Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?

[Ibrahim]

Islam is what Allah revealed and what Prophet(saws) preached.

For Sunnis Misyar or urfi is from the opinions of some scholars. Whose view can be rejected. Criticizing these would mean criticizing the opinions of those scholars NOT Islam.

For Shias Mutah was preached by their infallible Imams. Hence this is where it becomes problematic. You can't criticize it. And criticizing it would mean criticizing Islam in Shia perspective.

So both are not comparable . And it's unfair to compare them.

Perhaps you'd like to "criticize" the former Grand Mufti of Egypt...

https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/04/21/71115.html

[Ibrahim]

I have proven all my points in an academic manner...

You have proven nothing at all, my friend.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Ibrahim you should of just quit when you spoke on majlisi & got exposed.

Your taqiyya on what shia think about the first 3 caliphs & your attempts at being articulate & warming/friendly are fooling nobody.

Whenever you are exposed on an argument or point you conveniently leave the issue out in your replies.

Selectively replying when it suits you.

You’re embarrassing yourself & your fellow shias.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

You have proven nothing at all, my friend.

People blessed with wisdom will judge it.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Perhaps you'd like to "criticize" the former Grand Mufti of Egypt...

https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/04/21/71115.html

He was wrong in his opinion. We reject his fatwa. This doesn't mean critizing Islam. As simple as that.

[Khaled]

Your attempts to cast aspersions on the character of Imam Hassan(as) are not going to be successful; please read the Holy Qur'an surah 49:12 and take some time to reflect on what you're doing to yourself when you forward these accusations.

And your attempt to shut down the discussion by appealing to emotions shows why Shi'as are always on the losing end of debates.  No one will find this attempt at emotional blackmail all that convincing because we find your views on Sahaba رضي الله عنهم the Ahl al-Bayt عليهم السلام and the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم as far worse than saying someone married and divorced a lot.  I can think highly of Imam Hassan عليه السلام even if married and divorced a lot, but I can not think highly of Imam Ali عليه السلام for allowing Omar رضي الله عنه to attack his wife, the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's daughter, cause her to have a miscarriage and eventually lead to her death and the only thing he can do to respond is curse them, but only under the guise of taqiyyah.  I can not think highly of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم who teaches that doing Mut'ah for times will put me on the same station as him.

So please, stop this appeal to emotion; we are just as offended by your portrayal of the Ahl al-Bayt as you are of ours.  However, appealing to emotion and acting like this is somehow slander is a criticism that can be just as equally leveled at al-Majlisi.  You don't have to agree with his conclusion, but at the very least have the academic honesty to admit that he also claims that Imam al-Hassan عليه السلام married and divorced a lot, move on, and get back to the topic at hand.

[Hadrami]

He was wrong in his opinion. We reject his fatwa. This doesn't mean critizing Islam. As simple as that.

Shia is so desperate as usual, trying to compare filthy mutah with anything they can find.

That type of marriage is rejected by almost consensus of sunni scholars. Him being a former mufti wont make it more credible. Like i said, no matter how wrong and odd the pro misyar opinion is, it is not comparable to anytime anywhere any condition shia mutah which is basically a freesex for all license and is accepted by ALL shia scholars.

[GreatChineseFall]

GreatChineseFall, when a post contains disrespect for the grandson of the Holy Prophet(saws), I'm no longer interested in anything else in that post other than defending his honor.

What is disrespectful to the grandson of the Holy Prophet(saws) is denying the truth regarding him. What makes it worse is doing this under the guise of protecting his honor.

As to your first point, stipulating something as a common agreement is important regardless of the option to amend it later. It means the involved parties know exactly where they stand with one another, and it's a declaration of niyyah before Allah(swt).
Any part of the agreement to be amended would be done with mutual consent.

It is as important as you promising me that you will not punch me in the face until you want to. It's nice to know but not very reassuring.

As to mut'ah with kitabi women, my understanding is that permanent marriage with them is possible but highly discouraged.

I don't think that's true, prove it. Rather, even mut'ah is forbidden to be done with them if you are in a permanent marriage with a Muslim.

It will usually be very problematic if Muslim children are brought up by Jewish or Christian mothers.
A temporary marriage serves the purpose of giving them time to learn about Islam and to embrace Islam before contracting permanent nikkah.

So mut'ah is used as a da'wah practice? Why is it forbidden for married men then? Or are only unmarried men suitable for this da'wah? Please, is it forbidden then to have children with them for as long as they are not converted? Or are you going to anticipate a conversion and produce children beforehand anyway?

As to a man with 4 wives contracting mut'ah, this would be a highly unlikely scenario. It could be that his temporary wives need financial support and so, as is often the case with polygamy, the arrangement is more to their befit than to his.

How generous of these guys to help these poor women out and how inconvenient for them that Allah has restricted a man to marry four women only. Can't he just help them out financially without a marriage or can't he guide them to other righteous and financially responsible men? Or is he the only suitable person around? In what world would this ever be the only practical solution to that problem?

He could also be away from home for many months or years and thus be contracting mut'ah to avoid the extremes of celibacy or sin.

What a poor guy. Is it then forbidden to have more than one temporary wife or at best four at the same time in the same town or area? Or at the very least disliked or discouraged? It is just to fight off celibacy and sin, right? Or is it unrestricted how many wives you have anywhere at any time?

Of course in all these cases, mut'ah could also be to fulfill sexual needs, which in itself is a legitimate aspect of mut'ah.
The whole attitude of portraying sexual needs as being inherently embarrassing and shameful is not derived from Islam, but instead reflects the Christian attitude.

Finally, there it is, a partial admission after several posts. We are not there yet however, why don't you admit it fully while you are at it? To fulfill sexual needs doesn't just have to be an aspect of mut'ah, it can be the main purpose of it, can't it? So all those examples you just mentioned are just convenient examples. You have no problem with a man who lives with his four wives, and he isn't some place remote, and his wives aren't pregnant or unavailable or something, and his future mut'ah wife isn't financially in very difficult times or a widow, he simply doesn't have an "appetite" for his permanent wives, to just go and contract a mut'ah marriage with some woman or even multiple women for a few hours. You don't have a problem with this, as it's not only permissible, rather it is recommended and he is seen as someone who has done a virtuous act of worship. There lies the main difference with any other type of marriage.

[GreatChineseFall]

There is a walk which takes place from Najaf to Karbala and over 30 million people participate, making it the largest annual gathering in the world.

Over 30 million? Impressive. Hani, it seems you've got yourself another record.

30 million? The entire city of Karbala is 44 km2, meaning each person would have less than 1.5 m2. If they all did sujood together they would burst out of the city to about twice its size.

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Reading all the comments, and how the traditions I shared were ignored, it is safe to say that this discussion has been stretched too far. 

May Allah (swt) unite us all on the true Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).

[Hadrami]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Reading all the comments, and how the traditions I shared were ignored, it is safe to say that this discussion has been stretched too far. 

May Allah (swt) unite us all on the true Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).

wa alaykumsalam warahmatullah, how can shia reply? You gave them their own ahadith where imam encouraged mutah without any condition. The only best reply understandably just diversion attempt. Let the ummah unite, but not with people who hate and denigrate mother of believers and the companions.

[iceman]

wa alaykumsalam warahmatullah, how can shia reply? You gave them their own ahadith where imam encouraged mutah without any condition. The only best reply understandably just diversion attempt. Let the ummah unite, but not with people who hate and denigrate mother of believers and the companions.

The Shias have given plenty of response but there is no response to your agenda based on your mindset and propaganda. That is your illness and fever and you only have the cure to that. There's nothing we can do about it and it's not our problem.

[Rationalist]

In Ziarat Ashura, la'ana is made on the first, second, third and fourth tyrants, who are anonymous, then on Yazid Ibn Mu'awiyah and the perpetrators of the massacre of Karbala.

The strange part is even Muawiyah is censored in this. Isn't Muawiyah supposed to be worst than Yazid? It shows how you guys put yourself in a trap when you do taqiyyah.
 

The principles of Tawalla and Tabarra aren't relevant here and neither is your allusion to taqiyyah.
Unless you have a problem with la'ana being made on the perpetrators of the tragedy of Karbala, I don't see any grounds for objection.

It is strange because Muawiyah was Imam Ali's enemy, and by saying its about Karbala shows that Imam Hussain (as) had a bigger challenge than Imam Ali (as). Yes I do have a problem with taqiyyah based narrations such as this.

neither is your allusion to taqiyyah.

Why is the first, second, third and fourth censored? This is not an allusion, its your principal of taqiyyah which your self falsely attributed to the Imams.

[Ibrahim]

And your attempt to shut down the discussion by appealing to emotions shows why Shi'as are always on the losing end of debates.  No one will find this attempt at emotional blackmail all that convincing...

An astonishing comment, though one which I'm glad you made.

Let's take a moment to pause and reflect a little. The logo of this site is "Refuting Shia Allegations Online Everywhere!". The brothers gathered here have described themselves as Sunni, though it's clear that many of them might be better described as Salafi.
The overall tone is a negative and often hateful insistence on anti-Shia sectarianism - which is the last thing the Muslim world needs at the moment after the wars and political upheavals of recent years.

Yet you, as a participant in this, think you are sufficiently objective as to be able to fairly judge the outcome of Shia-Sunni dialogue?
Where is your self-awareness and introspection, brother? What you're participating in here is as partisan an environment as it's possible to get. What makes you think you're an exception to this whereby your judgement is just?

Where is your self-awareness?

Over the last few days it's been roughly 10 vs 1, in attempts to use isolated and secondary evidence to allege that Iman Hassan(as) divorced 70-300 women (astaghfirullah), and to evade the obvious similarities between misyar and mut'ah.

A dignified mentality should lead us to feel embarrassed at contests of even 2 vs 1. Yet despite it being 10 vs 1, you evidently felt that your group's efforts have been insufficient enough as to require your help and intervention.
Actions speak louder than words, my friend.

Now I'll repeat again what I think is crucially important: I don't believe in "us vs them" sectarian mentalities. I care about Muslim unity and brotherhood.

Numerous times I've spoken of this, only for my words to be met with deafening silence - except a couple of recent posts.

I'm appealing not so much to emotion as to conscience. What do you feel as a Muslim when you go to the myriad sites and comments sections all over the internet where hundreds of people are gathered for the sole purpose of spewing hatred against Islam?
So then, why do the same here against the Shia?

So yes, let's have a reasoned and civil discussion about temporary marriage, insofar as it's possible in an environment like this.

[Ibrahim]

To all the brothers and sisters here (I'm sure there are sisters viewing if not commenting):

I realise that many of you will be surprised by the information I've brought on misyar and 'urfi marriage.

Many of you will not have known that such things existed at all, and others will not have realised their level of acceptance and practice in Sunni Muslim societies.
The state of receiving new information which contrasts with what you believed before is called "cognitive dissonance".

Cognitive dissonance is difficult to process, but I will clarify that I'm not presenting this information as a form of criticism against Sunni Muslims.

The point is that misyar and 'urfi have, to all intents and purposes, identical social functions to mut'ah. This means that to criticise the Shia practice is to criticise the Sunni practice, and thus all Muslims.

Isn't it better that, rather than being quick to condemn, we make efforts to understand why mut'ah, misyar and 'urfi prevail in our societies and why they are approved of by our 'ulama?

Thank you for listening.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Let's take a moment to pause and reflect a little. The logo of this site is "Refuting Shia Allegations Online Everywhere!". The brothers gathered here have described themselves as Sunni, though it's clear that many of them might be better described as Salafi.

Please educate yourself properly before commenting. Sunni is a general title. It encompasses Asharis as well as Salafis. Both Asharis and Salafis can call themselves Sunnis.

Over the last few days it's been roughly 10 vs 1, in attempts to use isolated and secondary evidence to allege that Iman Hassan(as) divorced 70-300 women (astaghfirullah), and to evade the obvious similarities between misyar and mut'ah.

What a shameless liar this guy is. Who Talked about the number of women Hasan(ra) divorced? It was you kept bringing the number. Where as the brother who raised this issue, merely mentioned what the RELIABLE SHIA HADEETH states, that Hasan(ra) frequently married and divorced. This is a PRIMARY EVIDENCE not secondary.

al Hasan ibn Ali married frequently and divorced frequently. Not one of those marriages were temporary.

And what the brother said, is proven from reliable Shia hadeeth. Accepted by famous Shia scholars such as Majlisi, Yusuf bahrani, and all those akhbari Shia scholars.

It's a pity that even after getting exposed as an ignorant person who doesn't even know majlisi wrote his book to grade hadeeth of al kafi not just merely gathering them as you claimed. You have the audacity to make more false claims. Have some shame.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

A charlatan who relies on emotional rather than academic reasoning, whose taqiya is so blatant.

Then there is iceman who just continues to play dumb when he can’t answer anything.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

To all the brothers and sisters here (I'm sure there are sisters viewing if not commenting):

I realise that many of you will be surprised by the information I've brought on misyar and 'urfi marriage.

Many of you will not have known that such things existed at all, and others will not have realised their level of acceptance and practice in Sunni Muslim societies.
The state of receiving new information which contrasts with what you believed before is called "cognitive dissonance".

Cognitive dissonance is difficult to process, but I will clarify that I'm not presenting this information as a form of criticism against Sunni Muslims.

The point is that misyar and 'urfi have, to all intents and purposes, identical social functions to mut'ah. This means that to criticise the Shia practice is to criticise the Sunni practice, and thus all Muslims.

Isn't it better that, rather than being quick to condemn, we make efforts to understand why mut'ah, misyar and 'urfi prevail in our societies and why they are approved of by our 'ulama?

Thank you for listening.

We want to protect our sisters be it Shia or Sunni. From the unislamic marriages being endorsed under the name of Islam, be it Mutah or the marriage with the intention of divorce. We want to do this through educating them.

And no manner what you say, we will do our best to  protect our Shia sisters or Sunni sisters. No matter how much you feel bad, we will not stop in educating the sisters in an academic manner using Quran and hadeeth of Prophet(saws) about the prohibition of Mutah or any marriage which resembles it. Even if it came from Fatwa of Sunni scholars we won't hesitate in pointing out their mistake.

[Ibrahim]

I don't think that's true, prove it. Rather, even mut'ah is forbidden to be done with them if you are in a permanent marriage with a Muslim.

GreatChineseFall Here's a link to the rulings of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali al Sistani on the subject:

https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2348/

No 2406 is relevant to your inquiry. Some other scholars rule that permanent marriage with Kitabi women is halal but makruh.

So mut'ah is used as a da'wah practice? Why is it forbidden for married men then? Or are only unmarried men suitable for this da'wah? Please, is it forbidden then to have children with them for as long as they are not converted? Or are you going to anticipate a conversion and produce children beforehand anyway?

Yes, naturally for Muslims with good akhlaq to spend time around non-Muslims can be a form of da'wah. Women converting to Islam to marry Muslim men, or due to being impressed by Muslims' adab, is a common occurrence.

In the case of children, to my understanding it will be similar to permanent marriage with Kitabi women whereby, assuming they don't revert, the situation is allowed but undesirable.

How generous of these guys to help these poor women out and how inconvenient for them that Allah has restricted a man to marry four women only. Can't he just help them out financially without a marriage or can't he guide them to other righteous and financially responsible men? Or is he the only suitable person around? In what world would this ever be the only practical solution to that problem?

Of course Allah(swt) has not made this Deen inconvenient for us. The above situation is one which I opined would be unlikely, though an eminent case would be that of a man away from home for extended periods of time.

For a man who isn't away from home, he may prefer to contract mut'ah than to provide support freely, or there may be other contingencies.

Finally, there it is, a partial admission after several posts. We are not there yet however, why don't you admit it fully while you are at it? To fulfill sexual needs doesn't just have to be an aspect of mut'ah, it can be the main purpose of it, can't it? So all those examples you just mentioned are just convenient examples. You have no problem with a man who lives with his four wives, and he isn't some place remote, and his wives aren't pregnant or unavailable or something, and his future mut'ah wife isn't financially in very difficult times or a widow, he simply doesn't have an "appetite" for his permanent wives, to just go and contract a mut'ah marriage with some woman or even multiple women for a few hours. You don't have a problem with this, as it's not only permissible, rather it is recommended and he is seen as someone who has done a virtuous act of worship. There lies the main difference with any other type of marriage.

An "admission" of something we're already aware of?
We already know that mut'ah is contracted for sexual relations to take place without sin; but it also has other social functions.

Regarding the "recommended" status of mut'ah, to my understating that's true but it depends on the circumstances. Marriage on the whole is recommended in Islam, and one of the many reasons for this is to satisfy physical needs in a halal manner. This is true for the Islamic view of marriage in general, so I don't concur with the "difference" you note in your last sentence.

It's highly unlikely that a man in the situation you describe above would look for a temporary marriage, especially since it's very rare for a man to have four wives to begin with. Therefore, this is more of a theoretical question than a real life one.

If in that situation, something was so amiss that his four wives weren't enough for him, it might be symptomatic of more deeply-rooted problems in the domestic sphere.
Temporary marriage may be halal for him, though that doesn't mean it would be the best thing for him to do.

Something I must remind you of is that according to all Muslims, the Holy Prophet(saws) made mut'ah halal and instructed the sahaaba to do it.

When you're questioning me from a skeptical angle, you're questioning something Allah(swt) and His Messenger(saws) made halal, according to your own beliefs.

[Ibrahim]

Noor-us-Sunnah Respect to you for referring to your "Shia sisters".

This is why I never lose hope.