Non Contracted Mu'tah

[Umar001]

Ok, noone reply and close this PLEASE,

Question:

A person is going abroad to study and he wants to protect his chastity there by getting married for a specific period of time. Afterwards, he will divorce his wife although he does not inform her that he is planning on divorcing her after a specific time period. What is the ruling concerning such behaviour?
Answer:

Marriage with the intention of divorce must fall into one of two cases.

First, it is explicitly stipulated in the marriage that the marriage is for a month, a year or until he finishes his studies and so forth. This is known as Mut'ah. This is forbidden.

The second case is where the person has that as his intention [in his heart] but it is not put as a stipulation in the contract. The widespread opinion among the Hanbalis is that that is forbidden and that the contract is void. They say that what is intended is equivalent to what is actually stipulated, since the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-wasallam) said,

"Indeed actions are based upon intentions and for everyone is what he intended." [1]

They also say that if a man marries and plans on divorcing a thrice-divorced woman simply in order to make her permissible for her previous husband, that marriage is not valid even if what was intended is not stipulated in the marriage contract. Again, this is because what is intended is like what is stipulated. So if the intention of making the wife “legal” for her previous husband makes the contract null and void, the intention to perform [something similar to] Mut'ah also makes the contract null and void.

The second opinion among the scholars is that it is permissible for the man to marry that women with the intention that he will divorce her after he leaves her land, such as those who got o the West to go to study or for other purposes. They say that it is sound because it is not stipulated in the contract and this distinguishes it from Mut'ah. Furthermore, in the case of Mut'ah, as soon as the period finishes, the two are separated whether they still want that or not. In this case, though it could be the case that he desires his wife and decides to remain with her. This is one of the opinions of held by Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah.

In my opinion, such a marriage is not Mut'ah since it does not meet the definition of Mut'ah. However, it is still forbidden since it is a type of deception of the wife and her family. The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-wasallam) has forbidden deception and mendacity. If the women knew that the man only intends to be married with her for that specific time, she would not agree to the marriage nor would her family. In the same way, he would not be pleased to marry his daughter to a man who intends to divorce her when he has fulfilled his need from her. How can he be pleased with doing to others what he would not be pleased to have done to himself? This goes against the foundation of faith.

The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-wasallam) has stated,

"None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself" [2]

I have also heard that this opinion has led some people to do something that none of the scholars would be in agreement with. That is, some people travel to such lands with the sole purpose of performing such a marriage and then they return to their countries. This is also a greatly forbidden act.

Therefore, one must close the door that leads to such a possible practice. Furthermore, the act contains deception and cheating. It opens a very dangerous door since people, in general are ignorant and most of the peoples desires will not keep them from violating what Allah has prohibited.

________________________

[1] Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

[2] Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih al-`Uthaymeen
Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women - Darussalam Pg. 190-192

Ok from the Above I understand that it is allowed if its not in the contract, BUT the only reason it would then not be allowed is if deception is INVOLVED.

The shaykh says "If the women knew that the man only intends to be married with her for that specific time, she would not agree to the marriage nor would her family."

But what if one told the woman and she agreed also?

Then this would be allowed, right?

Also please people who are going to get emotional, do not respond while on an emotional high, Please.

Your Brother Eesa.

Source for the Quote

[Snowflake]

Salam,

I don't see any valid reason how it is allowed. Even if the woman knows of the intended divorce, what happens to any children that may be born out of that marriage. There are enough single parents as it is.

[Umar001]

Salam,

I don't see any valid reason how it is allowed. Even if the woman knows of the intented divorce, what happens to any children that may be born out of that marriage. There are enough single parents as it is.

Well its like a marriage, with a pre mental condition tht you might divorce and then if you want to you chose to divorce.

to me it seems like any other marriage, where a couple have in mind that for some reasons they might divorce.

Plus there are ways to try and prevent having children.

[Malaikah]

Ok from the Above I understand that it is allowed if its not in the contract, BUT the only reason it would then not be allowed is if deception is INVOLVED.

:sl:

Umm.. I think you totally misunderstood the article... I cant see why it would be allowed, its exactly the same as mu'tah except you didnt write it down... but the agreement is still there...

Think about it bro... if it were allowed, can you image the curroption it would lead too? Marriage it meant to be a security for the husband and wife... the function together knowing they have the rest of their lives together, unless divorce comes... if they know divorce is coming, how can they possibly funciton properly as husband and wife??:heated:

The qoute seems rather explicit... its not allowed at all.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Umar001]

:sl:

Umm.. I think you totally misunderstood the article... I cant see why it would be allowed, its exactly the same as mu'tah except you didnt write it down... but the agreement is still there...

Think about it bro... if it were allowed, can you image the curroption it would lead too? Marriage it meant to be a security for the husband and wife... the function together knowing they have the rest of their lives together, unless divorce comes... if they know divorce is coming, how can they possibly funciton properly as husband and wife??:heated:

The qoute seems rather explicit... its not allowed at all.

the quote:

"However, it is still forbidden since it is a type of deception of the wife and her family. The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-wasallam) has forbidden deception and mendacity. If the women knew that the man only intends to be married with her for that specific time, she would not agree to the marriage nor would her family."

So this is the reason given for it to be haram, because it is a deception, yet the way i understand this, if there is no deception involved it would take away this factor which makes it haram and thus it would be allowed since there is no deception.

[Malaikah]

:sl:

They also say that if a man marries and plans on divorcing a thrice-divorced woman simply in order to make her permissible for her previous husband, that marriage is not valid even if what was intended is not stipulated in the marriage contract. Again, this is because what is intended is like what is stipulated. So if the intention of making the wife “legal” for her previous husband makes the contract null and void, the intention to perform [something similar to] Mut'ah also makes the contract null and void.

^I think that sums it up nicely.

[Umar001]

:sl:



^I think that sums it up nicely.

I guess that our difference of opinion is with the difference of opinion in the article, though I will quote shaykh Uthaymeen:

In my opinion, such a marriage is not Mut'ah since it does not meet the definition of Mut'ah.

I also hold this view because as said in the article, Mut'ah marriage is certain, bang, after the time on the contract the marriage is up, but this type would not be like that, it is not certain and there is no time limitin the contract, so the marriage could still go on.

Thus that is the difference

[Snowflake]

I also hold this view because as said in the article, Mut'ah marriage is certain, bang, after the time on the contract the marriage is up, but this type would not be like that, it is not certain and there is no time limitin the contract, so the marriage could still go on.
Thus that is the difference

Article...
The second opinion among the scholars is that it is permissible for the man to marry that women with the intention that he will divorce her after he leaves her land, such as those who got o the West to go to study or for other purposes. They say that it is sound because it is not stipulated in the contract and this distinguishes it from Mut'ah.

:sl:
Whether the contract states it or not, the marriage still takes place with the intention that it is temporary. The distinction you mentioned is in some ways worse than a mutah where both parties know the marriage will end. In this one may not want that and that could cause conflict, especially if children are involved. I don't think Islam allow us to practice sumthin which is harmful for the ummah. It just doesn't make sense whichever way you look at it.

:w:

[Umar001]

:sl:
Whether the contract states it or not, the marriage still takes place with the intention that it is temporary. The distinction you mentioned is in some ways worse than a mutah where both parties know the marriage will end. In this one may not want that and that could cause conflict, especially if children are involved. I don't think Islam allow us to practice sumthin which is harmful for the ummah. It just doesn't make sense whichever way you look at it.

:w:

Assalamu Alekum Sister,

Thank you for your reply and I guess this is gonna have to be a difference in opinion, I take the opinion of Shaykh Uthaymeen, that it makes a difference if the contract states it or not.

[Daffodil]

mutah marriages, whether contracted or not is not a valid marriage.

if u read the article u posted u will see that the prophet saw sed that "Indeed actions are based upon intentions and for everyone is what he intended." [1]

there are mutah marriages such as what the shias practice and then there are invalid marriages.

the ones that are not contracted and only one partner intends to divorce is not a proper valid marriage because the intention wasnt there.

also brother i think u have totaly misinterpreted shayk uthaymeens fatwa

[chacha_jalebi]

mashallah sista ^^^^

also mutaah was made haraam by RasoolAllah (sal allah hu aleyhi wasalam):D:D:D

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum Sister, :)
Hope all is well,

mutah marriages, whether contracted or not is not a valid marriage.

In my opinion, such a marriage is not Mut'ah since it does not meet the definition of Mut'ah.

That is my position.

if u read the article u posted u will see that the prophet saw sed that "Indeed actions are based upon intentions and for everyone is what he intended." [1]

I agree, but I don't think that the intention of divorcing comes under the term of Mut'ah.

there are Mutah marriages such as what the shias practice and then there are invalid marriages.

Yes those types are invalid.

the ones that are not contracted and only one partner intends to divorce is not a proper valid marriage because the intention wasnt there.

I think the fatwa shows that one opinion of the scholars is different to that:

The second opinion among the scholars is that it is permissible for the man to marry that women with the intention that he will divorce her after he leaves her land, such as those who got o the West to go to study or for other purposes. They say that it is sound because it is not stipulated in the contract and this distinguishes it from Mut'ah. Furthermore, in the case of Mut'ah, as soon as the period finishes, the two are separated whether they still want that or not. In this case, though it could be the case that he desires his wife and decides to remain with her. This is one of the opinions of held by Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah.

also brother i think u have totaly misinterpreted shayk uthaymeens fatwa

May Allah save me from that. Please explain to me how I have misinterpreted it? It is a simple fatwa, given two opinions. I hold one and others hold another.

Eesa.

Assalamu Alykum Brother,

also mutaah was made haraam by RasoolAllah (sal allah hu aleyhi wasalam):D:D:D

Noone is disputing that Mu'tah was made haram.

Rather the article says, that some hold this type of marriage the same as Mu'tah and some don't, including Shaykh Uthaymeen, "In my opinion, such a marriage is not Mut'ah since it does not meet the definition of Mut'ah." But rather he says it is not allowed because, "However, it is still forbidden since it is a type of deception of the wife and her family. The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-wasallam) has forbidden deception and mendacity. If the women knew that the man only intends to be married with her for that specific time, she would not agree to the marriage nor would her family."

Your brother Eesa.

[Daffodil]

But what if one told the woman and she agreed also?

well then that becomes a mutah marriage as they both agree.

The second opinion among the scholars is that it is permissible for the man to marry that women with the intention that he will divorce her after he leaves her land, such as those who got o the West to go to study or for other purposes. They say that it is sound because it is not stipulated in the contract and this distinguishes it from Mut'ah. Furthermore, in the case of Mut'ah, as soon as the period finishes, the two are separated whether they still want that or not. In this case, though it could be the case that he desires his wife and decides to remain with her. This is one of the opinions of held by Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah.

well then how can that be a valid marriage, because say i was going to marry my husband and he only intended to be with me for a short space of time then divorce me, how is that marriage valid wen the intention isnt legit.

ur saying what if both agree to it, well then that is a mutah marriage because its a tempory marriage, u get what im saying?

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum,

well then that becomes a mutah marriage as they both agree.

They say that it is sound because it is not stipulated in the contract and this distinguishes it from Mut'ah.

So the putting it into the contract is what makes it Mut'ah, thats what I seem to understand from this.

well then how can that be a valid marriage, because say i was going to marry my husband and he only intended to be with me for a short space of time then divorce me, how is that marriage valid wen the intention isnt legit.

ur saying what if both agree to it, well then that is a mutah marriage because its a tempory marriage, u get what im saying?

I understand your view, but I don't agree in the sense that my understanding is that, as I said above,

They say that it is sound because it is not stipulated in the contract and this distinguishes it from Mut'ah.

The distinguishing point from Mut'ah is that in Mut'ah it is written into the contract, and there is no going back on it, and after the period of time, it is certain that they will become seperated,

Furthermore, in the case of Mut'ah, as soon as the period finishes, the two are separated whether they still want that or not

But in the case being spoken of,

In this case, though it could be the case that he desires his wife and decides to remain with her.

There is no certified time limit, the man or woman may chose to leave but it becomes their choice, unlike the Mut'ah where the thing is put in the contract and so it has to be carried out, this type leaves it open although the intention is there, my understanding is that he/she can chose to remain together since it has not been put in the contract.

[Malaikah]

May Allah save me from that. Please explain to me how I have misinterpreted it? It is a simple fatwa, given two opinions. I hold one and others hold another.

:sl:

I think the problem is that you are extrapolating what he said to imply something that wasnt mentioned explicity in the article. I think its probably best not to do that, as it could result with misinterpretation. If you really wanna know the answer inshaallah just look up the issue a bit more and see what the shiek had to say on the issue.

My gut instinct tells me that he probably agrees that marriage with the intention of divorce even though it is not mentioned in the contract is haram, just because he doesnt want to call it mut'ah doesnt mean it automatically makes it ok...

[lolwatever]

^ actually ibn baz reckons its ok. he's got a fatwa on it somewhere..... but i'm not in a position to say whether he's right or wrong coz i hav no idea.

and btw i havnt read the original article.. but doesnt mutah entail no wali involved n stuff? which what makes it even more haram?

ps: it's "Mut'3ah" not "mu'3tah" btw :)

salams

متعة

[Malaikah]

^ actually ibn baz reckons its ok. he's got a fatwa on it somewhere..... but i'm not in a position to say whether he's right or wrong coz i hav no idea.

:sl:

Are you for real? Thats sooo weird.:mmokay: I wonder on what evidence he allowed it though. :?

[lolwatever]

ill look it up inshalah n post if i find.. it was someone who had something against salafis that told me about it.... so ill mkae sure inshalah. lol

[lolwatever]

salams
here's the fatwa, its in audio form by him...

http://binbaz.org.sa/index.php?pg=ma...=audio&id=2222

i just read the this fatwa in arabic... and i think its very convincing that it's not permissible because of the fiqh principle "intention is liek a condition".. which means mutah and the marraige described above are equivalent:

واما أن ينوي ذلك بدون أن يشترطه, فالمشهور من مذهب الحنابلة أنه حرام وأن العقد فاسد لأنهم يقولون إن المنوي كالمشروط لقول النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم :(إنما لأعمال با النيات و إنما لكل امرئ ما نوى) ولأن الرجل لو تزوج امرأة من شخص طلقها ثلاثا من أجل أن يحلها له ثم يطلقها فان النكاح فاسد وان كان ذلك بغير شرط لأن المنوي كالمشروط فإذا كانت نية التحليل تفسد العقد فكذلك نية المتعة تفسد العقد. هذا هو قول الحنابلة.
و.

[ Back ]

[Malaikah]

:sl:

hold on, is the convincing fatwa the one by ibn baz or no? what did inb baz use to say its ok?

[lolwatever]

:sl:

hold on, is the convincing fatwa the one by ibn baz or no? what did inb baz use to say its ok?

lol no the arabic one is by (i think ibn uthaymeen...) he quoted the fiqh principle saying that intention is like a condition and its just deceieving.. hence its haram

the first link.. that'st he ibn baz fatwa in audio form.. he's speaking himself... he was an old man hence the cranky voice.

salam

[Malaikah]

the first link.. that'st he ibn baz fatwa in audio form.. he's speaking himself... he was an old man hence the cranky voice.

:sl:

but what did he say?? youre forgetting not every one understands arabic lol

[Umar001]

:sl:

I think the problem is that you are extrapolating what he said to imply something that wasnt mentioned explicity in the article. I think its probably best not to do that, as it could result with misinterpretation. If you really wanna know the answer inshaallah just look up the issue a bit more and see what the shiek had to say on the issue.

My gut instinct tells me that he probably agrees that marriage with the intention of divorce even though it is not mentioned in the contract is haram, just because he doesnt want to call it mut'ah doesnt mean it automatically makes it ok...

Thank you for your helping me on realising my mistake, though it would help me alot if you showed me where I done wrong, I am just reading the article and understanding.

I dont know what am doing wrong, the shaikh put his position and that is the position I take, what am I doing wrong? Please point it out clearly and be patient with me inshaAllah. :)

^ actually ibn baz reckons its ok. he's got a fatwa on it somewhere..... but i'm not in a position to say whether he's right or wrong coz i hav no idea.

and btw i havnt read the original article.. but doesnt mutah entail no wali involved n stuff? which what makes it even more haram?

I have read that it is just temporary as explained above.

[Malaikah]

Ok from the Above I understand that it is allowed if its not in the contract, BUT the only reason it would then not be allowed is if deception is INVOLVED.

The shaykh says "If the women knew that the man only intends to be married with her for that specific time, she would not agree to the marriage nor would her family."

But what if one told the woman and she agreed also?

Then this would be allowed, right?

:sl:

Ok... see that reasoning there? That wasnt the opinion the the sheikh... he never said that explicitly in the article... but he did mention that some scholars reckon its ok, and not that he thinks so...

so do you see how you kinda extrapolated that a bit too much there? but its ok anyway because you were asking, not demanding that it is true.. so no harm done inshaallah.

lolwatever... can u give a summary of the arabic thing please? what did sheikh ibn baz say to support his stance?

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum,

Ok from the Above I understand that it is allowed if its not in the contract, BUT the only reason it would then not be allowed is if deception is INVOLVED.

The shaykh says "If the women knew that the man only intends to be married with her for that specific time, she would not agree to the marriage nor would her family."

But what if one told the woman and she agreed also?

Then this would be allowed, right?

Ok... see that reasoning there? That wasnt the opinion the the sheikh... he never said that explicitly in the article... but he did mention that some scholars reckon its ok, and not that he thinks so...

In my opinion, such a marriage is not Mut'ah since it does not meet the definition of Mut'ah. However, it is still forbidden since it is a type of deception of the wife and her family. The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alaihi-wasallam) has forbidden deception and mendacity. If the women knew that the man only intends to be married with her for that specific time, she would not agree to the marriage nor would her family. In the same way, he would not be pleased to marry his daughter to a man who intends to divorce her when he has fulfilled his need from her. How can he be pleased with doing to others what he would not be pleased to have done to himself? This goes against the foundation of faith.

If you mean that I need to have the Shaykh say in english "The reason it is forbiden is because there is deception, if the deception is not there then it is not forbiden"

Then I see your point, but anyone who reads it can see for themselves, the shaykh says

so do you see how you kinda extrapolated that a bit too much there? but its ok anyway because you were asking, not demanding that it is true.. so no harm done inshaallah.

In my opinion, such a marriage is not Mut'ah since it does not meet the definition of Mut'ah.

So it is not Mut'ah.

But,

However, it is still forbidden since it is a type of deception of the wife and her family.

So am wondering, if there was no deception then what would it be?

If you have a pie, and someone says, its not forbiden because its nto a pork pie, however it has abit of alchol so its forbiden.

Then if you make the same pie without the alchol is it still forbiden?

Not that I make pies with alchol ;D ;D

Anyhow thank you for your patience sis. :) and I do understand what you mean kinda, Im jus a person that is very curious and I find it nice sharing opinions.

[lolwatever]

:sl:

Ok... see that reasoning there? That wasnt the opinion the the sheikh... he never said that explicitly in the article... but he did mention that some scholars reckon its ok, and not that he thinks so...

so do you see how you kinda extrapolated that a bit too much there? but its ok anyway because you were asking, not demanding that it is true.. so no harm done inshaallah.

lolwatever... can u give a summary of the arabic thing please? what did sheikh ibn baz say to support his stance?

http://binbaz.org.sa/index.php?pg=ma...=audio&id=2222

i just listened to that one... basically he said that as long as its not a condition that's set (i.e. agreed in the contract that after one month he'll divorce her) then the marriage is correct. He believes that to be the correct opinion.

But i think the paragraph i quoted leaves withotu doubt that its not the corrrect opinion becasue the hadith is so clear "whoever's intention was to make hijrah for the sake of Allah and his messenger then his hijrah was to Allah and his messenger..." i.e. intending to do soemthign and doing it.. is xact same thign as declearing ur gonna do it and then doing it....


also he's got a different fatwa on this link:
http://binbaz.org.sa/index.php?pg=ma...=audio&id=2173

it's a bit different and it makes a bit more sense... there's no evidence presented, except that in here he's saying "if he marries someone with intention that if he likes her he'll stick with her.. and if they're not compatable they'll part... then that's fine as long as no timing is set for a divorce"....

and he mentions that sort of marriage is ok if someone is in a country away from home and he doesnt want to fall into haram etc...

and allah knows best.

sorry for late reply i thought i pressed the submit button.. i must hav closed the window thinking i posted the translation!!!!

sorry if im off topic coz i havnt even read the original fatwa lol!

tc salams