mutah, mutah, muta, nikkah, ksmnet.org
2.1 Why are key Facts or key Forensics never considered by advocates of mutah?
We are told that Imam Ali (as) has said that if Umar had allowed Mutah then nobody would commit adultery except the wretched. Yet we are also told that Imam Ali (as) did not overturn Umar's decision to ban mutah when he became Caliph. This is the first forensic evidence against mutah and proves that Imam Ali (as) was not an advocate for mutah.
In fact, according to 'mutawatir' or trusted narrations a person who does not believe in mutah is not a shia. So since mutah is so essential then why did Imam Ali (as) not reinstall it after Umar banned it?
In addition there is a lot of other 'forensic' evidences that prove that mutah was never considered as legitimate by any members of the Ahlul Baith. Ten such forensic evidences are as follows:
1. None of the 12 Imams was born of it, nor did they have any children out of it. If mutah was considered valid by them then why did not one imam be born of it or at least produce one child from mutah? Remember Mutah is not in the same category as divorce because Mutah is 'sawab' while divorce is not recommended. And as Mutah is regarded as 'sawab' it would become 'tarq e awla' if an imam did not do it!
2. Not only from the Imams but also no child in the family of Banu Hashim is recorded to be born of it from the time of Hashim till 12th Imam. Why?
3. The Prophet never even did it in his single days before he married Khadija despite the pagan environment of Mecca where mutah was widespread and it was a norm. Since he was a role model for the world his responsibility was to do it if it was something he favoured.
4. When Imam Musa Kazim was imprisoned there were many excuses for him to do it but there is no record of it even when the caliph tried to tempt him with his own daughter. The same is true for so many Imams and their true followers
5. The 11th Imam could have had many sons through mutah in order to protect the 12th Imam but this was not done. The 11th Imam had an ideal excuse to do it but he did not do it despite the Abbasides and Umayyads favoring it.
6. The Quran does not say that the 'prophet's temporary wives' are our temporary mothers. If there were mutah wives of the prophet then their status would have been made clear
7. Umar wanted to marry Ume Kulsum in order to associate himself with the Ahlul Baith. Imam Ali (as) could have proposed him to do mutah with her rather then give her in nikkah to Umar
8. The Quran says to the Prophet that he is not allowed to marry or divorce any of his wives after his marriage to Zainab. if mutah was legitimate then these type of wives would have been mentioned also as in the same verse slave girls are mentioned.
9. There is no record of it in the whole of the Kitab ul Ershad when the book is full of sexual issues that were brought to Imam Ali (as). In fact if it was allowed then he would have asked of it when charges of rape and molestation were being made against men.
10. There a lot of Hadith in Shia books that say that Imams forbade mutah. Just because proponents of mutah dismiss them does not mean that they are not worth considering as credible evidence against mutah.
There are more forensics to prove that Mutah was not considered legitimate by the AHlul Baith. What is also a fact always hidden and never considered is that Muawiya and his cronies always did mutah while the forensics prove that the Ahlul Baith never considered it as legitimate.
Whenever, strong evidence like the above forensics is used to argue that mutah is against the Ahlul Baith then my experience is that people will say that our marjas have allowed it. But this is not an argument based on reason. It is a passive justification. The point is that as the evidence shows that the Ahlul Baith cannot be associated with it, but instead the shameful Umayads were the promoters of it, then why are the names of our Imams misused to justify such a shameful and destructive practice?
QUESTION ON IGNORING THE FORENSICS AGAINST MUTAH:
The fact that Muawiay and his shias did mutah and there is no forensic evidence that show that the Banu Hashim did Mutah then is it not an irony for us that we follow the practise of Muawiay while calling ourselves Shia E Ali?
2.2 TWO TYPES OF NARRATIONS.
Narrations in our shia books come in two sorts: Those which freely allow mutah and those which either restrict it or ban it completely. The norm for our elite is to favour those narrations that allow mutah and dismiss or misrepresent those narrations that forbid it.
One narration that is totally by-passed is from Imam Ali (as) who gave the fundamental criteria to decide what is allowed and what is forbidden in Islam. Imam Ali (as) has said that if you want a foolproof way to see if an act is haram then look at it's results: If the results are bad then the act is harram. This would mean that mutah is totally haram since it’s dreadful results are openly boiling out in public.
Private affairs with the resulting pregnancies and abortions is just one dirty outcome. Deceptions in relationships, increase in lust, lose of trust and stability, diseases, prostitution, preying on vulnerable girls for sex, taking advantage of poverty stricken widows, exchanging 'temporary wives', making sex a business, undermining marriages etc. are all other deadly effects of mutah that we like to brush under the carpet and pretend that mutah has none of these aftermaths. And worst of all is that Mutah accommodates sex studs to deceive mothers and their sisters and daughters to have sex with them. A case in Leciester UK in an example in point: A man was having sex with a mum and her daughter and neither of them knew.
The above consequences of mutah are just a few of the known aftermaths. Other stories of mutah are even more deadly! One Women's group in Iraq gives a report that a mentally ill girl was gang assaulted by several boys after she was convinced by them that it was okay and 'sawab' to do it. Each of the boy gave her a bite to eat and then used his fingers to feel her. We know of boys in the UK who are so sexed up that they end up assaulting girls as young as two years old. And indeed, there are those who say that even sex with minors is allowed if the father permits while the same people will say that a girl is not allowed to wear lipstick regardless of whether the father permits which means that there is more legitimisation of mutah with minors than wearing lipsticks by women!
QUESTION ON THE AFTERMATH OF MUTAH
Why are all these deadly aftermaths of mutah ignored when Imam Ali (as) said that hallal and Harram is based on looking at the aftermath of an act?
2.3 DID IMAM ALI SAY THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE
Has Imam Ali (as) turned his back on us for associating him with meaningless sayings to legitimise mutah even though the forensic show he never allowed mutah? Let us look at the evidence of how we associate our Imam to sayings that don't make sense.
One popular saying is that nobody would do adultery if mutah was allowed. But lets examine this saying closely. Take the following fact:
Married women too commit adultery and yet mutah is not allowed for them. So this saying of Imam Ali only applies to married men who want to enjoy sex outside their nikkah marriage. Married women still have to commit adultery if they want to enjoy sex outside their nikkah
So is Shia Islam such that married men can continue to enjoy sex by extra affairs (and is sawab) but married women cannot, and if they did then they are wretched?
Therefore, when the saying is that 'nobody' will commit adultery then it does not apply to married women as they will still need to do it for satisfying the same urges that are accommodated for their husbands.
Furthermore, the saying is not for the desperate boys in colleges and universities or those teenage studs showing off their cars in Alum Rock! For these boys mutah would only delay them in doing nikkah and as sexual argues arise everyday the temporary fix of mutah is not an answer. What is a normal everyday urge needs nikkah, not mutah. Hence, this saying is not about boys avoiding fornication as this will only make them delay nikkah.
If then the justification of this saying is that a married man needs mutah but a married woman does not because married women don't get urges beyond their nikkah then the question is that does Islam only consider to accommodate married men and is in denial about the strong urges for married women? Is this Islam or a male invention?
Secondly, since polygamy is allowed to men then what is the point of this mutah for men who want more sex outside their nikkah. The Quranic solution is polygamy with a restriction to 4 wives. Interestingly while the Quran restricts wives to 4 our fikh gives no restrictions to mutah. Evidently there are two sources of law in Islam - The Quran and then the Fatwas that are independent of the Quran!
So coming back to the point that if married men are allowed it but married women are not then is it fair? If Islam is there to accommodate desires of one gender and not the other then it is clearly a male invention and not from the creator of men & women who will not accommodate one gender only as it would make him unfair. But in the Quran God is telling men and women to not yield to their low desires, learn self control, learn to gaze down etc because he wants to give value to relationships, not undermine them by allowing one gender to yield to his explosive sexual desires while the other gender is told not to even smile or put fragrance in case it attacks another man.
One interesting fact is that adultery involves a lot of risks (including being stoned to death) and people who do it often do so because they are in an emotional mess and have lost their moral direction. For them even if they had a hundred temporary wives they would still commit adultery with that one woman who attracts them even if she was married.
So the evidences against this saying are as follows:
1. Married women still have to do adultery as they are not accommodated in mutah. So if a husband is away for a long time then why not accommodate her when he is accommodated in his trip to do mutah?
2. It cannot be for single boys or girls as it only offers a temporary release whereas sex is an everyday urge which needs nikkah
3. If nikkah is delayed by a boy or girls obsessed with mutah then that is not good as it causes emotional and psychological issues for the person and spreads dirt in society
4. Adultery is often committed in complicated set of circumstances where people have lost their spiritual direction. Mutah will not get them out of that complicated circumstance but only make it worst.
QUESTION ON SUGGESTING THAT ADULTERY IS REDUCED BY MUTAH
If Imam Ali ever said this then why would he ignore all the other circumstances of people where mutah is detrimental and adultery continues to be committed while only advocating for married men who don't need it anyway to get sex as they are allowed polygamy?
2.4 Can Imam Ali ever Lie?
It is claimed that when Abu Harith made a young girl pregnant and her father complained to Umar then Umar went to lash Abu Harith and extract maintenance from him. But Abu Harith said that the Prophet had allowed him such things and had allowed a man the final say on whether the child is his or not. Umar was shocked as he had been with the Prophet since Mecca and had never heard of such things. So Umar went to Imam Ali so ask if this was at all true. Imam Ali refuted it saying it contradicts what Quran 4:25 says. Then Umar said to those so-called Companions like Abu Harith that even if the Prophet allowed it to them it was now to be regarded as forbidden under his rule.
However, to explain why Imam Ali told Umar that Mutah was harram we are often told that Imam Ali was lying under TAQAYYAH as he could have been murdered by Umar.
QUESTION ON LYING
The question is that why would Imam Ali(as) ever tell lies on an issue like mutah when telling lies on any account is totally against the character and spiritual level of Imam Ali (as) especially when it comes to the question of Hallal and Harram in Islam?
If there is refusal to accept that Umar ever came to Imam Ali (as) to ask this question then it would mean that when Umar said to men like Abu Harith that even if the Prophet allowed it to them he was going to forbid it then surely it was the responsibility of Imam Ali (as) to oppose Umar as speaking the truth in the face of falsehood is a must especially if it is to do with Islam.
If the argument is that as long as someone like Abu Harith had told Umar that it was allowed then the duty was done and Imam Ali (as) did not need to say anything then the issue is that Umar must have said this because a man of the calibre of Imam Ali did not intervene earlier. Had imam Ali intervened earlier then Umar may not have forbidden it. Hence when the situation arose then Imam Ali should have immediately jumped to support Abu Harith as there were other companions of lesser calibre who had done so.
However, all the books - both Sunni and Shia - say that Imam Ali did intervene, but on the side of Umar! Hence the above question remains as to why would a great personality like Imam Ali tell lies and favour a 'tyrant' like Umar?