'Mutta-Marriage' - Hezbollah's halal hookups

[Lethal]

The story of Hezbollah's halal hookups.
BY HANIN GHADDAR | NOVEMBER 25, 2009

Mohammad, a 40-year old Lebanese Shiite who lives in Hezbollah's stronghold in Beirut's southern suburbs, was holding forth on the virtues of resistance, loyalty, and sex. "You could create the most loyal army by providing political power, social services and fulfilling the desires of your men -- namely, sexual ones," he declared.

"And Hezbollah has been very successful in this regard," Mohammad continued. It is hard to disagree. Hezbollah liberated South Lebanon from Israeli occupation, expanded the Shiite community's political power within the country, and has provided social services, such as health care and education, to its constituency since the 1980s. Today, it is also working to fulfill the sexual needs of its supporters, though a practice known as mutaa marriage.

Mutaa is a form of "temporary marriage" only acceptable within Shiite communities, one that allows couples to have religiously sanctioned sex for a limited period of time, without any commitments, and without the obligatory involvement of religious figures. In conservative Muslim societies known for their strict sense of propriety, mutaa offers an escape clause. The contract is very simple. The woman says: "I marry myself to you for [a specific period of time] and for [a specified dowry]" and the man says: "I accept." The period can range between one hour and a year, and is subject to renewal. A Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man, but a Muslim man can temporarily marry a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish woman, as long as she is a divorcée or a widow. However, those interviewed for this article confirmed that Hezbollah-the "Party of God"-has allowed the practice to spread to virgins or girls who have never married before, as long as the permission of her guardian (father or paternal grandfather) is obtained.

Temporary marriage has long been practiced by Shiites around the world. However, it has recently become more commonplace in Lebanon, notably within Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut's southern suburbs and in southern Lebanon after the 2006 war with Israel,

Hezbollah's recent encouragement of this phenomenon highlights the compromises it had been required to make in order to remain the preeminent force among its domestic Shiite constituency. As the party gained strength due to its effectiveness in fighting Israel, it was forced to cope with the reality that many Lebanese Shiites did not share the Iranian-inspired religious beliefs of Hezbollah's leaders. They came to dominate a community that was shaped by the secular leftist trends of the 1970s and 1980s, and the cosmopolitan culture embodied by Beirut. Today, Lebanese Shiites are exposed to pop icons such as sexpot singer Haifa Wehbe, countless Western advertisements and programs, and technological innovations such as online dating. Allowing these Shia to balance their sexual desires with their support for the "Resistance" against the "Zionist entity" is a vital ingredient to Hezbollah's staying power.

According to Shiite writer and activist Lokman Slim, Hezbollah party members are not allowed to practice temporary marriage for security reasons, unless assigned by the party to do so. "We should make a clear distinction between Hezbollah as an organization and Hezbollah as it runs the community's culture and social affairs," Slim said.

But for everyone else, Hezbollah apparently decided to expand its support for this practice after the 2006 war, to maintain its support base and keep the Shiites in Lebanon under its control. "After the 2006 war, Iranian money came to Lebanon in abundance, and money opened the door to sexual luxury that could not be ignored or controlled," noted Slim. "Therefore, Hezbollah decided it is easier to allow sex under certain religious titles in order to keep the control over the community."

The havoc wreaked by the 2006 war and a more difficult domestic political situation also encouraged Hezbollah to shift its position in order to consolidate support. Sheikh Mohammad Ali Hajj, imam of the Imam Ali Mosque in the Sad Bouchrieh district of Beirut, remarked that after 2006, Hezbollah had to strengthen its support among its communities. "They created a military group, The Resistance Saraya, which took in anyone ready to join, religiously and ideologically committed or not," he said. "They had to contain the Shiite community around it with all its aspects, the good and the bad, and found measures to control it, including the temporary marriage," he added.

Hezbollah is in charge of enforcing resolution in the event unpleasant scenarios arise, such as pregnancy or disagreements between couples. "It is only a matter of more control rather than being tolerant," Slim explained.

There is no doubt that Hezbollah's legitimization of mutaa has created semi-official channels that Lebanese Shiites use to hook up. Hassan, a 30-year old Shiite from Beirut's southern suburbs, is a high school teacher. He graduated from the Lebanese University with a bachelor's degree in mathematics, and considers himself secular but supports the resistance as a political, not a religious, movement. He is enthusiastic about the initiative taken by a number of Hezbollah party members and supporters to act as matchmakers between couples, and sometimes turn their shops, bookstores and workplaces into meeting places for young men and women.

"My cousin, a hard-core Hezbollah supporter, finds pleasure in using his mini-market as a hub where both men and women refer to him to hook them up in a temporary marriage. He even has Excel sheets to help him organize and control the contacts, and of course he practices temporary marriage himself," he added with a smile.

Nevertheless, Hassan remains very critical of those in the community who use this kind of marriage as a cover for prostitution networks functioning inside the suburbs. "Some made it a trade and Hezbollah usually turns the blind eye to these networks because they do not want the Lebanese Internal Security to interfere in its stronghold."

However, once the sex trade got out of control, Hezbollah finally requested the ISF to enter the southern suburbs to help control some of the community's illegal practices, such as traffic, drugs, and prostitution. This month, The ISF began coordinating with Hezbollah and the heads of local municipalities in the southern suburbs under the slogan "Order comes from Faith," initiated by Hezbollah, to control these crimes.

There is also no shortage of ways that Shiite men and women make contact to form a temporary marriage; sometimes, the experience ends up bringing them closer to Hezbollah. Ali, for example, is a 26-year old man from southern Lebanon who has "temporarily married" a number of girls in the last two years. "I usually meet them in Hezbollah's public library or the center, where young men and women gather to attend religious and political preaching," he explained.

The men and women are put in separate rooms, but he finds a way to communicate. "If I want to approach a girl, I ask her for her number and call her later, but mostly I get approached by girls who directly ask me if I am interested in temporary marriage," Ali said. "Although they are veiled from top to bottom, you can always guess how she looks like from her face and eyes," he added with a wink.

With his designer jeans, trendy haircut, and sharp sense of humor, Ali seems to be an unlikely Hezbollah supporter. He has always supported the resistance and what Hezbollah has achieved in this regard; however, in the last couple of years, he has developed a strong support for Hezbollah on issues he was previously critical of, such as its affiliation with Iran, involvement in domestic politics, and its religious rhetoric.

Coincidently or not, these developments took place as he was drawn to practice temporary marriage. In his southern village, it is difficult to meet girls and have normal relationships with them, and he acknowledges that getting closer to the party's social network has helped him meet more girls who were open to this kind of marriage. Gradually, Ali stopped drinking alcoholic beverages, took up praying and fasting, and never skipped a Hezbollah's rally or village events, where he also meets potential "wives." However, it is obvious that the slickly dressed Ali never gave up his love of fashion.

It is, of course, not only men who take advantage of mutaa. Zahra, a fully veiled 25 year-old Shiite woman who is completing her master's degree in English literature, comes from a family of Hezbollah supporters and party members, and has been a lifelong Hezbollah member herself. She explained that she practices temporary marriage because it is a religious duty.

"I take good care of myself, and make sure I look perfect every time I go into a mutaa marriage because I should please my husband, temporary or not," she said. "It is my religious duty to do so. God allowed this kind of marriage for a reason, and I never question God's wishes."

Zahra is divorced and believes that Islam has acknowledged sexual desires for both males and females, which is why temporary marriage is permissible. "It is also a religious duty to fulfill your sexual desires," she insisted, noting that temporary marriages with women whose husbands had been killed fighting Israel were especially encouraged. "[T]hose who satisfy widows of martyrs have more reward in heaven," she said.

While the practice of mutaa may sound exceedingly strange to those outside of these communities, it is an important outlet for many Lebanese Shiites. As the community is increasingly defined by Hezbollah's conservative ideology and isolated by the increasing sectarian divisions in Lebanon, it is more and more difficult to form relationships with people from different backgrounds. In this sense, mutaa marriage has become a convenient and practical solution. However, it comes with a cost: Hezbollah has increasingly been able to harness the appeal of mutaa to bolster its support within its constituency. And there should be no doubt that Hezbollah's increased control over Lebanese Shiites comes with consequences that are anything but temporary.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...f_sex?page=0,0

[Lethal]

May ALLAH(SWT) protect us from such filth and perversion.

Is there any difference between this and prostitution?

[AZ]

disgusting

[abc_to_xyz]

Originally Posted by Lethal May ALLAH(SWT) protect us from such filth and perversion. Is there any difference between this and prostitution?

Yep! you don't need to sign a contract when going with a prostitute.. May Allah protect us from this!

[khan-92]

And the worst thing is that the shia religion permits this filthy practice.

[Khalil]

Originally Posted by Lethal The story of Hezbollah's halal hookups. BY HANIN GHADDAR | NOVEMBER 25, 2009 Mutaa is a form of "temporary marriage" only acceptable within Shiite communities, one that allows couples to have religiously sanctioned sex for a limited period of time, without any commitments, and without the obligatory involvement of religious figures.

I love this concept of Mutaa. Temporary, no strings attached fun

Now I am going to become a shiite

[Mohsin]

Just like the law (PASSED by Karzai btw) in Afghanistan which gave husbands the legal right to force their wives to have sex with them (rape) every 4 (3/4) days if the wifr refused!

As for Hezbullah.....they may have fought the israeli's....but they seem very......unstable. I remember Hamid Mir saying (talking about when he was kidnapped and kept prisoner whilst reporting in Labanon) how Hezbullah members (grown men/'fighters'!) started sobbing like babies and crying out for their mums when the israeli's started the war in Lebanon (2006??)

BY HANIN GHADDAR

thats an unfortunate surname!

[tdigi]

[Poison]

Whats the difference between this and prostitution? The dowry acts as basically a 'payment'. I'm sure there's already been a thread on this though.

[Somali Pirate]

There's nothing halal about this. muta is basically 'legalised' prostitution. wallahi shias make me sick.

[Yaser]

distortion at its worst. these people don't do much for the cause of Islam (heck, the make gadaffi appear saintly). i'd be a little apprehensive as to the authentcity of the news source - the israeli media has been known to be economical with many a story.

on the whole; Viva Hezbollah, they've got backbone

[ali110]

Originally Posted by Somali Pirate There's nothing halal about this. muta is basically 'legalised' prostitution. wallahi shias make me sick.

No actually it's people like who make us sick. Thinking that all the shias thinks the same way and consider Mutah as Halal, is a big misunderstanding. I never heard of anyone talking and thinking about Muta as a Legal or Halal in our family and believe me I have some very passionate shia followers in my family.

I feel the same way when I heard the news that some Mullahs of Islamic religous schools (Madarassas) esp. in NWFP and Afghanistan have their own trophy boys as sex slaves or Arab Sheikhs indulging in some inexplicable behavior with underage teens in our own homeland...

[zimran72]

Originally Posted by ali110 No actually it's people like who make us sick. Thinking that all the shias thinks the same way and consider Mutah as Halal, is a big misunderstanding. I never heard of anyone talking and thinking about Muta as a Legal or Halal in our family and believe me I have some very passionate shia followers in my family. I feel the same way when I heard the news that some Mullahs of Islamic religous schools (Madarassas) esp. in NWFP and Afghanistan have their own trophy boys as sex slaves or Arab Sheikhs indulging in some inexplicable behavior with underage teens in our own homeland...

PWNED

[zimran72]

Originally Posted by Somali Pirate There's nothing halal about this. muta is basically 'legalised' prostitution. wallahi shias make me sick.

What's the obsession Somalians have with saying Wallahi?? Honestly you don't need to swear to god on everything. Makes me sick.

[Wassixpakistani]

Man , if they really want to fulfill their desires . There's a easier way you know...............One hour marriages , this killed me .

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by ali110 No actually it's people like who make us sick. Thinking that all the shias thinks the same way and consider Mutah as Halal, is a big misunderstanding. I never heard of anyone talking and thinking about Muta as a Legal or Halal in our family and believe me I have some very passionate shia followers in my family. I feel the same way when I heard the news that some Mullahs of Islamic religous schools (Madarassas) esp. in NWFP and Afghanistan have their own trophy boys as sex slaves or Arab Sheikhs indulging in some inexplicable behavior with underage teens in our own homeland...

You can't use that defense. That's the only thing I've heard Shia's say on this board. Every time a questionable Shia belief comes up.."Oh, but not all of us think that way..not all of us believe that..."

The fact is that a lot of Shias do believe in mutta. It may not have happened in your family due to personal or cultural reasons, but I'm sure mutta exists in the Shia books.

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by zimran72 What's the obsession Somalians have with saying Wallahi?? Honestly you don't need to swear to god on everything. Makes me sick.

Saying Wallahi makes you sick?

Calm down buddy.

[waqar_ahmad]

Originally Posted by ali110 No actually it's people like who make us sick. Thinking that all the shias thinks the same way and consider Mutah as Halal, is a big misunderstanding. I never heard of anyone talking and thinking about Muta as a Legal or Halal in our family and believe me I have some very passionate shia followers in my family. I feel the same way when I heard the news that some Mullahs of Islamic religous schools (Madarassas) esp. in NWFP and Afghanistan have their own trophy boys as sex slaves or Arab Sheikhs indulging in some inexplicable behavior with underage teens in our own homeland...

Really? Do the mullahs also say that child sexual abuse is allowed in Islam, and give it a standard name, like Mutta?

When trying to defend something, at least come up with a better example than that.

And Mutta is a shia practice, is it not? I know a lot of shias who do not believe in beating themselves up in Muharram. But self beating is still a shia practice. So, if you all shias dont believe in mutah, it is still a shia practice.

[tahaqureshi]

This is bound to become a Sunni vs. Shia thread.

[waqar_ahmad]

It should not if debated properly. And by that, I mean actually admitting that this is a practice that actually exists, and it is wrong, rather than hiding the facts.

[12thMan]

Is this any different than the temporary marriages that Saudi just allowed? That is also based on a contract where "husband" just visits whatever is agreed on, no obligations, and can be finished whenever (atleast that is what I got from a show).

[waqar_ahmad]

Originally Posted by 12thMan Is this any different than the temporary marriages that Saudi just allowed? That is also based on a contract where "husband" just visits whatever is agreed on, no obligations, and can be finished whenever (atleast that is what I got from a show).

The whole idea of temporary marriages is messed up, no matter who does it.

[Yaser]

'bidah' in its truest form.

[Lethal]

Originally Posted by waqar_ahmad It should not if debated properly. And by that, I mean actually admitting that this is a practice that actually exists, and it is wrong, rather than hiding the facts.

Yeah - totally agree. A debate on this topic would be good rather than a Sunni vs Shia thread.

[Cheguvera]

Originally Posted by ali110 No actually it's people like who make us sick. Thinking that all the shias thinks the same way and consider Mutah as Halal, is a big misunderstanding. I never heard of anyone talking and thinking about Muta as a Legal or Halal in our family and believe me I have some very passionate shia followers in my family. I feel the same way when I heard the news that some Mullahs of Islamic religous schools (Madarassas) esp. in NWFP and Afghanistan have their own trophy boys as sex slaves or Arab Sheikhs indulging in some inexplicable behavior with underage teens in our own homeland...

BS...the trophy sex boys are for the northern alliance and other warlords who are backed by Iran, India and Pakistani secular degenerates and it was due to the Taliban Mullahs going after these child rapists that they gained so much popularity and control over afghanistan...Don't rewrite history, everybody knows the genesis of Taliban and how they went about eliminating these dispicable acts...Next thing you'll BS about would be the heroin production, which Taliban actually eradicated, but now Afghanistan is the largest producer of the commodity...

Furthermore, Muta is religiously sanctioned...sodomizing boys by Iran's proxy Northern Alliance is not...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/wo...0-cd447ad2a98a

The Canadian Forces will launch a board of inquiry to look into allegations that soldiers' complaints about Afghan troops and police raping boys were ignored by the military leadership.

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by 12thMan Is this any different than the temporary marriages that Saudi just allowed? That is also based on a contract where "husband" just visits whatever is agreed on, no obligations, and can be finished whenever (atleast that is what I got from a show).

I don't agree with the Saudi ruling either, but its different from what I've heard. There was an explanation of the difference on youtube but I forgot what the video was called. If I find it I will post it here.

[mindless slogging]

Originally Posted by waqar_ahmad Really? Do the mullahs also say that child sexual abuse is allowed in Islam, and give it a standard name, like Mutta? When trying to defend something, at least come up with a better example than that. And Mutta is a shia practice, is it not? I know a lot of shias who do not believe in beating themselves up in Muharram. But self beating is still a shia practice. So, if you all shias dont believe in mutah, it is still a shia practice.

Yeah, it is. There is historical basis to it being a shi'a practise.

Btw, to the guy rejecting it as a shia practice, here is what I found on google;
http://shiaonline.wordpress.com/2006...do-i-do-mutah/
http://www.dartabligh.org/q_a/m.html

A prohibited act in Islam and these guys take no notice of it. What is the purpose of it? Lust?

[Yaser]

Musims are given the option of polygamy, but even then not satisfied.

[zimran72]

Originally Posted by waqar_ahmad The whole idea of temporary marriages is messed up, no matter who does it.

Yes but if shia's does it then let's kill them. If the great wahabbis of Saudi Arabia do it then lets turn a blind eye.

[zimran72]

Originally Posted by tahaqureshi Saying Wallahi makes you sick? Calm down buddy.

Or should I be racist and just say Somalians make me sick? Well unlike the Somali dude who posted up there and many others on this forum I don't hate on people because of their race or religion. Sorry to disappoint you

In any case not every sentence requires the world "Wallahi" your putting Allah on the line even when it is not required.

[Somali Pirate]

Originally Posted by zimran72 Or should I be racist and just say Somalians make me sick? Well unlike the Somali dude who posted up there and many others on this forum I don't hate on people because of their race or religion. Sorry to disappoint you In any case not every sentence requires the world "Wallahi" your putting Allah on the line even when it is not required.

you have some serious issues if you take an issue with me using the word 'wallahi' By the way Allah is not 'on the line' as you put it.

As for shias and their mutah, i am truly unapologetic. The fact that one can screw a woman for an hour, pay her and then go their seperate ways and then have the temerity to call that marriage in the eyes of Allah is frankly laughable. I call it as i see it. Prostitution and nothing more. My idea of marriage is far greater than screwing someone for an hour and then dumping her.

go on youtube and see it for yourself. All i can say is alhamdulliah this sickness has not spread within the widespread ummah.

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by zimran72 Or should I be racist and just say Somalians make me sick? Well unlike the Somali dude who posted up there and many others on this forum I don't hate on people because of their race or religion. Sorry to disappoint you In any case not every sentence requires the world "Wallahi" your putting Allah on the line even when it is not required.

You don't hate on his race so you won't say that Somalians make you sick, but you WILL say that saying wallahi makes you sick?

And I'm not disappointed bro, but if you're going to argue in favor of mutta, do it logically.

[waqar_ahmad]

Originally Posted by zimran72 Yes but if shia's does it then let's kill them. If the great wahabbis of Saudi Arabia do it then lets turn a blind eye.

And who said that?

But I didnt read anything by you saying Mutah is wrong.

[fakhar]

"Muslim Book 008, Number 3249:

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith."

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3247:

Salama b. al. Akwa' and Jabir b. Abdullah reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriage.

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248:

Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of theHoly Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr and 'Umar.

From these hadiths we know that Muta was allowed at the time of Prophet Muhammad PBUH and many sahabas themselves practiced it until it was banned by 2nd caliph. The question that is raised by shia brothers is that when it was allowed by Prophet why was it banned at the first place.

I was doing some research and came across this forum that discusses the topic. Might be helpful for some to read.
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index....sunni-beliefs/

[Yaser]

^^ during times of war, and within strict guideline

[zam]

Please read Sura-e-Nisa ayat 24....


quote:

وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاء إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ كِتَابَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُم مَّا وَرَاء ذَلِكُمْ أَن تَبْتَغُواْ بِأَمْوَالِكُم مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَاضَيْتُم بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ الْفَرِيضَةِ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا {24**


[Pooya/Ali Commentary 4:24] Muhsanat means well-guarded or protected. They are married women (free and slave), minors and insane females.

"Save those whom your right hands own" signifies "such married women as shall come in your possession as prisoners of war". Such women, when not taken back on payment of ransom or through negotiation, are lawful as wives, even though their previous marriage has not been formally dissolved, provided the infidel woman becomes a Muslim.


Famastamta-tum bihi provides for a temporary marriage, known as muta. It has been specifically made lawful by the Quran and the Holy Prophet, therefore, this provision subsists as unrescinded.


One day, for no reason at all, and having no authority to amend a law given and practised by the Holy Prophet, the second caliph declared from the pulpit:


"Two mutas (temporary marriage and combining hajj with umra) were in force during the time of the Holy Prophet, but now I decree both of them as unlawful; and I will punish those who practise them."

(Tafsir Kabir, Durr al-Manthur, Kashshaf, Mustadrak and others).


According to Tirmidhi even his son, Ibn Umar, refused to agree with his father's action because it was made lawful by Allah and His Prophet, whose pronouncements could never be revoked by any one after him.


Therefore the Shia school of thought (Islam-original) holds both the mutas lawful. Ali ibn abi Talib reversed the uncalled-for innovation of the second caliph, and thereafter it was never again prohibited.


The Maliki school of thought also holds muta as lawful. "

quote ends

please ahlulsunnah brothers dont lose your iman by denying the order of Allah s.w.t and Nabi akram s.a.w.w.

There are restrictions regarding the Muta and it is to stop prostitution only......

muta is like the privilege of having four wives but one doesnt have to have....same as muta, one doesnt have to have....and there are lots of conditions just like nikah.

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by Yaser ^^ during times of war, and within strict guideline

Let's just say if we are to accept that it was only in times of war than how is it any different for the soldiers of hizbollah who are in a constant battle with zionist to save Islam?

Secondly the question still remains, when it was allowed by Prophet Muhammad PBUH, what right did 2nd caliph had to ban it?

Ibn Mas‘ud said: “The Holy Prophet allowed us to marry a woman for a limited period in exchange for a piece of cloth.” Then he recited the verse: 0 you who believe: Make not unlawful the pure things which Allah has made lawful for you. (Surah al-Ma'idah, 5:87)

Sahih Bukhari Vol. III, p.85, Chap. 9; Sahih Muslim, p. 1022, Kitabun Nikah, Hadith: 1404.

[Yaser]

due to the type of manipulation we see today. is it not part of Dawoodi, Ismaili culture outside of war ?

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by Yaser due to the type of manipulation we see today. is it not part of Dawoodi, Ismaili culture outside of war ?

It'd be nice if you reply to the whole post instead of just one part of the post.

The argument here is that when temporary marriage was made legal by Prophet Muhammad PBUH upon the orders of Allah swt, why was it made illegal by 2nd caliph when even the 1st caliph did not bother to do it. Whem Imam Ali as became caliph, he made it legal again.

I see where you are coming from as far as the misuse of temporary marriage is concerned, but just because a part of Islam is being misused does not mean we abolish it, rather we should educate people. Saying that temporary marriage is haram is not part of Islam is just wrong as it is stated in Quran and hadith.

[khan-92]

Originally Posted by fakhar It'd be nice if you reply to the whole post instead of just one part of the post. The argument here is that when temporary marriage was made legal by Prophet Muhammad PBUH upon the orders of Allah swt, why was it made illegal by 2nd caliph when even the 1st caliph did not bother to do it. Whem Imam Ali as became caliph, he made it legal again. I see where you are coming from as far as the misuse of temporary marriage is concerned, but just because a part of Islam is being misused does not mean we abolish it, rather we should educate people. Saying that temporary marriage is haram is not part of Islam is just wrong as it is stated in Quran and hadith.

Please do not lie according to hadeeth the Prophet(SallAllahu Alahi wasallam) himself made it prohibited here is the evidence. Also if Hazrat Umar(ra) did prohibit it he was following the sunnah and we are also told by the Prophet(SallAllahu Alahi wasallam) to follow the sunnah of the rightly guided khalifah's.

Narrated by Hazrat Ali (r.a):

1. ALLAH's Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaibar. (Muslim, Bukhari)

2. At the battle of Khaibar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (Mut'ah) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic *****. (Bukhari, Muslim, Masnad Ahmed, Nisai, Tirimzi, Ibn-e-Majah)

Narrated Rabi Bin Sabra on the authority of His father that ALLAH's Messenger said:

"I had permitted you the temporary marriage of women, but ALLAH has prohibited you from that till the day of Resurrection. So if anyone has a woman by temporary marriage he should let her go; and do not take back any of your gifts from them". (Muslim, Abu Daood, Nisai, Ibn-e-Majah)

Anyone with the right mind can see that temporary marriage is clearly forbidden, but again the Shia have rejected all Hadiths in this matter and still continue to follow their desires, even if it is Zina (fornication, adultery etc.). Muslims can not compare the above Hadiths with some fabricated lies from the Shia's Hadith:

[the_game]

Originally Posted by tahaqureshi You can't use that defense. That's the only thing I've heard Shia's say on this board. Every time a questionable Shia belief comes up.."Oh, but not all of us think that way..not all of us believe that..."

Just because you see people like me on this board (born in a shia family but disagree with A LOT of their practices, forget that, I disagree with A LOT of Muslim practices in general), it doesn't mean that we are sugarcoating things and absolving all shias from this. Do shias believe in this? YES (and trust me, they try to justify it with the most moronic arguments possible). Is it currently practiced routinely among Pakistani shias? NO.

The stupid concept is as close to prostitution as it gets, no two ways about it. In fact, I would love to hear an alternate shia perspective on this where someone is actually trying to defend this nonsense.

[zam]

Originally Posted by the_game The stupid concept is as close to prostitution as it gets, no two ways about it. In fact, I would love to hear an alternate shia perspective on this where someone is actually trying to defend this nonsense.

Muta is a quranic concept and been used in sura-e-Nisa ayat# 24.

So first read it and then ask for astaghfaar...

Yes it is been abused by the prostitutes but muta with prostitute is not allowed and is not allowed at the destination where your wife is with you and not allowed with a virgin girl and it has the same regulations regarding iddat and inheritance and responsibility of the child......

"So we cannot call Jihad wrong if some terrorist are doing it in the name of suicide bombing......muslims can be wrong but not the islam."

[mindless slogging]

Originally Posted by zam Muta is a quranic concept and been used in sura-e-Nisa ayat# 24. So first read it and then ask for astaghfaar... Yes it is been abused by the prostitutes but muta with prostitute is not allowed and is not allowed at the destination where your wife is with you and not allowed with a virgin girl and it has the same regulations regarding iddat and inheritance and responsibility of the child...... "So we cannot call Jihad wrong if some terrorist are doing it in the name of suicide bombing......muslims can be wrong but not the islam."

What is the purpose of Muta? Is it not for pleasure/lust, in which case there is no justification for it.

As Khan-92 posted, it has been prohibited in Bukhari/Muslim in many occasions, with the ruling being final. Why don't you reply to those Hadith aswell, or do you reject those that go against your view?

[Khalil]

Originally Posted by zam Muta is a quranic concept and been used in sura-e-Nisa ayat# 24. So first read it and then ask for astaghfaar... Yes it is been abused by the prostitutes but muta with prostitute is not allowed and is not allowed at the destination where your wife is with you and not allowed with a virgin girl and it has the same regulations regarding iddat and inheritance and responsibility of the child...... "So we cannot call Jihad wrong if some terrorist are doing it in the name of suicide bombing......muslims can be wrong but not the islam."

"Qur'an 4:24 "...So for whatever you have had of pleasure with them by the contract, give unto them their appointed wages as a duty..."
"

This is the verse you are talking about. The Shia's justtify muta wirth this verse but most Islamic scholars say that this has another meaning of which nobody is sure about

[Koenigsegg]

I don't intend to attack or defame shia faith here but only wondering, what happens to a baby born as a result of lets say 10 minutes mutta'a?
I am thinking in terms of Islam being a perfect way of life that protects the rights of all human beings, even the animals.
Say, you have a social set up where mutta'a is rampant. What u have at hands.. million upon millions of struggling single mothers raising kids whose fathers are unknown ... what kinda society would that be? What kinda family structure islam is promoting here?

[ali110]

Originally Posted by Cheguvera BS...the trophy sex boys are for the northern alliance and other warlords who are backed by Iran, India and Pakistani secular degenerates and it was due to the Taliban Mullahs going after these child rapists that they gained so much popularity and control over afghanistan...Don't rewrite history, everybody knows the genesis of Taliban and how they went about eliminating these dispicable acts...Next thing you'll BS about would be the heroin production, which Taliban actually eradicated, but now Afghanistan is the largest producer of the commodity... Furthermore, Muta is religiously sanctioned...sodomizing boys by Iran's proxy Northern Alliance is not... http://www.canada.com/topics/news/wo...0-cd447ad2a98a The Canadian Forces will launch a board of inquiry to look into allegations that soldiers' complaints about Afghan troops and police raping boys were ignored by the military leadership.

Holy Crap, Did I just rattle the Taliban Cage again? Sorry Keep defending them and they will become saint in everyone eyes. No point in arguing with Taliban Internet holy warrior like you. You WIN.

[161]

Originally Posted by Somali Pirate \wallahi shias make me sick.

Like totally man .. why can't these guys just get a nice red light district like we have in Lahore .. no contracts to sign or any of that backwards stuff .. just do ur business and get on with it.

[hur rizvi]

Originally Posted by khan-92 Please do not lie according to hadeeth the Prophet(SallAllahu Alahi wasallam) himself made it prohibited here is the evidence. Also if Hazrat Umar(ra) did prohibit it he was following the sunnah and we are also told by the Prophet(SallAllahu Alahi wasallam) to follow the sunnah of the rightly guided khalifah's. Narrated by Hazrat Ali (r.a): 1. ALLAH's Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaibar. (Muslim, Bukhari) 2. At the battle of Khaibar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (Mut'ah) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic *****. (Bukhari, Muslim, Masnad Ahmed, Nisai, Tirimzi, Ibn-e-Majah) Narrated Rabi Bin Sabra on the authority of His father that ALLAH's Messenger said: "I had permitted you the temporary marriage of women, but ALLAH has prohibited you from that till the day of Resurrection. So if anyone has a woman by temporary marriage he should let her go; and do not take back any of your gifts from them". (Muslim, Abu Daood, Nisai, Ibn-e-Majah) Anyone with the right mind can see that temporary marriage is clearly forbidden, but again the Shia have rejected all Hadiths in this matter and still continue to follow their desires, even if it is Zina (fornication, adultery etc.). Muslims can not compare the above Hadiths with some fabricated lies from the Shia's Hadith:

What about hadiths in fakhars post ?????

He has also presented few hadiths have a look at his posts

Among the Muslims are some who believe that the temporary marriage is unlawful and others who believe that it is lawful and even very important. Those who believe it is unlawful believe that the Prophet of Islam (saw), through God’s command, allowed it for a very short period and then disallowed it. Those who believe it is lawful believe that the Prophet of Islam (saw) never disallowed it but rather it was a Caliph, after the death of the Prophet (saw) at which time Islam can not be changed, who made it illegal.

Further, those who find it lawful turn to a verse in the Qur’an in which they believe it (temporary marriage) is mentioned. They say that something which is lawful in Qur’an and not made unlawful somewhere else in the Qur’an must be permissible. The matter of dispute is in 4:24, here presented as in the Puya/Ali translation and tafsir of the Holy Qur’an

“As to those whom you married for a fixed time (Mutah), give them their agreed dowries; and there is no sin for you in what you mutually agree together after what has been settled.”
Al Quran, Nisa:24 (in trans) :

[mindless slogging]

Look, Mutah is a Shia concept that is being rejected by their own aswell now. I found this link from a shia website (answering-ansar), and even they refute all the claims that the Shia's here seem to be posting in defence of Mutah:

Allah says in the Holy Qur’an: (And also prohibited are) the women already bound in marriage, except the bondwomen you come to own. It is has been written by Allah for you. All except them have been permitted for you to seek (to marry) through your wealth, binding yourself, (in marriage) and not only for lust. So, whoever of them you have benefited from, give them their due as obligated. And there is no sin on you in what you mutually consent to after the (initial) settlement. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. (Surah an-Nisaa, Ayat 24) Istamta’tum (you have benefited), as understood by the entire Muslim ummah from the revered early elders to their successors and followers, is just what we have stated a little earlier. But, a sect[1] says that it means the conventional mut’ah and, according to its adherents, this Ayat proves that mut’ah is halaal (lawful). Therefore, it is pertinent here to give a brief account of mut’ah and its unlawfulness. Mut’ah, which was in vogue before the advent of Islam, was a temporary contract between a man and a woman for having sexual relationship between them for a specified period in exchange of money or a specified kind offered by the man to the woman. This type of contract, which was never meant to create permanent rights and obligations of marriage, was clearly prohibited by the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah; however, this particular sect claims that it is still halaal. They sometimes seek support to this claim from the present Ayat just on the ground that the word mut’ah has been derived from the same root wherefrom the word Istamta’tum used in this Ayat has been derived. Obviously, this argument is too far-fetched, and the present Ayat itself is sufficient to refute it, because before the word, Istamta’tum, Allah uses the words “binding yourself in marriage and not only for lust,” which clearly prove that the sexual relationship approved by Allah (in the Holy Qur’an) is the only one which aims at chastity through the permanent bond of marriage, and not a relationship based on satisfying lust for a temporary period which has been termed by the Holy Qur’an as flowing water. http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/fiqh/mutah.html

[hur rizvi]

Originally Posted by mindless slogging Look, Mutah is a Shia concept that is being rejected by their own aswell now. I found this link from a shia website (answering-ansar), and even they refute all the claims that the Shia's here seem to be posting in defence of Mutah:

He has presented shia beleif and sunni beleif both and he has not denied the concept of Muttah this is according to some sunni mufti not according to that website it has just presented what sunnis thinks so that is not the beleif of shias

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by mindless slogging What is the purpose of Muta? Is it not for pleasure/lust, in which case there is no justification for it. As Khan-92 posted, it has been prohibited in Bukhari/Muslim in many occasions, with the ruling being final. Why don't you reply to those Hadith aswell, or do you reject those that go against your view?

The argument in the hadith that is prohibiting the practice of temporary marriage is that at the day of khaiber Prophet Muhammad PBUH declared it unlawful till the day of resurrection. Correct? So let me break it down what we have gotten out of this discussion so far.

Both school of thoughts agree about the fact that at one point in time it was permitted to engage in temporary marriage. The question arises whether it was later banned by Prophet Muhammad PBUH or not. To which our sunni brothers state through hadith's in sahih muslim and bukhari that Prophet Muhammad PBUH himself banned it at the battle of khaiber. Verse permitting the temporary marriage is Ch. 4 verse 24.

Battle of Khaiber occured at 7 A.H and verse 24 of Sura Nisa was not revealed till 9 A.H. How can you ban something that has not been revealed yet?

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by Koenigsegg I don't intend to attack or defame shia faith here but only wondering, what happens to a baby born as a result of lets say 10 minutes mutta'a? I am thinking in terms of Islam being a perfect way of life that protects the rights of all human beings, even the animals. Say, you have a social set up where mutta'a is rampant. What u have at hands.. million upon millions of struggling single mothers raising kids whose fathers are unknown ... what kinda society would that be? What kinda family structure islam is promoting here?

Thank you for your question and concern brother. You can not just engage in Muta marriage without knowing what you are getting into. There are rules and conditions that have to be met. As for your question, If a child is born through a Muta marriage it is a responsibility of a father to take care of him for the rest of his life.

[Cheguvera]

Originally Posted by ali110 Holy Crap, Did I just rattle the Taliban Cage again? Sorry Keep defending them and they will become saint in everyone eyes. No point in arguing with Taliban Internet holy warrior like you. You WIN.

A typically idiotic response...

[zam]

Originally Posted by mindless slogging What is the purpose of Muta? Is it not for pleasure/lust, in which case there is no justification for it. As Khan-92 posted, it has been prohibited in Bukhari/Muslim in many occasions, with the ruling being final. Why don't you reply to those Hadith aswell, or do you reject those that go against your view?

the purpose of muta is save you from zina. if you want to find out that what is the future of a poor widow, how could she survive sexually and financially. If you are living abroad as a refuge and your wife is not with you for five years, what would you do?

if you are in army camps away from home then what would you do?

muta is not for only one or two days, it can be as long as months and years....the only difference is the period of marriage and in this case one doesnt have to go through divorce.....but all other conditions apply as per Nikah.

NOW.....do you deny that it never allowed in islam or what?

Yes the argument can be and discussed by moulana moudodi in his book "Muta aur Islam" according to moulana moudoodi r.a. the order was cancelled later on......but he accepts that it was legal via the ayat of sura-e-nisa 24...

i dont know how many of munafiqeens are here behind the muslim names and that is a big problem......to identify MUnafiqeeen.

[the_game]

Originally Posted by zam the purpose of muta is save you from zina. if you want to find out that what is the future of a poor widow, how could she survive sexually and financially. If you are living abroad as a refuge and your wife is not with you for five years, what would you do?

I would beat the monkey, like any faithful husband would.

[12thMan]

If you are living abroad as a refuge and your wife is not with you for five years, what would you do?

same as the wife would do

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by zam the purpose of muta is save you from zina.

See, mutta makes the distinction between zina and halal intercourse very blurred.

Zina in itself often involves a verbal 'contract' for a fixed amount of time with the exchange of a given amount of money between the two parties.

If somebody does mutta for 1 hour with a woman simply to satisfy his sexual pleasures, I don't see how its any different from zina.

Zina distinguishes having sex with someone you don't know and don't have any binding obligation towards, from sex with someone whom you have sworn to feed, clothe and protect for as long as you are lawfully married.

Simply agreeing to marry for one hour without any responsibilities to one another is no different to zina.

Furthermore, any children born as a result of an hour's long mutta are going to become a problem. That is the whole point of marriage and prohibition of zina, so you don't get illegitimate children who become a burden on society.

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by 12thMan same as the wife would do

Men are not given extra rights as compared to women when it comes to sexual gratification.

Don't assume that women are slaves to men and are there simply to satisfy their needs. It works both ways. If a women has to practice abstinence in the absence of her husband, so must he.

[tahaqureshi]

And don't forget, sexual relations do not simply result in temporary 'relief,' they join two people emotionally as well. So if you go off for 5 years as you suggested, and have relations with another woman, you are getting emotionally bonded to her.

When you go back to your original wife, you will not feel the bond with her anymore. This sort of practice can result in increasing divorces.

Mutta just causes too many problems.

[mindless slogging]

Originally Posted by fakhar The argument in the hadith that is prohibiting the practice of temporary marriage is that at the day of khaiber Prophet Muhammad PBUH declared it unlawful till the day of resurrection. Correct? So let me break it down what we have gotten out of this discussion so far. Both school of thoughts agree about the fact that at one point in time it was permitted to engage in temporary marriage. The question arises whether it was later banned by Prophet Muhammad PBUH or not. To which our sunni brothers state through hadith's in sahih muslim and bukhari that Prophet Muhammad PBUH himself banned it at the battle of khaiber. Verse permitting the temporary marriage is Ch. 4 verse 24. Battle of Khaiber occured at 7 A.H and verse 24 of Sura Nisa was not revealed till 9 A.H. How can you ban something that has not been revealed yet?

The verse never permitted it in the first place. The shias are the only ones that say it permitted it, when all the scholars reject that view. Respond to this then (about the verse in question):

This type of contract, which was never meant to create permanent rights and obligations of marriage, was clearly prohibited by the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah; however, this particular sect claims that it is still halaal. They sometimes seek support to this claim from the present Ayat just on the ground that the word mut’ah has been derived from the same root wherefrom the word Istamta’tum used in this Ayat has been derived. Obviously, this argument is too far-fetched, and the present Ayat itself is sufficient to refute it, because before the word, Istamta’tum, Allah uses the words “binding yourself in marriage and not only for lust,” which clearly prove that the sexual relationship approved by Allah (in the Holy Qur’an) is the only one which aims at chastity through the permanent bond of marriage, and not a relationship based on satisfying lust for a temporary period which has been termed by the Holy Qur’an as flowing water.

[zam]

Originally Posted by tahaqureshi See, mutta makes the distinction between zina and halal intercourse very blurred. Zina in itself often involves a verbal 'contract' for a fixed amount of time with the exchange of a given amount of money between the two parties. Simply agreeing to marry for one hour without any responsibilities to one another is no different to zina. Furthermore, any children born as a result of an hour's long mutta are going to become a problem. That is the whole point of marriage and prohibition of zina, so you don't get illegitimate children who become a burden on society.

1.what is the difference between zabeeha and non-zabeeha; to recite Bismillah-e-Akbar......same as in zina one doesnt recite the kalimaat-e-muta.

2.there are the same responsibilities as to of nikah; period of Iddah, inheritance, and responsibility of the born child for the whole life.

But please give me an answer that what will happen with the widows in the society.....will some one like you or me will marry them.....though it is been a very noble act. but we all are talkative.

[zam]

Originally Posted by mindless slogging The verse never permitted it in the first place. The shias are the only ones that say it permitted it, when all the scholars reject that view. Respond to this then (about the verse in question):

Please try to find the book - Muta aur Islam by Maulana Moudoodi r.a. he accepted that it was first allowed by Allah via sura-e-Nisa 24, then was stopped via Aahaadith-e-Nabi Akram s.a.ww.

and he is the one of the most authentic scholars of the urdu speaking muslims.

[waqar_ahmad]

Originally Posted by zam Please try to find the book - Muta aur Islam by Maulana Moudoodi r.a. he accepted that it was first allowed by Allah via sura-e-Nisa 24, then was stopped via Aahaadith-e-Nabi Akram s.a.ww. and he is the one of the most authentic scholars of the urdu speaking muslims.

SO he is one of the most authentic scholars. And yet, you choose to accept the fact that Muta was allowed, but then reject that it was disallowed later on.

How very convenient.

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by zam 1.what is the difference between zabeeha and non-zabeeha; to recite Bismillah-e-Akbar......same as in zina one doesnt recite the kalimaat-e-muta. 2.there are the same responsibilities as to of nikah; period of Iddah, inheritance, and responsibility of the born child for the whole life. But please give me an answer that what will happen with the widows in the society.....will some one like you or me will marry them.....though it is been a very noble act. but we all are talkative.

The difference between eating Zabiha vs. Non-Zabiha food and Zina vs. Nikah is huge.

There are no social implications of eating haram food. That issue is your personal covenant with the creator. Being a Muslim, your duty is to follow the command of the gracious Lord and eating Zabiha is one of them. If you don't follow it, you are yourself held accountable and you do not contribute to the detriment of society.

However, having physical relations with a woman for one hour, resulting in the birth of children is a burden on the two people and it doesn't bode well for the well being of the offspring. It's just like western society where 16 year old teenagers have sex, the girl becomes pregnant and she literally destroys her life. The guy runs away because he doesn't want to help with the child.

Furthermore, mutta would give a huge rise to children with broken homes, or homes that essentially never existed in the first place. Children born through mutta will not have a complete home because the mutta would have expired long before they grew up. It essentially destroys the fabric of society.

Also, the assigning of a given time frame for mutta marriage makes divorce completely acceptable, because to agree on a mutta for say 1 month means that not only are you agreeing to getting into the marriage, you are also equally agreeing to get out of it (i.e. through divorce). However, divorce is considered bad in the eyes of Allah. It is only meant to be exercised in extreme cases. Mutta however, takes away the severity of divorces by making it so common.

And I don't understand why widowers would benefit from mutta?

[12thMan]

And I don't understand why widowers would benefit from mutta?

I heard that as being used as an argument on Pakistani news show when Saudi passed the law. Well I don't agree with that law either and saying how it benefits who will be improper here. Their country and they can hide or create laws for men or whatever they want with whatever laws. The onus is on the individuals

[Yaser]

Originally Posted by zam 1.what is the difference between zabeeha and non-zabeeha; to recite Bismillah-e-Akbar

not quite

[zam]

Originally Posted by waqar_ahmad SO he is one of the most authentic scholars. And yet, you choose to accept the fact that Muta was allowed, but then reject that it was disallowed later on. How very convenient.

So do you accept that muta was allowed by Allah swt or not?

Yes or no, that's my only point......

[the_game]

LOL, wow. I know women are oppressed in our society, but I did not know people would stoop down to the level of comparing them with halal meat. Amazing analogy zam.

[zam]

please dont play with the words:

and try to clear one thing; is muta at any time in islam was halal or not? and if yes then why you are making it haram and if it was not allowed any time then why so many scholars accept that it was halal including moulan maudoodi r.a.

[tahaqureshi]

Originally Posted by zam please dont play with the words: and try to clear one thing; is muta at any time in islam was halal or not? and if yes then why you are making it haram and if it was not allowed any time then why so many scholars accept that it was halal including moulan maudoodi r.a.

I believe mutta was initially allowed by the Prophet (PBUH) in the initial stages as a transition from the period of jahiliya to the new age of Islam. When the Muslims went on the Tabuk expedition, some soldiers were strong in their Iman and could control their urges whilst others couldn't. So to help them, the Propher (PBUH) allowed them to have a contract marriage with a woman involving the transfer of a garment as dowry. After this though, he forbade it completely. I think its similar to how alcohol was banned in stages and not completely outright.

[waqar_ahmad]

Originally Posted by zam So do you accept that muta was allowed by Allah swt or not? Yes or no, that's my only point......

You didnt answer my question. You merely went around it. Answer that first plzz

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by tahaqureshi See, mutta makes the distinction between zina and halal intercourse very blurred. Zina in itself often involves a verbal 'contract' for a fixed amount of time with the exchange of a given amount of money between the two parties. If somebody does mutta for 1 hour with a woman simply to satisfy his sexual pleasures, I don't see how its any different from zina. Zina distinguishes having sex with someone you don't know and don't have any binding obligation towards, from sex with someone whom you have sworn to feed, clothe and protect for as long as you are lawfully married. Simply agreeing to marry for one hour without any responsibilities to one another is no different to zina. Furthermore, any children born as a result of an hour's long mutta are going to become a problem. That is the whole point of marriage and prohibition of zina, so you don't get illegitimate children who become a burden on society.

If Zina and Muta were a same thing, would the Prophet Of Allah swt allow it at the first place? We have already established that Muta in fact was legal and approved by Prophet Muhammad PBUH as we have shown from Quran and Hadith, so if there isn't any difference in Muta and Zina, why would Prophet PBUH allow it?

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by tahaqureshi And don't forget, sexual relations do not simply result in temporary 'relief,' they join two people emotionally as well. So if you go off for 5 years as you suggested, and have relations with another woman, you are getting emotionally bonded to her. When you go back to your original wife, you will not feel the bond with her anymore. This sort of practice can result in increasing divorces. Mutta just causes too many problems.

Did the companions of Prophet Muhammad not go back to their original wives after ending their Muta marriage?

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by mindless slogging The verse never permitted it in the first place. The shias are the only ones that say it permitted it, when all the scholars reject that view. Respond to this then (about the verse in question):

"Moreover, if we look at the Sunni commentaries of Quran, many Sunni scholars such as Fakhr al-Razi confirm that the above verse (4:24) was revealed about the Temporary Marriage (Mut'a). They straightforwardly mentioned that temporary marriage became Halaal (permitted) DUE TO the above verse, but they assert that it was later prohibited. It is astonishing that many Sunni commentators mentioned under the above verse that: Ali said: The Mut'a is a mercy from Allah to his servants. If it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrong-doer)." Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran; - Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p200, commentary of verse 4:24;

A very similar tradition has also been narrated by Ibn Abbas (RA), and was mentioned by al-Tabari and al-Tha'labi in their Tafsir of Quran. It is interesting to note that Umar did not attribute the prohibition of Mut'a to the Prophet (PBUH&HF). They were others who did that after Umar mainly to justify what he did. Umar clearly mentioned that: "Mut'a WAS permitted at the time of the Prophet and I PROHIBIT it!" The great Sunni scholar, Fakhr al-Razi, who has been given the title of "Imam al-Mushakkikeen" (the leader of ever-questioners/ever-doubtful) by the Sunnis, in his voluminous commentary of Quran mentioned under the verse of Temporary Marriage that: Umar said: Two types of Mut'a were (legal) during the time of the Prophet and I forbid them both, and I punish those who commit it. They are: Mut'a of pilgrimage and Mut'a of women. Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p201 under verse 4:24 - Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p52

Also in another Sunni commentary it is reported that: Umar said, while on the pulpit: "O folk! Three were (allowed) during the time of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF), and I forbid them, and make them Haraam, and punish on them. They were: Mut'a of women, Mut'a of Hajj (pilgrimage), and saying 'Hayya Ala Khair al-Amal'." Sharh Al-Tajreed, by al-Fadhil al-Qoshaji, (Imama Section) - al-Mustaniran, by al-Tabari


These are from sunni sources so you are not right in saying shia scholars are the only ones attributing this verse to Muta marriages.

[tahaqureshi]

fakhar

Like I mentioned, mutta was a transition into the final version of marriage which we know today as Nikah. There are orders in the Quran which are not consistent with our practices today because they were revealed as transitionary measures, and later further amended. But their text exists in the Quran today because the Quran is God's word throughout the 23 years.

And since mutta was a transitionary measure, it was allowed temporarily and I doubt it was meant to become widespread as it is today. And those soldiers in Tabuk did this once, not for the rest of their lives with 10+ women. There is a difference.

Plus, those times were the founding blocks of Islam. You can't compare their times to ours. A lot of the rules of Islam were being established throughout the 23 years. All the rules were not sent down in one go. So at varying times, you had varying amounts of rules sent down. Things got amended over time.

[Garuda]

Whats wrong in it if you take it as prostitution?

Prostitution exists in every society though no one considers it good.

Let's say this process provides
1. secure income and safety to the prostitute during that period.
2. No humiliation by the pimps.
3. No humiliation by the police like they do in red light areas.

This is something like legalizing prostitution. This is the minimum we could do to make their life better if we can not stop this trade completely.

[tahaqureshi]

Prostitution is wrong. Plain and simple.

To give in to the prostitution industry and 'protect' them would be a failure on our part to eradicate it from society.

Prostitution is not a main stay of society, it CAN be cleansed.

[Garuda]

Originally Posted by tahaqureshi Prostitution is wrong. Plain and simple. To give in to the prostitution industry and 'protect' them would be a failure on our part to eradicate it from society. Prostitution is not a main stay of society, it CAN be cleansed.

The oldest profession to exist.

I am not a supporter of this profession but I don't see it going away as long as sexual discrimination exists in our society.

Now taking the present scenario, I would support everything that will give a better life to these women rather than making their life difficult. Remember one thing, none of them are into this by their liking.

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by tahaqureshi Men are not given extra rights as compared to women when it comes to sexual gratification. Don't assume that women are slaves to men and are there simply to satisfy their needs. It works both ways. If a women has to practice abstinence in the absence of her husband, so must he.

Another argument to your concern about rights of men and women......would you care to explain why is it men are allowed to have 4 wives while same is not true for women?

[fakhar]

Originally Posted by waqar_ahmad SO he is one of the most authentic scholars. And yet, you choose to accept the fact that Muta was allowed, but then reject that it was disallowed later on. How very convenient.

argument here is that both school of thoughts accept that it was allowed, difference arises whether it was later banned or not and if it was banned was it banned by Rasool Allah SAW or somebody else. When the source is provided from the sunni school of thought, it is infact to prove that it was allowed by Prophet Muhammad PBUH