Even though we (Americans) invaded Iraq to -- among the countless reasons presented -- ensure the establishment of freedom and democracy in that country, we seem woefully powerless in answering the following question: What happens when the democratic society that we (Americans/Westerners) have "assisted" in establishing uses the power of the majority to oppress minority groups, to violate human rights, and to subject women and children to some of the most horrifying acts of malice and degradation known to human-kind?
This is precisely the situation that we are currently encountering in Iraq, as the Shi'ite majority, with substantial influence and direction from the neighboring Iranian theocrats, is using its "democratic" powers to carry out some of the most despicable violations of human rights.
One such deplorable act is the establishment of temporary marriages in Iraq, a topic about which I have written and spoken extensively in recent weeks. However, it is one thing for me, a successful female American lawyer, to voice my objections towards the legalization of prostitution of girls as young as nine years of age through religious tenants. After all, my objections, my repulsions, and my efforts to prevent such practices are carried out from the relative comfort of my home or office in a society where such inhumane practices are not only illegal, but they are entirely unacceptable, even unfathomable. I have the luxury of freedom of speech, of economic opportunity, and my country's Constitution and legal system does, at least in theory, recognize certain unalienable rights that protect me from economic and sexual slavery.
Nothing that I say or write about the horrors of temporary marriages, of child sex-trafficking, or the human degradation that automatically and unavoidably accompanies them, can possibly be as powerful as those of a young girl who has personally experienced such atrocities.
Accordingly, I present to you the account of one Muslim girl, who, in her own words, describes the concept of a temporary marriage under Islam, and provides a personal account of her own experience with this particular form of female persecution.
Temporary Marriage
A Plea from A Muslim Sister
I was fourteen years old and my relationship with my parents was on the edge just like any other teenager. I started to become interested in boys. I felt as if no one understood me, not even my friends. I especially didn t feel pretty with my braces
It all changed when I met him . It was fascinating to know that a college student would care so much about me. He was the most wonderful person. He treated me like a queen, and soon we became the best of friends. I felt I could tell him anything. As our friendship progressed, we talked about different topics including religion. He had different beliefs than me; he was Shia while I was Sunni. We always argued upon the differences. He had a way with making things sound bettter than what they were. Soon I became very confused.
One day he mentioned the idea of Mut'a. He told me that it was a type of temporary marriage, which was halal even in Sunni books. At first I didn t believe him, but he used sources such as Bukhari and Muslim. I took his word for it, and before I realized, I was into a lot of trouble. I was in Mut'a for four years. As time went by, I learnt that I had lost my honor and dignity to someone who had done this to several other girls. Allah helped me open my eyes and realize what I had gotten myself into. By now, I was on the verge of switching beliefs to be a Shia. At this point, I decided to really search for the truth. Since I cannot present the whole research, I have tried to give a very brief idea about Mut'a.
I hope to inform and educate the people about the disease of Mut'a, which is spreading rapidly in the sunni community. It is the goal of certain Shia individuals to do Mut'a with innocent girls, who lack knowledge of religion and experience of life. They convince them with their beliefs, and create confusion in their minds. I beg every sister, brother, father, mother, and friend to take a closer look at their dear ones, and make sure they do not become victims to the concept of Mut'a.
Mut'a is a form of temporary marriage where a man can marry a woman for an agreed amount of time and money(mahr). In Mut'a, the husband is not financially responsible for the wife. There are no set limits in this kind of marriage by the Shias. According Shia beliefs, no witnesses nor a permission of the guardian is needed (the Sunni father does not believe in Mut'a), and there is no limit on the number of Mut'a one can do.
Also, the time period can be as little as one hour to as long as sixty years. In addition, a man who is permanently married can do as many Mut'a as he feels like, even with married women. This is very similar to prostitution indeed
In the history of Islam, The Prophet allowed Mut'a twice in his lifetime. The first time the Prophet allowed it for three days, at the war of Khaiber, and after three days it was made haram . Once Ali argued with a man who believed in Mut'a and told him that the Prophet made Mut'a and the meat of donkey haram on the day of Khaiber (Bukhari vol. 7, pg. 287 and vol. 4 pg. 134). This hadith can also be found in Shia hadith books, which I will mention later. The second time the Prophet allowed it was at the conquest of Mecca, for three days, and then he made it haram again till the day of Judgment (Muslim vol. 4 pg. 133). Notice, the practice of Mut'a was then made haram till the Day of Judgement.This is confirmed with the hadiths in the following books: Imam Ahmed s Musnad vol. 16 pg. 192-193, Muslim vol. 4, pg. 132, Bayhaki vol. 7 pg. 293-294. Since there was a time when Mut'a was halal. Therefore, one can find hadith saying that it was halal. However, the latter hadith, which follows the final order of jurisprudence set by the the Prophet, takes precedence over the former hadith.
Ninety-nine percent of the companions followed this opinion, but there was one percent who believed Mut'a can be performed in extreme case of necessity in the land of war. This one percent is divided into two groups. One says, it is allowed with the Caliph's permission, and the other says there is no need for the permission . Those who do not believe in Caliph's permission say that it was Umar who made it haram. Their proof is based upon an opinion by a companion namely Ibn Abbas. People misused this opinion of Ibn Abbas until he clarified himself and said, Wallahi I did not mean what they did! I meant similarly to what Allah meant when he allowed the meat of dead animals and pork to be eaten in extreme necessity. This is referring to the time when people abused the rule of necessity at time of Umar, following the understanding of the one percent. Finally, Umar declared and taught it to be haram when a lady came to Umar complaining about how her husband in Mut'a, who was married, would not take responsibility of the child. He realized how the society was becoming corrupt with similar conditions to adultery. Thus, he had to teach people and make Mut'a haram even in the case of the one percent opinion
The Shia themselves have a hadith narrated by Ali (r.a.a) which states that the Prophet made Mut'a haram on the day of Khaiber (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'a is haram. Again they accuse Ali of lying for Taqiya.
With the given confusion in the books of Shias regarding Mut'a, and it being haram among the sunnis, should really make one think hard before believing that they are doing marriage in a halal way and in the name of Allah.
If Mut'a is not an excuse for satisfying lust, then what is it! It seems to be the easiest solution for adultery. If Mut'a really was to be done in case of need then why is it permissible for a married person to do Mut'a? Also, if one cannot marry due to financial insecurity then how can one be responsible for supporting the child and not be able to support the wife? And how is he going to know if the child is actually his, not someone else's?
The Shia also use the Qur an, Surah 4 ayah 24, as a reference to support Mut'a. They use this Ayah without consideration of the previous or following verses. The Ayah cannot be looked at alone. An example of this is Surah 107 verse 4 "So woe to the worshipers," If we look at this Ayah alone we would think Allah is angered by the worshipers, but if we read on it says in verse 5 "who are neglectful of their prayers." This gives a better understanding of what Allah is telling us. If we read till the end, we will get a better understanding of what Allah is trying to say.
Now, the Shia look at only surah 4 Ayah 24. When Allah says "Except for those all other are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property Desiring chastity, not lust," We take into consideration the Ayah before, that describes all the women forbidden for marriage. Surah 4 Ayah 23, Prohibited to you (for marriage) are-your mothers, daughters, sisters; father s sisters, mother s sisters;" Thus, when Allah says in Ayah 24 that all other are lawful we understand it as all other are lawful women.
The Ayah continues "seeing that ye derive enjoyment from them give them their dower (at least)" as prescribed The Shia say that Mut'a is the enjoyment-marriage that Allah is talking about, and that you pay for this enjoyment. To get a clear understanding of how we translate this Ayah we have to know this is a shariah hokoom (judgment) from Allah about the payment of the dower.
If a man marries a woman and then divorces her, there are four different scenarios that could happen concerning the dower. They are as follows:
1)A man does not enjoy his wife and he does not assign a dower.
2)A man does not enjoy his wife but he assigns a dower.
3)A man enjoys his wife but he doesn t assign a dower.
4)A man enjoys his wife but he doesn t pay the the assigned dower.
The first hokoom is in surah 2 verse 236, "There is no blame on you if ye divorce a women before consummation or the fixation of their dower: but bestow on them (a suitable gift)." There is also a hadith that the Prophet divorced a women before he touched her or assigned a dowery. He gave her some gifts (2 pairs of clothing), and then he released her.
The second hokoom is in surah 2 verse 237, "And if ye divorce them before consummation but after the fixation of a dower for them, then the half of the dower (is due to them)." The third hokoom is in surah 4 verse 4 And give their dower as an obligation;.. In Arabic, this word that has been translated into obligation can be more closely translated into standard obligation . So the man should pay to her what the Muslim society has made into a standard.
The last hokoom is if you assigned maher and enjoyed your wife you should pay it since you enjoyed her whether there is a divorce or not.
This hokoom is in surah 4 Ayah 24, "seeing that ye derive enjoyment from them give them their dower (at least) as prescribed; but if after a dower is prescribed, ye agree mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." For the Shia, it is a law that you pay the dower before the enjoyment or else there cannot be a Mut'a. This Ayah is talking about coming to an agreement and discussing the payment of the dower even after the whole thing is over or paying it after the enjoyment. So we can see that Mut'a does not fit.
There are also other differences. If you keep reading to Ayah 5 it says, "If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hand possess and Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: wed them with the leave of their owners and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: they should be chaste not lustful.. This Ayah says that permission is needed from the guardian, and the Ayah continues teaching us about the differences in the law of the free believer and the right hand possess. In the end of the verse, it says that even to marry what the right hand possess is a big dislike to Allah that a person should not do unless he is really in danger of committing a big sin. Then Allah permitted to marry this group, but still suggested to be patient and have self control, since it is better for us. The same understanding can be seen in surah 23 Ayah 5-7. Allah teaches us that there are only two types of marriages allowed: the normal one and the marriage with the right hand posses. Whoever exceeds these two limits Allah says they are transgressors . How can Shia place the Mut'a in the previous Ayah when this Ayah clearly limits marriage to these two types?
Also in the Quran, we see that when ever Allah mentions marriage he also teaches us about divorce. When a man marries a chaste woman, and wants to leave her, he has to first divorce her. This can be seen in the following surah and Ayahs, 65:1, 2:231, 2:232, 2:236, 2:37, 33:49, 66:5
In Mut'a, there is no divorce; once you pay the set amount of money and the assigned time ends there is no rights, no duty, no inheritence laws, or divorce process. The only law is that the woman waits for a period of 45 days before she enters into another Mut'a, while the man can have immediate one, even while he is married or in another Mut'a. This goes against what Allah assigned for marriage in the Qura'n. In Surah 2 Ayah 228 Allah says, Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods and it is not lawful for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs. If they have faith in Allah and the last day." In Mut'a she can be pregnant with the child of her first Mut'a husband and be married to her second Mut'a husband or the permanent. In the book of Mustadrak-Alwasa il (Shia authentic hadith book) vol. 7 book 3 pg. 506 rewayah 8762 ,it states that the prophet said that who ever cannot find the ability to get married let him fast, my ummah s protection is fasting. Also in Beharul-Alanwaar(Shia hadith book in vol.14 pg. 327 rewayah 50:21) it states that Imam Ali said and seek protection from women desire by fasting. What is the need for fasting if Mut'a is OK ? It is obvious that this contradict this idea .I hope and pray that we will take this matter seriously.
Everyday more and more girls in our community are falling victims to this idea presented by the Shia individuals. These girls are helpless in asking anyone for help, especially their parents. Please, teach and inform one another about the idea of Mut'a, and our beliefs regarding it. Please do it for the honor and dignity of our Islam and for the love of Allah!
http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/muta_story.htm


Comments: 23
I can not deal with such draconian and barbaric "rules and regulations" either... and I AM A LAWYER!!!!! This issue is less related to rulesand regulations and more to the absolute basic rights of women as humans!
Conflict, and the extreme emotions inherent in it, does little to bring about change. It simply causes all sides to 'dig in their heels' and ultimately resist any real change. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts, perpetuating itself and prolonging the struggle toward the desired change. (This is true, unless one 'side' in the conflict is strong enough to completely and rapidly defeat the other 'side', but then there are the moral issues of the other 'side' being totally wiped out to deal with...Because nothing is ever that black and white. Nobody is ever that right or wrong.)
It is my strong sense that, in our misguided efforts to "free" the people of Iraq, we have done nothing but shore up the bars of their prison, making sure that they will be held captive for many, many years to come.
The issues you raise show your deep concern for the individuals who must live their daily lives banging up against those bars, and I admire that greatly.
Can we assume that the pursuit of Mu'ta in Iraq is an Iranian government strategy akin to the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia? Is this practice inflicted commonly upon poor women in Iran? Or is just a form of anarchy given the lawlessness of Iraq?
Do you believe that ancient enmity between Persian and Arab will resurface once the American "thorn" is removed? Is Iran capable of creating a greater Iranian dominion inclusive of the Shiite areas of Iraq given the cultural history?
There is considerable evidence groups are separating into religious and ethnic enclaves, by choice and force under our "liberating" noses. To me it appears positioning for the inevitable breakup of Iraq into three divisions; Kurd, Sunni and Shiite once the US leaves.
(1) I do not believe that temporary marriages are an attempt at "ethnic cleansing" as you have mentioned. They are, however, another form of female oppression and the absolute control of men over women.
(2) Interestingly enough, temporary marriages, and their rise in Iraq, are NOT a sign of anarchy! Conversely, they are evidence of the influence that the Iranians are now capable of exerting on Iraqis -- something that they could not do when Saddam was in power.
(3) I do believe that the ancient cultural battles between Persian and Arabs will resurface, with the potential to reach an uncontrollable level of instability and chaos in that region. Should that happen, at least in my humble opinion, there is no way that we could avoid WWIII.
(4) We could not have granted a greater gift to the current ruling regime of Iran by removing Saddam and creating the situation that we are currently witnessing in Iraq. Ultimately, Iran will gain control of the oil and gas supply of Iraq by "uniting" the Shit'ites in the name of Allah. And THAT is the real bottom line in all of this: economic power and control.
I believe too there will be war in the region for the same reasons you do, however I cannot accept that other Arab nations will desire to see a Iranian hegemony and will assist in Arab control of their ethic lands. Certainly there will be oil stoppages to provoke US intervention on the Arab side and we will smart bomb our way into more international good will.
Sometimes I am appalled, sometimes stunned by the enormous folly of George W. Bush and the trail blood and disaster he's led us for years to come.
We ALL have an obligation to speak out against violations of human rights, no matter WHERE they occur. While I, personally, am opposed to the U.S. involvement in Iraq, and, quite frankly, realize that this latest practice of female oppression is, in fact, a side-effect our our involvement in Iraq, there is nothing that will keep me, as a human, an American, and a woman from standing up and revealing the atrocities to which women are subjected. I care little, quite frankly, about how those abuses are justified, or which "god" is claimed to have ordered them! All religions, at their very foundation, are attempts to protect certain universal rights for humans. NO religion, culture, or society advocates the killing or the abuse of one's children, spouses, or sisters. I may not be Muslim, and I may find our involvement in Iraq deplorable, but there is no way that I can tolerate the degredation of women and children in the name of any religion, at any time, any where.
I have spent the past 15 years dealing with atrocities against women and children in the U.S. Only recently, the human rights violations of women in Islamic countries has become part of my activism and work. One of the main reasons for that is because these women are increasingly recruited by terrorist organizations, who give them a free pass with respect to the rules of hijab, male-guardian/husband permission requirements for obtaining passports and travelling, etc. Given the choice between living under Sharia law, which literally establish the value of women as HALF of men, subject them to unspeakable abuse, degredation, and economic and sexual slavery, and joining a terrorist organization that allows women to be on the same level as their male counterparts, it is not surprising that women are choosing the latter option.
And THAT, my friend, is a SUBSTANTIAL threat to the U.S. security, which, if not addressed immediately, will lead to unimaginable consequences.
For more info. on this topic, I encourage you to read the text of my speech before Congress, posted here a few weeks ago.
The "funny" thing is that you and I have a lot more in common than meets the eye. Yet, in this particular context, I am afraid that we have to agree to disagree.
What is great about your post, however, is its underlying assumption that people in other cultures and nations have the same type of powers and rights that we do in the U.S. It never ceases to amaza me that even the most educated and well-traveled Americans simply can not fathom a society in which people simply can NOT act against their own systems. As a Perisan-American, I find that both comforting and wildly outragous!! And that is when I am reminded, yet again, how truly blessed it is to be an American.
"Because of us, things are now worse over there." And that is where we could not agree more! Without understanding the cultural and societal fabrics of a nation, such as Iraq, we decided to go in to make a statement to the Arab world about how tough we are and that we are not going to be bullied by their kind. In doing so, we have turned an entire region upside down, sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans for reasons that, to this day, remain a mystery, and have made every day lives of hundreds upon thousands of Iraqis more miserable than ever.