Title: Further Discussions on 'Mut`ah' Question/Comments: First Response Assalaam Alaikum dear brother, While reading on this issue, I was surprised to know that mut'a was in practice before Islam. To the best of my knowledge this is not correct. Bibi Ayesha's (ra) account of the type of marriages that existed in jahiliyyah in Bukhari does not make a mention of mut'a . My reading of Ahlal Sunnah sources also submits to the understanding that much of this is spread through the Encyclopedia of Islam, written by a group of Orientials. Dr. Muhammad Muslehuddin in his short pamphlet on Mut'a , that is published out from Islamic Publications International, also makes a note of this. As to the nature of mut'a as a marriage, we ask you to consult the Encyclopedia of the Ahlal bayt at this address: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6a Maududi's comment on the practice are also note worthy. I do not have the pamphlet with me, but will share it with you as time permits, insha 'Allah ! Further questions and follow ups can be directed to either me or encyclopedia@cs.stanford.edu Kindly remember us in your prayers Abbas (An Editor of the Ahlal Bait Encyclopedia) Second Response Here is a comment on an item, which you posted on your site. You specified an aya as a proof that "the Qur'an does not support this view", however, you did not mention the Qur'anic aya , which was the basis of permitting the Temporary Marriage or Mut'a Marriage ( aya 24 in Surat al Nisaa .) The said aya talks about marriage and the ayas before it and after it are talking about marriage as well (e.g. who can not be married, ..etc.). I refer you to any popular Arabic multi volume tafseer book, which will tell you that this aya is the basis for Mutaa marriage. Please also note that Surat al-Nisaa is Madhaniyya and both suras which you sited ( Surah Al-Mominun and Surah Al-Ma`arij ) are both Makkiyya . Earlier aya can not abrogate/invalidate a later aya or instruction! You can read detailed analysis about Temporary Marriage (Chapter 6) at: http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/ Wassalam , Shaun Astarabadi Member of Ahlul Bayte DILP (Digital Islamic Library Project) Answer: Mr. Ali Abbas in his response to my point of view on Mut`ah has stated that Mut`ah was not prevalent in the Jahiliyyah, i.e. the pre-Islamic Arab society, as I have implied in my reply to one of the question. According to Mr. Abbas, Mut`ah was basically and originally introduced and promoted by Islam. Besides this point, Mr. Abbas has also referred to an article, the author of which has tried to establish that Mut`ah is a legitimate form of relationship between a man and a woman, according to the teachings of Islam. The author has endeavored to prove his point on the basis of: The Qur'an ; Sunni commentaries of the Qur'an ; Sunni Hadith Collections; Sunni History/ Fiqh /Misc. Books; and the acts of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions (ra). In another response, Mr. Shaun Astarabadi has also given the same argument from the Qur'an as is given by the author of the article referred to by Mr. Abbas. In the following paragraphs, I will try to briefly give my point of view on the objections raised by my respected brothers. As far as whether or not Mut`ah was prevalent in the pre-Islamic Arabs is concerned, it does not, in my opinion, has much of a significance. It may (as Jawwad Ali holds in his Al-Mufassal fi Tareekh il-Arab Qabla'l-Islam ) or may not (as Mr. Abbas has stressed) have been prevalent in the pre-Islamic Arabs. The basic point that I have tried to establish is that it was never a part of the social setup accepted, introduced or promoted by Islam. I must submit here though that the argument given by Jawwad Ali to substantiate that Mut`ah was prevalent in the pre-Islamic society, is not satisfactory. Therefore, Mr. Abbas's point of view seems to be more convincing and acceptable. Before going into details with my reply to these responses, I would like to clarify here that any historical tradition, narrative ascribed to or pertaining to the life of the Prophet ( Hadith ) or the companions of the Prophet ( Aathaar ) that, in any way, imply that Mut`ah was considered to be a legitimate relationship between a man and a woman cannot be accepted as truly depicting the facts, if the Qur'an disallows such a relationship. The fact that such historical traditions, hadith or aathaar are referred to in Sunni books has absolutely no bearing on my point of view. If such traditions, hadith and aathaar are contradictory to the Qur'an, as I hold and have tried to explain in my original reply, they are then just not acceptable to me, and I am sure, neither would they be acceptable to Mr. Abbas, Mr. Astarabadi or any other Muslim. I, therefore, suggest that we restrict our discussion, at least to begin with, to the understanding of the Qur'an . If the Qur'an is ultimately found to support my point of view, we should then have absolutely no reservations in out rightly rejecting the contradicting historical traditions, hadith and aathaar. While, if the Qur'an itself is found to support the point of view given by Mr. Abbas and Mr. Astarabadi, we should then consider these traditions, hadith and aathaar more positively. In the light of the above explanation, I would like to thoroughly consider here the primary argument, which is based on the Qur'an , given by the referred article. The author of the article has based his argument on the 24th verse of Surah Al-Nisaa . The verse reads as follows: The translation of the verse, according to the author of the article is as under: ... the rest are lawful unto you to seek them with gifts from your property (i.e., dowry), provided that you desire protection (from sin), not fornication. So for whatever you have had of pleasure ( Istamta'tum ) with them by the contract , give unto them their appointed wages as a duty . And there is no sin for you in what you both agree (in extending the contract) after fulfilling the (first) duty. The author has then explained his point of view regarding this verse in the following words: In the above verse, the Arabic equivalent of the word "marriage" or any of its derivatives has NOT been used. Rather the derivative of word " Mut'a " (pleasure/temporary marriage) has been used, i.e., " Istamta'tum ". The word Istamta'a is the tenth verbal form of the root m-t-a . As we will show shortly, the word Istamta'a has also been widely used in the authentic Sunni collections for Temporary Marriage. Of course, Mut'a is one type of marriage, but some of it's regulations are different than the permanent marriage, including the fact that the couple can extend this contract by mutual agreement as the end of verse specifies. It is quite clear from the above argument that the author has based his point of view on the word " istamta`tum ". According to the author, because this word is derived from the root m-t-`a , which is also the root for " Mut`ah " it therefore implies that the Qur'an is talking about " Mut`ah " here. Before I give my comments on the above argument, I would like to clarify to my readers that the italicized parts of the translation do not exist in the Arabic text of the Qur'an . There are no words in the Arabic text, which can be translated as " by the contract " . Neither do I see any reason to make the parenthetical addition " in extending the contract ". Now, let us see what exactly the word " istamta`a " means. According to Aqrab al-Mawarid , " istamta`a be kaza " has the same meanings as " Tamatta`a be kaza " and " Imtata`a be kaza " which has been described as: "To take advantage/pleasure from something for a long time". According to the Arabic-English dictionary, " Al-Mawrid ", " Istamta`a be " means: "to enjoy; to savor; relish; get pleasure from; to take pleasure or satisfaction or delight in; to have for one's use or benefit; have the use or benefit of". It should be quite clear from the above that the word " istamta`a " is not used in the Arabic language in the sense that has been implied by the author of the referred article. The referred part of the verse should thus be translated as: ... other women are lawful for you, provided you seek them with your wealth (i.e., dowry), .... So for the enjoyment/pleasure you have already had from them give them their dowry, as a duty . And there is no sin for you in what you mutually agree upon (regarding the dowry) after fulfilling the duty. The verse, as should be clear from the above translation has nothing to do with " Mut`ah ". The underlined part (which includes the word " istamta`tum ") is only to stress that even though you have had the conjugal pleasures from your marriage and even though you have consummated your marriage, you must fix and pay them their dowries, considering it a duty upon yourself. Thus, this part of the verse is to correct the attitudes of the Arabs towards dowry, who used to take it very lightly and would not give it much importance. The remaining part of the verse, i.e. "And there is no sin for you in what you mutually agree upon after fulfilling the duty", is again with reference to the dowry, as should be clear from the parenthetical addition). It says that it is the duty of the man to give the dowry to the woman but if they both mutually agree upon to waive any part of the dowry, there shall be no blame on either of them. This, in a way is the same directive as has been given in Al-Nisaa 4: 4. The Qur'an says: Give the women their dowry as a gift; but if they choose to make over to you a part of it, you may regard it as lawfully yours. (4: 4) I am sure that from the above explanation, my respected brothers will be able to see very clearly that in my opinion their interpretation of the referred verse is in no way correct or acceptable. The verse is quite clear in its implication and should be interpreted in the light of the normal usage of its words in the Arabic language. In case my respected friends would like to carry on this discussion and would like to convince me of their point of view, I would like to suggest that to make our discussion meaningful and precise, they should concentrate on providing linguistic evidences (that is evidence from Arabic literature) to prove the following points: The word " zauj " (singular of " azwaj ") is used for women with whom a person has a contract of " Mut`ah ", or that a woman with whom a person has a contract of " Mut`ah " was termed a slave girl. Providing this evidence is necessary because according to the Qur'an sexual relationship, for a man, is only allowed with " azwaj " or with slave girls. The word " Istamta`a be " is used for " Mut`ah ". If " Mut`ah " is to be accepted as a part of the social setup of Islam, then evidences to substantiate the above two points must be provided. Once these points have been adequately evidenced, we shall then look for the detailed guidance given in the Shari`ah (Qur'an and Sunnah ) in this respect. This again would be necessary. For if " Mut`ah " was a part of the pre-Islamic Arab culture (as Jawwad Ali holds) there must be a noun in the classical Arabic literature to denote it (which I have failed to find yet), just like the noun " Nikah ". The very existence of this noun is evidence of the fact that the Arab culture consisted of and recognized something called " Nikah ". On the other hand, if " Mut`ah " was introduced and promoted by Islam (as Mr. Abbas holds), then: The Qur'an should not have used a verb of common usage ( istamta`a ), especially when it stood for some other meaning, to teach people about something, which was being introduced for the first time; The Qur'an or the Sunnah should then have given the detailed law regarding this newly introduced concept of relationship between a man and a woman. Without getting the above evidences, a Muslim who desires to live his life according to the clear teachings of his Lord, the Qur'an and the Sunnah of His Prophet , cannot accept that the concept of " Mut`ah " has been promoted by the Qur'an, especially when there is clear evidence that the whole concept of " Mut`ah " is in contradiction to the Qur'anic stress on chastity and loyalty. 4 th April 1998