Mut'ah
A Messenger of Morals or a Messenger of Convenience?
Why Did Muhammad Allow Temporary Marriages If They’re Now Forbidden?
Islamic apologists often praise Muhammad as the ultimate moral example for all time (Qur’an 33:21). They claim his teachings are timeless, perfect, and divinely ordained. Yet one issue stands out as an unmistakable moral and theological contradiction: the permissibility—and later prohibition—of mut’ah, or temporary marriage.
This practice, which allowed men to contract marriages for a set period of time (hours, days, or weeks), was explicitly permitted during Muhammad’s lifetime—and later forbidden by later caliphs or scholars. So we must ask:
If Muhammad was a divinely guided moral teacher, why did he approve of a practice that Islam now considers forbidden, exploitative, or even shameful?
🕳️ 1. What Is Mut’ah?
Mut'ah literally means "pleasure" in Arabic. In Islamic jurisprudence, it refers to a form of temporary marriage—a contract between a man and a woman for sexual relations for a specified duration and compensation.
-
It was practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia.
-
Muhammad explicitly permitted it on multiple occasions—particularly during military campaigns.
-
Sunni Islam later forbade it—while Shia Islam still allows it.
The Hadith literature confirms this:
“We used to practice mut'ah during the lifetime of the Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and the beginning of 'Umar’s caliphate.”
— Sahih Muslim 1405c
But then:
“Umar said: ‘Two types of mut’ah existed during the time of the Prophet, and I prohibit them both: mut’ah of Hajj and mut’ah of women.’”
— Sunan Ibn Majah 1963
So a question arises:
Why did a caliph feel empowered to override the Prophet’s permission? And why is the Prophet’s moral ruling now abandoned by the majority of Muslims?
❗ 2. A Divine Law That Changed... After the Prophet?
This strikes at the core of Islamic claims:
-
The Qur’an is supposedly clear (Q 12:1, 16:89).
-
Muhammad’s example is eternal and perfect.
-
Sharia is supposedly finalized with his mission.
Yet we find contradiction and evolution:
| Prophet Muhammad | Permitted mut’ah multiple times. |
|---|---|
| Caliph ‘Umar | Forbade it outright. |
| Sunni Islam | Follows ‘Umar’s ban. |
| Shia Islam | Maintains Muhammad’s approval. |
If Muhammad permitted it by revelation, how can later humans cancel God’s command?
If he permitted it by personal judgment, what does that say about the morality of the Prophet?
And most damningly:
If mut’ah was wrong, why was it ever permitted?
If it was right, why was it forbidden?
This is moral relativism, not divine consistency.
⚔️ 3. Mut’ah and the Exploitation of Women
The modern moral issue becomes clear:
Mut’ah essentially legalizes prostitution under a religious label.
-
No inheritance rights.
-
No long-term commitment.
-
Often done for pleasure during wartime or travel.
-
Women were paid for temporary sexual access.
This stands in direct contradiction to Islamic teachings on modesty, family structure, and the sanctity of marriage—values Muslims claim are central to Islam’s moral superiority.
How can Muhammad, the “best of mankind,” permit this?
Why would God authorize a system of pleasure-contracts?
Why does modern Sunni Islam pretend it never happened, despite authenticated hadiths?
This reeks not of divine moral guidance but of situational convenience.
🧨 4. Sunni vs. Shia: A House Divided on Morality
The issue of mut’ah is also one of the deepest schisms in Islamic jurisprudence.
-
Sunnis say it’s a sin.
-
Shias say it’s a sacred right.
-
Both claim to follow the Qur’an and the Prophet.
This isn’t just a sectarian disagreement—it’s a collapse of moral coherence.
If a central figure like Muhammad couldn’t even establish a stable moral code, and Muslims can’t agree on whether he sanctioned sin or not, how can Islam claim to be a universal moral system?
🔁 5. The Larger Pattern: Revelation of Convenience
Mut’ah is not an isolated case. It fits into a larger pattern of Muhammad receiving revelations that served immediate social, military, or personal needs:
-
Revelation permitting more wives—only for Muhammad (Q 33:50).
-
Revelation approving his marriage to Zayd’s ex-wife (Q 33:37).
-
Revelation changing the Qibla during a sensitive political period (Q 2:144).
Mut’ah was a tactical allowance, not timeless morality.
And when political tides shifted, it was quietly canceled by men—not by God.
✅ Conclusion: A Practice That Exposes the Cracks
If Islam is from an unchanging, perfect God, then divine commands don’t get reversed by later rulers.
If Muhammad is the supreme moral example, then he doesn’t permit temporary sex contracts for convenience.
If the Qur’an is clear and final, then such a massive sectarian disagreement over something so basic should not exist.
Mut’ah proves one thing:
Islam's moral and legal system is not from a timeless divine source, but a patchwork of reactive, opportunistic rulings—sometimes divine, sometimes political, always evolving.
The very existence—and later ban—of mut’ah undermines the claim that Muhammad’s teachings are divine, consistent, and morally flawless.
No comments:
Post a Comment