EXPOSING MUTAH -
An Alternative Shia Perspective
Exposed by the BBC the pre-Islamic idea of mutah has contaminated Shia Islam for centuries. The issue is now causing a lot of hoo-ha as not one Quranic verse mentions mutah and yet it is claimed to be endorsed by the holy Imams. It was in fact done by Muawiaya & Yazid who boasted of having defiled many Muslim women by this pre-Islamic practice that was rooted in treating women as sex commodities,
So the burning question is that how did the scholars manage to argue in favour of it. This article gives an opportunity to scholars who have studies Islam for a lifetime to give answers to the main objections against mutah. This summary refuting the main arguments of mutah but the great scholars with all their knowledge should have no issues in answer the issues raised without fudging the point raised.
And example of an issue the scholars need to answer is about verse 4:24 which scholars have told us is about mutah but there is nothing about mutah in it. In fact those who say it is a mutah verse used to add the words 'limited time' in to the verse and claimed that Umar had removed these words when these words never existed in the Quran. The article highlights many of the reasonings used to justify mutah and makes a lucid case against those who have brought mutah in to Islam. It now relies on the great scholars to reply to the points.
The Evidence Against Mutah
For any sincere Muslim the Quran is the ultimate book of guidance and, therefore, it is odd that when the Quran in verse 5:5 categorically forbids ‘secret lovers’ we Shia Muslims still believe that taking secret lovers under mutah (sex marriages) is allowed in Islam?
Mutah was a pre-Islamic ‘buying or renting’ of ‘wives.’ How it got in to Islam can be uncovered by a thorough study but is also easily caught out to be totally against the Quran because of how it goes against the marriage laws of the Quran and the value system of the Quran.
Needless to say that verse 5:5 is not the only verse invalidating mutah because verses of the Quran are connected and if one verse invalidates it then other verses will also do the same. Take the verse 4:4 that limits the number of ‘wives’ you can have in polygyny but in mutah (temporary marriage) there is no such limit. In other words, mutah is in contradiction to the Quranic limit on marriages which again proves that it is outside the jurisdiction of the divine commandment.
The incredulous case for mutah is exposed by the false quotation of verse 4:24 which is labelled as the ‘mutah verse’ but where the word mutah is missing? In fact the word mutah does not exist anywhere in the Quran.
Yet the advocates of mutah assert in the strongest terms that this is the ‘mutah’ verse and hang their argument on changing the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM in to MUTAH. They argue that ISTIMTATUM is the same as Mutah and so it is okay to change the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM to Mutah in verse 4:24.
But there are two things wrong with this: Firstly, why change a Quranic word to suit your purposes, and secondly in verse 46:20 the Quran says that those who seek ISTIMTATUM will enter hell: So if ISTIMTATUM really means MUTAH then those who do it should enter hell, surely?
One thing that always happens when you raise questions against the established practices is people start to use the language of discord to justify themselves. In the case of mutah we always see a tactful turning of the discussion in to a Sunni versus Shia diatribe. In particular, the discussion is always diverted to some impromptu words of Caliph Umar who angrily reacted against an old man who had not only made a young girl pregnant but then had also claimed that such things were permitted by the Prophet. Needless to say that the old man was doing what he used to do before Islam but in the time of Caliph Umar he claimed that the Prophet had allowed it.
Umar did not accept his claim and so in frustration announced that regardless of the claims against the Prophet he still forbids it because he is the Caliph. Our Shia polemics mostly rely on these reactionary and rhetorical words of Umar to frame us with the logic that even Umar admitted that the Prophet had at some point allowed such things; be it to accommodate pagans who had converted to Islam.
But we do need to ask ourselves that do we really believe what the old man claimed about the Prophet. What if the claim is as incredulous as the claim that verse 4:24 is a mutah verse? In any case, if the Prophet allowed old men to make young girls pregnant without nikkah then why do we complain of teenage pregnancies, and of a woman giving birth to children of different fathers, and of prostitution, and of lax sexual values, and of so much about over-sexed Western society?
What further exposes mutah is the evidence from the earliest Shia literature in the 10th century when mutah was described as ‘Iraj Ul Furuj’ giving it a legal status of ‘hire or renting’ of a woman. This exposes mutah as a ‘deal’ and not a marriage. In fact the words used in the 10th Century books are explicit and even claim the ‘renting of the vagina’ as one type of renting that is ‘permitted by the holy Imams.’ This type of concept that a woman’s body parts can be hired was accepted in pre-Islam eras. Then years later some story tellers decided to include it in the 10th Century writings and stamp it by misusing the names of our Imams in the same way the old man misused the name of the Prophet in the time of Umar. We know of how fake narrations had contaminated both both Sunni and Shia Islam from early on and certainly after the murder of the 11th Imam and yet we rely on false assertions of what is accepted as Islamic.
To prove that this 10th Century definition of ‘Shia marriage’ is not Islamic we need to see how the Quran is giving us a totally different ‘meaning to marriage’ than the ‘hiring’ and ‘buying’ idea of the 10th century literature. Verse after verse of the Quran make it clear that marriage in Islam is a holy union starting with a life-long commitment. The Quranic verses form the bulwark against mutah and help to expose how ‘sharia’ laws are not always in-line with the Quran.
And in addition there are now new issues that advocates of mutah have no idea about. These are new issues arising due to the Human Rights charter which puts aspects of mutah in the category of sex-slavery and rape. This is because the fikh (laws) of mutah do not allow a woman to annul her ‘sex contract’ without consent from the man who has paid to hire her body. According to our fikh a woman is bounded by her sex agreement and should fulfil it even if she has changed her mind later. Only the man can agree to release her and if he does not then he can even take her by force and this would not constitute rape because she is ‘his wife’ for the time be hired her.
Other issues with mutah are the many social and personal issues that arise when a man & a woman become intimate but are not committed to each other. Just consider how many times have women fallen in to giving sexual pleasure to men on the fake promises of nikkah; how many poverty stricken fathers have been persuaded to pressurise their daughters to rent themselves to rich men; how many widows fall prey to rich men who offer them a place to stay; how many employers recruit vulnerable girls in to employments just to attempt to groom them in to mutah; how many women have been raped and mutah is a loophole for rapist or abusers to claim that they had done mutah etc. These are some of the social issues with mutah that we tend to ignore while continuing to pretend that mutah does not open the cage to myriad exploitative practices against vulnerable and naïve girls.
Normally a religion protects those who are vulnerable while we have mutah which opens the door to exploitation, prostitution and moral corruption. What have we shamefully done to the religion where the name of the holy Ahlul Baith and the Quran are taken!
One of the most exposing cases in Iran was of a man who had done mutah with a woman and then a few years later his own son did mutah with the same woman. In other words he was sleeping with his step mother! Is this not evidence of wretchedness due to mutah? So what happens to the popular saying that if Mutah was allowed than only the ‘wretched will commit adultery!” Is this not the worst form of moral corruption that we have deliberately brushed under our holy carpets?
Clearly, the issues with mutah are real and the more the community delays an honest scrutiny the more far away from the Quran we become. Can our communities, therefore, afford to remain passive and keep misusing the name of the Prophet, his family and his Companions to justify mutah or should a new courageous thinking arise that is able to see and consider the evidence in full without sectarian bias or desires to satiate sexual egos?
So the burning question is that how did the scholars manage to argue in favour of it. This article gives an opportunity to scholars who have studies Islam for a lifetime to give answers to the main objections against mutah. This summary refuting the main arguments of mutah but the great scholars with all their knowledge should have no issues in answer the issues raised without fudging the point raised.
And example of an issue the scholars need to answer is about verse 4:24 which scholars have told us is about mutah but there is nothing about mutah in it. In fact those who say it is a mutah verse used to add the words 'limited time' in to the verse and claimed that Umar had removed these words when these words never existed in the Quran. The article highlights many of the reasonings used to justify mutah and makes a lucid case against those who have brought mutah in to Islam. It now relies on the great scholars to reply to the points.
The Evidence Against Mutah
For any sincere Muslim the Quran is the ultimate book of guidance and, therefore, it is odd that when the Quran in verse 5:5 categorically forbids ‘secret lovers’ we Shia Muslims still believe that taking secret lovers under mutah (sex marriages) is allowed in Islam?
Mutah was a pre-Islamic ‘buying or renting’ of ‘wives.’ How it got in to Islam can be uncovered by a thorough study but is also easily caught out to be totally against the Quran because of how it goes against the marriage laws of the Quran and the value system of the Quran.
Needless to say that verse 5:5 is not the only verse invalidating mutah because verses of the Quran are connected and if one verse invalidates it then other verses will also do the same. Take the verse 4:4 that limits the number of ‘wives’ you can have in polygyny but in mutah (temporary marriage) there is no such limit. In other words, mutah is in contradiction to the Quranic limit on marriages which again proves that it is outside the jurisdiction of the divine commandment.
The incredulous case for mutah is exposed by the false quotation of verse 4:24 which is labelled as the ‘mutah verse’ but where the word mutah is missing? In fact the word mutah does not exist anywhere in the Quran.
Yet the advocates of mutah assert in the strongest terms that this is the ‘mutah’ verse and hang their argument on changing the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM in to MUTAH. They argue that ISTIMTATUM is the same as Mutah and so it is okay to change the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM to Mutah in verse 4:24.
But there are two things wrong with this: Firstly, why change a Quranic word to suit your purposes, and secondly in verse 46:20 the Quran says that those who seek ISTIMTATUM will enter hell: So if ISTIMTATUM really means MUTAH then those who do it should enter hell, surely?
One thing that always happens when you raise questions against the established practices is people start to use the language of discord to justify themselves. In the case of mutah we always see a tactful turning of the discussion in to a Sunni versus Shia diatribe. In particular, the discussion is always diverted to some impromptu words of Caliph Umar who angrily reacted against an old man who had not only made a young girl pregnant but then had also claimed that such things were permitted by the Prophet. Needless to say that the old man was doing what he used to do before Islam but in the time of Caliph Umar he claimed that the Prophet had allowed it.
Umar did not accept his claim and so in frustration announced that regardless of the claims against the Prophet he still forbids it because he is the Caliph. Our Shia polemics mostly rely on these reactionary and rhetorical words of Umar to frame us with the logic that even Umar admitted that the Prophet had at some point allowed such things; be it to accommodate pagans who had converted to Islam.
But we do need to ask ourselves that do we really believe what the old man claimed about the Prophet. What if the claim is as incredulous as the claim that verse 4:24 is a mutah verse? In any case, if the Prophet allowed old men to make young girls pregnant without nikkah then why do we complain of teenage pregnancies, and of a woman giving birth to children of different fathers, and of prostitution, and of lax sexual values, and of so much about over-sexed Western society?
What further exposes mutah is the evidence from the earliest Shia literature in the 10th century when mutah was described as ‘Iraj Ul Furuj’ giving it a legal status of ‘hire or renting’ of a woman. This exposes mutah as a ‘deal’ and not a marriage. In fact the words used in the 10th Century books are explicit and even claim the ‘renting of the vagina’ as one type of renting that is ‘permitted by the holy Imams.’ This type of concept that a woman’s body parts can be hired was accepted in pre-Islam eras. Then years later some story tellers decided to include it in the 10th Century writings and stamp it by misusing the names of our Imams in the same way the old man misused the name of the Prophet in the time of Umar. We know of how fake narrations had contaminated both both Sunni and Shia Islam from early on and certainly after the murder of the 11th Imam and yet we rely on false assertions of what is accepted as Islamic.
To prove that this 10th Century definition of ‘Shia marriage’ is not Islamic we need to see how the Quran is giving us a totally different ‘meaning to marriage’ than the ‘hiring’ and ‘buying’ idea of the 10th century literature. Verse after verse of the Quran make it clear that marriage in Islam is a holy union starting with a life-long commitment. The Quranic verses form the bulwark against mutah and help to expose how ‘sharia’ laws are not always in-line with the Quran.
And in addition there are now new issues that advocates of mutah have no idea about. These are new issues arising due to the Human Rights charter which puts aspects of mutah in the category of sex-slavery and rape. This is because the fikh (laws) of mutah do not allow a woman to annul her ‘sex contract’ without consent from the man who has paid to hire her body. According to our fikh a woman is bounded by her sex agreement and should fulfil it even if she has changed her mind later. Only the man can agree to release her and if he does not then he can even take her by force and this would not constitute rape because she is ‘his wife’ for the time be hired her.
Other issues with mutah are the many social and personal issues that arise when a man & a woman become intimate but are not committed to each other. Just consider how many times have women fallen in to giving sexual pleasure to men on the fake promises of nikkah; how many poverty stricken fathers have been persuaded to pressurise their daughters to rent themselves to rich men; how many widows fall prey to rich men who offer them a place to stay; how many employers recruit vulnerable girls in to employments just to attempt to groom them in to mutah; how many women have been raped and mutah is a loophole for rapist or abusers to claim that they had done mutah etc. These are some of the social issues with mutah that we tend to ignore while continuing to pretend that mutah does not open the cage to myriad exploitative practices against vulnerable and naïve girls.
Normally a religion protects those who are vulnerable while we have mutah which opens the door to exploitation, prostitution and moral corruption. What have we shamefully done to the religion where the name of the holy Ahlul Baith and the Quran are taken!
One of the most exposing cases in Iran was of a man who had done mutah with a woman and then a few years later his own son did mutah with the same woman. In other words he was sleeping with his step mother! Is this not evidence of wretchedness due to mutah? So what happens to the popular saying that if Mutah was allowed than only the ‘wretched will commit adultery!” Is this not the worst form of moral corruption that we have deliberately brushed under our holy carpets?
Clearly, the issues with mutah are real and the more the community delays an honest scrutiny the more far away from the Quran we become. Can our communities, therefore, afford to remain passive and keep misusing the name of the Prophet, his family and his Companions to justify mutah or should a new courageous thinking arise that is able to see and consider the evidence in full without sectarian bias or desires to satiate sexual egos?
No To Secret LoversQuran 5:5 forbid secret lovers. So why is mutah allowed to be done in secret without registration?
Is ISTIMTATUM the same as Temporary Marriage?In both verses 4:24 and 46:20 the word ISTIMTATUM is mentioned. If it meant temporary marriage then in verse 46:20 it says that the Kafirs get ISTIMTATUM in this world and so will enter hell. But verse 46:20 is never quoted in books which argue that ISTIMTATUM means Temporary Marriage which proves that there is deliberate ploy to mislead the Muslims.
A solution for desperate menIn verse 4:25 desperate men are told to have 'self control' or marry a slave-girl. What is mutah not given as an option if it was endorsed by the Quran?Limitation to PolygamyThe Quran limits polygamy but mutah has no limit. Why is mutah above the laws of the Quran?
An Insult to Hijab valuesThe hijab is supposed to inculcate a strong moral character. How can a woman who falls in to bed with ,men who rent her out temporarily as a wife be a woman of strong moral character when such a life-style is of prostitutes, marriage wreckers, gold diggers and women of no sexual control?
|
Definition of WifeSheikh Thani says that a wife is bought or rented. This is not in the Quran which tells us that couples are guides, helper & protectors of each other and are part of the same soul. Which definition should we follow: That of Sheikh Thani or that of the Quran
What Imam Ali is supposed to have saidWe are told that Imam Ali (as) said that if Umar had not forbidden mutah then only the wretched would commit adultery. But married women are not allowed mutah and so if they commit adultery then they are not wretched; A man can end up sleep with a woman and her son can also end up sleeping with her as mutah is done in secrecy: Is this not wretchedness within mutah? Furthermore, virgins are not allowed mutah without the permission of their fathers and so if they commit adultery then is it not wretched?
Changing RulesReligious argument often reply on blanket quotes and one such quote is that Halal E Muhammad will always remain Halal and Harram E MUhammad will always remain Haram. So why are scholars now beginning to forbid married men from doing mutah when the books tell us that it is halal for married men? Why change the rules if Halal is always Halal?
Rule of Thumb by Imam Ali (as)As a rule of thumb Imam Ali said that if anything leads to injustice then it cannot be allowed in Islam. Since mutah leads to prostitution & abuse then how can it be allowed in Islam?
Turning war widows in to ProstitutesIt is a grave injustice that the widows of men who were killed fighting for Islam are exploited as prostitutes or sex workers. Their daughters also fall prey to pimps. Is this what is allowed in Islam for the family of those who have given their lives for Islam when they merit respect and honor?
The Scholars Can Answer it!Well they must do, especially as they have studied for such a long time and have gone through so many books! So please send the questions raised above to any office of any reputable scholar to see if you can get any answers.
10 Questions against changing verse 4:24 in to a mutah verse - click |
|