Is It True That MUT'AH Is NIKAH? The Real Types of Marriage, Marriage With Given Authorization

03 June 2012

By Ikhwah Al-Mujahidun

I used to be an advocate of the teachings of Shiah and at that time, I had spread the "religious prostitution" of this Mut'ah.

So to make up for my sins, I am now always trying to awaken the Muslims that what is called MUT'AH relationship has no basis at all.

I previously felt "like a buffalo with pierced (harnessed) nose" (a proverb signifying the state of being controlled ed.), accepting whatever was delivered by those Shiah "ulama's". Although actually deep down I kept on wondering, because there were doubts.

The argumentation of the Shiahs on the halal status of the mut'ah relationship with verse 4:24 is no other than to deflect the meaning and purpose of the verse and take out the context of the verse from the verse before and after it, and also not seeing that al-Qur'an is one unit and one verse is an explanation for another verse. And also, a very striking example is in the case of term "Ahlul Bait" on verse 33:33, which is also taken out of its context, so that its meaning could be skewed to become 'certain people' outside of the context of the verse.

Now, let's see the context of the word TAM-TA'-TUM in the verse:

And do not MARRY those [women] whom your fathers married, except what has already occurred. Indeed, it was an immorality and hateful [to Allah ] and was evil as a way.

Prohibited to you [for MARRIAGE] are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father's sisters, your mother's sisters, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, your [milk] mothers who nursed you, your sisters through nursing, your wives' mothers, and your step-daughters under your guardianship [born] of your wives unto whom you have gone in. But if you have not gone in unto them, there is no sin upon you. And [also prohibited are] the wives of your sons who are from your [own] loins, and that you take [in marriage] two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.

And [also prohibited to you are all to MARRY] married women except MAA-MALAKAT-AIMAA-NUKUM. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in MARRIAGE] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for WHATEVER YOU ENJOY [of MARRIAGE] FROM THEM (the wives), give them their due compensation (dowry) as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree (to vary it), AFTER A DOWRY IS PRESCRIBED. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to MARRY free, believing women, then [he may MARRY] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So MARRY them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (4:22-25)

So if NOT TAKEN OUT FROM its context, the above verse -among others- contains the obligation of paying dowry after the aqad nikah (covenant of marriage) which must be paid if the husband has enjoyed [of the marriage] with his wife. This is seen from the next sentence, "there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree (to vary it), AFTER A DOWRY IS PRESCRIBED."

It cannot be imagined at all that it talks about the so-called "NIKAH (which actually is not nikah) MUT'AH". And if we admit that the teachings of Al-Qur'an is a unity, then the verses about this NIKAH (MARRIAGE) should also be linked with other verses about NIKAH.

Al-Qur'an teaches that Nikah is also categorized as "mistaqan ghalidhan" (4:21), a word that is also used in the context of the Covenant of the Prophets with Allah (33:7). So it's not just any frivolous agreement or covenant.

Due to the strength of the bonds, an already married couple do not split up / divorce just like that. If a problem should arise, they have to be reconciled first in the framework of islah with the mediation of the hakam (arbitrator) from the party of the husband or the wife:

4:35 "And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things]."

The difficulty of the process of divorce can also be seen from the need for two witnesses when the proceeding of the divorce takes place (65:2). So it is not a case of "as long the word divorce was hurled out by the husband, then the divorce happens". And on the other hand, when already divorced, and they feel encouraged to remarry, the process of remarriage is so easy (read the following verses: 2:228,229,231; 65:2).

Since the verses of the Qur'an is a UNITY of the teachings of Islam, then the verses about nikah must be in one package of teaching with the verses about divorce and other verses about family.

Thereby, the overview of NIKAH according to the teachings of the Qur'an is far away from the MUT'AH, so much so that this BID'AH Mut'ah does not deserve to be called Nikah.

Since Mut'ah is bid'ah, then as a consequence, its architects have to create its subsequent bid'ah, for example, in terms of the rules of the iddah on the women after having been given mut'ah, the rules of the inheritance of the children as the product of mut'ah, etc. where none of these are in the Qur'an.

From the viewing glass of the Qur'an, the sexual relationship, in which the end does not know the process of divorce, is more fit to be called ZINA.

Where did the teaching of Mut'ah possibly originate from?

As we know it, distorted teachings on a religion usually occur as a result of the influence (whether intentional or not) of the existing belief or doctrine in the area where the original teaching spreads.

Generally, Muslims admit that the teaching of the trinity on the Christian religion is not the original teachings of Jesus/ Prophet Isa, but due to the influence of the beliefs of the Roman society.

It would certainly make us wonder, where did the teaching of mut'ah, which is considered as marriage, come from and why is it particularly popular in the Persian community (Iran and Iraq)?

I quote below the types of marriage in the Majusi/Zoroaster religion, which was the religion of the Persian society in the past, where there is a big possibility that it was where the mut'ah, which is considered as marriage, originated from:

The types of marriage

In the beliefs of Zoroaster/ Majusi there are basically two types of marriage (zanh), namely: pdixyh ("with authorization, given authorization") and strh, each with several subtypes and forms which are not coordinated. As they underwent gradual blurring and modification by the terminology of the Central Persia in the Islamic period, somehow, five types of marriage are recognized in the Persian Rivayats (Transl. Dhabhar, I, pg. 180-81).

Marriage with given authorization

A marriage with authorization (zanh zan pdixyh "the marriage of a woman in the conditions of being given authorization"; Mdayn, pt. 1, pg. 36) is the legal union/bond of a husband and wife; could be construed as a "lawful" wedlock, the equivalent of marriage in Islam or Christianity. There are family members who are known as y "husband," zan "wife," pus "son," and duxt "daughter". This type of marriage requires the authorization of the bride's father or wali (guardian), as well as a detailed marriage contract (paymn zanh;. Pahlavi Texts, Jamasp-Asana ed., pg. 141-43), out of which an example has survived in the Islamic period (1278 CE).

In pdixyh not only the sanction of the guardian but the consent of the bride and groom is also very important (Mdayn, pt. 1, pg. 36). Adurbd Mahrspandn (qv) advises the young men to propose themselves to the bride (xwetan ray zan xwad xwh; Pahlavi Texts, Jamasp-Asana ed., pg. 61), from this it follows that in the Sasania period, marriage is usually arranged by the parents or matchmaker, as is the still existing practice in Persia. It is the duty of the father to decide for his son to look for a wife and his daughter to be given in marriage (Dnkard, Madan ed., II, pg. 744).

Appeared before the judges (mowbed) are the two fathers, the bride (wayg) and the bridegroom (Damad), and three witnesses (gugy), whose identities have been registered. When married, the bridegroom assumes the status of 'the head of the household' and the bride as 'the lady of the house', with the rights and duties which accompany them (Dnkard, Madan ed., II, pg. 739).

It is known that there was an old custom of receiving an amount of two thousand drahms of "security" (pyandanh) by the bride, which is the euphemism of a marriage. It is also alleged that for the higher class circle, the portion of the marriage is not limited to this traditional amount but also includes moving or real property given to the family of the bride with the incentive of a rich dowry (*passzagn). It is this kind of transaction that might be the main reason for one to choose a close relative for marriage, to prevent the riches from leaving the family. As a matter of fact, the type of marriage which is the most beneficial, which is regarded as a panacea for all the deadly sins other than sodomy (Rivyat md, chap. 29), is what is referred by modern Persians as a unification of the "next of kin" (xwddah, Av xvatvadaa-; AirWb. , col. 1860; Nyberg, Manual II, pg. 224), described in Dnkard (Madan ed., I, pg. 73) as "the union of the father and the daughter, the son and the mother, the brother and the sister" (hampaywandh Engkau pid duxt ud, ud ud burdr nanah, ud ud brad xwah). Stated in Yasna (12.9) the devout people -xvatvadaa have the right to respect.

Consanguineous (kin) marriage was originally performed by the nobility among the commoners, which later was generally practiced by all parts of the Iranian society, the high and the low stratum. Many Persian kings married their sisters or daughters (Boyce, Zoroastrianism I, pg. 254 n. 24, II, pg. 75-77; idem, 1979, sv khvetvadatha), and the Majusi, as reported by Xanthus Lydia, did live together with their mothers and daughters (Jackson, pg. 152-57). During the period of Sasania, priest Arda Wrz (qv) took all his seven sisters as wives (Arda Wrz Nmag, chap. 2). Consanguineous marriage among the common people are covered in most law books of Central Persia, especially the Rivyat md (chapter 22, 24, 27-30; see de Menasce, 1985, pg. 138-44; Shaki, 1971, pg. 335-36; Nyberg, Manual II, pg. 224).

The Pdixyh marriage could be temporary, for a period of time mutually agreed, and thus it can function as a form of marriage friendship. After the expiry of the specified time period, the wife's dowry and personal property (wspuhragn) return to her, however, if she dies, the property belongs to her husband (Mdayn, pt. 2, pg. 2).



Add Comments

Comments & Debates :-: التعليقات والمحاورات

:-: Go Home :-: Go Top :-: