Having partaken in several mutah activities I feel that I could be unofficially dubbed the mutah connoisseur of naseeb. Mutah is very logical and simple.

1. I find a girl I want to have sex with.
2. We fix a price and durration for our "marriage."
3. We find an Imam to marry us.

Inshallah I hope to travel to Iran where they took the street prostitutes and put them into government chastity houses where men can check a woman out (just like you check out a book from the library) and return her after you take liberty with her.

And here is the kicker. There was once a Mullah who was critically ill in the hospital. IV's had to be inserted into him by a female nure. He prevented the nurse from treating him until she did mutah with him.

1. I think there is a wide difference between accepting other people's opinions and debating over whether one believes a position is legitimate or not.

2. Further, I do not think that by a debatin, one is necessarily hoping that all differences will be settled. The real issue is the quest for truth within one's limited sphere. Nobody claims an absolute monopoly on the truth.

just a question... does the gap neeeed to get smaller? maybe just acceptance of who is a "Muslim" needs to be wider and the judgments of others kept down.

Every religion has diversity of thought - can't it be seen as a blessing or does every Christian one day hope all the thousands of sects unite, etc.?

until one actually returns to the Quran as the primary basis on which to understand Islam, the gap between sunnis, shias, sufis, and scholars will never get smaller... it is through the Quran that one will be able to sift the diamond out from a heap of coal...

salaams mystic...


1. One should note, in my view, that muta is done specifically with sex in mind... as far as dating islamically, this is not muta... thus, the issue of muta versus dating in getting to know one another are two totally different issues...

2. My response was primarily directed with the view that I do not believe that muta can be substantiated Islamically, especially through the Quran.. I hold that muta is a later juristical invention, and this is precisely thereason why I brought out the contradictictory nature of the hadeeths...

further, there is no mention of the practice in pre-Islamic society either... even the verse that is often use to support muta does not even mention muta, but is the word istamta, a verb... its LITERAL MEANING is "to take pleasure from"... the verse has nothing to do with muta, but is actually speaking about mehr... the Quran is saying that even if one has solidified the marriage bond through sex, i.e. istamta, before paying the mehr, this should not be construed as that he does not have to pay the mehr to the lady... the mehr is the right of a woman whether it is paid at the time of the contract, or paid sometime down the road... it is an OBLIGATION on the husband to pay irrespective of the circumstances...

i agree, khiladi - esp about interpreting things WITHIN their historical and literary context!

The point I raise is that one needs ALSO to actually examine hadeeth in light of theological and juristical disputes. Sometimes the very content of the hadeeth can reveal the nature of a hadeeth's authenticity. This is even a principle established by sunni hadeeth scholars. I am sure it is also a principle of the shia hadeeth scholars as well. Further, hadeeth need to be subject to historical criticism as much as any other narration.

In my view, the hadeeth regarding muta in Bukhari and Muslim are actually questionable. The reason I argue this is because of the following:

There are a few narrations in the Book of Bukhari, and two of the three in volume 6, Book 60 are alleged to deal with ibn Abbass (R). By the death of the Prophet (S), ibn Abbass (R) was a maximum of 15 years old. He would not even be allowed to participate in battles let alone the Battle of Khaibar during the time
of the Prophet (S). We know for a fact that the maximum age allowed in the first Battles were 15, and there is no evidence to say that the bar was reduced to let younger men participate. In fact, it is highly
unlikely that the age limit was reduced considering the fact that by then, the Muslim ummah had increased and they were not so short on men that they needed 10-15 year olds. It is extremely difficult to imagine ibn abbass (R) being an authority on muta.


Now as for the claim that ibn Abbass never believed the assertions that the Prophet (S) forbade muta there is the following narration attributed to Ali (R):

I said to Ibn 'Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."

So basically, it is well-acknowledged that all of the major Companions (R) participated in the Battle of Khaiber. Umar and Abu Bakr both participated in it, and in fact they both requested that they take the flag that the Prophet (S) presented. Thus, to claim that the Prophet (S) disallowed in in Khaybar and it was being practiced during the time of Abu Bakr (R), let alone Umar (R) is absurd.


Further, in Muslim, it says:

Iyas b. Salama reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas and then forbade it.

So this narration claims that muta was allowed for 3 nights, and afterwards was forbidden. This clearly contradicts the above narrations.

Then we have this narration:

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:

"The Verse of Mut'a was revealed in Allah's Book, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Quran to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested ."


So in this narration, muta is alleged to have have been authorized by the Quran itself, contradicting the countless other narrations. In regards to point 1, there is NOTHING in the Quran that authorizes muta. Not
only that, this narration is obviously meant to stain Umar (R). It is quite obvious that it was fabricated in order to cast doubt on Umar. This can simply be proven because it contradicts other narrations that show it as fabricated.

Then there is another narration that follows:

Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas commanded to do Mut'a while Ibn Zubair forbade to do it. I mentioned this to Jabir Ibn Abdillah and he said: It is through me that this Hadith has been circulated. We did Mut'a (of Hajj and women) at the time of the Messenger of Allah. When Umar was installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for his Messenger whatever He liked and as He liked. And its command was revealed in Quran. Thus accomplish Hajj and Umra for Allah as Allah has commanded you, and confirm (by reverting to permanent marriage) the marriages of those women (with whom you have performed Mut'a). And any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration (i.e. Mut'a) I would stone him."

Thus, it shows another contradiction, coupled with the fact that the "I WOULD STONE HIM" obviously acknowledges muta as ADULTERY.


This is obviously the same narration as:

"Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as, whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these
two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them."


This narration says that ibn abbass and ibn Zubair were arguing over muta, yet neither of them participated in any of the Battles of the Prophet (S). This last hadeeth is similar to the hadeeth alleging that according to Umar (R), God Almighty revealed a law concerning stoning the adulterers but had it abrogated. Umar (R) is then alleged to say the law is still in effect. But in this case, Umar (R) is said to have stated the law is no longer in effect. So we have two similar narrations casting Umar (R) in a bad light. In the first, it is lleged he is overturning the ruling of the Prophet (S) and in the
second, it is alleged he is puttng into effect a ruling that has been abrogated.

The contradictions of these narrations are so obvious that it becomes clear that the traditions need to be re-examined.

God tests us and we should try to succeed... not find loop holes in the religion to not feel guilty about sinning!

muta doesnt have to be "bad", but the way it is practiced a lot of the times does become just a mutual one night stand with the facade of being a one night marriage or, as we see in Iran now, legalized prostitution.

I actually know a few shia brothers that are not comfortable with being with a girl ? even in public ? ?alone? (like at a coffee shop where it is just the two of you, but there are others around) so they prefer to get muta ?to be careful? and kind of cover the bases. It is just so that they are comfortable with the girl. I think here, the problem is not muta, but the extreme segregation of the sexes and the inability for some to control thoughts when not segregated? plus, (and this is my beef with muta in general) that MARRIAGE should not be used to ?prevent sin?.

Label me whatever you wish, these are just my opinions from my analysis of muta, dating, etc. Personally, theological basis or permissibility aside, I think the IDEA of muta is good ? if properly ?used?. Maybe it is because I was Christian, raised in a Christian family and environment and very ?western?, but (again removed from theology) I think the idea of ?dating? is good (dating as going out, getting to know each other, etc with the purpose of, hopefully, engagement and marriage). Muta can be like dating. You can put in the contract that there will be no touching or that hugs are ok, but sex is not, etc. It doesn?t HAVE to be sexual or ONLY sexual. ?Dating? is done WITHOUT any prior agreement or understanding and no notice of God. I think setting out the purpose and ?rules? of the date/dating period beforehand and under God makes it much better ? safer, clearer (less misunderstandings, etc) and the two are less likely to stray from the ?rules? if they promised God.

ok boys, i'm not going to enter into your debate... but i'd like to give my opinion on the topic in general - ie muta in the west...

LOL really? how bout you post those emails up so we can see what they wrote? Is that supposed to substantiate your claim to victory? Fun-ny...

1."So you think the fundamental ideological root of mutah has to do with "regulated prostitution"? Are you smoking crack? It has to do with Quran and Hadeeth and the fact that it was practiced and ubiquitously accepted in the Prophet's (SWAWM) time and that of the first caliph is all the proof that is necessary."

This is a shia belief and not a sunni belief. Sunni belief is that it was made haraam during the lifetime of the Prophet (s).

2. "I'm sorry but I don't agree that the Prophet allowed regulated prostitution on a mass scale like you do."

At a certain point during the years of prophecy it was allowed just as drinking alcohol was allowed.

3. "This is the basis of my argument to allow it now in specific circumstances."

Quite frankly i don't care for your argument? My argument was that mutah is a form of regulated prostitution to which you conceded to. You chose to engaged me when i stated my position. I'm not interested in your argument. If i wanted to know the details of your argument i would look into literature supporting regulated prostitution. Your arguments are exactly the same except, unlike the way you presented your argument, the postion of proponents of regulated prostitution are much coherent.

4."Your analogy is totally off. The Nusayris are not Muslims, let alone shia because they commit the greatest sin, that of shirk. Do you believe people who practice zawaj-al-urfi are not sunni or even Muslim? I think not."

You just proved my point. Just as you're able to sit there and state nusayris aren't representative of muslims, because their views don't conform to the established beliefs of what does and doesn't constitute legit islamic creed, i can state people who hold urfi marriages to be legit don't represent all sunnis because their beliefs don't conform to the established sunni views on marriage.

5. " Its practiced by all types of sunnis, whether a small number or not. I wonder what percentage of muslims have to practice something in order for you to believe it as legitimate, especially when its not a wajib act."

This is more speculation. If this point is to be taken seriously you need to back it up...So far the majority of your argument has been pure speculation...

"So allow me to point out yet another faulty idiotic assumption. Since the majority of sunnis don't accept the legitimacy of urfi marriages it would be a mistake to make an assumption about the majority based on the practices of a specific minority."

So what do you call this specific minority... urfi Sunnis? LOL. Its practiced by all types of sunnis, whether a small number or not. I wonder what percentage of muslims have to practice something in order for you to believe it as legitimate, especially when its not a wajib act.

You should give up now, especially because I'm getting emails from your fellow sunnis telling me your arguments are helpless.

Your analogy is totally off. The Nusayris are not Muslims, let alone shia because they commit the greatest sin, that of shirk. Do you believe people who practice zawaj-al-urfi are not sunni or even Muslim? I think not.

However, some sunni scholars believe in the practice but they are not labeled kafir. So they have a legitimate viewpoint and more importantly, your fellow mainstream sunnis use the practice (showing its need) as a regulated form of prostitution as well as for purposes similar to mutah, although in an inherently underhanded way, which is why shia scholars have completely discredited the practice.

So you think the fundamental ideological root of mutah has to do with "regulated prostitution"? Are you smoking crack? It has to do with Quran and Hadeeth and the fact that it was practiced and ubiquitously accepted in the Prophet's (SWAWM) time and that of the first caliph is all the proof that is necessary. I'm sorry but I don't agree that the Prophet allowed regulated prostitution on a mass scale like you do. It was a legitimate practice with a practical purpose, fulfilling a need of the time. That need may have disappeared over time but it has re-emerged here in the West. This is the basis of my argument to allow it now in specific circumstances.

Just in case the link don't work its on the 55th page of the shia village journals

No i have an even better analogy. There is an extreme minority sect of shias that believes Ali (ra) is God. Based on this fact, your statement that sunnis have an institution of temporary marriage is similar to me stating Shias believe Ali (ra) is God...you guys even had a discussion about this sect of shias in the shia village. www3.naseeb.com vlID=168

LOL buddy allow me to let you in on a little secret. Once you debase the root of an argument at its fundamental ideological level the rest of the idea will collapse; which is why i was attempting to analyze the roots of mutah. All your talk about practical application is based on your utopian beliefs. In regards to urfi marriages, they aren't even considered legit by the overwhelming majority of sunni scholarship. So allow me to point out yet another faulty idiotic assumption. Since the majority of sunnis don't accept the legitimacy of urfi marriages it would be a mistake to make an assumption about the majority based on the practices of a specific minority. The faulty premise of this issue you bring up is tantamount to propagating the view that sunnis believe women could lead men in prayer based on the fact that ibn Taymiyyah (ra) (voice of the vocal minority within the minority hanbali madhab) believed under specific circumstances, a female could lead men in tarawih prayers.

Now in this thread, if anyone would like to bring up points refuting or supporting the practical purposes of mutah in Western society, I think it would be more useful. Thanks.