Tunaambiwa ujibu hilo swali nililokuuliza
Mut’ah: Divine Prostitution?
If he is a traveler, a tourist or a pilgrim, the faithful Muslim may have some other temporary “wives” at strategic places wherever he lodges. This “marriage” is known as mut’ah or the Law of Desire.
The word mut’ah means “desire” or “pleasure.” Mut’ah marriage may last for one hour or as long as the man desires.
Under Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran was regarded by some Muslims worldwide as an example of the kingdom of Allah on earth.
Since Sharia, the Islamic legal system, became fully operational in Iran in 1979, mut’ah has been revitalized.
Many Iranian women (most of them divorcees) are engaged in mut’ah for economic sustenance.
According to a research done by an Iranian woman, Shahla Haeri, mut’ah flourishes in Iran and Egypt today. Some Islamic scholars in Iran believe that one is even free to contract many mut’ahs at the same time —apart from the four wives and slave girls or house-helps the Muslim man may have at home.
Historian Burkhardt pointed out that mut’ah was already prevalent in Arabia before Muhammad started preaching. The custom was that a host would offer one of his female relatives to his guest for the night.
The “marriage” ended the following morning or whenever the guest left.
When the practice became fully developed in Islam, it became an arrangement between a man and an unmarried woman, preferably a virgin, divorcee or widow. The partners agree in advance how long the relationship shall last and the amount of money to be paid by the man.
Witnesses are not required nor parents involved; the marriage need not be registered.
At the end of the agreed time, the temporary “spouses” part without any formality or divorce ceremony.
After separation, the woman must abstain from sex for two months to know who fathered the child that may result.
This practice is common especially among tourists, pilgrims and visitors. With such provision, one does not have to travel with one’s wife to avoid adultery.
A modern Muslim who grew up or was educated in America or Europe may contend that mut’ah is just an invention of some weak Iranian or Egyptian men and not an approved practice of the prophet of Islam.
But commenting on Sura 4:24, Al-Razi, one of the greatest Islamic thinkers says:
Muta’ah marriage involved a man hiring a woman for a specific amount of money, for a certain period of time, to have sex with her.
The scholars agree that this Mut’ah marriage was authorized in the beginning of Islam. It is reported that when the Prophet came to Mecca to perform “Omrah, the women of Mecca dressed up and adorned themselves.
The Companions (that is, the followers of Muhammad) complained to the Prophet that they had not had sex for a long time, so he said to them: “enjoy these women.”
In the Hadith Mishkat-ul-Masabih, we read:
Ibn Masu’d reported: We were fighting along with Messenger of Allah while (our) wives were not with us. We said: shall we not undergo castration?
The Holy Prophet forbade us from that. Afterwards he made lawful Mut’ah Marriage. So all of us married a woman for a fixed term in exchange for a cloth.
Afterwards Abdullah (i.e. servant of Allah, Muhammad) recited: O those who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made for you.
That means the revelation of Allah in Sura 5:87 and quoted in that Hadith came to give a divine approval on Mut’ah.
If Allah gave these instructions through Muhammad, we need to ask if Allah is the same God that reveals Himself in the Bible. When foreign journalists complain every year of prostitution in Mecca during the hajj, it is because they do not understand what goes on.
To the Christian, all this nullifies God’s clear injunction:
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
To a Muslim, such a commandment is vague.
Mut’ah makes the words “adultery” “fornication” and “prostitution” very difficult to define.
It also makes a mockery of the Islamic legal system called Sharia, which stipulates that an adulterer or fornicator be executed. If two people are caught and say they were only doing mut’ah, how would the jurists disprove them?