Talk:Nikah mut'ah/Archive 1

Why is temporary marriage redirected here?
Why is temporary marriage redirected here? Temporary marriage is not an islamic, or even religious phenomenon. It's something prostitutes all over the world throughout history have practiced. I've read a few wikipedia articles that mention the practice in east asian countries, where the prostitutes cater to soldiers, businessmen, travelers, and all other sorts. Equating temporary marriage with an unusual quirk of a particular religion does great injustice to the wide scope of the topic. Qwasty (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started a section to address this concept more clearly, and it's not just about prostitutes. It's probably worth considering a move of the subject or a separate article, over the long run, with the current subject as the main but non-exclusive subject if just one article.173.15.152.77 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancies
Who the hell is Dr. Gabriele Marranci? He is not any valued Islamic Authority. His viewpoint that it is not allowed in Qur'aan is completely unfounded, anyone who can speak/ read/ understand Arabic knows that the word "Mut'a" appears in that verse.

[Forbidden to you] are married woman, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So when you have contracted temporary marriage [istimt'atum] with them, then give them their words. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Wise. Al-Qur'an, Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 24

Anyway, there appears to be some bias in this article. For instance it is well known that some (a minority) Sunni Ulema have permitted it:

Imam Nawawi in his commentary of Sahih Muslim, relied on the definition of Mut'ah advanced by Imam of Ahle Sunnah Qadi Iyad as follows:

وَاتَّفَقَ الْعُلَمَاء عَلَى أَنَّ هَذِهِ الْمُتْعَة كَانَتْ نِكَاحًا إِلَى أَجَل لَا مِيرَاث فِيهَا, وَفِرَاقهَا يَحْصُل بِانْقِضَاءِ الْأَجَل مِنْ غَيْر طَلَاق

"Ulema agree that this Mut'ah is a Nikah in which the husband and wife do not inherit from eachother and separation would take place on the completion of the Specified time without Talaq". Sharh Sahih Muslim, Volume 4 page 13

The Sunni scholar Allamah 'Abd Ar-Rahman al-Jazeri in his Al-fiqh 'Ala Al-Madhahib al-Arba' said:

أما حقيقة نكاح المتعة، فهو أن يقيد عقد الزواج بوقت معين، كأن يقول لها: زوجيني نفسك شهراً. أو تزوجتك مدة سنة. أو نحو ذلك، سواء كان صادراً أمام شهود وبمباشرة ولي، أولا

The reality of Nikah Mut'ah is that, in the marriage recital performed with a woman, words are added which stipulate that the marriage is for a fixed time. For example a man shall say 'she shall remain as my wife for a month, or I shall have Nikah Mut'ah with you for a year." The parties themselves act as witnesses. It can occur in the presence of a Wali or witnesses, or without them. Al-fiqh 'Ala Al-Madhahib al-Arba' (Lahore Edition) Volume 4, page 167

Narrated 'Abdullah Ibn Masud: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated (for fear of making sin)?" He forbade us (to castrate ourselves) and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (Mut'ah) and recited to us: 'O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things, which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87) Sahih al Bukhari Volume 7 tradition 13a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.213.100.202 (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add some sources to back this up, from Ahlus-Sunnah scholars ofcourse:
Firstly regarding Sunni scholars who deem it permissable:

Tafseer Haqqani: Some Sunni scholars deem Mut'ah permissible, in the same way the Sahaba Ibn Abbas and Imran bin Haseen deemed it permissible.

Maudoodi in his periodical Turjuman al Qur'an in his commentary of Surah Mu'minun, [1955 edition] "Whether Mut'ah is haram or halaal is a dispute that creates dissension between Shi'as and Sunnis, and has resulted in heated discussion, it is not difficult to ascertain the truth. A man comes across such situations when Nikah becomes impossible and he is forced to make a distinction between Zina and Mut'ah. In such scenarios practising Mut'ah is a better option to Zina"

Gharab al Quran: The people of Faith are in agreement that Mut'ah is halaal, then a great man said Mut'ah was abrogated, other than them remaining scholars, including the Shi'a believe Mut'ah remain halaal in the same way it was in the past. Ibn Abbas held this viewpoint and Imran bin Husain.

Waheed'udeen Zaman states: One the topic of Mut'ah, differences have arisen amongst the Sahaba, and Ahl'ul Hadith (people of Hadith), and they deemed Mut'ah to be permissible, since Mut'ah under the Shari'ah was practised and this is proven, and '''as evidence of permissibility they cite verse 24 of Surah Nisa as proof. The practise of Mut'ah is definite and there is ijma (consensus) on this and you can't refute definite proof''' by using logic.

Dhahabi regarding Ibn Jurraya from Tadkirathul Huffaz Volume 1 pages170 -171, from Tadheeb: Abdul Malik Ibn Jurraya was one the great men of knowledge, he was Thiqa (reliable) and authoritative, he performed Mut'ah with seventy women, deeming this practise to be halaal.

In Al Hidaya: "Nikah Mut'ah is our eyes is false, whilst Imam Malik deemed it permissible, as proof he says it was halaal and permissible, it was removed and was not abrogated". Al Hidaya Volume 1 p. 13

Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 1 p. 14, Surah Nisa verse 24: "Ibn Abbas and other party amongst the Sahaba narrated traditions that Mut'ah is halaal, and Ibn Hanbal also said that it was practicable"

al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 4 and p. 94, Dhikr Khayber: "In the same way that Ibn Abbas deemed Mut'ah to be halaal, Imam Ibn Hanbal also stated Mut'ah was halaal"

Ibn Katheer's in his Tafseer, Surah an-Nisa, Page 3 under the verse 4:24 said: "Ibn Abbas an other Sahaba said that Mut'ah can be utilised when needed, Ibn Hanbal also narrated the same". Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Surah an-Nisa, Page 3

Secondly Consensus on the interpretation of the verse:

Tafseer Mazhari: Istimatum' here refers to Nikah Mut'ah and this is a form of Nikah where a couple for a specified time have ownership of one another, and when the time expires they separate without Talaq"

Tafseer Kabeer: "This verse descended about Mut'ah."

Fathul Qadeer: "Research by Ahlul Sunnah confirms this verse was revealed about Nikah Mut'ah".

Tafseer Khazan: "This verse descended about Mut'ah"

Tafseer Mu'alim al Tanzeel: "This verse refers to Mut'ah Nikah, that is prescribed to a specific period".

Durre Manthur: Suyuti narrates a tradition confirming that the verse descended about Mut'ah. Tafsir Kabeer of Radhi that that the companion of Rasulullah(s), Imran bin Husain, said: A verse on Mut'ah was revealed in the Quran, and that it was not abrogated. Furthermore, Rasulullah issued an order to practise Mut'ah and he did not ban it. Then, somebody came a long and said about it what he felt like it.

So now we can really ask, who the hell is G Marranchi??? ''

Furthermore, Ahlus-Sunnah's acceptance at the begining of Islam:''

Tafseer Kabeer: "Sunni Ulama agree that in the beginning Mut'ah was allowed…We don't deny that Mut'ah was Mubah".

Tafseer Ibn Katheer: "There is no doubt that in the start Mut'ah was Halal".

Tafseer Muraghee: "In the beginning of Islam Mut'ah was allowed".

Further proofs during the life of the Prophet Muhammad:

Allamah Ibn Hajr Asqalani in 'Talkhees al Haseer fi Takhreej al Hadeeth al Rafa al Kabeera' Volume 3 page 159 (printed Cairo) narrates as follows: A large group amongst the pious Salaf deemed Mut'ah halaal after the death of Rasulullah (s), Imam Nasai narrated from Muslim Qarai that we went before Asma binte Abu Bakr and we asked her about Mut'ah with women, she said I performed this Mut'ah during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s)

Abu Dawud "We gathered before Asma Binte Abu Bakr and asked her about Mut'ah with women. She said: During the lifetime of Rasulullah(s) I personally contracted Mut'ah".

Tafseer Mazhari: Amongst the Sahaba exist a group that after the demise of Rasul(s) believed in the legitimacy of Mut'ah and Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Nasai narrated from Asma Binte Abu Bakr, "We practised Mut'ah during the life of Rasulullah(s)." Tafseer al-Mazhari, Surah an-Nisa, Page 74

Fatwa Qadhi khan: "...Ibn Abbas and Imam Malik had differing views, in their views this was practicable" Fatawi Qadhi Khan Volume 1 p 151 al Nikah Fayl

Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah al-Raghib al-Isfahani reported in al-Maudhoorath Volume 2 page 96 "Ibn Zubair denounced Ibn Abbas for his opinion on Mut'ah. Thus Ibn Abbas told him: "Go and ask your mother what she did with your father." When Ibn Zubair asked her, she said: "By God, I did not conceive you except through Mut'ah".

Sunnah's authority work Sahih Muslim, Sharh Nawawi, Volume 1 p. 102 on Nikah Mut'ah: One group amongst the Salaf believed that Mut'ah was halaal. Ibn Abbas, Ayesha are included in this group.

In Sharh Muslim: The permissibility to practice Mut'ah at the beginning of Islam is proven.

In al Muhalla: Nikah Mut'ah was halaal during the lifetime of the Prophet.

Sahih al-Bukhari, volume nine, the section on marriage, that the Prophet (s) said to his companions during some of the wars: "You have been given permission to do Mut'ah, so do Mut'ah". "A man and woman come together and agree to intimacy for three nights. If they desire to increase then they may increase, and if they desire to leave it, they may leave it."

Sahih al-Muslim, vol. 2, the chapter on Mut'ah, that Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Ansari narrates: We did Mut'ah on the covenant of the Prophet (s) and Abu Bakr and 'Umar." On the same page we find another hadeeth from Jabir, where he adds: "But then 'Umar forbid us from this."

Moreover, most scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah agree that it was the second Khalif Umar and not his predecessor Abu Bakr or the Prophet Muhammad who abrogated it.

Fathul Bari: "Imran Ibn Husain narrated that during the lifetime of Rasulullah we practised the Mut'ah, the Quran come down and a man said his own opinion, Kirmani said that his refers to Uthman, although we can ascertain that from the books of Rijjal that this refers to Umar, since Umar was the first person to ban Mut'ah". Imam Radhi recorded this in his Tafseer Kabeer under the commenary of Surah Nisa, verse 24(the verse of Mut'ah). This shows that it was clear to Radhi that the verse refers to verse of Mut'ah.

Irshad al sari: Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Qastalani stated: "We see from he texts of Rijjal that Uthman is not being referred to here but in fact Umar since Umar was the first person to prohibit Mut'ah".

Sharh Nawawi "Hadhrath Umar was the first person to prohibit Mut'ah".

Tareekh al Khulafa: "Umar was the 1st person to introduce the Bidah of Tarawih, was the first person to ban Mut'ah, and first to introduce 4 Takbeers"

Seerah Halbeeya: "The first to prohibit Mut'ah was our Umar". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.235.188 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable CBC videos
The video is clearly going against other sources, not just on the minimum length of sigheh. This is the case for the age of consent as well. The video says 9 but really "later reforms raised it back to 13". And the doubling of population it talks about? That's not even happened between the revolution and the estimate of 2009, let alone in 25 years from the start of the revolution (which would be up to 2004). It is misreperesented anyway because it was in the late eighties that the Iranian government decided to change its position on contraception. Also contraceptives were not banned; it's just their prices were pushed up.

Question about promiscuous sex?
Only Shiiti scholars of the arcane Mutah please.

It’s not onslaught but is it aberrational if swingers concur on Mutah and swap their legal sexual partners consensually or would it be incongruous/abomination to God if a wife is offered in Mutah to a guest/friend with amicable divorce and bipartite consent to re-affiance [to get marry again with each other].

The intended cross consorts might had cohabited in earlier Nikah Mutah and thus have strong libido for each other.?68.147.41.231 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Khattak#1

Merge
Theres loads of seperate articles on this 1 issue. Should they be merged? Zaza8675 (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Useful links
Here some useful links on the subject. ,, , , , Dwanyewest (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

mut‘ah in "shi'a"?
Is it correct to say this temporary marriage is allowed "in Shi'a Islam"? AFAIK it is only allowed in Iran, i.e. shi'a of the twelve, not other shi'ite factions. 93.220.121.252 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge
There is an ongoing discussion here about a merge. Pass a Method talk  09:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Section needed (?) on practises in various countries and also not technically within Islam
I think there is probably enough reference material for comparison across Shi'a communituies and in different countries. Also, some eclectic religious types may be documented to use Islamic thinking as a basis for the temporary marriage practise. I lack time to address this now, though it would be of some priority to me weeks or months from now.173.15.152.77 (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Separate article on tempory marriage
Temporary marriare was pradtices by sunni turkic muslims in Kashgar (we know its in violation of sunni sharia but the mullahs in the city approve of it anyway). It was common in the nineteenth century for muslim turkic women in kashgar to arrange temporary marriages with merchants, soldiers, and other travelers in the city, inculding non muslims, like indians, russians, and chinese as well as muslims andijani uzbeks. There should be a separate article about that from nikah mutah which is about the legal shia temporary marriage. It was also done by muslim kashmiris with tibetan buddhist women in ladakh

Modern historians like Ildiko Beller-Hann and Linda Benson wrot about this practice in Kashgar. It was called chaukan, chaucan, or çokan by westerners (that word meant an unmarried woman in kashgari turki language)

Ladakh

http://books.google.com/books?ei=G-KvUMyQIK-u0AHpjIHYDw&id=xANxAAAAMAAJ&q=marriages+convenience#search_anchor http://books.google.com/books?id=mCy2mBVNqSoC&pg=PA245#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=FpzqZ50mIT4C&pg=PA76#v=onepage&q&f=false

Temporary marriage kashgar

http://books.google.com/books?id=pkZMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA771#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=9_oaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA771#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=U4BEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA354#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=dWlCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=mCS1940T5MkC&pg=PA41

http://books.google.com/books?id=pkZMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA771#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z7wvAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=4FoDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA591#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rpzNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA591#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=QTBXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA591#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=uNFNae81Pw8C&pg=PA181#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cSIXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=krsMAAAAIAAJ&q=respectable+divorce+temporary+legal+marriages#search_anchor http://books.google.com/books?id=gx8eAQAAMAAJ&q=respectable+divorce+temporary+legal+marriages#search_anchor http://books.google.com/books?id=-TgPAAAAIAAJ&q=respectable+divorce+temporary+legal+marriages#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=0IABAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=HyrVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA193#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=q3kOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA200#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=yBoRAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA200#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=1emXJemW-jgC&pg=PT613#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=6K7PWYxF5yAC&pg=PA617#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=BWmx7FjtQ3AC&pg=PA193#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=RhE5ZUcZ_Q4C&pg=PA193#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=7ULYAAAAMAAJ&q=Chaukans+kashgar&dq=Chaukans+kashgar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O9avUL_XC8P30gH-pIGICQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg http://books.google.com/books?id=8ByAAAAAMAAJ&q=Chaukans+kashgar&dq=Chaukans+kashgar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O9avUL_XC8P30gH-pIGICQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBw http://books.google.com/books?id=cMYeAAAAIAAJ&q=Chaukans+kashgar&dq=Chaukans+kashgar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O9avUL_XC8P30gH-pIGICQ&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA http://books.google.com/books?id=taJZ433OqJIC&pg=PA267#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BC5yAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=BC5yAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA189#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=BC5yAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA312#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=BC5yAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA313#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=6sQTAAAAIAAJ&q=Temporary+marriage+kashgar&dq=Temporary+marriage+kashgar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XeivUM2LIoKB0AHDwoHQDw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBThk

http://books.google.com/books?id=7hc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=S-QpAQAAMAAJ&q=temporary+marriage+kashgar+khotan#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?ei=DtqvUJ2fNqrD0AHBnoHACA&id=VxMbAAAAYAAJ&q=degrading+temporary#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?ei=DtuvUI24NsKB0AGa0YGgDQ&id=OV1DAAAAYAAJ&q=temporary+marriages+divorce#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=OV1DAAAAYAAJ&q=degrading+temporary#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=yjkwAQAAIAAJ&q=temporary+marriage#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?ei=j-GvUImoEOy30QHE_YCoDQ&id=_V0eAAAAMAAJ&q=temporary+marriage#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?ei=juKvUO7gN86N0QHpmoHoDQ&id=Lp0PAQAAMAAJ&q=temporary+marriage#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?ei=juKvUO7gN86N0QHpmoHoDQ&id=db4qAAAAMAAJ&q=temporary+marriage#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=SO1tAAAAMAAJ&q=temporary+marriage#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=iqNJAAAAYAAJ&q=temporary+marriages#search_anchor http://books.google.com/books?id=hIdCAAAAYAAJ&q=temporary+marriages#search_anchor

"Less than half the children were orphans in the ordinary sense, without either father or mother living; the rest were victims of the unfortunate temporary marriage system prevalent throughout Kashgaria-—-honorary orphans, as it were . Trouble ..."

126 http://books.google.com/books?id=1NEmAQAAMAAJ&q=victims+temporary+marriage+system+kashgaria&dq=victims+temporary+marriage+system+kashgaria&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UuKvUNGjBIuD0QH10IGQDA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA

Page 236

"system of marriage which they felt was more convenient to them as there was a greater flexibility in the system ... 126) refers to temporary or short contract marriages as mutah he found this system prevalent in Kashgar where, according to him ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=VSPTAAAAMAAJ&q=temporary+marriages#search_anchor

Page 193

"Possibly this may refer to the custom of temporary marriages which seems to prevail in most towns of Central Asia ... Kashgar is also noted in the East for its chaukans, young women with whom the traveller may readily form an alliance for the ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=DEHYAAAAMAAJ&q=Temporary+marriage+kashgar&dq=Temporary+marriage+kashgar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e-WvULLsH83O0QGJ5oHAAg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAjhG

Page 194

"The languages of Chinese Turkestan are Chinese, Jagatai Turki, Kashgar Turki and Kirghiz Turki. The percentage of illiteracy is very high. ... in a year because of divorce and temporary legal marriages. Among the Kirghiz women and the ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=-TgPAAAAIAAJ&q=divorce+temporary+legal+marriages#search_anchor

Page 294

"21 Such as serial or temporary marriage among Muslims of Kashgar. See Catherine Borland McCartney, An English Lady in Chinese Turkestan (Hong Kong and London: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 129. 22 See, for example, Dru C."

http://books.google.com/books?ei=e-WvULLsH83O0QGJ5oHAAg&id=fmptAAAAMAAJ&q=+temporary+marriage+kashgar#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=YZgpEtu111QC&q=custom+temporary+marriages#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=etcBAAAAMAAJ&q=temporary+marriages#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=pXlCAAAAIAAJ&q=temporary+marriages#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=cMYeAAAAIAAJ&q=temporary+marriages#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?id=CdE6Q_2yICIC&pg=PA155#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=CdE6Q_2yICIC&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q&f=false

Linda Benson, "lslamic Marriage and Divorce in Xinjiang: The Case of Kashgar and Khotan," Association for the Advancement of Central Asian Research 5/2 (Fall 1992)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-1913.1993.tb03577.x/abstract

Temporary marriage turki

http://books.google.com/books?id=MO3VKK5BVegC&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=--UdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yLs5AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA629#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=OZ4eAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA629#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA266#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA267#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA268#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA276#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA278#v=onepage&q&f=false

Chinese in xinjiang

http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=geYSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA328#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA267#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cF4lMj8skvoC&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=KksNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=dWlCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AtwMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA921#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AtwMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA954#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J1gMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=7O00AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=u0sNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kuoofra (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

in the article grudge and hatred has been shown against shia community. i request ur majesty to edit the article once again,kee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.28.113 (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

i hv viewed history of talk on d article,it s proved with ref NikahMutah s allowed by ulma of ahle sunnah. But after readng article it apears only shias r practisng muttah.its intellectual dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.28.113 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Article cleanup really needed
The intro paragraphs are not sourced, and the info there is not elaborated on in the main article. Tonnes of paragraphs or sentences in the article have the ref, but without the ref formatting. The article itself has been badly maimed and is almost unreadable to a normal reader (assuming no knowledge of Islam or Sunni/Shiite differences), and over the last month some editors took the article from being slightly pro-Shiite biased to heavily anti-Shiite biased (or at least, anti-twelver biased). What we want is a neutral article, not biased towards any one side, as well as an informative article that is easily readable by the average person. A cursory glance shows nothing less than SIX (6!) different lists of various things. Some sub-headings are missing... the article really is a huge mess. Unflavoured (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

--- Seconded!!!!!130.88.99.221 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the section on the Sunni view
The first major problem with the Sunni view is that much of what is written is unsourced. The second problem is that primary sources are used, including Zad al-Ma'ad which, as far as I know, seems to be citing the original Arabic version without an edition mentioned. Answering-Ansar, a highly partisan Shi'a website, is also cited. Considering the controversial nature of the subject, primary sources ought to be avoided; per WP:RS, they are acceptable in some cases and unacceptable in others, and this is clearly an issue of the latter. Due to the tendency of Sunnis and Shi'ites to both misrepresent the opposing view, Answering-Ansar ought to be only used as a source for Shi'ite views.

Now, regarding the blatant lying. Yes, one of our contributors to this article - I'm not concerned with who it was - inserted a blatant lie which directly conflicts with the cites source. Imam Malik bin Anas did NOT consider Mut'ah valid; this is clearly written by a person, even if writing in a reliable sources, who is not well versed with that which is considereed the mu'tamid views of Malik per the riwayat of his students.

Let's look at the two cited sources. The first is called A Dictionary of Islam, and a link is even provided. Here is the passage in question:
 * "After much discussion, the learned men present, having collected every tradition on the subject, decreed, first, that by mut'ah a man may marry any number of wives; and, secondly, that mut'ah marriages were sanctioned by the Imam Malik; but a copy of the Muwatta of the Imam Malik was brought, and a passage cited from that collection of traditions against the legality of mut'ah marriages."

The source then narrates that the disputation was revived at a subsequent meeting in which a Shi'ite scholar again claimed that Imam Malik supported mut'ah, yet the very source disproved the claim above! So how on Earth did a Wikipedia editor not only find this source but add a link to it and then claim that Malik supported mut'ah? The second source, Introduction to the Science of Religion, quotes the same exact story word for word: Shi'ite scholars claimed Malik supported mut'ah, a copy of Malik's book was brought disproving that, yet later they still claimed the same thing! With this in mind, it's very clear that someone assumed that nobody would actually inspect the sources. I'm really quite shocked by such dishonest behavior and this needs to be amended even more than the previously mentioned issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with this section is that it fails to mention the simple, basic facts about the Sunni view.

The established (mu'tamad) position in all 4 Sunni schools of thought, is that mut'ah is haraam. There is absolutely no question amongst Sunni Islamic scholarship in this regard.

Instead, what we see in this section is a few fringe, extreme opinions, which of course are rejected by the maddhab.

Many scholars throughout history (such as ibn Taymiyyah) gave many extreme-minority or invalid opinions; however, no Hanbali scholar considers these opinions of his to be a part of the Hanbali maddhab (or any maddhab).

In short, this section needs serious improvement and lacks any academic integrity whatsoever.

50.207.193.220 (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The article's title needs to be renamed
The article's name needs to be renamed to other more used and understood words. I suggest: because those are the understood and used terms in English and Arabic. The word nikāḥ is more commonly used to mean "sexual intercourse" and sometimes as an alternative to the word "fuck", not the word "marriage". I saw in Wikipedia the word nikah is unnecessarily obsessively overused, without a rational reason. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pleasure marriage
 * Islamic pleasure marriage
 * Pleasure marriage in Islam
 * Fixed-term marriage
 * Islamic fixed-term marriage
 * Fixed-term marriage in Islam
 * or Zawaj mut'ah,


 * May be in your parts "nikāḥ is means "sexual intercourse" and sometimes as an alternative to the word "fuck"" but in Islamic Fiqh & many parts of Islamic society nikah means "marriage" & even on invitation cards the word Nikah is printed.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support changing the title to "Fixed term marriage": the current title "Nikah Mutah" is not even an English title and is certainly inappropriate for an article written in English language. "Fixed term marriage" is a perfect equivalent to the Arabic title and is used in many English published books as in this encyclopedia.--Religions Explorer (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Legality?
In which countries is it legal? Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

question on reference #18
This reference doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject as a whole or with the statement it is used to support. valereee (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Views of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi
Abul Ala Maududi is strongly against mut‘ah. Please find below his views from [http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=23&verse=1&to=22 Tafeem ul Quran, Surah 23. Al-Muminun]:

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=23&verse=1&to=22

″ (a) lts prohibition is based on the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and therefore it is wrong to say that it was prohibited by Umar. As a matter of fact, Umar only enforced it as a law of Islam and publicised it among the people. This had not been done earlier because the Prophet (peace be upon him) had forbidden mutah only during the latter part of his worldly life.

(b) The Shiite view that mutah is absolutely lawful and permissible has no sanction and support in the Quran or Sunnah. The fact is that a few of the companions, their followers and jurists who regarded it permissible in the early days of Islam, did so only in case of extreme necessity and need. None of them held the view that it was absolutely lawful like marriage and could be practised in normal circumstances. Abdullah bin Abbas, who is generally cited as a prominent supporter of the view of permissibility, has himself explained his position thus: It is just like carrion which is lawful for a person only in extreme necessity. Even Ibn Abbas had to revise his opinion when he saw that people were abusing permissibility and had started practising mutah freely regardless of genuine need and necessity. Again, even if the question, whether Ibn Abbas and the few likeminded jurists had revised their opinion or not, is ignored, the fact is that the supporters of mutah allow it only in case of extreme necessity. Holding mutah as absolutely permissible, practising it without any real necessity, or resorting to it even when one has a legally wedded wife or wives is a kind of licence which is abhorred by good taste, much less it be attributed to the Shariah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and imputed to the learned jurists of his family. I think that among the Shiite Muslims themselves no respectable person would like that somebody should ask for the hand of his daughter or sister not in marriage but for the purpose of mutah. For, if mutah is held as absolutely permissible, it would imply that there should exist in society a low class of women, like the prostitutes, who should be available for the purpose as and when required, or if not that, mutah be restricted to the daughters and sisters of the poor stratum of society and the well-to-do be given the freedom and right to exploit them as and when they like. Can such an injustice and discrimination be expected of the divine law? And will Allah and His Messenger permit an act which every respectable woman would regard not only disgraceful for herself but shameful, too?″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.185.83.159 (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nikah Mut‘ah - Oxymoron
How Mut‘ah obviates mortal sins during lust when the most detested of permissible things to Allah is divorce. Since sexual desire can’t be compared with life threatening situation therefore would someone still suggest prearrange divorce just for sexual intimacy. Don’t they control their overflow desire in Ramadan.

Misyar and urfi are the dangerous deceptions which might be approved by some scholars either under duress or self-ignorance/ self-deception. Never try to deceive God. Since we are being tested by God therefore a true Muslim must refrain from all type of pseudo–nikah.

Just wondering, do Shia Muslims (those who practice mute) investigate their past mutah-related marriages apropos Quran 4:22 before validating their marriage?

[Quran 4:22] Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers - existing marriages are exempted and shall not be broken - for it is a gross offence, and an abominable act 2001:56A:7393:400:D4A6:9145:AC1B:783E (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze

"Prostitution" section
To whoever added this section, I've removed Parshall and Andreeva. They are by no means specialists in Islamic marriage contracts or Islamic law and should not be included here. --92slim (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @ 92slim They are experts on Islam, and their view counts. So please stop this whitewashing. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not experts in Islamic law or history, which is what matters here. First of all, they are virtually unknown. Secondly, Julie Parshall talks about "Islamic women" whilst Elena Andreeva talks about current geopolitics and her book being published by Psychology Press, so it's WP:UNDUE. Please stop being disruptive, and reach consensus. --92slim (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @ 92slim They are experts and their view counts. So please stop this whitewashing. Furthermore Andreeva does not have to be an expert on Islam, the source is a travelogue and shows the customs of a place like an observer. The customs are then described here, she is not saying what Muta'h is or what it is not, she is merely mentioning that nowadays, mutah has become prostitution. You should realize that the section of prostitution does not give any "judgement", it does not say whether it is bad in Islam to be a prostitute or is it allowed, it just says that mutah is a form of prostitution. Furthermore it is not a commentary on Islamic law, it is just an observation of customs. We can attribute this to them if you are feeling iffy, but they stay in text. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There, I have edited the text to say that these guys are saying this thing. Furthermore, Routledge is a reliable publisher whose books on "CUSTOMS" cannot be considered undue. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore Andreeva does not have to be an expert on Islam She does. It is an observation of customs No, it isn't. I highly doubt any of them have even been to Iran. Furthermore, they are virtually unknown (regardless of their publisher) and their viewpoint doesn't count at all in academic circles, as mutah is not officially a form of prostitution. Also, the mere fact that you see it as whitewashing suggests that you have a political reason to begin with, which is unacceptable. In staying neutral we should acknowledge that it is not officially prostitution. --92slim (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can doubt all you want, your doubts count for diddly squat here. She wrote a book, a RELIABLE press published it, end of story. What in the name of uncle sam do you mean by officially? The entire section says that "These days Mutah is being used for whoring around". Simple as that Andreeva says that while travelling to Iran, a lot of guys saw that mutah was being used as a cover for prostitution. Parshall says, she met guys and has first hand accounts of them saying the same. Who gives a diddly do about the official version? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * She met guys, a lot of guys saw...who? Who gives a diddly Are you kidding? This is the most unscholarly discussion ever. See Julie Parshall's Amazon book list and Elena Andreeva's and tell me frankly that this doesn't violate WP:RS (talking about women or Russia is not related to this, they aren't experts in the field). I think this case is moot. You need sources in Wikipedia for unsourced original research, such as yours. --92slim (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I love scholarly discussions when they are talking about WP:RS. When you are whitewashing something it is bleh from me. Why don't we leave the article as is, and let the cooler heads come here. I have pinged half a dozen of them and non of them are connected to this article i.e. NEUTRLAL UNINVOLVED FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When you are whitewashing something No, I'm not. I acknowledge that it can be prostitution, but these women are no scholars, they have no proper credentials and should not be in the article, so it is possibly a violation of WP:RS. As simple as that. --92slim (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

PINGING User:HyperGaruda, Jeppiz, Tivanir2, DeCausa, Human10.0, Amatulić, Toddy1, user:MezzoMezzo before I say something which hurts the "delicate sensibilities" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Threats are discouraged in Wikipedia, as you should know, so please try to remain calm and collected, and opt for finding a neutral point of view. Thanks. --92slim (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As an aside a source is not required by WP:RS nor is it part of any Wikipedia policy to only use experts. As long as they meet the source requirements they can be used, though whether or not it is WP:DUE is a different concern. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, those sources are still undue, but I gave up consensus reaching because the other user keeps on disrupting the consensus process with disrupting behaviour, such as the clear canvassing above. Then the user carried on with disrupting behaviour after that, implying we "reached consensus" for the user's unilateral edits, which didn't match the "consensus" reached. --92slim (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. The discussion above has been lengthy, not civil, and not concise. If you want to ask a question, ask a question rather than engaging in back-and-forth. Is there a civil and concise question for which a third opinion can be an answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 06:15, 18 December 2015‎ (UTC)


 * (Requested by me, in fact) I am objecting to the use of unreliable sources, original research and unsourced claims in the article. Do you think that these two authors warrant being in the article at all? Thanks. --92slim (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The concise questions are two, and they are


 * 1) Can Julie parshall be used as a source for this statement. Julie Parshall writes that mut'ah is legalised prostitution which has been sanctioned by the Twelver Shia authorities. She quotes the Oxford encyclopedia of modern Islamic world to differentiate between marriage(nikah) and Mut'ah, and states that while nikah is for procreation, mut'ah is just for sexual gratification.
 * 2) and Can Andreeva and her book "Russia and Iran in the great game: travelogues and Orientalism. Routledge studies in Middle Eastern history" be used for this statement. According to Elena Andreeva's observation published in 2007, travelers to Iran consider mut'ah to be "legalized profligacy" which is indistinguishable from prostitution. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Take into account that these women are not scholars, historians or lawyers, and have no credentials whatsoever, apart from the fact that they are virtually unknown to the world. Their accounts could amount to simple hearsay, or not. I gave my own explanation as to why they are unreliable (but not the other sources). --92slim (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And also take into account the one of them is referring to Oxford and the Second has been published by Routledge. To be frank anyone disputing reliable sources such as these is usually laughed out of Reliable sources noticeboard. If one person's personal "explanation" is enough then according to my explanation all the fundamentalist so called scholars mentioned here are unreliable. Anyway, all I can say is that one must not let one's POV get in the way of editing. So in a nutshell. Does the statement of these women hurt some sensibilities? Yes of course it does. But does that mean that everytime someone's feelings are hurt we let them delete material from wiki? Hell no!  FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the first one, but Elena Andreeva seems well qualified as an associate professor in Middle-eastern history. Also, her book is published by Routledge, not Psychology Press, if that is what you're concerned about. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry FreeatlastChitchat, I assume you haven't read WP:RS/AC. There were blanket statements all over the article, some unsourced, and some from these unknown authors, without the proper attribution, which I fixed. The statement of these women doesn't hurt me at all, because Mutah can be prostitution, and it was even going to be used as a cover for it. But Iran doesn't officially consider it prostitution. I also think we shouldn't edit based on emotions, it doesn't lead anywhere. As per Elena Andreeva, her book is not really related to Islam per se but to Russia and Iran in the Great Game, regardless of the publisher, this has to do with the actual contents of the books. --92slim (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sunni Muslims practice Nikah Misyar, which is quite similar. Sorry but the claim that Most Sunni scholars dissaprove is unsourced. Hanbal didn't dissaprove, for example. Also, Western scholarship should be separate, not to create confusion. Apart from that, Militancy and Political Violence in Shiism: Trends and Patterns cannot be used; it is biased, as I expected. This is just a political game being played here, again. --92slim (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources can be biased first of all. Secondly, you have not shown why it is biased, (Although that doesnt matter to be frank). Publisher is reliable so deletion is foolish. HOWEVER I will add another source. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, they can't. They have to be reliable, in order to back up content with NPOV here. See WP:RS. Secondly, the "Most Sunni dissaprove" claim is false. Thirdly, Assaf Moghadam is an Israeli author who writes about terrorism; give me a break. --92slim (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BIASED says: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But the content of the article has to be unbiased, so your point is irrelevant. I said they have to be reliable, not neutral. Read above, a bit better. --92slim (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FreeatlastChitchat wrote: "Sources can be biased first of all." (07:43, 18 December 2015)
 * 92slim replied: "Firstly, they can't." (08:02, 18 December 2015)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see you didn't read. Biased doesn't only mean non-neutral. Biased means also unreliable. Per Google - "Biased: unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something.". Now please stop being a pest and pretend you didn't understand, read the texts above, and actually help to the discussion. Thanks :) --92slim (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is most unlikely that anyone will produce a neutral-point of view article on this topic if they only use Shia-POV sources. This would suggest that anyone seeking a neutral-POV article would use both Wahhabi and Western feminist sources.

Nobody who was interested in the article only being supported by reliable sources would tolerate citations to the Al-Islam website and the Alulbayt Foundation, whilst denying the legitimacy of Julie Parshall's book.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @92slim So everyone who is against your biased POV is a pest or acting on political agenda. Raaaaaeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiit. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Freeat, your edits indicate a political agenda. Secondly, I didn't say don't use biased sources, I meant unreliable sources. Sorry for that. Thirday, I didn't deny the legitimacy of her book. Mutah IS prostitution. Now, her book as a piece of Russian geopolitics is unreliable, so is an Israeli antiterrorist or a book about the Islamic veil. I think my point is pretty clear. --92slim (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @92slim Me, Toddy1 and HyperGaruda agree with this and we have quoted policy. You are 1)not quoting policy and 2) have not had any luck convincing an editor to share your view. So the third opinion is quite clear. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, keep the women's books. But the article is fine now as it is. "Most Sunni authors" is false, and your edits are unconstructive largely. --92slim (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ty for agreeing. I will now edit the lede accordingly. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Next time, actually find users who are not your stoolies to give a third opinion. You know, like not canvassing, or for example, actually asking for a third opinion. --92slim (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I kinda like my stoolies. They help keep the POV pushers at bay, and disruption is avoided. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Observation
It isn't clear to me now whether this is a dispute between two editors with multiple neutral editors commenting, or a dispute between more than two editors. In any case, I won't be able to respond because the back-and-forth isn't civil and concise. I will leave the third opinion request up in case someone else wants to answer it, but it is likely to be left up for six days and then dropped. At that point, try moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution or a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Misyar
I am basing my edits on the article Nikah Misyar, where the "prostitution" section is correctly under "criticism". so I don't think it's biased now. Why do you have to revert the whole POV fixing? Sunnis have the same kind of marriage with a different name; apart from that, I already stated that the "Most Sunni authors" is not backed by sources. I think you're pushing POV here now. --92slim (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss that on the Misyaar Talkpage. The sources say "Sunni's" Which means all sunni's . I wrote most sunnis, but we can take it up to "All Sunnis" if you like FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources say "Sunni's" Which means all sunni's NO, it doesn't. That's your own WP:OR. Sorry, but you fail to understand basic concepts of Wikipedia, including WP:CAN and WP:OR. --92slim (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then Lets replace everything with "Sunni's". I think that is simple enough. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did it take you so long to understand why I was reverting your unsourced claims? I'm not the one adding WP:OR, sorry. I didn't actually add ANY information, just removed some authors (thought unreliable), re-added what you deleted and fixed the POV of the article. Yes, Sunnis makes sense. But it doesn't warrant being in the lede anyway, because we don't know what Sunnis means. You can add it if you want, but please stop reverting and actually read my edit changes. --92slim (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the feeling that we mostly agree on everything, so I don't understand why you started an edit war, violated 3RR while claiming I did and to put the cherry on top, opened an administrative discussion. The only point of contention was the false "Most Sunni scholars" statement, which is fixed, because you kept adding it even though it was false attribution. The consensus for the books was reached. We have basically the same viewpoint apparently on the main issue, as I repeatedly said that unofficially Mutah IS prostitution, and so is Misyar (which you claimed was OR, this is also false), a point in which we agreed already; but not as per Islamic law, of course. What is wrong? The content is perfect right now; if anything, I apologise to have carried on editing after you, but there is no reason for disagreement I think. --92slim (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, this is canvassing and is considered disruptive behaviour. Nevertheless, as I argued, the other users didn't reach consensus for the sourced OR (or let's call it unsourced) you added. I may remind you that yes, "Most Sunni scholars" is still false and not in that source, and yes, Nikah Misyar is a Sunni marriage custom. --92slim (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The article on the Arabic Wikipedia
The article on the Arabic Wikipedia says that "Misyar marriage" is a "newly invented" marriage contract that came to existence in the last few decades by the sheikhs of Wahabism and that it is only practiced by Wahabis (mainly in Saudi Arabia). It is wrong to say that "this Wahabi marriage contract" belongs to Sunni Islam.--5.107.41.128 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed-term marriage
Seriously? Is this a joke or something? This page needs to be moved back to being named Nikah mut‘ah. --92slim (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want the page moved back, please use the process at WP:RM for requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. This will give you the opportunity to explain your reasoning; it will also give other people the chance to explain why the article should have a name in the English language.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Since the move was made without an RM discussion, it can be reverted without an RM discussion – either by individual action or by filing a request under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" at WP:RMTR. The article should only stay at the current title ("Fixed-term marriage") if there is no objection to the recent move. Someone can use the WP:RM process to move it back if that is what they want to do, but it can also be simply moved back without discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. --92slim (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nikah mut‘ah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120502030724/http://www.answering-ansar.org:80/answers/mutah/en/chap4.php to http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/en/chap4.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Repetition of the same information about Nikah al-Misyar in two sections
An IP editor deleted the following sentence from Section 1 ("Background"):
 * Sunni Islamic law, Nikah al-Misyar, on the other hand, does not allow any certain period of time ( Yusuf Al-Qaradawi), thus not considered as adultery.

I think that he/she was right to do so because Section 3.1 ("Nikah Misyar") has a sentence that says much the same thing:
 * Nikah misyar, they argue, unlike mut'ah is not temporary but a permanent marriage with no time limits.

Given that Section 3.1 ("Nikah Misyar") has citations, which I assume support the content, it seems much better to go with the cited information in Section 3.1, and delete what seems to be repetition in Section 1 ("Background").-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead section doesn't comply with NPOV
The lead section of this article is biased, and written against Wikipedia core policy of writing everything in from neutral perspective and representing everything involved fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Therefore it should be rewritten to conform with established policies and guidlines. The lead section editorially claims that the subject (i.e Mut'ah) "is a pre-Islamic tradition" (of course, without any reference) and went further "but still permitted in Twelver Shia Islam. This obviously means that it is widely acceptable even in among Shi'as, that it is prohibited but they still practice. For instance, almost all sects of Islam agree on prohibition of alcohol, but it is still consumed by Muslims. So it is neutrally and morally right to say "alcohol consuming is pre Islamic practice but still consumed by some Muslim", and all reliable sources used by Wikipedia can attest to this. This lead section should be wholly re written in from neutral perspective to simply explain that it is marriage which both Sunnis and Shias agree that it is permitted and performed during the time of prophet but disagree on whether it is prohibited thereafter. Sunnis say it is prohibited and stopped while shi'as argue that it is not and continued. This is neutral perspective that can be found in all independent sources not sources affiliated to religious establishments of Saudi or Iran. Thank you -Ammarpad (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Ammarpad I get your point, have made some changes. Feel free to revisit. Swingoswingo (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright
Shouldn't it say that "Men are not allowed to marry non-monotheists and that women can't mutah non-Muslims?" Rather than that women can only marry monotheists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.28.26 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

the part under "use" that starts with "But it is surprising that such..." is lifted litterally from this page: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6a/1.html and other sites This is about two paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.210.205 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm deleting copywritten bits.  Naahid بنت الغلان  Click to talk 04:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Shia books proving Mutha is Harram[forbidden]

Prohibition of Mutah in Shia Text.

1)The Shia themselves have a hadith narrated by Imam Ali (A.s) which states that the Prophet made Mut'ah haram on the day of Khayber (Book of Tahdeeb: vol. 7, pg. 251, rewaya 10). The author states that Ali lied for the purposes of Taqiya. In Book of Istebsar: vol. 3, pg. 142, rewaya 5, there is a declaration by Ali that Mut'ah is haram.

According to Sheikh Tusi both Hadiths are Saheeh[Authentic] and even branded by Allama Kasahani in Rajal Kashi as Mutawatar[Highly Authentic]pp234.V3.

2)Imam Baqir (as), recorded 'Tahdeeb al Ahkam' and 'Furu al Kafi':Pp476.V2/Pp34.V5

Abdullah Bin Umair asked Abi Ja'far [as]: Is it acceptable to you that your women, daughters, sisters, daughters of your aunties do it (Mut'ah)? Abu Ja'far rebuked him when he mentioned his women and daughters of his aunties.

3)Another hadeeth that is the following from Furu al Kafi, Kitab ul Nikah, the Imam said about Mut'ah:

Al-Mufadal bin Umar reported that Aba Abdullah (as) said about Mutah: 'Abandon it, aren't anyone of you ashamed of exposing his private parts, and then exposing it (by telling) to his pious brothers and companions?'Pp44.V2.Waisla Alshia Pp22.V21.

Classified as Saheeh by Sheikh Mufeed in his Commentry on Al Kafi[Pp67.V7] and Hasan [With Good Chain of Narration] by Al Majlasi[Pp92.V31] in his Bihar ul Anwar.

Al Kuilyani himself decleared it Mutawatar in his Kafi.Pp71.V9.

4)Another hadith narrated from Imam Jafar Ul Sadaq[A.S]

Narrated by A'maar: Abu Abdullah[Imam Jafar Sadaq]said to me and to Suliman Bin Khaled: "I made Mut'ah Haram on you".AL Kafi Pp 467.V5.Wiasal Shia Pp22.V21.

Shiekh Saduq classified it as Saheeh[AUTHENTIC] in his Minhaj Saduq Pp304.V7. Sheikh Sadra Hassan[With Good Chain of Narration] in his Commentry on AL Kafi.Pp461.V4.

5)Ja'far Al-Sadiq says in a narration by Abdallah bin Sinan: "I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about Mutah. He said: "Don't defile yourself with it" Bihaar Al-Anwar, Volume 100, page 318 By AL Majlisi.Classfied as Hasan[With Good Chain of Narration] by him and sheikh Safar AL Shafi Saheeh[Authentic] in his AL Shafi,Pp61.V8.

6)Narrator says that he heard ibn Abi Umair who narrated from Ali bin Yaqtin saying: 'I asked Aba al-Hassan (a.s) about the Mutah and He (a.s) replied: 'What do you have to do with this, when Allah has made this unnecessary for you.' I said: 'I just wanted to know about it'. He (a.s) replied: 'It is Prohibated. Al- Kafi, Volume 5 page 442. Al Astibasar Pp459,V12.

Shiekh Amali and Shiekh Abu Hassan decleared it Saheeh in their Comentries on AL Kafi[pp35,V4 and Pp109.V10] and Hasan by AL Majlisi in his Maratul Uqool Pp59.V34.

7)Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq says about Mutah in a narration by Hisham bin Al-Hakam: "Here only the fawajir [prostitute] do it"Bihar Al Anwar Pp318. V100.

Decleared Authentic by Majlesi and Hassan By Sheikh Tuse in his Min La Yadrhu Fiqa.pp213 V13.

8)The All four books of Shia Hadiths texts says.The Holy Prophet [s] and the Imams of Ahlubayt [as] never practised Mut'a .AL Kafi.AL Istabsar.Tahzeeb Ul Ahkam.Min La Yadrhu Fiqa. [Mutawathar]Highly Authentic by almost every grand Shia Scholar.Pp198,V12/Pp501.v6/Pp 241.V18.Pp34.V1.

Zaydies and Ismailies Shias stands on Mutha.

Ziadites[Followers of Imam Zaid bin Zian Ul Abidin] shares the same veiw as Sunnis have,Ziadites decleared it unlawful and invalid,

Ismailites permits it in extreme circumstances.

AL Imam Azam Imam Ismail ul Mubarak(A.S)

Farman Imam Ali (A.S) as Pig is permissable in extreme satuation only same Mutah is permissable in extreme satuation.Ismailites rejects its validity in Quran or any other authentic texts from Holy Prophet or any Imams of Ahlely Bayt.(A.S).Dia ul Islam.Pp621.V63.Farman Imam Ul Mubarak(A.S).Pp113.V16.

1)Narrated from Imam Jaffar Ul Sadaq(A.S).Mutah is Adultry.Kitab ul Mola.Pp412.V21.

2)Narrated from Imam Jaffar ul Sadad(A.S) to Imam Ismail Ul Mubarak(A.S) It is fornication[Zina bil raza]Kitab ul Mola.Pp414.V21.

These traditions is classified as Muthawathar[highly authentic]Irshad Ul Imam.Pp112,V11.

Darajat Ul AL Imam Azam Imam Ismail bin Imam Jaffar ul Sadaq(A.S).Pp421.V23.

Zaidites and Ismailites dismissed all claim made by Athana Asheri[Twelvers] about Mutah legality and class all text from Holy Profet and Imams as [Twelvers] fabrications.

Sunni Muslim Stands on Mutah

The Hadith forbidding Mutah are considered Mutawattir, meaning that they have been transmitted so many times and by so many people that there is no doubt as to their authenticity. We are but a few of the many Hadith in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) banned Mutah:

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“O people, I had permitted you Mutah before, [but now] whoever of you has any part in it currently must part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them, as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of resurrection.” [Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, and Darimi]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the eating of the meat of domestic camels.” [Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafi’i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said to a man who was engaging in Mutah:

“You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of Khaybar.” [Muslim and Bayhaqy]

A man called Rabee’ Bin Sabra said to Umar bin Abdul Aziz:

“I testify that according to my father that it happened that the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it [Mutah] on the farewell pilgrimage.” [Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad]

According to Abu Huraira:

The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance. [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him and said:

“O people, the Messenger of Allah had permitted Mutah three times then forbade it. I swear by Allah, ready to fulfil my oath, that if I find any person who engages in temporary marriage without having ratified this with a proper marriage, I will have him lashed 100 stripes unless he can bring two witnesses to prove that the Messenger had permitted it after forbidding it.” [Ibn Majah]

Imam Muslim has narrated;

that according to Mohammad Bin Abdullah Bin Numayr who said:

“My father had narrated to us according to Ubaidullah according to Ibn shahab according to Al hassan and Abdullah the sons of Mohammad bin Ali[Imam Baker] according to their father according to Ali that he heard Ibn Abbas being lenient towards temporary marriage, so he said, ‘wait Ibn Abbas, the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it on the day of Khaybar when he also prohibited the meat of domestic Donkeys.’” [Sahih Muslim]

Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa:

“In the year of Autas, Allah’s Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but he prohibited it afterwards.” [Sahih Muslim]

Narrated Ali (رضّى الله عنه):

“Allah’s Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaybar.” [Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari]Agreed Upon

Narrated Ali (رضّى الله عنه):

“At the battle of Khaybar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (i.e Mutah) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.” [Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ahmad, An-Nasa’i, At-Termidhi and Ibn Majah have all collected it]Agreed Upon

It was narrated from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that:

The Messenger of Allah forbade Mutah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade Mutah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by Bukhari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.]Agreed Upon

It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhanithat his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allah who said:

“O people, I used to allow you to engage in Mutah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a Mutah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.” [Narrated by Muslim, 1406.]

Sabrah bin Ma’ bad al-Jihani reported:

“I went forth with the Prophet for the conquest of Mecca, and he allowed us Mutah with women. But we had not even left the city [yet] when it was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah.”

Ziadites Shias Stands on Mutah.

1)It was narrated from Imam Ali Al Murtaza(R.A)that:

The Messenger of Allah forbade Mutah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade Mutah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys.

Mujmoo Imam Ali(R.A)Pp 498 V112.

2)Narrated Ali (R.A):

“Allah’s Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaybar.”

Mujmoo Imam Ali(R.A)Pp 499 V112.

3)Ali (R.A) said to a man who was engaging in Mutah:

“You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of Khaybar.” Mujmoo Imam Ali, From Imam Ali to Imam Hasan & Imam Hussain then Narrated to Imam Zian Ul Abideen to Imam Zaid bin Zian Ul Abideen.(R.A)Pp 503 V112.

Classified all above Zaidites narration as Mutawathar [Highly Authentic] By Imam Ziad bin Zian Ul Abideen in his Majmoo tul Biyan Pp212 V18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.146.127 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Umar unbanned mut'ah
There is a Sunni source in Tareekh At Tabari which states that Umar(R.A) permitted mut'ah after banning it temporarily. If this is true, this is huge! Mut'ah is actually valid under Sunni sources Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)