One of the undeniable propositions about which no one with the least knowledge of Islamic laws and orders can have any doubt is that Temporary Marriage i.e. marriage which is for a limited and specified time, was declared lawful by the Holy Prophet himself and many of his companions availed themselves of the permission under this law during his lifetime as well as after his death.

The exegetes of Islam are unanimous on this point that a number of distinguished companions of the Holy Prophet e.g. Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, Imran Ibn Hasin, Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Abi Ibn Ka’b.and the like gave verdicts in favour of permissibility of Temporary Marriage and used to read the aforesaid verse (4:24) in this manner: “Give those women their dowries as fixed reward whom you marry for a fixed period”.1

Certainly, it was not their idea that an alteration had taken place in the Holy Qur’an and something had been omitted from it. No. Never! On the contrary their object was to narrate the commentary which they had heard from the Holy Prophet, i.e., the very person on whom this Sublime Divine Book had been revealed, although from the narrations recorded by Ibn Jarir Tabari in his commentary, it apparently seems that the verse “Give those women their dowries as a fixed reward whom you marry for a specified period” originally formed a part of the Holy Qur’an, for he says: “Abu Nasira narrates thus: ‘I read this verse before Ibn Abbas’. He said, ‘Read for a specified period’. I said: ‘I do not read it like this’. He said, ‘I swear by Allah that it has been revealed like this (He repeated these words thrice)”.

However, the status of Ibn Abbas who had been given the title of the Saint of Islam (Hibr ul-Ummah) is certainly much above attributing alteration in the Holy Qur’an. If this report was authentic, he certainly meant that the explanation of the verse had come down like this.

Myth Of Abrogation Of The Verse

In any case there is consensus of opinion of the Ulama’ of Islam on this point, rather it is a necessity of faith, that in the beginning Temporary Marriage was permissible and Muslims practised it in the early days of Islam except that the opponents of this assert that later the relevant verse was abrogated and Temporary Marriage became unlawful. 

However, there is a difference of opinion regarding the abrogation of the verse and the traditions which are adduced by the said people in support of their claim are conflicting.

It is evident that so far as such traditions are concerned, they are not only incredible but they should not also lead to any conjecture or suspicion because according to juridical rules a final order cannot be taken to be abrogated without the existence of a definite proof.

To explain further, it may be said that In regards to the abrogation of the verse, they sometimes claim that the Holy Prophet himself permitted the Temporary Marriage in the first instance and later declared it to be unlawful and on this account the verse was abrogated by the tradi­tion of the Holy Prophet.

At another time they say that the said verse was abrogated by other verses of the Holy Qur’an. There is also a difference of opinion among them as to which verse abrogated it. Some say that it was abrogated by the verse relating to divorce:

“If you divorce women, divorce them during the proper period of ‘Iddah2” (65:1).

Others say that the verse in question has been abrogated by the verse relating to the inheritance of husband and wife:

“In what your wives leave, your share is half, if they leave no child” (4:12).

We think that these claims are so feeble and baseless that they do not necessitate any reply because these verses (verses related to inheritance and divorce) do not have the least relevance with the verse relating to Temporary Marriage so that it could be said that one cancels the other.

We shall explain later that Temporary Marriage is a sort of real marriage and the woman who gets married in this manner is really the wife and spouse of the man and all the orders relating to marriage apply to her3.

Some of the opponents claim that the verse in question has been abrogated through the verse:

“Except with their wives or those whom their right bands possess for then verily they are not blameable” (23:6).

Because this verse introduces the legality of intercourse of man and woman in two cases namely, actual marriage or in the case of the master of a slave girl, and the Temporary Marriage satisfies neither of the two conditions.

The well-known Sunni scholar Alusi says thus in his commentary: The Shi’a cannot claim that the woman who contracts a Temporary Marriage is a sort of a slave girl because this proposition would be patently false. They cannot also claim that she is equivalent to a wife because the effects and orders of wifehood like inheritance, ‘Iddah, subsistence and divorce do not apply to her”.

This reasoning of Alusi is very queer. The Shi’a say that the woman who contracts Temporary Marriage is a real wife and Alusi’s remark that she does not fulfil the necessary conditions of this office is absolutely baseless and incorrect for the following reasons:

Firstly, if he means that the essentials and the effects to which he has referred (inheritance, subsistence etc.) exist in all types of marriages, this claim is absolutely untenable because such effects exist definitely in the case of only one marriage. If, however, it is meant that in most kinds of marriages these necessities are proved we too accept this fact. 

However, their non-existence in some cases (Temporary Marriage) does not cause any harm. From the various types of evidence which is available, it would appear that these necessities do not exist.in all cases because we find that in most instances the wife does not inherit but still, she is a wife. For example, the wife who is an infidel, does not inherit and similarly, the wife who attempts murder of her husband is not entitled to inherit from him. 

Furthermore, if a man, suffering from some ailment, marries a woman but dies before any sexual intercourse takes place, his wife will not inherit from him (although the marriage in all these cases have been Permanent Marriages).

On the contrary we find instances wherein marriages are totally dissolved on account of divorce but the right of inheritance remains intact. For example, if a man divorces his wife during his illness which culminates in his death and her Jddab also expires and subsequently the man dies before the completion of one year, the woman will inherit from him.

Secondly, even if we suppose that all these effects including inheritance are necessary concomitants of wifehood, the said arguments would still remain indecisive because it is not an established fact that a woman who is married temporarily is not entitled to inheritance. On the other hand, some Shi’a scholars believe that such a woman also inherits like one with whom permanent marriage is accomplished. Some other scholars are, however, of the view that normally she does not inherit but a stipulation can be made for inheritance i.e. conditions can be laid down in the text of the marriage contract that the parties will inherit from each other.

In such a case they will inherit like permanent spouses. Still, other jurists believe that she (the woman with whom Temporary Marriage is accomplished) inherits in all circumstances except when it is stipulated to the contrary i.e. it is made clear at the time of marriage that they will not inherit from each other. Only in that event the woman who contracts a Temporary Marriage will not inherit.

In the above circumstances how can it be said that deprivation of a temporarily married woman from inheritance is an established fact?4

According to the principles of jurisprudence which are available with us and exigency of conjunction between the verses (verse relating to Temporary Marriage and verse relating to marriage, in Surah al-Mu’minun, n. 23), the true position is that the woman with whom Temporary Marriage is accomplished is a wife and all orders relating to marriage apply to her - except when decisive proof excludes her from the application of certain orders.

However, In regards to ‘Iddah, all Shi’a Ulama’ and jurists agree that ‘Iddah is proved in the case of Temporary Marriage and there is not a single person who does not consider it to be compulsory. (Under the circumstances it is not known as to how Alusi should have imputed such an irregularity to Shi’a).

Nevertheless, subsistence is not one of the necessities of marriage because a woman who is not prepared for sexual intercourse with her husband and does not condescend to it, is not entitled to subsistence, although she is admittedly a spouse.

In regards to divorce it should be remembered that in the case of Temporary Marriage there is a thing which is equivalent to divorce and that is the remission of the period of marriage because the husband can remit the remaining period of marriage and get separated from the woman. In that case the need for divorce does not arise. Secondly, the abrogation of the verse relating to Temporary Marriage by the verse regarding marriage (Azwaj) (23:6) is basically impossible because the verse relating to Temporary Marriage is in Surah an-Nisa (4) and this Surah is one of those revealed in Madina, whereas the verse relating to marriage is in Surah al-Mu’minun and Surah al-Ma’arij both of which were revealed in Makkah. Hence, from a historical point of view, the first verse was revealed later and it is not possible that a verse revealed earlier should abrogate it.

Thirdly, a number of distinguished Sunni Ulama’ have quoted narrations according to which the verse relating to Temporary Marriage has not been abrogated. Out of them Zamakhshari quotes, in his exegesis entitled Kash’shaf, from Ibn Abbas that the verse relating to Temporary Marriage is one of the Muhkamat (i.e. verses admitting of no allegorical interpretation). Some others quote from Hakam Ibn Ayina that in reply to the question as to whether the verse relating to Temporary Marriage had been abrogated, he clearly said, ‘No’.

In short, our opponents, after admitting the Temporary Marriage to have been permissible, claim that the order relating thereto was later abrogated and sometimes consider that a verse of the Holy Qur’an has abrogated it. However, the value of such a claim has become evident. At other times they claim that the said verse has been abrogated by tradition (of the Holy Prophet) and treat this tradition quoted by Bukhari and Muslim to be the testimony for their claim: “The Holy Prophet forbade Temporary Marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys and this development took place during the time of the conquest of Makkah or Khaybar or at the time of the Battle of Awtas”5.

As will be observed this tradition is peculiarly conflicting and incoherent. Consequently, those who claim th.at the order relating to Temporary Marriage has been abrogated through any tradition, have said a number of things, so much so that those like Qazi Ayaz have quoted that according to the belief of some people the proposition of Temporary Marriage has twice been added to the list of permissible things and twice declared unlawful!

However, if we extend the area of study of this subject and carefully examine the relevant books, we will find that there is much self-contradiction and diversity of opinions in this matter.

In some of their books it is stated that the abrogation of this order took place at the time of the last Hajj 10 A.H.) and in others it is said that it occurred at the time of the Battle of Tabuk (9 A.H.)

According to one report it took place during the Battle of Awtas or Hunayn (month of Shawwal in the year 8 A.H.) and according to another report it happened during the conquest of Makkah (during the month of Ramadhan).

Some say the Holy Prophet permitted it at the time of the conquest of Makkah and after a few days declared it unlawful at the same place.

However, what is well-known among them is that this order was abrogated at the time of the Battle of Khaybar (7 A.H.) or during Umrat al-Qaza (during Dhu ‘l-Hajj in the same year).

If we accept all these remarks by way of narrations, we should agree that this proposition was permitted five or six times and later declared unlawful - and not only twice or thrice as stated by the Sunni scholar Nouvi and some others in commentary on Sahih Muslim.

O Ulama’ of Islam! What a game you have played with religious matters? Can an iota of any reason approve it?

It is evident that in the circumstances explained above not the least reliance can be placed on the statements made regarding the abrogation of the verse in question and the fable of its abrogation is unacceptable for the following reasons:

(i) The abrogation of a verse by a single report (i.e. a tradition narrated by one person only) is not admissible.

(ii) The traditions, claiming to prove the cancellation of the verse in question, are opposed to other traditions which clearly negate the abrogation of that verse. Such traditions are many and have been quoted by Sunni sources.

(iii) From a number of traditions quoted in the well­ known books of the Sunni, it can be learnt very clearly that this order was operative in the days of the Holy Prophet and even during the time of the first Caliph; and only the second Caliph opposed it. Among others, Bukhari remarks thus in his Sahih: Abu Rija quotes from Imran Ibn Hasin that the verse relating to Muta’ah was revealed in the Holy Qur’an and we along with the Holy Prophet acted on this verse and no verse disallowing Muta’ah was revealed and the Holy Prophet, too, did not prohibit it in his lifetime. Thereafter someone said something about it according to his own thinking. It is said that this man was Umar (Bukhari’s tradition ends).

Muslim, too, quotes on his own authority from Ata to this effect that Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari came to Makkah for Umra. We went to see him at his residence. Those present asked him questions and later enquired about Muta’ah. He replied, “Yes, we practised Muta’ah in the days of the Holy Prophet and acted on this order even in the days of Abu Bakr and Umar”.

It has again been quoted thus in another tradition in Sahih Muslim from Jabir, “In the days of the Holy Prophet we practised Muta’ah for a few days against a small dowry and did so in the time of Abu Bakr till Umar prohibited it in the case of Amr Ibn Harith”.

In the same book Abu Nazar is quoted as saying: “I was with Jabir Ibn Abdullah and told him that Abdullah Ibn Abbas and Abdullah Ibn Zubayr differed with each other in the matter of Muta’ah and Hajj at-Tamattu’ (which is a kind of Hajj)”. Jabir replied, “We performed both of them with the Holy Prophet. Later Umar prohibited both and we too did not dispute over the matter’’.

However, it goes without saying that Jabir’s forbearance on the subject was due to the fear of the Caliph because the latter applied the penalty of adultery in the case of Fixed Time Marriage and subjected the people concerned to a shower of stones.

Indeed, if we study Sahih Muslim carefully and analyse the tradition quoted therein for and against the legality of Muta’ah we come across very interesting results.

Jahni says: “During the year of the conquest of Makkah, on our arrival in that city, the Holy Prophet declared Muta’ah lawful but before we departed from there, he withdrew the order”.

Sometimes they say that the Holy Prophet abrogated this order. At other times they assert that this order was operative in the days of the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr and it was abrogated by Umar. At times they say that Imam ‘Ali repeatedly objected to the view·of Ibn Abbas and dissuaded him from Muta’ah and this repeated objection by Imam ‘Ali was the cause for Ibn Abbas reviewing his belief and forsaking his view regarding Muta’ah. This is notwithstanding the fact that he quotes about Abdullah Ibn Zubayr that one day he rose in Makkah and said: “There are people whose hearts have been blinded by Allah like their eyes. (He meant Abdullah Ibn Abbas who had become blind by that time). They pass verdict regarding Muta’ah as being lawful! Ibn Abbas heard these words and shouted, “You are an ignorant, brainless and disrespectful person. I swear by my life that Muta’ah was practised in the days of Imam ‘Ali, the Commander of the Faithful”.

It is clear from this narration that Ibn Abbas persistently held his views in favour of Muta’ah till the end of his life and even during the rule of Abdullah Ibn Zubayr. However, the thing which is most surprising is associating the decision regarding inadmissibility of Temporary Marriage with the Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Ali because the decision regarding the legality of this institution is considered to be one of the maxims adopted by the people of the Holy Prophet’s Progeny especially so because a number of narrations have been quoted from the Commander of the Faithful contradicting the abrogation of Temporary Marriage.

One of the well-known remarks of Imam ‘Ali which has acquired the position of a proverb is: “If Umar had not forbidden Temporary Marriage none except the vicious people would have been guilty of adultery”. In his great Tafsir, Tabari has quoted him as saying: “If Umar had not forbidden people from Muta’ah none except the vicious people or a very small number of people would have been involved in adultery”.

Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq has also been quoted in reliable narrations as saying: “There are three things about which we need not dissimulate from anyone namely, Hajj at-Tamattu’, Muta’ah and wiping of feet” (i.e. about performance of Hajj at-Tamattu’, admissibility of Temporary Marriage and wiping of feet from the fingers up to the ankle by hands while performing ablution).

Apart from all this there is no room for denying that according to the admitted principles of Jurisprudence when certain traditions and narrations on a subject are opposed to each other and are on equal footing, they are not reliable and fall under the category of being ambiguous. In such circumstances they should be abandoned and efforts made to find out those which need no interpretation but having apparent meaning and clear evidence6.

Taking into account the contradiction of the traditions it may be said about the proposition under discussion that the thing about which the Muslims are generally unanimous is that the Temporary Marriage was lawful and permissible in the beginning. Now the rule of Istishab and the rule of the Basis of non-abrogation which are the two established rules of Jurisprudence ordain that this matter continued to retain its original position. As such there is no course open till today but to accept and decide that it (Temporary Marriage) is permissible!

Question Of Muta’ah And Its Solution

If we wish to do justice to this problem in the light of facts and realities and to find out the secret of all the intricacies and contradictory discussions, we will find out after necessary studies and research that the source of all these disputes is only one point, i.e. that Umar, the second Caliph, according to his own thinking and in view of special considerations occasioned by the conditions prevailing at the time, declared Temporary Marriage to be illegal. This illegality was, however, statutory and secular and not religious or canonical. Hence this sentence has been repeatedly quoted from him: “During the time of the Holy Prophet two Muta’ah were permissible but I have prohibited them and will punish those who act to the contrary - they are Muta’ah of Hajj (Hajj at-Tamattu’) and Muta’ah (Temporary Marriage).

As will be observed, the second Caliph has not associated the order of illegality with the Holy Prophet. On the other hand, he says: “I have prohibited them and shall punish the offenders’’. He does not say that Allah will punish them. Why so? The reason is that it appears very improbable that a person like the second Caliph who displayed insistence and severity in the application of Islamic punishments and penalties should declare unlawful what Allah has made lawful or introduce anything which is not a part of the commands of Islam. This is so because he knew that: Whatever has been declared lawful by the Holy Prophet shall remain lawful till the Day of Judgement and whatever has been declared by him to be unlawful shall remain unlawful till the Day of Judgement. He knew that Almighty Allah says about the Holy Prophet:

“Had he [the Prophet] attributed some false statements to Us” (69:44).

“We would have certainly seized him by the right hand” (69:45).

“And then would surely have cut his life-vein” (69:46).

“And none of you could have defended him” (69:47).

Under the circumstances, how can it be imagined that the Caliph intended declaring unlawful what Allah has made lawful? He definitely intended ordering a sort of statutory and secular prohibition for that period only7.

Unfortunately, however, some traditionalists who were his (Umar’s) contemporaries and some other simple­minded traditionalists ignored this subtle point and considering it improbable that a person like Umar, whose duty was to safeguard the orders of Islam, should declare unlawful what Allah had made lawful and should transgress the limits fixed by Almighty Allah, thought of creating a justification for Umar’s action.

And to achieve this end, they did not find any way out except to claim that the Holy Prophet had first allowed and later prohibited it (i.e. Temporary Marriage). However, as this claim was not in keeping with the reality, they were, while explaining the case, caught in the snare of contradictions and disputes, although, in case they had explained the action of the Caliph in the way we have done they would not have been compelled to make contradictory statements or to take so many pains in the matter. The narration in Sahih Muslim which we have previously quoted from Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari bears testimony to this. He says: “In the days of the Holy Prophet as well as during the time of the first Caliph, we used to accomplish Temporary Marriage against small dowry till Umar prohibited it as a consequence of the incident of Amr Ibn Hurayth”.

In the commentary on Sahih Muslim entitled Ikmal al-Mu’allim written by the Sunni scholar Wishtani Abi he says: “Some say this prohibition was ordered at the end of Umar’s Caliphate while others say that it took place during his Caliphate. He (Umar) used to say: “I will stone to death every married man brought before me on the charge of contracting Temporary Marriage and shall subject to lashes every unmarried man for the same offence”.

Amr Ibn Hurayth contracted Temporary Marriage during the time of the Holy Prophet. This marriage continued till Umar’s Caliphate. Umar heard about the matter. He called the woman concerned in his presence and enquired from her about the incident. She confirmed the position. Umar asked her: “Who is your witness?” She introduced her parents as witnesses. Umar said: “Why have you not produced any other person as witness?” Thereafter he prohibited Temporary Marriage.

Although the details of this incident (of Amr Ibn Hurayth) are not known to us, we are quite aware of the mentality of the second Caliph. He was very severe and harsh in all matters. Often it so happened that in particular circumstances some incident which he did not like took place. This prompted him to ban such a thing totally lest a similar incident should be repeated. Hence as already explained, the source of all disputes which have taken place with regard to this subject was the very prohibitive order of the second Caliph.

Otherwise, the admissibility of Temporary Marriage after clarification by the Holy Qur’an and the actions of the Holy Prophet and his companions during his time and thereafter during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and a part of the Caliphate of Umar is too clear to need dependence on these lengthy disputes and discussions.

Incidentally from the history of Islam, it transpires that Temporary Marriage was prevalent even among the noble men and companions of the Holy Prophet and dignitaries of Quraysh in the days of the Holy Prophet and many of their distinguished descendants were the offsprings of Temporary Marriage.

An example of such incident is the one quoted by Raghib Isfahani who was one of the celebrated Ulama’ of the Sunni and a pious and reliable person. He says: “Abdullah Ibn Zubayr used to. admonish Ibn Abbas for believing in Temporary Marriage as lawful. The latter told him to go to his (Abdullah’s) mother and ask her as to how fragrant smells emitted betwixt his father and mother (here ceremonies of marriage are hinted upon). Abdullah enquired about the matter from his other whereupon she swore by Allah and said that he did not come into the world except through Temporary Marriage”.

This incident has been quoted by the famous Sunni scholar, Raghib Isfahani. However, are you aware as to who Abdullah Ibn Zubayr’s mother was? She was Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr and sister of the mother of the Faithful A’ishah and her husband Zubayr was one of the disciples of the Holy Prophet. Notwithstanding all this he contracted Temporary Marriage with her. Now, with such clear evidence why should we be obstinate about this issue?

After mentioning this event Raghib quotes another incident and says: “Yahya Ibn Aktham (the famous Chief of Justice) asked one of the distinguished men of Basra, “Whom do you follow in the matters of the legality of Temporary Marriage?” He replied, “Umar Ibn al-Khattab”. Yahya inquired, “What do you mean? Umar was one of the greatest opponents of Temporary Marriage”. He replied, “Yes. It has, however, been reported in reliable tradition that he mounted the pulpit and said, ‘O people! There were two Muta’ah which were permitted by Allah and His Prophet and I hereby declare them to be unlawful and shall punish those who contract them ‘. We do not accept his decision regarding the illegality of the Muta’ah”.

A similar incident has been reported by Abdullah Ibn Umar. However, it should be kept in mind that the language which one of the dignitaries of Basra has attributed to Umar regarding the following statement is very harsh and repulsive: (Allah and Prophet made them admissible for you but I disallow them).

Of course, all the Muslims may not like this interpretation. The language used by the second Caliph as reported in the well-known tradition is much milder (There were two Muta’ah during the time of the Holy Prophet which I prohibit). There is certainly a clear difference between the two interpretations, and if the object of the Caliph was the same as hinted upon by us earlier (namely, statutory and secular inadmissibility and not religious inadmissibility and the former too for a specified period) the matters would become much easier.

When I reached here while discussing this subject, I came across the statement of Muhaqqiq Muhammad Ibn Idris Hilli (one of the Shi’a scholars of the sixth century A.H.) which, from many angles, conformed to what I have said. I, therefore, became inclined to quote it for confirmation of the inclusions already arrived at.

He says thus in his book entitled Sara’ir which is one of the best books on Jurisprudence and Ahadith: “Temporary Marriage is permissible in Islamic law. All Muslims believe that it was allowed in the Holy Qur’an as well as through repeated traditions. Only some of them claim that this order has been abrogated. However, it is necessary that they should produce some proof in support of this claim. But where­ from can they produce such a proof?”

Besides this, according to authentic evidence which we have in hand, everything which carries some gain and does not involve any harm in this world or in the next life is permissible according to the dictates of reason. In the case of Fixed Time Marriage this condition is fulfilled namely, it carries gam and does not also involve any harm in the next life. On this account also we can declare it to be lawful.

If any person objects as to how we can claim that this act does not involve any harm in the next life when there is a dispute among the Muslims regarding its legality? We would say in reply:

Firstly, one who claims that it is illegal, should produce proof in support of his claim and in the absence of such proof, reason would ordain its admissibility.

Secondly, as has already been pointed out, there is no dispute about the fact that this type of marriage was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet.

At the most it is claimed by some that this order has been abrogated although no authentic evidence is available regarding its abrogation. When its being permissible basically is an admitted fact and its abrogation is not proved, therefore, it is evident that a law cannot be ignored unless its abrogation is proved.

If it be said that tradition have been quoted from the Holy Prophet regarding its abrogation and illegality, the reply thereto is quite clear namely, even if these traditions are sound from the point of view of authority, they are in the category single report (i.e. they have been reported only once by a person) and such reports are neither a means of knowledge nor reliable for purposes of practice. It is not, therefore, appropriate to abandon final and admitted facts on this account.

Besides this, the Holy Qur’an, after mentioning the women with whom marriage is illegal, says:

“Married women are forbidden to you except the slave-girls whom you own. Such is the decree of Allah. Beside these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dowries, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry for a fixed time, you must pay their dowries as a fixed reward; and it shall not be a sin on you in whatever you mutually agree after the fixed reward. VerilyAllah is All-Knowing, All-Wise” (4:24).

The phrase “Istamta’tum” used in this verse bears of the two meanings. Either it carries the literal meaning of gain, relish and benefit, or it means Temporary Marriage as per religious terminology.

Admittedly the first meaning is not intended here for two reasons:

(i) It is an admitted fact among the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence that if a word occurs in the Holy Qur’an which can bear two meanings, i.e., literal meaning as well as meaning according to religious terminology, it should be taken to have the latter meaning. It is for this reason that the literal meaning of the words Salat, Sawm, Zakat and Hajj occurring in the Holy Qur’an have not been adopted. On the other hand, their meanings as per religious terminology have been relied upon.

(ii) A large number of the companions of the Holy Prophet and Tabi’in8 have admitted the legality of Muta’ah. The Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Ali and Ibn Abbas and all others have quoted it, so much so that even poets have mentioned it in their poetry. One of them says:

“When the discussion and session of Shaykh (about this topic) becomes lengthy we ask him whether he has any objection to the verdict of Ibn Abbas as well (who was one of the distinguished companions). Similarly, Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Mujahid, Ata, Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, Salama Ibn Akwa’, Abu Sa’id Khudari, Mughaira Ibn Sho’ba, Sa’id Ibn Jubayr and Ibn Jurayh have all passed verdicts in favour of Temporary Marriage and this thing by itself confirms the second meaning. Hence the claim of the opponents that the inadmissibility of Temporary Marriage is an admitted fact is a baseless assertion”9.

The sound manner of discussion and the forceful and logical reasoning of this scholar is evident to the wise and learned men.

Moral And Social Aspect

The discussion so far conducted in this matter was from the religious and historical aspects as well as from legal evidence and principles of jurisprudence. However, its moral and social aspects also deserve consideration.

There is no doubt about the fact that Islam is a Heavenly message and a Divine melody which has blown in the world of humanity along with the zephyr of the blessings of Allah. It is the source of prosperity and has come for the welfare of mankind and not for creating misfortune. Islam is the greatest blessing of Allah and not a calamity.

Islam advances in all walks of life along with the time and takes steps forward with the caravan of progress. Islam inspires blessings and meets all the needs of human beings in the material and spiritual fields. Islam brings blessings and welfare to human society and fights against evil. Islam has not at all come to make the burden of human beings heavier, or to imprison them in the narrow gorge of difficulties or to confront them with misfortunes and adversity. No, not at all!

Islam is the source of blessings and prosperity for the people of the world. It levels the paths of comfort, tranquillity and good fortune for man and places the sources of affluence under his control.

It is for these reasons that Islam is the most accomplished of all the religions, the best of the faiths and the last Divine law. It has ignored nothing which could be efficacious for the prosperity of mankind. It has not a single weak point with regard to any aspect of life so that another religion should rectify it.

Now, in regards to another aspect of the matter: has not the question of travelling and remoteness from one’s homeland been one of the necessities of man ‘s life ever since he has recognised himself namely, the same travelling which is undertaken at times for purposes of trade, at other times for acquisition of knowledge and still at other times for purposes of defence, administration, touring, recreation etc.? Can the need for such journeys be denied?10

And, on the other hand, has not Almighty Allah endowed human beings with the instinct of lust and interest in the opposite sex to ensure the preservation of mankind? And if this instinct had weakened or ceased to exist could any trace of mankind be found today on the face of the earth? Replies to these questions are quite clear.

It also goes without saying that usually those who travel to different places cannot afford to make the members of their families (wives and children) accompany them or to contract permanent marriages at those places because permanent marriage carries prerequisites which do not conform to the situation and means of a traveller. Nevertheless, it is necessary that this instinct should be satisfied, especially during long journeys which are undertaken for education or trade or for administrative or defence purposes.

In such circumstances, permanent marriage is not possible for most of the people and there is also no practical way out of this difficulty. With this state of affairs is any solution of this problem available other than Temporary Marriage, especially when the majority of the people who perform journeys for various purposes (especially long journeys) is of those who are in the prime of their youth and subject to the urges of refractory sexual instinct? It is young people who perform such journeys and it is also the same people who are engulfed in the struggle of this instinct. If Temporary Marriage is disallowed what is the proper course for such people to pursue? Evidently, they have only two ways open to them.

The first path is that they should remain content and make efforts to control the sexual instinct and fall prey to a number of ailments which are the necessary consequences of this instinct in human beings. It may be asked whether the spirit of Islam which is a practical and simple religion, conforms to such unusual rigour, notwithstanding the fact that the Holy Qur’an says: 

“Allah does not impose any hardship on you. He desires comfort for you” (2:185).

And further declares:

“Allah has chosen you, and has imposed no hardship on you in religion” (22:78).

The second path, which such people can follow in the event of abandonment of contentment and self -control is falling into the quagmire of unchastity, the same shameful act, the evils and adversities of which have filled the world today.

I swear by Allah and by the sublimity of truth that if the Muslims of the world had acted according to the excellent laws and regulations of the eternal religion of Islam, the Divine blessings would have descended upon them and they would have regained their past glory, self­ respect and honour.

One of those excellent laws is the law relating to Temporary Marriage.

If the Muslims had enforced this law in an appropriate manner (with proper regard for enforcement of marriage, observance of ‘Iddah, protection of the line of descent of the children and their maintenance), the gates of corrupt clubs and centres of prostitution would have been closed or at least, immorality, corruption and sin would have been reduced considerably. Many women who have fallen into the lap of infamy and mischief would have acquired salvation. The human race would have been healthy and there would have been legitimate children. People would have been relieved of the innocent children who are abandoned every now and then on roads. The condition of public morals would have improved.

In short, the proper enforcement of this law would have brought in its wake a large number of benefits to human society.

The scholar of Bani Hashim and the saint of Muslim Community, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, has said something very sublime in a brief and eternal sentence which has been quoted by Ibn Athir in his book Nihaya and by Zamakhshari in Al-Fa’iq Fi Gharib Al-Hadith and by others in their own books. He says: “Muta’ah js nothing but a blessing of Allah on the followers of Muhammad. If the second Caliph had not prohibited it, none except a few would have indulged in adultery”.

In fact, Ibn Abbas obtained this remark from his teacher and instructor, the Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Ali and truly speaking this Islamic law is a great grace and blessing for the Muslims. Unfortunately, Muslims have destroyed this blessing with their own hands and have consequently been deprived of its precious fruits and fallen into the abyss of corruption, unchastity and disgrace in this world. Allah says:

“Will you exchange that which is better for that which is worse?” (2:61).

Khadim Al-’Ulama’ And Muta’ah

However, is not the discourse reproduced by the writer of the Magazine I’tidal printed in the 161st issue of its First Volume surprising which bears the heading: “There is no alternative but to hold a syringe in the hand instead of a pen and inject facts in the brains?”

To explain the matter, it may be stated that, in the first instance, he has reproduced the objection which the narrator had raised against Temporary Marriage. Then he has inserted, in the beginning of this issue, the letter received under the signatures of Ibn Ma’is Sama’11 in defence. of the issue of Temporary Marriage and in reply to the said object. Then he makes the following addition:

A letter was received from Baghdad under the signature of Khadim Al-’Ulama’. He repeated the objections raised by some people against Temporary Marriage (fault in the line of descent of the offspring and marriage with every passerby and stranger).

Thereafter, this unknown writer has added that Ibn Ma’is Sarni had not touched the ambiguous point under consideration till he says:

“What do you say about the periodical Temporary Marriage? Supposing that three, four or ten men pronounce the formula (i.e. complete the ceremonies) of marriage with a woman and every hour one of them shares her bed and consequently a child is born how will his line of descent be decided? Whose child will it be and which of those men will be recognised to be its father?”

Yes! The Shi’a consider all types of Temporary Marriage (even periodical Muta’ah) to be permissible and lawful. Notwithstanding this, the issue of Muta’ah is so repulsive that even the virtuous Shi’a themselves abstain from it. We have never heard anyone saying: I attended the Temporary Marriage party of such and such a gentleman and such and such lady in the manner in which people say, I attended the marriage party of Mr. so and so and Miss so and so. As such Temporary Marriage is prevalent only among the mean and low people.

Does it not mean that Temporary Marriage is only a means of indulgence in one’s desires, although it is likely that a child may also be born?

Has the time not arrived that ‘Allamah Kashif Al-Ghita’, who has stood up to edify the principles of Shi’a Islam, should refine the morals of the followers of this religion and bid them to purity? We pray to Allah for his success in this mission!” - Khadim Al-’Ulama’

The Editor of the Magazine has thus written in reply to the said letter:

The said letter has been received by the office of the Magazine I’tidal from an unknown writer and the gist of the subject of his letter is that in the third issue of the Magazine he has read a letter written by Ibn Ma’is Sama’ which does not conform to the real objection. Thereafter the said writer has repeated the very objection raised by the narrator against Temporary Marriage to the effect that such a marriage would become the cause of the disturbance of the family order and doubtful line of descent and ruination of children who are the offspring of such a marriage.

The objections have been raised notwithstanding the fact that Ibn Ma’is Sama’ has replied to them in a very clear and excellent manner, and pointed out that the method of forestalling confusion in the matter of line of descent and disturbance of family order is ‘Iddah.

‘Iddah is compulsory and obligatory in the case of Temporary Marriage in the same manner as it is necessary in the case of Permanent Marriage12. No one has a right to contract Temporary Marriage with a woman with whom Temporary Marriage had been contracted previously by another man, unless and until the period of her ‘Iddah has expired and if a man acts otherwise, he will be treated as guilty of adultery.

In that event neither the seeds get mixed up nor any disturbance occurs in the order of the family or in the line of descent.

Thereafter, this unknown writer (Khadim Al-’Ulama’) writes: “Why has Ibn Ma’is Sama not touched the ambiguous point which deserves attention and that is: ‘If a traveller or an unknown person contracts Temporary Marriage with a woman and after sometimes a child is born where should the father of this child be located?”

It seems that this Khadim has not studied the entire discourse of Ibn Ma’is Sama and even if he has studied it, he has not understood its import. Or else it is possible to give a clearer reply than that given by him. He says: “It is necessary for man that he should fully recognize the woman with whom he is contracting Temporary Marriage so that, if a child is born, it should be associated with him and the line of descent should remain safe. Similarly, the woman should observe ‘Iddah after the expiry of the period of Temporary Marriage so that condition regarding her being pregnant or otherwise should become clear. Furthermore, she should fully recognize her husband so that, if she gives birth to his child, she may return it to him after the expiry of the period of lactation”.

Under the circumstances is any ambiguous point left which has not been clarified in his discourse?

In case the unknown writer does not realise this clear reality, there is no alternative but to hold a syringe in the hand instead of a pen and inject facts in the brains!

Now In regards to the periodic Temporary Marriage mentioned by you and about which you believe that three, four or ten Shi’a contract Temporary Marriage with a woman alternately and every hour one of them sleeps with her and you have been disturbed about the children whom the woman concerned may give birth and want to know as to which man should be treated to be its father, it may be stated that: Firstly, it is necessary for you to mention at least one book written by ignorant and unknowledgeable Shi’a, not to talk of Ulama’ and scholars, wherein such a shameful and disgraceful affair should have been declared permissible. However, if you do not inform us of any such book, it would be appropriate that you should be punished for falsehood and calumny according to the religious law!

Are you not aware that all the Shi’a Imamiya, without exception, consider observance of ‘Iddah in Temporary Marriage to be absolutely necessary, and its minimum is 45 days? Is not in these circumstances the myth of Temporary Marriage by alternate men in consecutive hours ridiculous?

If you mean to say that possibly some common, ignorant and unruly people who do not care much about sins indulge in such activities, it may be said in reply that, besides the fact that such affairs are not particular to the Shi’a and are perhaps more prevalent among others, they cannot also be given permission for such deeds. Admissibility and permission are connected with the verdicts of the Ulama’ of religion and not with the deeds of impious and sinful people.

If, in fact, such a practice does exist and is not only a fable, it is not at all different from adultery from the view-point of Shi’a Ulama’ and the people guilty of it should be punished accordingly. The child born of such an intercourse is also illegitimate and is not associated with anyone of them. It is as the Holy Prophet has said: “The child belongs to the bed (husband and wife) and the one guilty of adultery gets nothing except stones.”

In regards to abstention of noble, pious and virtuous people among the Shi’a from contracting Temporary Marriage it is to be noted that it is not on account of obscenity or indecency of the issue. On the contrary this attitude is a sort of high mindedness, heedlessness, self­restraint and contentment with permanent wives on their part and especially so because Islam permits polygamy. If occasionally they wished to contract Temporary Marriage and there are reasons for doing so, they do contract such a marriage and there can be no objection to it. Chiefs of clans and wealthy Shaykhs of tribes are occasionally seen who have contracted Temporary Marriage (and even if this action of theirs is objected to for other reasons it is not criticised on account of their marriages being Temporary or Permanent Marriage).

In any case abstention of noble people from Temporary Marriage cannot be a proof of its being abominable, what to say of its being unlawful or inadmissible13.

We learn from the history of Islam that a number of companions of the Holy Prophet and after them the Muslims had slave-girls who gave birth to their children and those children grew up to be very distinguished personalities. However, in the present times, self-possessed and dignified people desist from such action and consider it improper for themselves. Similarly, in the present times pious and noble people refrain from divorcing their wives, so much so that we have not heard about anyone of them having divorced his wife. Is this fact a proof of divorce being unlawful from the view-point of Islam?14

Thereafter, the said Magazine adds: “Now, in regards to the unknown writer saying that Allama Kashif Al-Ghita’ who has stood up to edify the principles of Shi’a Islam should refine the morals of the followers of this religion and bid them to purity”. Of course, this is something true and there can be no dispute about a true thing. This magnanimous person continuously makes efforts for refinement and guidance, not only of the Shi’a but also of all the Muslims of the world because all enjoy equal status in his eyes.

However, this is not the duty of only the said gentleman but of all the Ulama’ of Islam, and probably also the duty of the Ulama’ and scholars of those countries and cities where corruption is greater and obscenity is resorted to publicly to a larger extent. As the situation becomes serious the responsibility of the Ulama’ and scholars also increases.

We do not wish to deviate from the usual policy of this magazine. Otherwise, we would have quoted some moral corruptions of others so that it could become clear that not to speak of the noble classes of the Shi’a, even their common people are chaster, more pious and innocent than others.

However, following the instructions of the distinguished teacher ‘Allamah Kashif Al-Ghita’, we refrain from everything which leads to dispute between the parties and kindles the fire of religious differences. Under his directions we direct our efforts towards the unity of purpose and filling the gaps which exist between different Muslim communities. This great reformer always teaches us that Islam is the religion of alliance and unity and not of difference and dispersion.

He says, “Interests of the Muslims of the world demand that all mutual differences should be uprooted”. He always advises: “O Muslims! Purify your hearts from all sorts of misgivings and bad intentions. Keep your tongues free from vilification and slander and your pens from writing ironically of one another, so that you may become happy and prosperous. Make efforts like your ancestors to tell the truth and to act sincerely”.

Khadim Al-’Ulama’! These are the ingredients of purity, not the calumnies that you are ascribing to the Shi’a when we were thinking that contentions and disputes on this subject had come to an end and their traces had disappeared totally after the convincing reply by Ibn Ma’is Sama. What is surprising is this as to how a person who calls himself the servant of the Ulama’ wishes to renew these controversies and to scatter the dust of dispute in all directions and to draw a veil on the face of reality - the same reality which tears the veils and casts aside curtains and manifests itself.

Conclusion

From the discussions which have so far been conducted we come to the following conclusions:

Marriage consists of a sort of interest and special relationship between man and woman which envisages different rights. Marriage needs a special contract which takes place by acceptance under specified conditions.

If marriage has no limitations of time, it is called Permanent Marriage which continues forever unless it is terminated by things like divorce etc. However, if the period of marriage is limited (for a day, a month, a year or more) it is a Temporary Marriage. There is no difference between them from the point of view of the concept of marriage. The only difference between them is the difference in the length of their duration.

Most of the orders relating to these two types of marriage as well as their effects are identical and they differ on very few points. The difference is not, however, in principle or essence. On the other hand, it is a difference like that between two classes of one species (e.g. difference between black and white races) coupled with the preservation of the unity of essence. The difference in quality is not, however, particular to marriage and partnership of two human beings in life. On the other hand, examples of such a difference can be observed in different types of transaction and ownership which take place from purchases and sales. For example, it sometimes happens that a person concludes an absolute transaction without any condition. The result of such a transaction is eternal ownership which cannot be determined except by a few voluntary means like a new purchase and sale, gift, etc. or involuntary means like wear and tear, death etc.

However, at times the ownership is for a limited period from the very outset in the sense that the condition of annulment is laid down in the contract itself. It is evident that the duration of such ownership would be brief and limited to the period agreed upon ·by the parties (till the time of automatic annulment). In any case these are matters on which reason and religion are unanimous.

Hence, O’ scholars and Ulama’ of Islam and O’ writers! What for is all this hullabaloo about Temporary Marriage which is a kind of ordinary marriage? Does this matter justify rebuke so that you should be attacking and rebuking the Shi’a continuously on this account? Is this concise and brief discussion not sufficient to keep you from kindling the fire of enmity between the Muslims and to oblige you to submit before truth?

I swear by the greatness of truth and sublimity of reality that whatever I have said has been for the sake of truth and not on account of any bias. And even if I have offered criticism, it was solely against falsehood. We depend on Allah and all of us have to return to Him.

We content ourselves with what has already been said about marriage from the Shi’a point of view. However, there still remains a large number of discussions about orders regarding the ceremonies of marriage as well as orders regarding children, subsistence, kinds of ‘Iddah etc. which are beyond the capacity of this small book and should be perused in the valuable books on Jurisprudence written by Shi’a scholars.

Fortunately, various books have been written and notwithstanding their brevity they deal with all branches of Jurisprudence from Taharat (purification) up to Hudud (penalties) and Diyah (compensations) so that they explain all these matters in about a hundred pages of usual size. On the other hand, there are some detailed books also as many as twenty volumes (each volume being approximately of the size of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), for example Jawahir and Hada’iq15.

• 1. See: Tafsir Kabir by Fakhruddin Razi, vol. III, p. 201 and Tafsir Tabari, p. 9 amongst many others.
• 2. That is, when their period of menstruations is over and you have not had sexual intercourse with them.
• 3. With the exception of a few orders which are necessary concomitants of a permanent marriage and not of all types of marriages as shall be explained later.
• 4. Another point which deserves attention is that according to the principles of jurisprudence, it has been established that if a special order is given on a subject and a general order opposed to it is also given (of course, after the special order has been acted upon) then, just as it is probable that the general order may abrogate the special order, it is also possible that because of the special order, the general order may be appropriated (i.e. devoted to a special purpose).
  And, as the number of orders abrogated is very small and as opposed to it appropriation has taken place to a large extent, it is appropriate that the second possibility may be given preference and appropriation should be relied upon. Hence, with a view to prove that inheritance is not admissible in the case of temporary marriage, the verse relating to inheritance should be treated as appropriated instead of treating the order regarding Temporary Marriage as abrogated. (However, this would be possible in case the verse relating to inheritance was revealed after the one relating to Temporary Marriage).
• 5. After the Battle of Hunayn, some infidel soldiers escaped to Awtis, a place located at three days journey from Makkah. The Prophet sent Muslim soldiers after them to defeat and disperse them. They very soon captivated and scattered them.
• 6. Of course, this is to be done when the narrations are definite from the point of view of authority but are at variance with one another from the point of view of applicability. However, if the authorities are doubtful, the rule is that after equilibration and adjustment in different ways Takhyir should be resorted to i.e. anyone of them may be acted upon.
• 7. The explanation of the distinguished author regarding the action, the second Caliph is a sort of magnanimous explanation coupled with a very favourable opinion and indulgence with regard to certain aspects of the matter. However, there is also another probability which may possibly appear to accord more with the incident quoted about the second Caliph. And that probability is that the way of thinking of the Caliph about the Islamic orders and penalities was not in consonance with ours. It appears that he did not consider all the commands of Islam to be eternal and at least some of the orders were subject to the conditions and exigencies of environments and could be changed.
  Hence, he says: “In the days of the Holy Prophet the law was like this”. Evidently this way of thinking is not in conformity with the rules and regulations of Islam and places revelation at par with ordinary human intellect and practically binds the Holy Prophet and his laws and commands within the limits of time and place and particular conditions. Can any Muslim scholar of the present times agree with this type of thinking?
• 8. Tabi’in: people who lived after the companions of the Holy Prophet.
• 9. End of the statement of Ibn Idris.
• 10. The respected author has relied to a larger extent on the question of travelling in the matter of the philosophy of Temporary Marriage although the necessity of this issue has no particular relationship with travelling in the modern times.
• 11. Ibn Ma’is Sama’ (son of the water of the sky) and Khadim Al-‘Ulama’ are assumed names which have been used for the real ones. The real names of these writers are not known.
• 12. In the event of divorce or death of the husband.
• 13. We think that abstention of virtuous and respectable men from contracting Temporary Marriage is due to another important reason as well. That reason is that on account of its misuse by some of our ignorant people and adverse propaganda by the opponents, Temporary Marriage has acquired a meaning opposed to its reality and if we can effectively forestall these two things, the conditions will become totally different. As matters stand, at present Temporary Marriage is considered to be a sort of prostitution, although in fact it is a kind of pure marriage and an effective means for a campaign against corruption and fornication. A matter of great regret indeed!
• 14. This last portion which relates to reasons for abstention of respectable and pious people from Temporary Marriage has not been published in the magazine I’tidal.
• 15. Jurisprudence is the very branch of Islamic teaching which the Shi’a, has completed its evolutionary course. Truly speaking the vastness, authenticity and precision of the Shi’a Jurisprudence is unparalleled and unless a person makes deep study of it, he will not believe this fact. Various difficult and complicated matters and even secondary judicial matters of rare type have been studied and discussed threadbare in detailed Shi’a books on Jurisprudence, so much. so that many books have been written on problems which have cropped up in our own time like insurance, goodwill, different kinds of partnerships, copyright etc. For this achievement the Shi’a are highly indebted to the Imams of the Holy Prophet’s progeny who have opened the door of Ijtihad upon them and guided them in different ways”. See: Murtadha Mutahhari, Woman and her Rights ISP, 1982. Online at:
  https://www.al-islam.org/rights-women-islam-murtadha-mutahhari