Mutah and Misyar

Mutah

1) The legality of temporary marriage

Fixed-term marriage is a type of union in which the couple decides beforehand the period of time for which it will last, after which the marriage will come to an end, without a divorce. In Shia fiqh, it is permissible to be contracted with a Muslim, or a Kitabi woman. After the marriage a 45-day iddah is to be observed, contrary to what some of the Wahabi sheiks have been insinuating – that Shias do not believe in iddah for Mutah. No Shia scholar from the old and the new have ever made such a claim!

Imam al-Sadiq was asked about the 'iddah of Mutah, to which he said, “45 days, or a proper menstrual cycle.”

(Wasail al-Shia, Hurr al-Amili, volume 21, page 52)

The Quran

This type of union has a Quranic basis, and to the surprise of many of the Sunnis, has been legislated in the book of Allah, in the following verse, known as the verse of Mutah:

[Forbidden to you] are married woman, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So when you have contracted temporary marriage with them, then give them their due. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is the Knowing, Wise. (4:24)

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

This verse alone should be sufficient to destroy the Wahabi claims that Mutah is nothing more than a form of prostitution. If it was immoral, then how could it possible be allowed in the Holy Quran. Surely we seek refuge from such blasphemy! All too often, the opponent will try and wriggle out of the conundrum he has found himself in by claiming the verse is not referring to Mutah at all, because the word used is “istamta’tum” (done Mutah with), but which can also be taken simply to mean ‘seek pleasure from’. However, this does not match with the traditional Sunni exegesis and arguments.

Abu Nadhra narrated:
I read for Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, “Then as to those whom you sought enjoyment from, give them their dowries as appointed” and he said to me, ““Then as to those whom you seek enjoyment from for a prescribed time.” I said, “We do not read it like that.” Ibn Abbas said, “By Allah, it was revealed like that.”
This hadith is authentic to the standards of Muslim.

(Mustadrak, Hakim, Volume 2 Page 276 and was declared authentic by Dhahabi in his Takhlis)

The above authentic narration demonstrates two things. Firstly, to the testimony of the great companion Abdullah Ibn Abbas, 4:24 is indeed referring to temporary marriage, and he was very clear on this. Secondly, one notices that Ibn Abbas added the term “for a prescribed time” (ajilin musama) to the verse. We ask our Sunni brethren, is this not tahreef which you continuously accuse us of believing in?

Furthermore, in both Tafseer Ibn Kathir (http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KATHEER&nType=1&nSora=4&nAya=24) and Tafseer al-Kabeer Volume 3 on page 95, we see that they both hold the verse is referring to temporary marriage, and this is the mainstream classical view held my most Muslims.

Now that we have ascertained the subject of 4:24, we move on to the next retarded argument put forth by our beloved brethren. Was the verse abrogated? It is claimed that 4:24 was abrogated by the following verse:

“As for those who guard their private parts except from their spouses or what their right hand possess” (23:5)

To this our simple reply is, 23:5 is a Makkan verse and 4:24 is a Medinite verse. So this Sunni argument does not tally chronologically.

Furthermore, in an authentic hadith recorded by Imam Suyuti in his Tafsir, we find the testimony of Imam Ali that the verse was not abrogated. It is often claimed by the Sunnis that the supposed silence of the Imams on the legitimacy of Mutah proves they agreed with it being forbidden. What silence? There are hundreds of traditions in which the Imams, including Ali, defend the Islamic law and oppose what is halal being made haram:

Narrated Abdulrazaq and Abu Dawoud in (book) Nasikh and narrated ibn Jareer from al-Hakam that he was asked whether the verse on Mut'ah has been abrogated, he said: "No, Ali said that if it were not Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched.”

(Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 140)

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=248&CID=104#s1

The above tradition has been transmitted with an authentic isnad, Muhammad bin al-Muthna was labelled trustworthy by Imam Dhababi. Muhammad bin Jafar is one of the most accurate narrators in the words of Dhahabi, as was Shuba Ibn Hajjaj and Al-Hakam bin Utebah al-Kindi (refer to Mizan al ’Itidal fi Naqd al-Rijal)

Hadith

Moving on, we would like to take a look at the status of temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet Mohammed.

The following are a selection of hadiths from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim on this issue:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe ! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87)

Sahih Muslim
Book 007, Number 2874:
Abd Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jibir, a person came and said: There is difference of opinion amomg Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair about two Mut'as (benefits, Tamattul in Hajj and temporary marriage with women), whereupon jibir said: We have been doing this during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him), and then 'Umar forbade us to do so, and we never resorted to them.

Sahih 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 ordered us to contract temporary marriage.

http://www.sahihmuslim.com/sps/smm/sahihmuslim.cfm?scn=dspchaptersfull&BookID=8&ChapterID=542

The above hadiths highlight three important points: It was indeed Umar who forbade Mutah and that many companions opposed this, points we shall get to later, and thirdly the Prophet actively permitted, nay encouraged, his followers to do Mutah. This is important as when we put forth these hadiths to Sunnis, the usual point they make is, “Well, alcohol was also allowed during the early days of Islam but was banned later. Likewise, Mutah was allowed but was banned later at Khaybar.” Our reply is simple. Look at the below hadiths. Do we ever read the Prophet advising or ordering his companions to drink alcohol? Never, God forbid.

عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ سَبْرَةَ الْجُهَنِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، قَالَ أَمَرَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالْمُتْعَةِ عَامَ الْفَتْحِ حِينَ دَخَلْنَا مَكَّةَ ‏
Abdul Malik Ibn Rabe’ Ibn Sabra al-Juhni, narrates from his father, from his grandfather, that he said: The Messenger of Allah ordered us to do Mutah in the year of the conquest upon entering Makkah”.

(Sahih Muslim #3490, Book of Marriage)

In the Mohammed Muhsin Khan, the above hadith’s translation was deliberately adulterated, and the word “ordered” was changed to “permitted”, whilst we can clearly see in the Arabic original, the word “amarna” is used, which means ‘ordered us’. Now, the question we pose is, “Will the Prophet of God, the best of creation, ever ORDER his companions to commit prostitution or commit an immoral act?” Surely not, just like he did not order or even encourage his companions to drink alcohol during the days it was permitted. A similar narration is found in Fakhr Razi’s tafsir.

عمران بن الحصين فانه قال: نزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله تعالى ولم ينزل بعدها آية تنسخها وأمرنا بها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتمتعنا بها

Imran Ibn Husain narrated, “The verse of Mutah was revealed in the book of Allah, and there did not came any other verse after that to abrogate it; and the Prophet ordered us to do it, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle”
(Tafseer al-Kabeer, Razi)

The Companions and Mutah

To the surprise of the Sunnis who we have debated with, the companions of the Holy Prophet used to have similar debates with regards to the legitimacy of Mutah. This is proof that Mutah is a matter of jurisprudence, which the Muslims, Sunni and Shia, disagree upon, just like other matters over which there are disagreements between the Sunnis themselves and their multiple schools of jurisprudence. How can the Sunnis claim that Mutah is immoral, and how can the Sunnis laughably and pathetically claim, that Shiism is immoral and wrong, due to the consensus it has reached over Mutah, when the companions who are considered by the Sunnis all to be guiding stars and pious upright individuals, debated over this issue and some of them ruled on Mutah’s legitimacy.
The list of companions who permitted this is extensive, but Ibn Hazm, the Wahabi darling, lists some of them:

“After the Prophet Mohammed’s death, Mutah was considered to be permissible by Ibn Mas’ood, Muawiya, Abu Sa’eed, Ibn Abbas, Salama, the sons of Ummaya Ibn Khalaf, Jabir, Amr Ibn Huraith…and from the tabi’een (second generation of Muslims) it was considered permissible by Tawoos, Saeed Ibn Jubayr, Ataa’, and all the jurists of Makkah.”

(Muntaqa, Volume 2, Page 520)

All the early scholars of Makkah!!! Ibn Abbas, the scholar of this ummah! etc. How come when these people say Mutah is halal, the Sunnis claim it is a legitimacy exercise of ijtehad, but when the Shia reach similar verdicts, they are labelled the worst of labels, and are attacked in public forums and universities and literature.
Ibn Abbas (ra)

Ibn Abbas was one of the most prominent companion to consider Mutah legitimate, and his disciples Saeed Ibn Jubayr and Tawoos reached similar rulings, and this latter fact is admitted by the Islam Online website, run by Sh.Qaradawi.
Ibn Hajar writes in Fathul Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari:

قال ابن بطال‏:‏ روى أهل مكة واليمن عن ابن عباس إباحة المتعة، وروي عنه الرجوع بأسانيد ضعيفة وإجازة المتعة عنه أصح، وهو مذهب الشيعة‏.

Ibn Batal said: “The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from Ibn Abbas that Mutah is permissible. It is narrated by a weak chain that Ibn Abbas revoked its permissibility. His considering Mutah to be permissible is more verifiable, and that is the school of the Shia.”

(Fathul Bari, Ibn Hajar, Volume 9 Page 73)

Sahih Muslim
Book 007, Number 2854:
Muslim al-Qurri reported: I asked Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) about Tamattu' in Hajj and he permitted it, whereas Ibn Zubair had forbidden it. He (Ibn 'Abbas) said: This is the mother of Ibn Zubair (Asma’ Bint Abu Bakr) who states that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had permitted it, so you better go to her and ask her about it. He (Muslim al-Qurri said): So we went to her and she was a bulky blind lady and she said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted it.

Asma Bint Abu Bakr, as we can see, from the above hadith was referred to by Ibn Abbas as he was debating Mutah! Why was this? Because Asma’ herself did Mutah with Zubayr Ibn Awwam, one of the Ashara Mubashara bil Jannah in Sunni hadith, and of this marriage two sons were born!
Yes, indeed this marriage took place in the period Sunnis admit Mutah was permissible, but if it is indeed prostitution or immoral, how could the daughter of the great companion Abu Bakr do it? Did Abu Bakr raise his daughters to be prostitutes? Is this what the Sunnis accuse him of? We say, no, Asma was merely doing something halal, but why don’t the Sunnis label her a whore, astaghfurillah! (Reference: Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 p. 95, Sunan al Kabeer, Bayhaqi, Volume 7, page 5)
Our brothers might then say, Asma’ and Zubayr were still affected by the Jahiliya mentality. We reply by saying, this marriage occurred in Medina, 15 or 16 years after they converted: years after the boycott, the hijra, Badr and other significant issues in the history of Islam. Is it seriously feasible to claim these two prominent individuals had yet to give up their Pre-Islamic penchant for “prostitution and immorality”, as the Sunnis put it. Furthermore, Asma’ was only 14 when she converted to Islam.

The Sunnis will say, ‘Yes Ibn Abbas did initially believe in the permissibility of Mutah, but then recanted his view after Imam Ali briefed him on this’, and will point to a hadith in Sahih Muslim where Imam Ali and Ibn Abbas discuss this issue. We completely knock down this fairy tale of Ibn Abbas recanting his view, by pointing to the following hadith. Here it is said that Abdullah Ibn Abbas is blind. However, he was not blind during the lifetime of Ali, and only lost his eyesight towards the end of his life!

Sahih Muslim
Book 008, Number 3261:
'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones.

Alternative forms of Mutah in Sunnism
Many of the Sunni men of the cloth have legislated and authorized the institution of Misyar, which is the latest craze in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and has been authorized by the like of Sheikh al-Azhar Mohammed Saeed Tantawi, Yusuf Qaradawi, Bin Bazz, Bin Uthaymeen and most Saudi scholars.
It is the nightmare of women’s right activists, and it is indeed ironic that many Sunnis would like to demonise Mutah when they themselves practice and permit a practice which is nothing more than a visiting man’s marriage.
What misyar involves is a man making a misyar contract with a woman, and he will not be entitled to offer her any maintenance, money or other financial duties. In other words, there are no strings attached and the man need not worry about providing for the women. Now, this man can visit the woman as much as he wants, or as little as he wants, and whenever he visits her, he merely derives sexual pleasure from her, and leaves her until the next time, which can be several months later. In other words, it can involve treating women like a piece of meat.
The Arab Newspaper, Arab News, writes:

To some, it’s an unthinkable act… Those who would not consider it for themselves would not allow it for kin, be it sisters, brothers, sons or daughters. However, among the men who would consider it themselves, only two would find such a marriage acceptable for a female relative… More than 86 percent of the women 20-40 would not even consider such a marriage for themselves… Most of the women respondents called it “legal prostitution” or objected to the lack of women’s rights in misyar marriages… such marriages are not always blissful. Former and current misyar spouses said it can become a nightmare if pregnancy results from the union or if there are already children from former marriages… “Unfortunately, misyar marriage has made it easier for irresponsible, immature individuals to enter a relationship that is supposed to be based on credibility, reliability and respect,” said Abu Zaid, an elderly marriage official. “This isn’t the case. It’s treated as a temporary solution for lust… Many parents and children of misyar wives stated that they felt the woman as being sold short in such a marriage.

Marriage with the Intention of Divorce
In the 1990s Bin Bazz, the esteemed Wahabi theologian and Mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued an edict permitting a man to marry a woman, whilst intending to divorce her and not disclosing this intention to her. The fatwa is as follows, and can be viewed on his Arabic site 

(http://www.binbaz.org.sa/index.php?pg=mat&type=fatawa&id=26)

To this we say, Allahu Akbar Kabeera. How dare the Wahabis vilify Mutah when their liege-lord Bin Bazz permitted an act which any individual can see is immoral to the first order. In Mutah, both parties are fully aware of the actions, and the women agrees to the date of expiry etc. whereas in that marriage, the women is being deceived. She is deceived into getting married and fulfilling half her religion whilst all the man is interested in is a short-term relationship before leaving the poor women.

La Howla Wa La Quwata Ila Billah Al-Aliyul Adheem