By Cyril Anderson

 Part Two of Three

On the Debate within the Muslim community

A bit about the history and details of the debate over muta’a within the Muslim community would seem to be appropriate at this point.  First of all, while muta’a is today known as an Islamic institution, muta’a did not begin at the time of Muhammad.  At the time of Muhammad, there were a number of different types of unions permitted within the Central Arabian region.  Of these, Muhammad clearly prohibited all but two of these types, leaving nikah (permanent marriage) and muta’a (fixed-term unions).

 Muta’a is mentioned a number of times in the primary Islamic literature.  First of all, the practice is mentioned in the Qu’ran, in verse 4:24 “and as to those with whom you have had enjoyment (astamta’tum), give them their compensation as agreed upon, and there is no blame on you regarding what you agree upon after what has been appointed.”  Traditional tafsir¹ (exegesis) has identified this verse as referring to muta’a unions.  The ahadith narrations vary from Sunni sources to Shia sources, and there are diverging opinions expressed on the topic even in the Sunni canonical ahadith sollections.^2,3,4   Shia scholars reject the notion of banning muta’a based on ahadith narrations, given that the Qu’ran speaks of muta’a, and is considered a higher order source for deriving legal judgements, capable of being over-ruled be overruled by another Qu’ran verse.  The verse 4:24, however, is among the later verses of the Qu’ran, revealed in 9 A.H.  There are no later Qu’ran verses dealing with the subject.

 Within Muslim communities, there is a great debate about this issue, particularly between Sunnis and Shias.  Sunnis consider this form of union to no longer be legitimate, based on narrations in their collections which say that Muhammad (saws) prohibited it late in his mission after permitting it for a time.  Shias argue, on the other hand that these narrations are fabricated, or that any statements by Muhammad prohibiting muta’a on any occasion were specific to the particular context of that occasion, and not a general prohibition.  Within the Sunni canonical collections of traditions, particularly in Sahih Muslim, there are narrations supporting the Shia position in addition to narrations supporting the Sunni position.  Shias say that muta’a was allowed in general throughout the time of Muhammad’s mission, and was only banned by the Caliph Umar later.  Shias also record Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib as saying “had Umar not banned muta’a, no Muslim after would ever have had reason to engage in fornication.  Some Sunni Muslims make an argument against muta’a using an analogy with the case of alcohol.  In line with the Islamic legal principle of gradual social changes, alcohol was not prohibited right away, but in stages.  Similarly, these Sunnis argue, muta’a was permitted, and then forbidden.  Shia scholars counter however by pointing out narrations which record Muhammad ordering followers to do muta’a, and by reminding that in contrast to this, Muhammad never told anyone to drink alcohol.  Shia scholars also argue that a practice can only become obsolete when the sort of circumstances that made it beneficial disappears.  The difficult sorts of social circumstances to which muta’a presents  a beneficial solution however are however still very much present.

The differences between muta’a and dating

Muta’a may sound like dating, but carries a number of differences.

First of all, in contrast to dating, an agreement must be set before the union specifying the length of time of the relationship, the conditions of the relationship, and a dowry to be given to the woman.  There is a great psychological difference in the fact that the two by contract explicitly commit themselves to each other for a set period of time.  It forces thinking in terms of commitment, forces one to look beyond the moment to think ahead to the future, and forces one to be clear and up front about the nature of the relationship.  It is a more serious thing psychologically than unregulated dating.

 Any children conceived in the union are considered legitimate under religious law and the father has legal obligation to provide support for the child.

Restrictions are made on how soon a woman may contract a muta’a following previous relations with another man, specifically she must wait 45 days.  This is to ensure that she is not pregnant by the other man.  This simple restriction is to help women to avoid problems of confusion over paternity that comes from having too many partners in a short time.  True, can test, but great psychological strain and hassle.  Similarly, a man cannot marry a woman in muta’a unless it has been at least this long a time since her last sexual relations with another man.

 In muta’a, there is a protection for young women in that generally, a virgin girl needs her father’s permission to engage in muta’a for the union to be considered legitimate.  This is opposed to dating, which has no restrictions.

 Finally, while in fornication, there is no limitation as to who a person becomes involved with, in muta’a, there are restrictions; a Muslim man can only marry with a monotheist woman, and a Muslim woman only with a Muslim man.  

¹http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10829

 ²Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139  http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.139

 ³Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 51  http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.051

 ⁴Muslim, Book 8, Chapter 3, Numbers 3243-3250  http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html

                          Part One             Part Two             Part Three