an animal that the Allah (swt) has ordained for us as Halal.
In the same way that slaughtered meat was a practice of Jahiliyya, concepts such as having a ‘permanent wife’ or ‘sleeping with slave women’ were also practiced during the period of Jahiliyah. If we move away from that era and look at the rules and rules dictating unions such as permanent Nikah, Nikah-ul-Mut’ah and conjugal relations with slave women carry conditions of Iddah, dower, Non Mahram somen with whom marriage is permitted and others and that is what differentiates Islamic rulings from Pre-Islamic practices during Jahiliyah.
Why do these same critics deem having a ‘permanent wife’ or a ‘slave woman’ deplorable as such a union has its origins dating back to the era of Jahiliyya just like Mut’ah? Sadly the diseased minds of our opponents force them to declare Mut’ah to be a practice of Jahiliyya, they are blind to see that male and female Sahaba practiced it pursuant to the dictates of the Prophet (s) subject the strict rules of observance, namely those one cannot marry, Iddah, dower etc.
Would our opponents allow us to cite the pre Islamic practice of sleeping with slave women? Once we do, will they abandon Islam as it continued under the Islamic Shariah? Or are you able to recognize the difference between Islamic conditions regulating relations with slave women and those cultures that have no regulations covering Iddah, Mahram Woman etc?
We are content with the fact that our Prophet (s) testified that Mut’ah is a pure and Halal act (as evidenced by the tradition of Abdullah Ibn Masud that we cited previously. Our opponents may still insist on adopting the conjectures relating to pre-Islamic cultures, but that merely serves as evidence of their deviancy for denying and rejecting the testimony of the Prophet (s) and giving preference to their conjectures is conduct unbecoming of one that professes to adhere to Islam.
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 that the Sahaba remained weak in faith right until 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 hence 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?
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:
“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”.
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 we read the testimony of Sabra in Sahih Muslim:
(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:
“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 Mut’ah’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 sought to:
a. do his utmost to discourage its practice?
b. Repel Mut’ah fans by setting out the ‘negative’ aspects of Mut’ah as todatys opponents of Mut’ah 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 an 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 Mut’ah’. 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 Mut’ah, 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 Mut’ah 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 Mut’ah, 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.
Shah Abdul Aziz in Tauhfa, page 3 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, page 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 Jurrayj contracted Mut’ah with 70 women. Mu’awiya also did Mut’ah, as did many famous Sahaba and Tabayeen (all these points shall be elaborated on in later chapters).
Dr Salamah cites similar objection:
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:
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.
Qurtubi is a great Sunni Scholar, who acknowledges the early scholars deemed Mut’ah to be Nikah so how can it be deemed unchaste? As Mut’ah has been acknowledged to be a form of marriage, Dr. Salamah’s argument makes no sense whatsoever. We also know that Nikah saves one from adultery. Sunni scholar Shaykh Mansoor al-Bahuti al-Hanbali (d. 1052/1642) has recorded 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 the existence of lust.”
Since Mut’ah is a type of Nikah, performing Nikah al-Mut’ah (temporary marriage) falls within the above cited reasoning for marriage, it protects one from committing Zina and is hence a form of ihsan. Shah Abdul Aziz further argues in the Tauhfa 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.
When Ahl Sunnah believe that Mut’ah 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.
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):
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:
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. Muhammad Jawad Mughnyah records in Fiqh al-Imam al-Sadiq, Volume 5 page 273:
“A boy born through temporary marriage is like the boy born through permanent marriage which respect to the right of inheritance”
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, the former leader of ‘Anjuman-e-Sipah-e-Sahaba’ [ASS] in his classic ‘Khutbat Jail’ pages 256 – 257 stated:
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 states:
If the woman becomes pregnant during Mut’ah, 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
We should point out that 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 concluded that a husband has the option of seizing custody of a child when the text states 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 Mut’ah, 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.
We have previously evidenced the twisted mind of the ignorant author, since the text makes no reference to a man seizing 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 deduced that a man ‘must’ abandon the parentage of the child by citing the aspect of Shia fiqh wherein sworn testimony (or a sworn allegation) is not compulsory in temporary marriage. If sworn testimony 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, this negates the author‘s biased conclusion 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
As we can see rejecting the parentage of a child born from Nikah al-Mut’ah is not as simple as the anti-Shia author suggests to his readers. 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 aired his concerns at attempts to deny of a child born from Mut’ah:
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 Mut’ah with a woman on the condition that she shall not demand a child from him and a child is then born what is the ruling?’ When the Imam (as) heard that He (as) prohibited him from 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 relating to the parentage of a child born from Nikah al Mut’ah. 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.”
We likewise read in ‘al-Mut’ah al-Nikah al-Munqate’ by Sayyed Murtadha Ardibili, page 270:
“It is not permissible for him to deny the child”
We read in ‘al-Fiqh al-Islami’ by Sayyed Muhammad Taqi Muddaresi, volume 2 page 413:
“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 Mut’ah’ Volume 1 page 288:
“According to the Imamia jurists there is no disagreement about attributing him (the child) to his father because it is a 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 Mut’ah contract is attributed, whoever thought other than that has misunderstood us”
Sayyed Khoei in Minhaj al-Salehin, Volume 2 page 273 Problem No. 1307, Sheikh Fayadh in Minhaj al-Salehin, Volume 3 page 46 Problem No. 101 and Sayyed Rohani in his Minhaj 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 the Shia school there are certain conditions for attributing or rejecting the child Sayyed Rohani records in ‘Minhaj 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).
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-Mut’ah and then if she gets pregnant, he can simply reject the child, while the truth is that the very concept is adhered to in the treacherous author’s own school of thought i.e. one can purchase a slave-girl, have sex with her, should she fall pregnant, he can simply deny the child and a Sunni court would not even require the man to take an oath before God on 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):
“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 ‘Fatah al-Qadeer Sharah Hidayah’ Volume 10 page 329:
“The slave woman’s son, even if his paternity is proven without a claim (from the father), has his parentage disassociated just by denial, unlike the wife in a Nikah whose son’s parentage cannot be dissociated except through “le’an.”
One of the favorite scholars of the Salafies Imam Showkani records in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 77:
“It is narrated from Abi Hanifa, al-Thawri and it is the Hadwiyah madhab that the paternity of a slave woman’s (son) cannot be proved without the claim (from the father), the admission of performing sexual intercourse shall not suffice, if he didn’t claim paternity, he (the son) will become a slave for him. “
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:
“If the master denied the parentage of a child of his slave woman, the parentage will be dissociated just by denial”
We read in ‘Al-Bahr al-Raiq’ Volume 4 page 454:
“The parentage of a son of the slave woman can be dissociated just by denial’
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 him realize the gravity of his mistake. Ibn al-Hashimi implicitly offered concerns over the ‘possibility’ of a Shia man performing Mut’ah and then rejecting any child born from that union, the only reason we could comprehend 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 examine it as a serious manner. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Nawawi records in his famed work Al-Majm’oa, Volume 17 page 409:
“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:
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 creating 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.
If this does not suffice, then allow us to cite Imam Ibn Qudama’s authority work Al-Mughni, Volume 6 page 397:
“If a woman gives birth to a child and her husband has been absent for 20 years, the child will be attributed to him.”
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.
In Al-Isaba fi Tameez al-Sahaba, Volume 3 page 143, we read the following act of Sahabi Salamah bin Umaya:
Umar bin Shabah said: ‘Salamah bin Umaya performed Mut’ah with Salmah the slave girl of Hakim bin Umaya bin Al-Awqas al-Salami, thus she gave birth to a child from him, but he denied the child’.
Then we read in Tarikh Madina by Ibn Shabah, Volume 2 page 719 that similar stance was taken by a Sahabi Amr bin Huraith:
“It has been said that Amr bin Huraith performed Mut’ah with a woman from the tribe of Saad bin Bakr and she gave birth to a child but he denied the child”
One of the biggest Nasibi objections to Mut’ah is that it carries no “Iddah” (waiting period), so it is no different to prostitution. 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 Mut’ah, before she can remarry.
When Nawasib 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:
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.”
The author has yet 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 he is permitted to do so, whilst this right cannot be applied 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, that 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 when sexual relations occur, he clearly failed to 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) said: “It is necessary that one says 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 observes an ‘iddah of 45 days, and some say: One menstrual cycle.
Wasai’l, Volume 21 page 44 Hadeeth 26489
Furthermore, we have numerous narrations’ stating the ‘iddah of a woman after 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.”
Wasai’l, Volume 21 page 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.
Wasai’l, Volume 21 pages 51-52 Hadeeth 26510
Imam as-Sadiq (as) was asked about the ‘iddah of Mut’ah, to which he said: 45 days, or a complete menstrual cycle.
Wasai’l, Volume 21 page 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.”
Wasai’l, Volume 21 page 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 Mut’ah perioid, the woman has to observe iddah for four months and ten days. The narrations regarding the Iddah of a woman in Mut’ah can also be read in ‘Mustadrak al Wasail’ volume 2 and ‘Tahdeeb al Ahkam’ volume 3.
Finally, there has always been a 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 Mut’ah.com
Here, we see a number of hadeeths (and there are many more) wherein 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 Mut’ah marriage wherein there is no iddah should the same couple repeat the same contract without a break. 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.
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 the author writes:
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, the observation of ‘iddah, and 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 al Kabeer, Volume 4, page 41:
Ibn Abbas was asked: Is Mut’ah fornication or marriage? He answered: Neither 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 al Kabeer, Volume 4 page 41
In his commentary of Sahih Muslim, Fatah 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 can 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.
We invite the people of wisdom to just think logically was ‘iddah was practised for Mut’ah during the times of Rasulullah (s) or not? The verses about ‘iddah were 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:
Furthermore, we know from fiqh that menopausal women do not have to observe ‘iddah, they are in a permanent or temporary marriage. Does this Qiyas imply, that marrying a middle-aged woman is an act of fornication?
Another lie of the Wahabi author is this:
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 Mut’ah.com
The author has heaped lie upon lie. No Shi’a has ever argued that it is permissible to do Mut’ah with married women, nor with a polytheist. As far as it being allowed to perform Mut’ah with a Christian or Jew, 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.”
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 nonsense 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:
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 Mut’ah 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 same 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 about the rulings/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
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
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-Mut’ah. 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 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-Mut’ah:
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-Mut’ah 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:
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 the term ‘renting’ as it is valid with term of ‘marrying’.
One of the reasons for the Shia scholars comparing the logic behind Nikah al-Mut’ah as rent could be the fact that the verse of Mut’ah (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:
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:
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 a transaction involving the transfer of ownership’s 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:
There is no disagreement in the validity of the (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:
“There is disagreement about the validity but the correct view is that the term ‘selling and buying’ is valid.”
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 sought to mock the Shi’a concept of Mut’ah by relying on American rap lyrics!
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!
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 all 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
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 Mut’ah – 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 Mut’ah, 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-Mut’ah 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 states:
In the Shia Mut’ah, 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)
Had the ignorant author occupied his time with learning about his own Fiqh, rather than wasting his time fabricating and twisting Shia texts, he would have not humiliated himself before 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 expressed his outrage at the notion that partners to the Mutah contract can stipulate when they will meet without mentioning that Sunni fiqh is no different on this issue 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.
We can substantiate our stance by citing to an esteemed Hanafi work ‘Al-Bahr al-Raiq’ Volume 3 page 190:
“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:
“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.”
On the next page we further read:
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:
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.
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:
“There is no harm in marrying a day wife, namely to marry her and meet her at day without night”
Dr. Salamah quotes the following hadeeths, which are supposed to prove that Mut’ah is somehow immoral:
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).
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 woman: ‘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 Fatah ul Bari, Volume 9 page 174 comments:
“Some individuals knew the whole Qur’an by heart, others knew some of it, and their 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. Majmo’a Sharh al-Mahadhib, Volume 15 page 482 by Imam Nawawi [Beirut edition]
2. Al-Mughni 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 the 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
Going a step further, we see that in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Prophet (s) and Imams (as) , 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 Fatah al-Qadeer Sharah Hidayah, Vol 5 page 53 Kitab al-Nikah, Chapter of Mahr, we read as follows:
“If a Zimmi man marries a Zimmi woman, and a pig or alcohol are decided as the dowry, and both or one of them subsequently becomes Muslim then the woman will still get the pig or alcohol as dowry”
In Al-Muhala, Volume 9 page 497, Kitab al-Nikah, Problem No. 1850, Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hazm records that even dogs and cats can be included as dowry (mahr):
“Whatever is permitted as a possession from a donation or inheritence is also permitted to be given as dowry and Khula or counter value it, as are those things that one is permitted to sell or not such as water, dogs, cats and fruit”
As we can see this Nasibi has no right to take the moral highground due to the presence of Shia traditions on dowry, when they themselves laid the foundations for having ‘pleasurable’ weddings with alcohol being served, pigs being in the company of dogs and cats!
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 Mut’ah 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:
‘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:
‘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:
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:
“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:
‘(If she was young and incapable of enjoyment, or she didn’t offer herself to him, or she didn’t obey him in connection with those matters wherein he has rights over 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 Fiqh Ahmad ibn Hanbal’ Volume 3 page 223:
‘The married slave woman deserves alimony during the time that she offers herself, 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 during the day, she deserves half of the alimony’
Lastly, we read in ‘Fiqh al Sunnah’ by Sayed Sabiq Volume 2 page 170:
And if she didn’t offer herself 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.
In this regard, various Nawasib have quoted traditions from Shia books and have advanced their objections, for example Dr Salmah in his article created a citation and then quoted the Shia tradition:
The Convenience of Mut’ah 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 engage in mut’ah with her.” 30
Ibn al-Hashimi launches a Nasibi website and copy pasted the same tradition from old Nasibi webite with same citation:
6. The Convenience of Mutah:
Aban bin Tughlaq related that he said to Imam Jafar 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 engage in Mutah with her.” (Al-Kafi)
Screen shot from by Ibn al-Hashimi’s article
Screen shot from another article by 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-Mut’ah with them?’ He replied: ‘Yes. If a man performs Nikah al-Mut’ah 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 Mut’ah 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]
The tradition quoted by Ibn al-Hashimi and Dr Salamah is not authentic since Shaykh Baqar Majlisi in the commentary of the cited tradition has graded it weak (Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 20 page 249).
As for the first tradition (Hadith 1091) quoted by Azam Tariq al-Nasibi, Sayyed Ali Tabatabai in his book Riyadh al-Masael, volume 10 page 180 has graded it weak. We shall also point out that one of the narrators in its chain is Ali bin Hadeed who is considered weak (Tanqeh al-Maqal, v2 p375, Rijal Majlisi, p257 No.122, Mabani Takmilat al-Minhaj by Sayyed Khoei, v1 p194). While commenting on the chain of narration of another tradition, Shaykh Tusi himself stated:
“The narration taken from Zarar includes Ali bin Hadeed in the chain who is very weak.”
Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Kitab al-Tijaraat, Volume 2 page 145
The second tradition (Hadith 1092) quoted by Azam Tariq is also weak because one of its narrators namely Ali bin al-Sendi is weak (Kitab al-Tahara, by Sayyed Khoei, v9 p440, Zakhirat al-Me’ad by Sabzawari, v1 p9), while some called him ‘unknown’ (Madarek al-Ahkam by Sayyed Muhammad al-Amili, v1 p306, Mustamsak al-A’rwa by Sayyed Muhsin al-Hakim, v14 p252). Another narrator namely Fadhl is also unknown (Tanqeh al-Maqal, v2 p12 Chapter ‘Qaa’, Al-Mufid Min Mujam al-Rijal by Muhammad Jawaheri, p458, Kitab al-Nikah by Sayyed Khoei, v2 p120).
Sheikh Muhammad Baqer Behbodi in his book “Sahih Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih” page 287 recorded a tradition decalred ‘Sahih’ by him:
Narrated by Hasan bin Mahboob – Abaan – Abi Maryam that Abi Jaffar (as) was asked about Mutah, he replied: ‘These days, Mutah is not like it used to be earlier, as there used to be secure (women) but nowadays, they are not secure, therefore ask about them.’
The question needs to be directed at the Sahaba, who contracted Mut’ah upon the permission of Rasulullah (s), and would venture into those areas / townships that were nre territories for them – did they conduct into enquiries with regards to marital status, character etc. No, they didn’t. Let us again see the importance of the sole testimony of a woman regarding her character, we read in Sahih Muslim:
Rabi’ b. Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) during the Victory of Mecca, and we stayed there for fifteen days (i. e. for thirteen full days and a day and a night), and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted us to contract temporary marriage with women. So I and another person of my tribe went out, and I was more handsome than he, whereas he was almost ugly. Each one of us had a cloaks, My cloak was worn out, whereas the cloak of my cousin was quite new. As we reached the lower or the upper side of Mecca, we came across a young woman like a young smart long-necked she-camel. We said: Is it possible that one of us may contract temporary marriage with you? She said: What will you give me as a dower? Each one of us spread his cloak. She began to cast a glance on both the persons. My companion also looked at her when she was casting a glance at her side and he said: This cloak of his is worn out, whereas my cloak is quite new. She, however, said twice or thrice: There is no harm in (accepting) this cloak (the old one). So I contracted temporary marriage with her, and I did not come out (of this) until Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) declared it forbidden.
Now we invite Nasibies to show us as to where those two Sahaba investigated the character of the mentioned woman? Alhamdolillah, this is a blessing of Allah (swt) and whatever dirt Nawasib throw will just rebound back on them.
The fact that a Sahaba had not conducted such an investigation clearly points to the fact that Rasulullah(s) did not order the Muslims to make such inquiries they could accept the words of the woman without any hesitation.
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Aladeen al-Mardawi al-Hanbali (d. 885 A.H) records in his authority work Al-Insaf, Volume 1 page 78:
الثالثة لو اشتبهت أخته بأجنبية لم يتحر للنكاح على الصحيح من المذهب
The third: “If he doubts whether she is his own sister or a stranger, then according to the correct opinion of our sect there is no need for him to investigate when marrying her”
It is interesting that the Nawasib are trying to suggest that a man should establish an investigation committee to ascertain a woman’s character whilst Sunni sources state that one can take the word of a woman, rather than cast suspicion upon her. Imam Nawawi records in Al-Majmo’a, Volume 16 page 171:
If a woman claimed virginity or its opposite, al-Sumairy said: ‘The statement is her statement and there is no need to conduct investigations of her, because she is the one who best knows about herself”
One should remember that according to Sunnies, when a man divorces his wife, she has to perform Halala, should she wish to remarry her former husband in other words she has to:
- marry another man,
- perform intercourse with him,
- then take a divorce from him.
It is only then that she can return into the arms of her first husband. Interestingly, according to Sunnies, if such a woman wishes to remarry her former husband, and claims that she had been married to another person, had sex with him, got divorced from him and performed iddah, then her words will be accepted without any doubt. We read in E’anat al-Talbeen, Volume 4 page 31 by a Shafiyee scholar Abu bakr bin Muhammad al-Bakri al-Dumyati (d. 1310 H):
“If she claimed that she was married to another man and then got divorced and performed Iddah, she must be believed about that”
The words of such a woman are to be accepted even if there is considerable evidence that would suggest that her testimony is not credible. We read further:
“She must also be believed if she claimed ‘tahlil’ even if the guardian or the witness or the husband say that she is lying”
We read in Fatah ul-Mueen, Volume 4 page 31 by a Shafiyee scholar Zainuddin bin Abdulaziz al-Melbari al-Hindi (d. 987 H):
“If she claimed that she was married and then performed the Iddah and gave oath on it, the ex-husband is permitted to remarry her, even if he thought that she is lying, because the judgment in contracts is by the statement of the contractor.”
Shaykh Mansoor al-Bahuti al-Hanbali records in Kashaf al-Qen’a, Volume 5 page 54:
“If a woman claims that she doesn’t have any obstacle and doesn’t have a guardian, she must be married even if she didn’t prove the same through evidence”
Here ‘obstacle’ means any kind of obstruction such as being in Iddah or being married to someone.
According to the Sunni school, the same applies with a slave girl who discloses to a person that her master has sent her to him, once she makes this statement there is no requirement to conduct further investigations, one can sleep with her automatically. This is how the ruling is recorded in Fatawa Alamgiri:
“If a slave-girl comes and says to a man that her master has sent her as a gift to him then it is permissible (halal) to have sexual intercourse with her.”
Fatawa Alamgiri (Urdu), volume 3 page 268, Kitab al-Hudood (published by Daar ul-Isha’at, Karachi.)
Also worthy of note is the fact that according to the Ahl’ul Sunnah, Rasulullah (s) allowed a man the option to remain married to an unfaithful wife! This is clear from the tradition in Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 11, Number 2044:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and said: My wife does not prevent the hand of a man who touches her. He said: Divorce her. He then said: I am afraid my inner self may covet her. He said: Then enjoy her.
In an esteemed Hanafi work a more detailed account og the above cited incident is recorded, the wife in question is an adulterer, despite this the Holy Prophet (s) deemed it permissible for the Sahabi to keep enjoying her:
“A man came to Holy Prophet [saww] and said that my wife doesn’t refuse any touching hand, i.e. she is an adulterer. Holy Prophet [saww] said: “Divorce her”, the man said that she is very beautiful and I love her, then Holy Prophet said: “Then keep enjoying her.” That is, don’t divorce her and keep her with you.”
Dur ul Mukhtar, volume 2, page 25, Kitab ul Nikah (H.M Saeed Co. Karachi)
If our opponents still object to the words of our Imam (as) wherein He (as) asked them to take the words of a woman instead of establishing an investigating committee to ascertain her morality, character and martial status (etc), we should point out that they have no right to object, since they believe that it is even permissible to perform a Nikah with a woman that one has physically seen commiting adultery. We read in Dur ul Mukhtar:
“If the woman has committed adultery, the nikah is correct. It means that a nikah with a femal adulterer is permissible, even if the man has seen the women committing adultery.”
Dur ul Mukhtar, volume 2, page 25, Kitab ul Nikah.
If Dr Salamah is attacking our Imam for ruling out the need to make an enquiry of a woman before contracting Mut’ah, allow us to cite how a great Sunni Imam resolved the following enquiry. We read in Suyuti’s classic Sunni work Tarikh ul khulafa, page 222:
“Ibn Mubarak narrates after becoming the Khalifa, Harun fell in love with a slave girl. He wanted to sleep with her, but she said ‘It is not permissible for you to do so, as I slept with your father Hadi. As Harun was besotted by the woman he called al-Qadi Abu Yusuf and asked him for a means via which he could satisfy his lust. The Qadi said: ‘She is just a slave woman. Should you accept whatever she says? No. Do not accept her words as true’. So the Caliph satisfied his desire.
Ibn Mubarak comments: “I do not know who among these three was more surprising: the Caliph who put his hand into the blood and property of the Muslims and did not respect his step-mother; or the slave woman who refused to grant the desire of the Caliph; or the Qadi who allowed the Caliph to dishonour his father and sleep with that concubine who was his step-mother.’”
Now the moralistic Dr Salamah, Ibn al-Hashimi and Azam Tariq are expressing their outrage that our Imam (as) said a pre enquiry is not required for Mut’ah. We have seen that Imam as-Sadiq (as) was only telling Muslim men that they do not have to go around interrogating women as to whether or not they are married. This is an issue from akhlaq (ethics): if a woman agrees to do Mut’ah with a man, how insulting is it to then accuse that women of possibly being already married? This type of behaviour does not behove a believer, and it is similar to the way that Wahabis and other enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt insult their Muslim brothers and sisters by demanding that every halaal restaurant owner prove with 100% certainty that food he serves is halaal. What we see from this hadeeth of Imam as-Sadiq (as), is a command to treat one’s fellow Muslims with respect and not doubt the piety of their behaviour.
Yet what we see with Abu Yusuf’s fatwa is the exact opposite. A man already knows that a woman is already married or otherwise beholden to another man, and Abu Yusuf says to merely ignore that fact. The foolish Dr. Salamah accuses the grandson of the Holy Prophet (s), Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (as), of endorsing debauchery by saying that one does not need to interrogate a prospective wife. Yet according to Abu Yusuf, once such an interrogation is made and it is discovered that the woman is already married, then it is still permissible to fornicate with her. Qadi Abu Yusuf is one of the esteemed Imams of the Hanafi Sect, who issued a fatwa legitimizing incest (between a son and mother), and yet Dr Salamah accuses the Shi’a of being immoral!
Dr Salamah comments:
Mut’ah with a Young Girl Jameel bin ad-Dari said that he asked Imam Ja’fiar as-Sadiq if mut’ah was permissible with a virgin girl. The imam said, “There is no harm in it if the girl is not too young. However, all of the collectors of hadith agree that a nine-year-old girl is not considered too young.”37
As usual, then comes in the ‘copy cat’ master Ibn al-Hashimi:
12. Mutah with a Young Girl:
Jameel bin ad-Dari said that he asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq if Mutah was permissible with a virgin girl. The Imam said, “There is no harm in it if the girl is not too young. However, all of the collectors of hadith agree that a nine-year-old girl is not considered too young.” (Al-Kafi)
In theory when a girl attains puberty (via menstruation) she can be married. The Ahl as-Sunnah have themselves attested to the fact that a girl aged nine can marry, one wonders why Salamah is portraying outrage when his own books claim that Ayesha married Rasulullah (s) when she was six and the marriage was consummated when she was nine.
According to the Ahle Sunnah texts Ayesha herself testified to her tender age. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansar) Hadith Number 234:
Narrated A’isha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
Ayesha’s frank comments about here young age at the time of marriage are also found in Sunan Abu Daud, Kitab al Adab Book 41, Number 4915:
Narrated A’isha, Ummul Mu’minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. According to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.
Ibn Hazm in his al-Muhalla Volume 6, part 9, pp. 458-460 has used the young age of Ayesha as proof that according to Sunni fiqh a young girl can be forcibly married (without her consent):
“A father may give consent to have his young virgin daughter married without obtaining her permission, for she does not have a choice, exactly as Abu Bakr Siddique did to his daughter A’isha, when she was six years old. He married her to the prophet Muhammad without her permission.”
Of interest is the fact that according to Ahl’ul Sunnah’s most esteemed work Sahih al Bukhari:
Narrated by A’isha: Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me in a dream. An angel brought you to me, wrapped in a piece of silken cloth, and said to me, ‘This is your wife,’ I removed the piece of cloth from your face, and there you were. I said to myself. ‘If it is from Allah, then it will surely be.’”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 57
Do Nawasib such as Salamah have any right to attack the Shi’a ruling that a Nikah Mut’ah can ‘in theory’ occur for a nine year old, when they have traditions wherein an Angel delivers an infant girl wrapped in silk [like some gift] to Rasulullah (s) and conveys that good news that ‘This is his wife’?
If this Nasibi is expressing outrage at the notion that jurists said that Nikah Mut’ah can be contracted with a nine year old, then why does he not look at the comments of his own camp, al-Fatawa al-Hindiya popularly known as ‘Fatawa Alamgiri’ Volume 2 page 162 states:
“Concerning the issue of consummating the marriage with [a girl under age], it was said that she should not be slept with before she attains puberty, but it was said in al-Bahr al-Raiq that she can be slept with at the age of nine. The majority of Imams are of the opinion that the issue of age plays no role in this respect, and that the criterion is that the woman should be physically fit and big enough to accommodate men, and there would be no subsequent risk of her getting sick if she copulated with him, even if she has not reached the age of nine. But if she is thin or gaunt and cannot bear sex, and is in danger of getting sick, her husband is not allowed to sleep with her, even if she is of age – this is the sound opinion.”
Fatawa Alamgiri, Vol 2 Page 162, Kitab al Nikah, Chapter 4 (Daarul Ishaat Karachi)
We read in Fatah ul Bari, Volume 9 page 101:
Ibn Batal said: ‘Marring a young to an adult is permissible even if she was in the cradle according to the consensus (of scholars)’
We read in Rawdat al-Talibin, by Imam Nawawi, Volume 4 page 379:
“Marriage with an infant is permissible”
Finally we read in Mughni al-Muhtaj by Muhammad bin Ahmad Sherbini (d. 977 H), Volume 3 page 182:
“Nay it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with her even if she is a baby incapable of sexual intercourse”
If this Nasibi is expressing outrage at the Shi’a scholars the he should know that according to the Ahl as-Sunnah Umar had a wife called Umme Kalthum who had not even attained puberty at the time that the khalifa had been laid to rest in his grave! Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Allamah Muhammad bin Abdul Baqi bin Yusuf al-Zarqani in ‘Sharah Mawahib Laduniyah’ Volume 7 page 9 states clearly:
“Umme Kalthum, wife of Umar bin al Khattab did not attain puberty by the time that he had died”.
The Hanafi Mufti of Daarul Uloom Qadriyah Jilaniyah London Allamah Ghulam Rasool has also cited this reference in his book:
Hasab aur Nasab, Volume 3 page 265 (Published in London)
Dr Salamah, when your books allege that Rasulullah (s) consummated marriage with Ayesha when she was nine, and Umar the Khalifa married a girl so young that she hadn’t even attained puberty when he died, you have no right to attack Shi’a Fuquha for saying Mut’ah can be contracted with a nine year old.
The Nasibi Dr. Salamah created three citations to object to three Hadeeth from Shia books:
Mut’ah with Numerous Women Zararah said, “I asked the imam [i.e., Ja'far as-SSdiq] with how many different girls one can contract mut’ah. He answered, ‘with as many as one likes. These women are like hired girls.” 32Mut’ah with One Thousand WomenIf one desires, he may have mut’ah with one thousand women since these are like hired women.”36Numerous Sexual Gratifications in Mut’ahOne my have sexual relations with the woman contracted for mut’ah any number of times he desires.”33
Ibn al-Hashimi al-Nasibi also quoted these traditions and before that he had written:
It is abundantly clear that these so-called Hadith advocate prostitution and Zinnah
Screen shot of Hashimi’s article
It seems that both of these Nasibi copy pasters never checked the traditions and have mixed them up. Let us first mention the correct versions of these traditions:
Zurara bin Ayun said: ‘I asked: ‘How many (women) are lawful in Mut’ah?’ He replied: ‘As many as you want”.
al-Kafi, Volume 5 page 451
Zurara said: ‘I asked him: ‘Is Mut’ah considered of the four?’ He (Imam Sadiq) replied: ‘Marry one thousand of them, they are hired”.
al-Kafi, Volume 5 page 452, declared ‘Unknown’ by Shaykh Majlesi in Mirat al-uqool, Volume 20 page 232.
Abu Basir said: ‘I asked him: ‘Is Mut’ah considered of the four?’ He (Imam Sadiq) replied: ‘Marry one thousand of them”
Khulasat al-Ejaz, page 52. There is no chain of narration of this Hadith hence bears no value.
Both authors and all other thick Nawasib who assert that Mut’ah is Haram because it can be performed with numerous women have clearly not read the Qur’an. If the Qur’an restricts wives in standard marriages to four, it places no limits with regards to the number of concubines (slaves) that a man can have: he could sleep with a thousand, even a hundred thousand women. Allah (swt) deems sleeping with thousands of concubines to be permissible, the books of Sunni hadith collections place the rank of sleeping with a concubine to be on par with that of sleeping with one’s wife. 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 to purchase as many women as he wants”
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Idrees Shafyee also recorded:
“Verily Allah (swt) limited the free woman to four and didnt limit the slave woman, He (swt) said: {or what your right hands possess} [004.003] that do not end in number.”
al-Um by Imam Shafiyee, Volume 5 page 3
We also read in Bahar al-Raiq, Volume 3 page 186:
“He can have sexual intercourse with as many slave women as he wishes according to His (Allah’s) statement: {or what your right hands possess} [004.003].”
Why doesn’t Dr Salamah raise his objections against Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s), and shout at them: “You believe in fornication with women, and you can sleep with thousands of them!” Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maudoodi in his Tahfeem ul Qur’an Volume 2 pages 112-113 footnote 44, in his discussion on Slave girls:
“The maximum limit of four has not been prescribed for slave girls as is the case of wives for the simple reason that the number of female prisoners of war is unpredictable. But the lack of limit does by no means provide a license for the well to do people to have any number of slave girls for licentious purposes”.
By the same token, we can also argue that Imam Jafer (as) was merely pointing out that in theory a man can have multiple Mut’ah wives, and to paraphrase Maudoodi:
“The lack of limit does by no means provide a licence for the well to do people to have any number of Mut’ah wives for licentious purposes”.
In the tradition Dr Salamah quoted, our Imam (as) was saying that one could [in theory] practise Mut’ah with multiple women, but in reality they discouraged the excessive use of Mut’ah, we will discuss it in the next chapter under the topic of Qiyas No. 13.
If sleeping with a multiple number of women constitutes evidence of such a practise being fornication, then perhaps these Nasibi could offer an explanation about this tradition that we find in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 74, Book of Jihad this atrocious tradition:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Once Solomon, son of David said, ‘(By Allah) Tonight I will have sexual intercourse with one hundred (or ninety-nine) women each of whom will give birth to a knight who will fight in Allah’s Cause.’ On that a (i.e. if Allah wills) but he did not say, ‘Allah willing.’ Therefore only one of those women conceived and gave birth to a half-man. By Him in Whose Hands Muhammad’s life is, if he had said, “Allah willing’, (he would have begotten sons) all of whom would have been knights striving in Allah’s Cause.”
The moralistic Dr Salamah in his article, tried to incite outrage at the fact the Imams from Ahl’ul bayt (as) said that a man could practise Mut’ah with multiple women. Why is he expressing such outrage when his most esteemed work after the Qur’an suggests that Prophet Sulayman (as)’s sex drive was so high that he slept with one hundred women in one night!
Let us also see the brimming sexual desire held by one of the prominent Sahabi figure among the Nasibi world namely Mugherah bin Sheybah. Ibn Kathir records:
“Wahb stated that he heard Malik who used to say that Mugherah bin Sheyba used to say that a person who has one wife also gets menstruation along with his wife and also becomes ill along with her and a person who has two wives is between two burning fires and a person with four wives remains in peace. And he used to marry four wives at a time and would divorce them at one time. It has also been narrated from Abdullah bin Nafi Asaaigh that Mugherah bin Sheyba married three hundered women while others have narrated that he married one thousand women, some have stated one hundered while some have narrated he married eighty wives.”
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 809 (Nafees Academy Karachi)
These najis Nawasib should have at least some shame, whilst our books of fiqh have only stated that a man could in theory sleep with as many women as one likes, their great Imam Juraij practically implemented the practice of Mut’ah with many. This is Dhahabi’s appraisal of Imam Ibn Juraij in his book Tadkiratul Huffaz, Volume 1 pages 170-171:
Abu al-Waleed or Abu Khalid Abdulmalik bin Abdulaziz bin Juraij al-Rumi al-Amawi al-Makki, he is a jurist and author of many books and is counted among the masters (of knowledge)…. He was born in year 70, he met the minor Sahaba but he didn’t record from them…..Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: ‘He was a container of knowledge’…. Jarir said: ‘Ibn Juraij deemed Mut’ah to be permissible and he married with sixty women’…. Ibn Abdulhakam said: ‘I heard Shafiyee saying: ‘Ibn Juraij performed Mut’ah with ninety women’.
Imam Dahabi in his another esteemed book Siyar alam al Nubla, Volume 6 page 325, 331 and 333 states:
“Abdul Malik bin Abdulaziz bin Juraij was Imam, Allamah, Hafiz, Sheikh al-Haram (Haram Mekka), Abu Khalid and Abul Walid Al-Qarshi Al-Amawi, Al-Makki; the author of books”. (page 325)
Jarir al-Dabi said: ‘Ibn Juraij believed in Mut’ah, he married with 60 women’. It is been said that he gave his children the names of his wives to avoid marrying any woman his father had previously married. (page 331)
“al-Shafiyee said that Ibn Juraij did Mut’ah with 90 women, he used every night one ounce of sesame oil in order to have sexual intercourse”. (page 333)
Since Nawasib deem Mut’ah Haram, illegitimate and adultery that means according to them the number of children born from 90 wivies of their Imam Ibn Juraij were illegitimate children and here we would like to ask the Nawasib like that of Sipah e Sahaba and Ansar.org whether they will ratify the existence of illegitimate offspring borne from the loins of their great clergy? Alhamdulilah, the Shia do not consider those Sunni scholars and their children illegitimate due to their Nikah al Mut’ah.
Before attacking the comments of our Imam (as) on Mut’ah with multiple women, we would urge Dr Salamah to check out the sexual appetite of his Imam Ibn Juraij and if he wants a more up to date example we would urge him to look at bedroom activities of the Saudi Royal Family, whose sexual appetites far exceed the usage of four wives.
It remains to be seen exactly what Dr. Salamah is upset about. Even though many Sunni ‘ulama (though certainly not all) may believe that Mut’ah is abrogated, nonetheless a Sunni man may do exactly the same thing as Mut’ah even if he does not call it that by name. This is because of the leniency that Sunni Islam has on the matter of divorce. Divorce has almost no conditions in Sunni fiqh. In Shia fiqh (which accords with the Qur’an), divorce requires two witnesses. Furthermore, one is not allowed to divorce one’s wife if he has had sexual relations with her since her last menstrual cycle. Rather, he must not have any sexual relationships from the end of menstrual cycle to the end of another (about one month), and then he may recite the Talaq. This, however, is not a condition according to Sunnis. As such, a man may divorce his wife at the drop of a hat.
In this case, we see that a man may marry a woman in a permanent marriage (Nikah), with every intention of divorcing her after he has sex with her. He may marry her, then have sexual relations with her, and immediately announce that she is divorced. This is haram according to Shi’a fiqh, yet it is absolutely halaal according to Sunni fiqh. Let us read the fatwa of the former chief Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz Bin Abdullah Bin Baz:
Q: What is the ruling about the marriage with the intention of divorce?
A: It is permissible, al-Muwafaq recorded that from the majority (of scholars), while it’s been narrated that Awzai didn’t allow it.
Q: Isn’t marriage with the intention of divorce is like cheating the woman?
A: No.
Masael al-Imam Ibn Baz, by Abdullah bin Man’e, Volume 1 page 185 (published by Daar Ibn Hazm)
Similarly we read:
Someone asked him: In one of your tapes, you have a fatwa that it is permissible for someone in a Western country to get married with the intention of getting divorced after a specific period…What is the difference between this and between Mut’ah?
Response: Yes, this fatwa has come from Permanent Council (of Muftis), and I am its leader, and we have ruled that it is permissible to marry with the intention of getting divorced, if this intention is between the servant and his Lord. If someone marries in a Western country, and his intention is that when he finishes his studies or finds a job or something like this that he will get divorced, then there is absolutely no problem with this in the opinion of all ‘ulama. This intention is something between the servant and Allah, and is not a condition. The difference between this and Mut’ah is that Mut’ah has the condition of a definite time period, such as a month or two months or a year or two years and so forth. If the time period fends, then the Nikah is abrogated. This is the invalid form Mut’ah. However, if somebody marries according to the Sunnah of Allah and the Prophet, but he nonetheless holds the intention in his heart that when he leaves the (Western) country he will divorce, then there is no harm it. This intention might change, and so it is not something definite. This intention is not a condition, and it is something between the servant and his Lord. There is no harm in it, and it is one of the ways that a person may remain chaste and avoid fornication and debauchery. This is the statement of all people of knowledge.
http://www.binbaz.org.sa/mat/19691y
We should point out that it was not the Grand Wahabi/Salafi Mufti Bin Baz but same sort of edicts can also be found in other Sunni circles as well. For example we read in al-Minhaj, Volume 9 page 182 by Imam Nawawi:
And that is what Qazi Abu Bakr al-Baqelani said. Qazi said: ‘There is an unanimous agreement that whoever performs permanent marriage but his intent is to stay with her for a specific period, verily his marriage is valid, and it is not Mut’ah marriage, because Mut’ah marriage is based on a conditional period’.
Imam Ibn Qadamah records in Al-Mughni, Volume 7 page 571:
“If he gets married to her without any condition, but he intentionally wants to divorce her after a month, or after he has fulfilled his needs in this country, verily such a marriage is valid according to the majority of scholars, except Awzai who said this is Mut’ah marriage, but the correct opinion is that it is alright”.
Syed Sabiq in his book Fiqh al-Sunnah, Volume 2 page 39 records the statement of Sheikh Muhammad Rasheed who personally did not approve of this type of marriage but admitted that the remainder Sunni Ulema allow it:
“Sheikh Muhammad Rasheed Raza may Allah’s mercy be upon him said: ‘The strictness of the past and present scholars regarding the prohibition of Mut’ah marriage should likewise mean that we prohibit that marriage which is performed with the intention of divorce, although the scholars have said that the marriage contract is valid even if the husband has an intention to be temporary as long as he does not mention the temporariness in the contract, but conceals the temporariness that constitutes a form of cheating’”.
We read in Fatawa Alamgiri:
“If he performed perminent marriage with her but his intention is to stay with her for a prescribed period, the marriage is correct”
Fatawa Alamgiri, Volume 2 page 155
We also read:
“Though he married her on a condition to divorce her after one month, the marriage is valid”
Fatawa Alamgiri, Volume 2 page 155
In another authority Hanafi work ‘Al-Hidayah’ Volume 1 page 186 we read the views of the famed Hanafi Imam Zafar bin al-Hazeel al-Basri (d. 158 H) about marriage for a set duration:
“Temporary marriage is void (Batil), this is where a man and woman get married by the testimony of two witnesses until ten days, Zafar has commented that this type of Nikah is correct (sahih) , because Nikah does not become batil with the incorrect conditions.”
This is absolutely bizarre. These esteemed Sunni scholars have permitted something that is in no way different from a temporary marriage. If a marriage with the intention to divorce is not temporary marriage, what is it? The only reason Bin Baz says Mut’ah is invalid is because the man actually tells the woman this beforehand, and that they agree on it, and that this condition is binding. Basically this amounts to saying that since Mut’ah is honest, it is haram. So if a man lies to a woman and promises her a permanent marriage, and then divorces her one-hour later, then according all of the above Sunni Ulema this is fine. But if a man and woman actually agree together that the marriage is only to last a month or what have you, then it is haram. The Sunni clergy therefore deem it perfectly legitimate for a man to marry a woman [with the 'hidden' intention of divorcing her afterwards] if this is not deception then what on earth is? The woman may want to settle down, and have a family, a liar comes along who charms her, marries her, gets her into bed and then divorces her. All her hopes / dreams of having a man to settle down have been shattered there and then, she was tricked into marriage and then divorced. How can anybody with the slightest gift of intelligence claim that this “marriage with intent to divorce” is moral, and according to Bin Baz all scholars agree on its permissibility, yet temporary marriage is impermissible? What is possibly the difference, except that a dishonesty / deception is allowed in Sunni Islam’s temporary marriage?
The modern day champions of Sunnism, ahlelbayt.com have sought to wholeheartedly argue that there is no comparison between Mut’ah and Misyar, and have sought to allay the concerns of their Sunni readership by presenting a false image of Misyar. Author Ibn al-Hashimi offers various defences, most notably:
Secondly, Mut’ah is temporary and so it is like prostitution. Instead, Misyar is permanent and is therefore a marriage. So this is the fundamental and monumental difference between Mut’ah and Misyar. In Mut’ah, a Shia man pays a few dollars to have sex with a whore, and they are “married” for less than one hour. On the other hand, Misyar is permanent and lasts forever. In fact, it is Haram to contract Misyar if you have the intention of divorce; the scholars have even stated that the marriage is itself invalid if the intention is divorce. So it is the same as Nikah (i.e. it is Haram to have the intention to divorce when you marry that person).
Screen shot of Hashimi’s article- top
Screen shot of Hashimi’s article- text
The claim of Hashimi bears no correlation to the definition of Misyar provided by his Master Bin Baz who was merely reiterating what the Salaf Ulema of the past had ruled. He makes it crystal clear by saying ‘and we have ruled that it is permissible to marry with the intention of getting divorced, if this intention is between the servant and his Lord’. Hashimi claims that such an intention is haraam. Tell us Hashmi was your revered scholar giving a Fatwa on a haraam act? Who knows more about Misyar you or Bin Baz? The reality is this type of disgraceful trick marriage is so appauling that this great defender of Sunnism was forced to lie about it, just to allay Sunni fears!
In truth Ibn Hashimi should not feel ashamed about this deceptive element of misyar, Bin Baz and the other Sunni Ulema we cited were merely implementing a concept that had been formulated by his Khaleefa Umar. Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari records a detailed conversation, wherein Imran bin Sawadah cites objections to some of Umar’s decision, to him in person, including his banning of Mut’ah in these words:
“…It is also said that you have forbidden temporary marriage, although it was a license given by God. We enjoy a temporary marriage for a handful (of dates), and we can separate after three nights.” He replied, “The Messenger of God permitted it at the time of necessary. Then people regained their life of comfort. I do not know any Muslim who has practised this or gone back to it. Now, anyone who wishes to, can marry for a handful (of dates) and separate after three nights.
History of al-Tabari, English version, Volume 14, pp 139 & 140
Look at Umar’s proposal he was encouraging the using of women and subsequent dumping of them three days later.
Anyone who wishes to, can marry for a handful (of dates) and separate after three nights.
It can mean only two options:
Option One: Both parties consent to marry, and know that it will expire after three days. This is Mut’ah in all but name – but it was this practice that Umar was seeking to bring an end to. What he was advocating was…
Option Two: A man marries a woman, with his intention to divorce after three days hidden from the women. She is in effect tricked into bed, because she assumes that she is married for life. After three days the man issues talaq, walks out on the woman, who is left hurt, used and tricked. This is the solution that Umar was advocating, that Bin Baz and the previous Sunni Ulema deem the correct alternative to Mut’ah. If this gained popularity amongst the masses, the whole concept of Nikah would become a mockery, with parents / potential brides fearful of marriage, since they will be unaware of the actual intention of the suitor! Married women would not know when their husbands would walk out on them. This would create a mass mistrust of men. Amazingly the Sunni Ulema, in the spirit of Umar endorses this form of trickery as the legitimate counter to the forbidden Mut’ah!
As for the notion of Ibn al-Hashimi:
Secondly, Mut’ah is temporary and so it is like prostitution.
The Mut’ah practised today is temporary, as was the case during the time of the Holy Prophet and during the years following his (s) death. If according to the absurd logic of Ibn al-Hashimi, Mut’ah is Haram today because due to its temporary nature, then it must have been same during the time of the Holy Prophet (s), but the opposite is true, we see that:
When Prophet (s) counted Mut’ah amongst ‘good things’ what authority does Ibn al-Hashimi have to call it Haram? Shall we follow the religion of the Prophet (s) or the one whose prophet is Ibn al-Hashimi? Tell us Ibn al-Hashimi, if according to you Mut’ah is Haram because it is done on a temporary basis, then did:
If the temporary relationship, equates Mut’ah with prostitution, will Ibn Hashimi kindly go on record to acknowledge that Umar likewise advocated prostitution when he provided a temporary alternative to Mut’ah,
Anyone who wishes to, can marry for a handful (of dates) and separate after three nights.
History of al-Tabari, English version, Volume 14, pp 139 & 140
Tell us Ibn al-Hashimi, what was your Khaleefa advocating here, permanent lifelong marriage? What do you understand from the words separate after three nights? This clearly shows that Umar was endorsing the right of men to marry women for three nights and the divorce them after this time. He ruled on marrying women for a temporary period and then divorcing them, if Mut’ah is tantamount to prostitution due to its temporary nature, then we await Hashimi likewise condemning Umar for issuing an edict that was in effect prostitution.
Will Dr. Salamah and Ibn al-Hashimi then argue that the Sunni Ulema we cited and in particular Bin Baz, the late Supreme Wahabi mufti of Saudi Arabia endorsed fornication and adultery? There is simply no difference between marriage with the intent to divorce and temporary marriage, except that in temporary marriage the couple are up front about what they want. These Sunni fatwas absolutely destroys every single one of Dr. Salamah’s arguments about the immorality of Mut’ah, since according to his own leader he may contract a temporary marriage (“marriage with intent to divorce”) whenever and however he feels like, and he does not even have to inform the woman of this.
In the article, ‘Temporary Marriage’ the unnamed Sunni author gives a very personalised account of her involvement in a Mut’ah relationship with her Shi’a boyfriend for four years that she eventually liberated herself from after:
“I learnt that I had lost my honor and dignity to someone who had done this to several other girls”
Whilst this was the catalyst for her article against Mut’ah, we ask her directly:
‘Would the same loss of dignity / honour not have occurred if you were a party to the Misyaar marriage? Would you not have felt more used? When you entered the Mut’ah marriage you knew exactly what you were getting yourself in to, a marriage with a start / end date agreed by the two of you, wherein the motive was sex. Let us change the scenario, and imagine that your boyfriend was a Salafi. He makes a marriage proposal, you duly agree. The Nikah takes place he has sexual relations with you for the next four years and then one day, without any advanced warning he divorces you informing you that he married you with the intention of divorcing you at a later date. Would you not be shocked and devastated by this news? Four years is a long time, you would have loved him and tended to his needs in your capacity as the wife of (what you believed) was your lifetime partner. The intention of your husband was not that, rather he merely wanted a ‘legitimate’ means of satisfying his lust for sex, and that he intended on divorcing you the moment that his appetite was satiated. The bottom line is you had been duped into this marriage, this pious Salafi had ‘tricked’ you into bed.
Would this scenario not have hurt you more than the Mut’ah marriage? Is Misyaar marriage wherein a man marries with a dishonest intention not an attack on the honour and dignity of women? After all the intention is to marry a woman, sleep with her and then divorce her. Let us not forget that we read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 12, Number 2173:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Of all the lawful acts the most detestable to Allah is divorce
Misyaar marriage carries an ‘intention’ to divorce, an act that is the most detestable in the eyes of Allah (swt)! Would Allah (swt) give his blessing to a marriage that’s foundation is based upon this detestable intention?
Let us also contemplate the serious ramifications that a Misyaar marriage can have on a woman. Unfortunately Muslim communities have a tendency to look down on divorced women, they are rarely treated sympathetically, and are on the contrary often ‘blamed’ for marital breakdown even though they have committed no wrongdoing. The cultural desire for men to marry ‘virgins’ makes it extremely difficult for divorced women to find partners again. They are in effect forced to live sad lonely lives. When a Misyaar marriage takes place the ‘only’ person that knows of the intention to divorce is the husband. The woman marries thinking that the Nikah is permanent and hence tells everyone about it, her relatives, friends this marriage is known to the whole community. When the man then subsequently divorces her, this poor lady’s life is ruined. She becomes the talk of her community, she may well try and argue her defence but at the end of the day she is a ‘divorced’ woman whose chances of marrying again have been seriously reduced thanks to the halaal practise of Misyaar marriage.
Compare this to Mut’ah marriage where both parties know and agree that the marriage is for a specified time, no witnesses are required and no divorce utterance takes place. This marriage can take place quietly and the woman saves herself from being graded a divorced woman. Which type of marriage exploits women, Mut’ah marriage or Misyaar marriage? It is indeed sad that the Sunni Ulema deem Mut’ah to be haraam, whilst Misyaar marriage that ultimately leaves a woman tricked into marriage, sexually exploited and divorced to be halaal!