As we learnt previously, a permanent marriage imposes heavy responsibilities
and obligations both on husband and wife.
However, no boy or girl at the time of puberty, when he or she comes
under the heavy pressure of the instinctive urge, is prepared for a permanent
marriage. The requirements of the modern age have lengthened the interval
between natural puberty and social maturity, when one is capable of building
a family. In ancient times, when life was simple, a boy could, from his
age of early puberty, undertake a job which he continued to practise till
the last days of his life. But nowadays that is no longer possible. A boy
completes various stages of his education at the age of 25, provided he
does not fail at any stage. Only then he can expect to have some independent
income. He takes another three or four years before he can gather the wherewithal
to settle in life and get married. The same is the case with a girl who
is desirous of receiving a better education in life.
TEENAGERS AND SEXUAL CRISIS
Nowadays, if you ask a 17-year-old boy, whose sexual urge is at its
height, to marry, the people will laugh at you. The same is true of a 16
years old girl student. At this age, both the boys and the girls are unable
to shoulder the burden of a permanent marriage and to accept the heavy
responsibilities which ensue from it, not only in the capacity of husband
and wife but also in respect of the future children.
WHICH ONE; TEMPORARY MONASTICISM SEXUAL COMMUNISM OR A FIXED-TIME
MARRIAGE?
We know what nature is, but the conditions of life in the present world
do not allow us to marry at the age of 16 or 17. Nature is not prepared
to delay puberty or the sexual urge till we complete our education. Are
our young men prepared to pass a period of temporary monasticism and live
a life of renunciation and extreme austerity, till they become eligible
for a permanent marriage? Even if a young man is willing to accept the
life of temporary hermitage, is nature prepared to excuse him from the
tensions and nervous disorders which usually result from abstaining from
normal sexual activity, as has been disclosed by modern psycho-analysis?
Now only two alternatives are left. The first is to let a young boy
enjoy hundreds of girls, and a young girl to have illicit relations with
many boys, and then undergo several abortions. That means that we practically
accept sexual communism. Certainly, if we show permissiveness to boys and
girls on an equal footing, we do satisfy the Declaration of Human Rights,
because in the opinion of many short-sighted people, the spirit of the
Declaration requires that, if men and women have to go to Hell, they should
go together, arm in arm.
But the question is whether it will ever be possible for these boys
and girls, who have had unlimited affairs during the period of their studies,
to lead a normal domestic life.
The second alternative is a free fixed-time marriage. In the first instance
a fixed-time marriage restricts woman to have only one husband at one time.
It is obvious that a limitation of woman means a limitation of man also,
whether he likes it or not. If every woman is limited to a single man,
naturally every man will be limited to a single woman, except, in case
the number of either sex is far greater than the other. Thus boys and girls
can pass through their period of studies without facing the ill effects
of temporary hermitage, or of falling into the abyss of sexual communism.
TRIAL MARRIAGE
In principle it is possible for man and woman, who intend to marry on
permanent basis but could not achieve full confidence in each other, to
get married on trial for a temporary period. If they have developed sufficient
trust they continue their marital position, otherwise they separate from
each other. (Hence the difference between the Western style of relationship
with the fair sex and Islam is that with the Westerners there is no conception
of marriage code between the couples while in Islam in fixed-time marriage
the couple is considered to be husband and wife even for a temporary period).
RUSSELL'S THEORY OF TEMPORARY MARRAIGE
In his book, Matrimony and Morals, the well-known English philosopher,
Bertrand Russell, says that prostitutes protect the chastity of our wives
and daughters. When this view was expressed by Luckey in the middle of
the Victorian age, the moralists were greatly offended, though they themselves
did not know why. Anyhow, they were unable to refute Luckey's arguments.
The logic of the moralists was that, if the people had followed their teachings,
the prostitutes would no longer have existed. But they knew well that nobody
paid attention to what they said.
This is the European formula to deal with the danger posed by men and
women who are unable to contract a permanent marriage and the one mentioned
above was the formula put forward by Islam. If the European formula is
adhered to and this social duty is allocated to a section of unfortunate
women, will that be in conformity with the human dignity and self- respect
of women and the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Bertrand Russell, in his book, has included a chapter on trial marriage
also. He says that Lindsay, who was for many years a judge in Denver, and
in this capacity had an ample opportunity to observe the facts of life,
proposed that there should be arrangements, for a "companionship marriage."
Unfortunately this judge had to lose his post, because he was interested
in the welfare of the youth rather than in creating a sense of sin in them.
To secure his dismissal, no stone was left unturned by the Catholics and
the anti-Negro, Ku Klux Klan.
A companionship marriage had been proposed by a conservative intellectual,
with a view to introducing a factor of stability in sexual relations. Lindsay
noticed that the main problem of marriage was lack of money. Money is not
only required for possible future children, but it is also required because
it does not behove a woman to be responsible for the maintenance of the
family. He reaches the conclusion that the young men should embark on a
companionship marriage, which is different from an ordinary marriage in
three ways. Firstly, the aim of this marriage is not to beget children.
Secondly, as long as the young woman has not given birth to a child, divorce
with the mutual consent of the parties concerned is a simple matter. Thirdly,
in the case of divorce, the woman will be entitled to alimony. There is
no doubt that Lindsay's proposals are practical and effective and, if they
had been accepted by law, they could be expected to have a good impact
on morals.
What Lindsay and Russell call a companionship marriage is a little different
from the Islamic fixed-time marriage, but this suggestion indicates that
thinkers of their calibre have realised that a normal permanent marriage
does not meet all the needs of the society.
(II) FIXED-TIME MARRIAGE
We have already described the characteristics of a fixed -time marriage,
the necessity of its existence and the inadequacy of a permanent marriage
to meet all human requirements. Now we propose to study the so-called other
side of the picture and see what the disadvantages and drawbacks of a fixed-time
marriage are. Before discussing that let us point out one thing.
HISTORY OF BELIEFS
Out of all the subjects on which views have been expressed, none is
so complex and ambiguous as the history of human ideas, beliefs, customs
and usages. That is why, though the subject has been most popular, most
of the views expressed in connection with it have been absurd. Anybody
who has some knowledge of such subjects as philosophy, gnostics, mysticism
and Islamic scholasticism and reads some of the present day writings in
our country on the questions connected with these subjects which are borrowed
from the foreigners or are exact reproduction of their words, can very
well understand what I mean. Our present day writers mostly reproduce or,
at least, take their cue from the orientalists, while it appears that the
latter and their henchmen do anything but go deep into such questions.
For example, the question known in Islamic mysticism as 'wahadat
al- Wujud'(Unity of Being) has been discussed from every conceivable
angle, still little attention has been paid to explain what it really is
and what conception of it the great exponents of Islamic mysticism, such
as Muhyuddin ibn Arabi and Sadrul Muta'llihin Shirazi have had. Recently,
certain comments on fixed-time marriage in the Iranian magazine 'Zan-e-Imruz'
or "Woman of Today", have reminded me of the question of "Wahdat
al-Wujud'
In the course of these comments everything has been said about a fixed-time
marriage, but what really constitutes the spirit of this law and was intended
by the lawgiver has been left out.
Indifference is shown to this law, because it is a part of the Eastern
heritage. Had it been a Western gift the position would have been quite
different.
Had this law come from the West, certainly many conferences and seminars
would have been held today to advocate that the confinement of marriage
to a permanent one does not conform to the conditions of the second half
of the 20th century and the present generation is not willing to shoulder
all the responsibilities of a permanent marriage. The present generation
wants to be free. It wants to lead a free life. It wants a free marriage
whose conditions may be chosen personally by the parties concerned.
Now that voices have been raised in Europe in favour of a temporary
marriage and such prominent people as Bertrand Russell are preaching it
under the name of a 'companionship marriage,' it is visualised that before
long a fixed-time marriage will become so popular that in future we shall
be forced to launch a campaign to defend a permanent marriage.
OBJECTIONS
The following are said to be the defects and drawbacks of a fixed-time
marriage:
(1) The basis of marriage must be permanent. From the beginning of conjugal
relations, husband and wife should know that they permanently belong to
each other. The idea of a separation must not enter into their minds. The
fixed-time marriage does not constitute a permanent contract between husband
and wife.
It is true that the basis of marriage should be permanent. However,
this objection can be valid only if we oppose a permanent marriage and
wish to replace it by a fixed-time marriage.
If the two parties can afford a permanent marriage, have full confidence
in each other and decide permanently to belong to each other, no doubt
they should contract a permanent marriage.
The law of fixed-time marriage has been laid down only because a permanent
marriage alone cannot meet all the human requirements in all circumstances.
The restriction of marriage to a permanent type only has led either to
temporary monkery or to sexual communism: Obviously, no boy or girl, to
whom facilities for a permanent marriage are available, would like to indulge
in a temporary affair.
(2) Iranian women and girls, in spite of being Shiah, have not welcomed
the idea of fixed-time marriage. They regard it as a sort of insult to
them. Hence, the general opinion among the Shiah has also rejected it.
It may be said in reply that the general aversion to the her womanly
expressions and her skilful sexy postures are put on sale. The tickets
to the cinema and theatre, which you buy, are in the final analysis, wages
of the hired women. Do you realise to what an extent a woman has to stoop
to earn money? She has to learn for many years the art of provoking sex
under the supervision of experienced specialists. She has to place her
body, her soul and her personality at the disposal of moneymaking organisations
to attract more and more customers. If you visit cabarets and hotels, you
can see what respect woman has gained, how she has to sell her honour and
self-respect for paltry sums of money in order to fill the coffers of some
capitalists and how she has to put herself at the disposal of the guests.
Hired women are those sales girls of big stores who sacrifice their
honour and self-respect to satisfy the greed of their employers.
Hired women are those model girls who appear on T.V. to publicise commercial
goods and employ all means to attract the customers to them.
Who does not know that in the West today, woman's beauty, her sexual
attraction, her voice, her art, her body, her soul, and above all her personality
are used as a humble means to serve the interests of the European and American
capitalism?
I wonder why a woman who, of her own accord, marries a man for a fixed
period, is regarded as a hired woman, while a woman who, at a wedding or
an evening party, in front of thousands of greedy eyes of men, sings till
her throat pains and stages a thousand and one antics, is not regarded
as a hired woman.
By allowing a fixed-time marriage, Islam has protected woman from being
exploited by man. It has also forbidden her to employ base means to earn
her livelihood. Is it Islam which has degraded woman, or the Europe of
the second half of the 20th century?
If one day woman becomes fully conscious of the hidden fixed-time marriage
among the Shiah women and girls is due to its misuse by the licentious
men. It is the duty of the government to prevent its misuse. Secondly,
it is unreasonable to expect a fixed-time marriage to be as popular as
a permanent marriage, because the former is meant only to satisfy the needs
of the parties concerned, if both are or at least one of them is unable
or unwilling to contract a permanent marriage.
(3) A fixed-time marriage is below the human dignity of woman. It amounts
to the hiring of a human body, and even to the legalised sale of human
beings. It is against the self-respect of a woman to put herself at the
disposal of any man in exchange for money.
This is the most surprising objection. Firstly a fixed-time marriage,
as described above by us, has not the remotest connection with sale or
hire. Can it become sale or hire simply because the duration of wedlock
is limited? Does it become hire because a dower has to be fixed? We propose
to take up the question of dower separately.
Jurists are unanimous that, with regard to the nature of a contract,
there is no difference between a permanent and a fixed-time marriage. They
are two forms of marriage and their contracts can be constituted only by
using a specific formula (Sighah relating to marriage). If a contract
of a fixed-time marriage is expressed in the form of sale or hire, it is
invalid.
Secondly, since when has the practice of hiring human beings been abolished?
All the tailors, barbers, cooks, even specialists, all government employees
from the Prime Minister to the lowest official and all the factory workers
are hired men.
A woman, who, by her own free will, contracts a fixed-time marriage
with a particular man is not a hired woman and does not do anything derogatory
to her self-respect or human dignity. If you want to see hired and enslaved
women and want to know what a hired woman really means, you should go to
Europe and America and visit the film companies there. There you will see
how the movements of woman's limbs, her gestures, traps which the 20th
century men have laid in her way, she will certainly rise in revolt against
all this deception and fraud. She will, then, realise that her only sincere
protector and real refuge is the Qur'an. Of course, that day is not far
off!
(4) After all, a fixed-time marriage legalises polygamy, which is an
abominable practice. Hence a fixed-time marriage is condemnable.
At the end of this very chapter we shall explain for whom the law of
temporary marriage has been enacted. As far as polygamy is concerned, we
shall discuss it in a subsequent chapter.
(5) As a fixed-time marriage has no permanency, it leaves the future
children shelterless. They become nobody's responsibility. They are deprived
of a father's protection and a mother's affection.
This is an objection which is much stressed, but, with the explanation
we have given, it totally loses its force. We have previously said that
one of the differences between a temporary and a permanent marriage is
related to procreation.
In a permanent marriage neither of the spouses can evade the responsibility
of begetting children, but, in a fixed-time marriage, both the parties
are free. The wife, of course, is not allowed to obstruct her husband from
enjoying sex, but she can take measures to prevent her own pregnancy. This
problem has been fully solved with the development of the modern contraceptives.
Thus, in the case of a fixed-time marriage, if both the husband and
wife are inclined, they can beget children, provided they accept the responsibility
of rearing them. It is obvious that, from the standpoint of natural affection,
there is no difference between the child of a permanent wife and that of
a fixed-time one. Should a father or a mother abstain from performing his
or her duty, it is the responsibility of the law to compel them in the
same way as it intervenes in the case of divorce. If a husband and wife
are not inclined to beget children and their aim is only to get sexual
satisfaction, they should abstain from producing children.
As we know, the Church regards contraception as unlawful. But, from
the Islamic point of view, a husband and wife are at liberty to adopt contraceptive
measures. Anyhow, once an embryo is formed, it is not allowed to be removed
or destroyed.
This is what the Shi'ah jurists mean when they say that the aim of a
permanent marriage is child-bearing and that of a fixed-time marriage is
enjoyment and the gratification of a natural urge.
A FIXED-TIME MARRIAGE AND HAREM
One of the subjects, which the West uses as a weapon to vilify the East
and about which West has also prepared films and dramas, is the question
of the formation of harems. Unfortunately, many instances of it are to
be found in history.
The life of certain caliphs and sultans provides a complete model of
'harem' formation, which is described as an outstanding symbol of the licentiousness
of the man of the East.
It is alleged that the legality of a fixed - time marriage is equivalent
to the legality of a 'harem' formation, which is a weak point of the East
and has brought disgrace to it. Not only that, it is equivalent to the
legalisation of licentiousness, every form of which is contrary to morality
and causes decline and ruin.
The same thing has been said about polygamy and the legality of polygamy
has been interpreted as the legality of a 'harem' formation. We will discuss
the question of polygamy separately. At present, we confine our attention
to a fixed-time marriage.
This question should be studied from two angles:
(1) What were the social factors which led to a 'harem' formation in
the past and whether the law of fixed-time marriage influenced this phenomenon?
(2) Does the law of a fixed-time marriage aim at providing an opportunity
of 'harem' formation to the licentious men?
SOCIAL CAUSES OF 'HAREM' FORMATION
There were two factors which brought 'harems' into existence. The first
was the piety and chastity of woman. A 'harem' can be formed only in an
atmosphere where social and moral conditions are such that a woman is not
allowed to have sexual relations with more than one man. In such circumstances
a licentious man has no alternative but to gather together a number of
women and form a 'harem'.
Obviously, in an atmosphere where importance is not attached to chastity
and women are available easily and freely, nobody will take the trouble
of forming a big 'harem' at a huge cost and with a large paraphernalia.
The second factor was the non-existence of social justice. The atmosphere
conducive to 'harem' formation is that in which a few are steeped in all
sorts of luxuries and affluence, whereas others are unable to make both
ends meet, and in which there are many who are unable to have a wife and
form a family. In such an atmosphere the number of unmarried women grows
and a suitable ground for a 'harem' formation is furnished.
On the other hand, if social justice is established and the means of
forming a family and choosing a spouse are available to all, automatically
every eligible woman becomes attached to one particular man and no opportunity
is left for debauchery, licentiousness and 'harem' formation.
If every adult is in a position to have a spouse, naturally not enough
women are left for rich men to form harems, for the number of women is
usually more or less equal to the number of men.
It is customary that history narrates the stories of the 'harems' of
the caliphs and the sultans and describes the pomp and show of their courts,
but ignores to explain the privation, misery and sufferings of those who
died at the foot of their palaces and of those whom the social conditions
did not allow to have spouses. Hundreds of women, who passed their lives
in the 'harems', were the natural right of a number of deprived men, who
were forced to remain unmarried till the end of their lives.
Undoubtedly, in a society where chastity prevails and sexual success
is impossible except within the frame-work of marriage, including both,
permanent and fixed-time, 'harem' formation is impossible, provided social
and economic inequalities are removed and the natural right of matrimony
is made available to every adult.
A cursory glance over history shows that the law of fixed-time marriage
has not exercised even the slightest influence over 'harem' formation.
None of the Abbasid Caliphs and the Ottoman Sultans, who were famous
for keeping large 'harems', was a follower of the Shi'ah theology, and
so none of them could be expected to have taken advantage of the law of
fixed-time marriage.
The Shi'ah Sultans, though they could use this law as an excuse, never
vied in this respect with the Abbasid Caliphs or the Ottoman Sultans. This
clearly shows that the harems were the outcome of some other special social
factors.
HAS FIXED-TIME MARRIAGE BEEN MADE LAWFUL TO SATISFY LUST?
There are no two opinions about the fact that heavenly religions, on
the whole, censure licentiousness and immorality, so much so that the followers
of most of them have preferred a life of renunciation and asceticism.
One of the clear and accepted principles of Islam is to combat lewdness,
which has been compared to idolatry by the Qur'an. Islam has described
a 'taster', i.e. a man who wants to enjoy various types of women, as condemned
and hated by Allah. While discussing the question of divorce, we shall
quote authoritative Islamic references in this respect.
One of the distinctive features of Islam is that it rejects monkery
and renunciation, but does not allow lewdness. According to Islam, all
natural desires, including sexual desire, should be satisfied within natural
limits and only to the extent of natural requirements. Islam does not permit
fanning the fire of desires and converting them into unquenchable thirst.
Islam is against everything that takes the form of licentiousness and injustice.
There is no denying the fact that it has never been the intention of
the legislator of the fixed-time marriage law to provide a means of gratification
of their excessive carnal desires to sensual people and to bring disaster
to a woman and her innocent children. The great encouragement given to
the idea of fixed-time marriage by the Holy Imams has a special philosophy,
which we shall explain shortly.
HAREMS AND THE MODERN WORLD
Now let us see how the modern world has dealt with the question of 'harems'.
The modern world looks at 'harems' with disgust and consequently this custom
has been discarded. One of the two factors which brought it into existence
has been removed. But which factor? Not that of the social inequality,
but it is that of the piety and chastity of woman which has been removed.
The lewd man of this century is no longer in need of taking the trouble
of forming a 'harem' and of bearing the huge expenses of maintaining it.
Thanks to the western culture, that for the man of this century a 'harem'
is available everywhere. In order to enjoy women of different races and
colours, the modern man finds no necessity of having as much power and
money as Harun al-Rashid or Fazl ibn Yahya Barmaki had. For him it is enough
to have a car and a monthly income of a few thousands to be able to indulge
in so much sex pleasure that Harun al-Rashid could never have dreamt of.
The modern hotels, restaurants and cafes are always ready to serve as 'harems'
for men. Some time ago a young Iranian, Adil Kutwali, frankly admitted
that he had 22 mistresses of various shapes and
features at one and the same time. Thanks to Western culture, that the
modern man enjoys all the pleasures of a 'harem' without undergoing the
worries and huge expenses of maintaining it.
Should the hero of 'a thousand and one nights' raise his head from the
dust and see the vast possibilities of indulgence in sex and the cheapness
and abundance of women, he would never think again of forming a 'harem',
with all the trouble and expenditure which it involves. He would thank
the people of the West for saving him all the trouble of forming a 'harem'
and would immediately announce the abolition of polygamy and a fixed-time
marriage, because they create obligations for men with regard to women.
If you ask who the loser is in this game, the winner being already known,
we would say that unfortunately woman has always been the loser. Being
credulous and simple, she was the loser yesterday and she is the loser
today.
CALIPH BANS FIXED-TIME MARRIAGE
Fixed-time marriage is an exclusive feature of the Ja'fari law. Other
Muslim schools of theology do not allow it. I do not intend to enter into
any Shiah-Sunni controversy here. I wish only to refer briefly to the historical
background of the question.
All the Muslims are unanimous that during the early period of Islam
fixed-time marriage was permissible and the Holy Prophet, during some of
the journeys when the Muslims were away from their spouses and were feeling
hardships, allowed them to contract fixed-time marriage. It is also agreed
by all the Muslims that the second caliph, during the period of his caliphate,
banned fixed-time marriage. According to the well-known reports he said:
"Today I ban two things, which were allowed during the period of the Prophet.
They are fixed-time marriage and performance of 'Hajj' and 'Urn
rah' with separate 'ihrams',
Some Sunnis believe that the Holy Prophet himself had banned fixed-time
marriage during the last days of his life and the second caliph simply
repeated this ban already placed by the Holy Prophet. But the words of
the caliph which have come down to us indicate something contrary to this.
The correct explanation of this point is that which has been given by Allamah
Kashif al-Ghita. The caliph banned temporary marriage, because he thought
that the matter was within his constitutional power as Head of the State,
who could use his special powers according to the needs of the time. In
other words, the caliph's order was political and not legal. The caliph
never concealed his deep concern over the dispersal of the companions of
the Prophet in the newly acquired territories and their mixing with the
newly converted Muslims. As long as he lived, he vehemently opposed their
migration from Medina.
Especially, he did not like their blood to be mixed with that of the
newly converted Muslims, whose Islamic training was not deep-rooted yet.
Obviously, this was a temporary consideration. The Muslims of those days
accepted the caliph's order without showing resentment, only because they
knew that it was a political necessity and not a permanent law. Otherwise,
it is inconceivable that the people would not have been resentful, when
the caliph said that the Prophet had ordered one way and he was ordering
the other way. But later, when, as the result of certain developments,
the life of the early caliphs, especially the lives of the first two caliphs,
came to be regarded as a model, their orders assumed the form of a permanent
law. In this case our Sunni brethren are to be blamed more than the caliph
who imposed temporary ban on fixed-time marriage for political considerations
(just like the prohibition of tobacco in Iran at the beginning of this
century). Others should not have given a permanent form to this ban.
It is evident that Allamah Kashif al-Ghita did not express any opinion
as to whether the caliph's action was justified or not. He had simply described
the nature of the plea on which action was taken in the first instance
and the reason why it did not face any adverse reactions of the Muslims.
Anyhow, it was because of the influence and personality of the caliph
and the people's bias towards following his actions and policies that the
law of fixed-time marriage fell into oblivion, and an Islamic tradition,
which was complementary to permanent marriage, and whose suspension was
likely to cause much inconvenience, became obsolete.
It was in these circumstances that, with a view to ensuring that this
Islamic tradition might not be completely forgotten, the Imams, who are
the defenders of the faith, encouraged it and vehemently pleaded for it.
Imam Ja'far Sadiq (P) used to say that fixed-time marriage was a point
in respect of which he would never dissimulate.
Besides the intrinsic advantages of fixed-time marriage, an effort to
revive a dead tradition was another reason why the Imams preached it. In
our opinion, when the Imams forbade men having a wife to contract a fixed-time
marriage, they wanted to make it clear that it was not meant for those
who were not in need of it.
Imam Kazim (P) said to Ali ibn Yaqtin: "What have you to do with a fixed-time
marriage? Allah has spared you the trouble of being in need of it". He
said to another man "A fixed-time marriage is allowed to those who do not
have a wife. As for those who have a wife, it is allowed only when they
do not have access to her."
Guidance and encouragement for general public to take somebody in fixed-time
marriage is an important step towards "revival of abandoned custom" or
tradition, but encouragement alone to those who stood in need was not adequate
enough to enliven this forsaken Prophetic instruction, as is clearly indicated
in some Shi'ah scriptures and narrative sources.
Anyway it is a definite fact that the meaning and intention of the first
legislator on promotion and explanation of this law and the purpose of
the infallible Imams to encourage it on those lines was never to have such
provision exist as a means towards sexual adventures, evil desires and
build-up of harems for beastly human beings nor to victimise helpless and
oppressed women and orphaned children at any time.
The Egyptian writer, Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zuhrah, in his book, 'Al-Ahwa/
aI-Shakhsiyya' has quoted the Commander of the Faithful Ali (P) as
having said: "If it comes to my notice that somebody having a wife has
contracted a fixed-time marriage, I will stone him to death".
This tradition has no known chain of authority. Anyhow, if its authenticity
is accepted, it supports the view that a fixed-time marriage is permissible
only in the case of a man who either has no wife or his wife is away and
is not staying with him.
In short why should we stick to that single tradition reported by one
of the Sunni ulema (scholars) (while its source remains unknown) and leave
aside the numerous traditions of the Commander of the Faithful Ali (P)
reported in all Sunni and Shi'ah books in chapters on Mut'ah.
In many of his precious statements Imam Ali (P) the Commander of Faithful
says: "If Umar had not taken the initiative to declare fixed-time marriage
unlawful no one among the people, excepting a few sex maniacs, would have
indulged in adultery". That is, if fixed-time marriage had not been made
unlawful, none would have developed freedom to commit adultery. Only those
people, who are always inclined to commit unlawful acts, would have indulged
in it.
