Allah provided a cover in the Qur’an for sex-on-demand. It is called “Temporary Marriage” or “Nikah Mut’a,” where a fixed-time arrangement and payment are both agreed upon in advance between the man and the woman. The “marriage” automatically dissolves once the duration expires. It is nothing but a form of prostitution legalized by Allah in the Qur’an.

We will now discuss one of the most debased practices that is sanctioned in Islam. You may find the article extensive as vital points are repeated from different perspectives. Quotations may also seem repetitive as different Muslim sources are cited. It is consciously written in this way with the intention to expose this debased religion methodically. Our objective is to provide a meticulous knowledge of the subject at hand so as to assist the readers to see through the lies, deception and denial of those who act as defenders of the Islamic faith. It is to help the readers see Islam as it truly is. Please read this article very carefully and get to know the real Islam.

There is a type of marriage in Islam that is known as “Nikah Mut’a (Mut’ah)” or Temporary Marriage. Fixed-Term Marriage, Temporary Marriage or Pleasure Marriage are different names for the Arabic term, Nikah Mut’a. This form of marriage is based on a contract between a man and woman with a fixed date of expiry. The man and woman will become strangers to each other after the expiration date. Its format is that the woman says the following to the man after they both agree to the terms of the dower and the period of time: “I married you to myself on such-and-such a dower and for the known period of time” – where this period is stated exactly. The man’s answer will be: “I accept.” The dower can be in the form of money or something else. According to the terms of the contract, the woman becomes the wife of the man, and the man becomes her husband till the end of the period specified in the contract. Mut’a can be contracted for a night or a few days, months or years or even for a few hours. As soon as the period is over, the marriage is automatically terminated. Then, the Muslim man could leave her without any further commitments. No divorce is necessary to terminate the marriage.

After it was revealed in the Qur’an, Muhammad legislated Mut’a with all the rules pertaining to it. All the Muslims scholars and chroniclers without exception agree that Muhammad established Mut’a and made it legal after his migration to Medina. All Muslims, in their various sects, are also unanimous in their view that this sort of marriage was legislated during the dawn of Islam.

The Sunni and Shi’a Muslims have no disagreement as to its original permissibility. They only disagree as to whether it has been abrogated later or not. Sunnis believe that, in spite of its original permissibility in Islamic law, it was later abrogated. The Shi’a rejects this view. Even till today, the Shi’ite sect practices it in different parts of the world. Shi’ite leaders claim it is still in force and legitimate in Islam. This is the view of millions of Shi’ite Muslims worldwide.

According to Islamic sources, Muhammad made Mut’a lawful for his followers, then prohibited it, and then made it legal again.  Therefore, even after the passing away of the Prophet, the most famous Muslim scholars and relatives of Muhammad – such as Abdullah Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas’ud – maintained that the practice of Mut’a is still in force and was never abrogated. The legitimacy of their conclusion is confirmed by the records found in authentic Hadiths. It is also substantiated by the fact that it was still in vogue during the rule of Abu Bakr and Umar – long after the death of Muhammad.  Ibn Abbas, who defends the legality of the enjoyment of temporary marriage and who maintains that the practice of Mut’a was never abrogated, is well known among all the Muslim scholars. He occupied a much esteemed position with Muhammad. The Caliphs also sought his legal opinion and call him the interpreter of the Qur’an.

Only Hadiths that are considered authentic and accepted by Sunni Muslims will be used in this article to prove not only the original permissibility of Mut’a in Islam but also to establish the fact that the practice of Mut’a is still in force today. It will also be shown that by reviving the practice when the need arose – after prohibiting it – Muhammad set the pattern for the application of Mut’a for future generations. However, for Mut’a to be permitted even once in Islam proves that Islam is not a religion of the true God. Carefully consider all the evidences provided here.

It is vital to begin our discussion by establishing the proof that Islam initially allowed this form of illicit marriage to be legislated in its theology in its early period. In addition, it is also essential to prove that this shameful act was practiced under the supervision of Muhammad.


The Qur’anic verse that legitimatized Mut’a:

Surah 5:87: “O ye who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, and transgress not, Lo! Allah loveth not transgressors.” (Pickthall)

Ibn Mas’ud, who is considered as one of the greatest Muslim scholars, related a well-known incident, which is recorded in numerous Islamic sources.  This event will enlighten us on the historical background for the revealing of Surah 5:87. He tells us why Allah revealed this verse to Muhammad. Let us now review this account:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o:

 Narrated ‘Abdullah (b. Mas’ud): 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?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (2) 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.’ (Surah 5:87)

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3243:

Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported: We were on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and we had no women with us. We said: Should we not have ourselves castrated? He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage for a stipulated period giving her a garment, and ‘Abdullah then recited this verse: ‘Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like transgressors’ (al-Qur’an 5:87).

The above Hadiths show that Allah revealed a Qur’anic verse authorizing the practice of Mut’a. In Sahih Muslim’s narration, we are told that Muhammad permitted his followers to “contract temporary marriage for a stipulated period giving her a garment” in return for the enjoyment of sex they receive from her. Alternatively, as the following Hadith shows, even “a handful of grain” is sufficient for the exchange. Muhammad clearly allowed his men to use temporary marriage as a sanctioned form of prostitution.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2105:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: The Prophet (pbuh) said: If anyone gives as a dower to his wife two handfuls of flour or dates he has made her lawful for him. Abu Dawud said: This tradition has been narrated by Abdul- ahman ibn Mahdi, from Salih ibn Ruman, from AbuzZubayr on the authority of Jabir as his own statement (not going back to the Prophet). It has also been transmitted by AbuAsim from Salih ibn Ruman, from AbuzZubayr on the authority of Jabir who said: During the lifetime of the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) we used to contract temporary marriage for a handful of grain.

Imam Fakhruddin Razi was a 12th Century Sunni Islamic theologian. He was an expert in a wide variety of disciplines, including the traditional Islamic fields of Sharia (Islamic Law), Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), Islamic literature and Tafsir (exegesis). In his famous works known as,  “At-tafsir al-Kabir,” he commented regarding Mut’a:

 “No Muslim disputes that Mut’ah marriage was allowed in early Islam, the difference is whether it has been abrogated or not.”

Imam Fakhruddin Razi also added the following:

Imran Ibn Husain narrated: “The verse of Mut’a was revealed in Allah’s Book, and there did not came any other verse after that to abrogate it; and the Prophet ordered us to do it, so we did it at the time of Allah’s Apostle…”

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3246:

Jabir b. ‘Abdullah and Salama b. al-Akwa’ said: There came to us the proclaimer of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) and said: Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) has granted you permission to benefit yourselves, i. e. to contract temporary marriage with women.


Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa’: While we were in an army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a (marriage), so do it.” Salama bin Al-Akwa’ said: Allah’s Apostle’s said, “If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so.”

It is important to take note that Muhammad commanded his followers to do Mut’a. He said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a (marriage), so do it.”

The testimony of Sabura al-Juhanni in Sahih Muslim (Arabic), Kitab al-Nikah, Hadith 3490 states:

“Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to contract temporary marriage.”

We are also told in Sahih Muslim (Arabic), Kitab al-Nikah, Hadith 3491:

“Sabra b. Ma’bad reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) ordered his Companions to contract temporary marriage with women.”                                           

Please note, the above two Hadiths in Arabic can be read in the English version of Sahih Muslim at Book 8, Hadith Number 3257 and Number 3258 respectively. But the Saudi-paid translator of Sahih Muslim has used the term “permitted” instead of “ordered” or “commanded.” However, the original Arabic word “Amarna” which is used in the Arabic text of the Hadith correctly means “ordered” or “commanded.” The hypocrisy of the translator can be easily proven if we cross check the word “Amarna” in other parts of the Hadiths where he translated it correctly as “commanded.” For example, compare Hadiths: 4:803, 6:2391, 6:2634, 7:2797 and 7:2798.

The above Hadiths and Tafsirs clearly prove the following facts:

(1) Allah sanctioned Mut’a by revealing a Qur’anic verse – even considering it as among the “good things of Allah.”

(2) Mut’a was practiced during the time of Muhammad under his direction.

(3) It was initiated for the sole purpose to satisfy the sexual urges of Muslims.

(4) Muhammad considered Mut’a as a “benefit” for Muslim men.

(5) He commanded/ordered his followers to do it.

The facts are very obvious and the proofs are undeniably clear that Muhammad himself permitted, no, ordered Mut’a Marriage. One must be a complete idiot not to recognize the tone of command and encouragement in Muhammad’s words. The issuing of an order is a significant matter. There is a world of difference between tolerating a practice, and ordering a practice to be carried out. All of the above quotations from authentic Sunni Muslim sources prove that Mut’a was practiced legally under Islamic law with the blessings of Muhammad. In every instance, it was permitted by Muhammad to delight the sexual cravings of his followers. Thus, Muhammad approved the enjoyment of a practice that is clearly viewed as prostitution by the rest of the civilized world. Islam even regards this sinful practice as “beneficial” and a “good thing.” Only a very debased religion will consider such a sinful act as something that is good and beneficial.

Mut’a Marriage was made permissible and sanctioned by Muhammad at the start of Islam. It was practiced during a journey or a raid, or when it was necessary (sexual urge). If Mut’a is not an excuse for satisfying the lust of Muslim men, then what is it? It seems to be the easiest “solution” for adultery – the Islamic way.  Imagine, Allah is using adultery to solve the problem of adultery. This kind of idiocy only happens in Islam. The purpose for the temporary marriage is made clear from its very name in Arabic – Mut’a, which means pleasure. If distance and absence from one’s marriage mate legitimizes adultery, why is the wife not given the same “benefit” by Allah? If the wife is expected to wait faithfully for the husband’s return, then why is not the same faithfulness required from the husband? Is this not an act of gross injustice to Muslim wives? Muslim apologists will now claim that this is the nature of man. They will say that this is the way Allah made man. By using this argument, Muslim apologists are in fact putting the blame on Allah for all the unfaithful acts carried out by Muslim husbands. For Allah to permit this type of “marriage” proves that he cannot be mankind’s Creator. He fails to understand the true inner feelings of a faithful wife. Just ask any woman to tell you how she feels when her husband even looks passionately at another woman, let alone having sex with her.

Muslim apologists, in their usual habit of deceiving those not familiar with Islam, say that Muhammad allowed this practice with the intention of gradually outlawing it. This is an absolute lie.  If their claim is true, why did Allah specifically reveal a Qur’anic verse to sanction this utterly immoral practice? Let us now look at the details and expose this lie.

Sahih Muslim, Volume 3, pp. 553-554:

“The contractual marriage was lawful before the campaign of Khaybar; then it became unlawful in the day of the campaign. Then it was made lawful again in the day of Mecca’s conquest. After three days, it was prohibited. The episodes concerning the lawfulness (of the contractual marriage) in the day of the conquest are not ambiguous and it is not permissible to forfeit it. There is nothing that may inhibit the repetition of practicing the contractual marriage again, and God is the omniscient, and the scholars have agreed to regard the contractual marriage as a temporary legal marriage, which does not entail any inheritance. The separation occurs as soon as the date of the agreement expires, and it does not require any legal divorce. Ibn’Abbas used to preach its lawfulness.

The above Hadith shows the pattern of the implementation of Mut’a during the lifetime of the Prophet. The Hadith clearly reveals that it was implemented in the following manner: Mut’a on. Mut’a off. Mut’a on. Mut’a off. What can we conclude from this? Either Allah and Muhammad are two mentally deranged lunatics suffering from schizophrenic or it is their way of telling Muslims that this practice can be turned “on” whenever it becomes necessary. Muslims now have a choice to make. Well-known Muslim scholars support the conclusion that this practice can be observed whenever it becomes necessary. Well, does this give you the impression that Allah and Muhammad are gradually eradicating this sinful practice?

Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir on Surah 4:24 stated the following in p. 3:

“Ibn Abbas and other Sahaba said that Mut’ah can be utilised when needed, Ibn Hanbal also narrated the same.”

Also, in his renowned book, “The Prophetic Biography,” (Part 3, pp. 365,366), Ibn Kathir states:

“The prohibition of the contractual marriage took place in the day of the Khaybar campaign. Yet it had been established in Sahih of Muslim that Muhammad allowed them again to (sign) a contractual marriage in the Day of Mecca’s conquest. Then he prohibited it. The Shafi’i said: ‘I do not know any other thing which was made lawful, then prohibited, then made lawful again, then unlawful except the contractual marriage, which was prohibited in the year in which Mecca was conquered, then after that it became lawful. ”

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya also repeated the above statement of al-Shafi’I in p. 459 of the same book. And on p. 345, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya stated:

“After the death of Muhammad, Ibn’Abbas made it lawful when there was a need for it. He used to say that the apostle prohibited it when it was dispensable, but it was made lawful when it became a necessity.” (p. 345)

Furthermore, on p. 461, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya stated:

 “Ibn Mas’ud said: ‘I made it lawful when it became indispensable for a man.

Imam al-Baydawi’s agreement with the above statements can be read in his famous book, “The Interpretation of Al-Baydawi.” And on p. 108 he adds:

“The purpose of the contractual marriage is the mere pleasure of intercourse with a woman, and her own enjoyment in what she has given” (p. 108).

Since the Prophet of Islam permitted/ordered his followers to perform Mut’a when they were unable to control their sexual urges, this practice was revived whenever it became necessary. Contrary to the claims made by Muslim apologists, Muhammad did nothing to discourage this sinful practice. If Muhammad really wanted to discourage Mut’a, he would have sought to evidence his opposition by either maintaining silence or by refraining to pass any comments that might encourage Muslims to continue this practice. This would have evidenced his personal non-commitment on the matter. Any concession by Muhammad would then be understood merely as a conciliatory gesture on his part.

However, the situation is entirely different when conciliatory words that are meant to gradually point towards a discouragement of the practice are replaced with an order. Since an order is something that the followers must do, this shows that the Prophet himself supported the matter. In effect, an order to practice Mut’a means that Muslims were now implementing a directive that the Prophet had issued. This is not an optional matter; it is something that must be done, because this is the express will of Muhammad and Allah. Moreover, Allah revealed a verse that included Mut’a among the “good things of Allah.” So how can Muhammad then condemn or progressively censure the “good things of Allah”?

It is also essential to note that no Qur’anic verse was revealed later to cancel the previous Qur’anic verse which made Mut’a legitimate. In other words, Allah did not send any verse to abrogate Mut’a. Allah revealed its legitimacy in the Qur’an, and it was practiced to the end of Muhammad’s lifetime, which means to the end of the Qur’an’s revelation. As such, the claim that Muhammad wanted to eradicate Mut’a progressively is a total lie by Muslim apologist. We will now look at further evidences to show that this practice was upheld and continued to be practiced among the faithful even after the death of Muhammad, indicating that the practice of Mut’a was never abolished by Muhammad during his lifetime.

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248:

Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3249:

Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) and during the time of Abu Bakr until ‘Umar forbade it in the case of ‘Amr b. Huraith.

Sahih Bukhari (Arabic), Kitab al Tafseer, Tradition 4559:    

Narrated ‘Imran bin Hussain: “The Verse of Mut’a was revealed in Allah’s Book, so we did it at the time of Allah’s Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur’an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested.”

Once again, the English translator of the above Hadith by Sahih Bukhari namely Mohsin Khan changed the word “Mut’a” to “Hajj-at-Tamatu.” This deceit is easily discernable because in the Arabic text of Bukhari, the word “Mut’a” has been used alone. All Sunni commentators of the Qur’an are unanimous that this Hadith refers to Mut’a-ul-Nisa and not Mut’a-ul-Haj. The English translation can be found at Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43.

Deep down, Muslims know that Mut’a is nothing more than a form of prostitution legalized by Allah and his Prophet. Muslim scholars are clearly embarrassed to reveal this ugly truth about Mut’a – Islamic prostitution – to the western world. Otherwise, why should they resort to deception? Why should they mistranslate the Arabic text knowingly? Is this not, in reality, an admission that they are ashamed of Allah and his teachings?


Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 140:

Narrated Abdulrazaq and Abu Dawoud in (book) Nasikh and narrated ibn Jareer from al-Hakam that he was asked whether the verse on Mut’ah has been abrogated, he said: “No, Ali (RA) said that if it were not Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrongdoer).”                                     

For the second Caliph of Islam, to take it upon himself to forbid this disgraceful practice proves that Mut’a existed long after Muhammad died. It was still in vogue at the time of Caliph Umar’s rule. Ibn Abbas was right when he stated that it is was not banned by the Prophet. It must be remembered that the Messenger of Allah permitted his followers to do Mut’a at a time of “necessity.”  Self-control is not a virtue in Islam. The fact that Muhammad revived Mut’a after he himself prohibited it shows that one can resort to Mut’a at any time it becomes “necessary.” Thus the Prophet set the pattern for all successive Muslim leaders to follow.

Now, pay careful attention to Imam Ali’s words in the above Hadith. He implied that prior to Umar’s ban on Mut’a, Muslims avoided the sin of fornication because of the availability of Mut’a. In other words, he is saying that Muslims avoided the sin of fornication by engaging in fornication through Mut’a marriages. To all rational people, Mut’a is nothing more than legal prostitution. Thus, according to Islamic logic, the way to prevent sin is to indulge in sin. It is like telling an alcoholic that it is not a problem to indulge in alcohol as long you simply call it “tonic.” No wonder, Allah is known as the best of the deceivers.” (Surah 3:54). In all honesty, is there any difference between the practice of Mut’a and hiring the service of a prostitute? That is why it is not surprising for us to find that just as in the case of Mut’a, evil deeds such as robbery, rape, pedophilia, incest, slavery and murder are all sanctioned by Allah in the Qur’an. And Prophet Muhammad is guilty of committing every single act of these evil deeds. For Muslims who disagree and are shocked by this accusation leveled against their beloved Prophet, we advise them to do their homework. Check your own authentic Islamic sources.

As noted, the Qur’an itself bears witness that Mut’a was a permissible act in Islam. Supporting this truth are the testimonies of the Sahaba (Companions) of Muhammad themselves.

Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani narrated in “Talkhees al Habeer fi Takhreej al Hadeeth al Rafa al Kabeer,” Volume 3, page 159:

“After the death of Holy Prophet (s), a group of Salaf deemed it Halal. Amongst the Sahaba they were Asma bint Abi Bakr, Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibn Masood, Ibn Abbas, Mu’awiya, Amro bin Huraith, Abo Saeed, Salama and Mu’abed-the sons of Umaya bin Khalaf. He said that Jabir reported from the companions that (it was valid) during the reign of the Prophet, Abubakr and some part of Umar’s reign. He said that it is reported from Umar that he forbade it only if there were not two just witnesses. Some of Tab’een deemed (it halal) such as Tawous, Atta, Saeed bin Jubair and the majority of the jurists of Makka.”


“What has been reported from Asma, al-Nesa’i narrates it from Muslim Quri: ‘We went before Asma bint Abu Bakr and we asked her about Mut’ah al-Nisa, she replied: ‘I performed this Mut’ah during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s).”

In Sharh of Sahih Muslim by Imam Nawawi, we are told in no uncertain terms:

“Hadhrath Umar was the first person to prohibit Mut’ah.”

If Mut’a was indeed prohibited during the lifetime of the Prophet, then how can it be said that Caliph Umar was the first person to outlaw Mut’a? Clearly, this proves that Mut’a was practiced legally during the entire lifetime of Muhammad and long after that. Otherwise, it will be impossible for Umar to be the first person to ban it. For sure, he had no authority to do such a thing. Thus, if Muslims were to claim that Muhammad abrogated the practice of Mut’a, then it means that those Companions of Muhammad who were actually practicing Mut’a until the reign of Umar were, in fact, indulging in fornication. In actual fact, it does not make any difference if they were fornicating or performing Mut’a because it is one and the same.

Sunni Muslims’ claim that Mut’a was finally prohibited by Muhammad on the conquest of Mecca is not true as it was Umar who, on his own accord, banned it many years later. The foundation for the permissibility of Mut’a is mention in the Qur’an. This leaves Muslims with the possibility of its prohibition only if it were prohibited by another verse in the Qur’an. In other words, a prohibitory verse must be  revealed after the verse in which its original permissibility was indicated. Such a verse does not exist.  Thus, Mut’a continued to be practiced during the entire period of Caliph Abu Bakr and part of Umar’s rule. Why did Umar make a decision to ban Mut’a?

Caliph Umar prohibited Mut’a only during the later half of his caliphate. Imam Badruddin al-Aini records the following testimony of a famed companion of Muhammad, Abu Saeed Khudri:

“Abu Saeed Khudri and Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: ‘We contracted temporary marriage till the half of the Umar’s (ra) caliphate until he forbade it in the case of Amr Bin Harith.’” (Umada tul Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 17 page 246. In some versions, the tradition can be found in Volume 8 page 310 of the book.)

Caliph Umar’s reason for forbidding Mut’a is provided for us in Kanz al Ummal, Volume 7, p. 94, Dhikr Mut’ah:

Um Abdullah bint Abi Khuthaima stated that a man came from Syria and said: ‘Celibacy has become difficult for me, arrange a woman for me with whom I can perform Mut’ah’. She replied by directing him to a woman, with whom he entered into an agreement, and brought forward just witnesses. He stayed with the woman for as long as Allah (swt) wanted him to stay and then left.

Umar received information and summoned me and asked: ‘Is what happened true? I replied: ‘Yes’. He (Umar) said: ‘If he returns let me know’. Upon his return, I informed Umar. He (Umar) summoned him, when he (the man) went to him, Umar asked him: ‘Why you did that?’ The man replied: ‘I performed it during the lifetime of Rasulullah(s), and he never prohibited it until the time of his death. Then I practised it during the time of Abu Bakr and he never prohibited it until the time of his death, I also practised Mut’ah during your reign and you didn’t narrate any evidence of its prohibition.’ Umar replied: ‘By whom my soul in his hand! If I had forbade this before today, I would have stoned you, declare it (to the public) so that they can distinguish nikah from adultery’.

The reason to prohibit Mut’a was made very clear by Umar’s reply. It was to “distinguish nikah (marriage) from adultery” in the guise of marriage. At least Caliph Umar understood what the practice of Mut’a really meant – ADULTERY. That is why he said he will punish the one practicing Mut’a with the same punishment that Allah has reserved for those committing adultery – stoning. It is one of the strongest admissions by a Muslim leader that Mut’a is nothing more than Zina (Adultery). However, this also means that the second Caliph is now forced to acknowledge that prostitution, fornication and adultery was sanctioned in the Qur’an by Allah.

It does not in the least matter to us if the majority of the Muslims try to salvage some dignity for Islam by falsely claiming that Muhammad prohibited this practice later on. The fact that Allah and Muhammad sanctioned this practice – even once – is sufficient to prove that Islam is false. It is sufficient to confirm that Allah can never be the Holy God that he deceitfully claims to be.

It must also be noted that according to authoritative Sunni texts, Umar never attributed the prohibition of Mut’a to the Prophet. In fact Umar himself clearly mentioned that: “Mut’a was permitted at the time of the Prophet and I prohibit it!” We will now look at some evidences to validate this point. Just to clarify: Halal means permissible. Haram means forbidden.

Sharh Tajeed page 408 Dhikr Muthaeen Umar:

Umar climbed the pulpit and said during the lifetime of Rasulullah(s) three things were halal and now I deem them haram and shall punish those that practise them. Mut’ah of Nisa, Mut’ah of Hajj and declaring “hayya ala khayril Ammal”.

Tafseer al-Kabeer:

Umar said: “Two Mut’ah’s existed during Rasulullah’s lifetime and I now prohibit both of them.” (Tafseer al Kabeer, by Imam Fakhr ul-Radhi, Page 42 & 43)

If Mut’a was really prohibited by the Muhammad, Caliph Umar would have quoted the Prophet’s prohibition to strengthen his own prohibition of Mut’a. Since it was only Umar who forbade this sinful practice on his own accord, he took the responsibility for declaring the prohibition. Both the Hadiths and the Tafsirs makes it clear that Caliph Umar acted on his own.

Prominent Imam of Sunni Muslims, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah recorded in his esteemed work, Zaad al-Maad, Volume 2, p. 176, the following statement of Umar’s son:

Someone asked Abdullah bin Umar (about Mut’ah) saying: ‘Your father prohibited it.’ (Ibn Umar replied): ‘Is the order of the Messenger of Allah more deserving to be followed, or the order of my father?’

Not an enemy but Umar’s own son accuses his father of forbidding something that was ordered by Allah’s Messenger. Had Muhammad prohibited Mut’a, would there be an option to choose between following the order of the Prophet and the order of Caliph Umar? Hence, when Umar prohibited Mut’a, he went against an order of Muhammad that was still in force for Muslims.

Here is another statement, this time by Sunni Hadith Master, al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Syuti in Tarikh al-Khulafaa, p.136 concerning Caliph Umar’s prohibition of Mut’a:

“He (Umar) is the first who made Mut’a forbidden (Haraam).”

The Hadiths that appear to point out the prohibition of Mut’a by Muhammad must be understood in their right perspective because the same Hadiths also proves that Mut’a was practiced until the era of Umar. One such Hadith that is often quoted by Sunni Muslims is found in the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, which states that the Prophet banned the practice of Mut’a. Despite the evidences provided by both the Qur’an and the Hadith that prove that Mut’a was never abrogated during the lifetime of their Prophet, Sunni Muslims still try to refute this fact by selectively quoting a Hadith out of context to show that Mut’a was banned by their Prophet during his lifetime. As we have noted, Muhammad’s prohibition of Mut’a was temporary in nature as he himself revived it when the need arises. Let us now look at Sunni Muslim’s favorite Hadith and expose their deception.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 527:

Narrated ‘Ali bin Abi Talib: On the day of Khaybar, Allah’s Apostle forbade the Mut’a (temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat.

Firstly, a Hadith does not cancel the teachings of the Qur’an. Since no Qur’anic verse was revealed to cancel the initial verse that permits Mut’a, it proves that Allah did not abrogate Mut’a. Secondly, according to the principles of Islam, any Hadith that contradicts the Qur’an has to be rejected. There are about 117 Hadiths by Bukhari that refers to the day of Khaybar. These Hadiths narrate three things that were banned at Khaybar: (1) Mut’a (2) Donkey meat (3) Garlic.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 526:

Narrated Ibn Umar: On the day of Khaybar, Allah’s Apostle forbade the eating of garlic and the meat of donkeys.

Then how is it that Sunni Muslims are still eating garlic today?  They say that their Prophet banned Mut’a on the day of Khaybar but on the very same day he also banned the eating of garlic and donkey meat. So why do Muslims continue to eat garlic? Is it because they knew that the ban was only temporarily in force for that period of time? Is it then the same with Mut’a? The answer to these questions can be found in the following Islamic source. In Sunni Muslim’s own Islamic source, “The Prophetic Biography,” (Part 3, pp. 365-366), Ibn Kathir states:

“The prohibition of the contractual marriage took place in the day of the Khaybar campaign. Yet it had been established in Sahih of Muslim that Muhammad allowed them again to (sign) a contractual marriage in the Day of Mecca’s conquest. Then he prohibited it. The Shafi’i said: ‘I do not know any other thing which was made lawful, then prohibited, then made lawful again, then unlawful except the contractual marriage, which was prohibited in the year in which Mecca was conquered, then after that it became lawful.”

Though Mut’a was prohibited on the day of Khaybar, it was later permitted again on the “Day of Mecca’s conquest.” After the battle was all over, Muhammad “prohibited in the year in which Mecca was conquered, then after that it became lawful.” With deceit, Sunni Muslims will quote the Hadith that prohibits Mut’a at Khaybar but not the Hadith that shows that Mut’a was later permitted again “in the Day of Mecca’s conquest.” Then again, they will partially quote the part of the Hadith that states that Mut’a was prohibited in the year in which Mecca was conquered but not the part that says it was made lawful again. This shows that Muhammad did not ban Mut’a perpetually. Muslim apologists know this but like their god, they too mislead the people. Can you now see the deception of these Muslim apologists?

If Mut’a is immoral, why did Muhammad make it lawful in the first place? If it is not immoral, why did Muhammad forbid it? It has to be one or the other. Can evil be both good and bad? Will the true God give laws to his worshippers that make fornication, adultery and prostitution lawful under certain situations? Absolutely not! This transgression is far too serious for sincere Muslims to ignore. Will a Holy God encourage his worshippers to engage in fornication and adultery?

Sadly, Caliph Umar later rescinded his decision to prohibit Mut’a. Does it mean that he now realized that he was wrong in his conclusion that Mut’a is the same as adultery?  Does it mean that he now views Mut’a as a virtuous act? No, but it was because of the strong, over-whelming evidences of the legitimacy of Mut’a in the Islamic faith. His banning of Mut’a was unscriptural. Who is he to take a stand against Allah and Muhammad? This is an act of open defiance against the laws of Allah. Personal convictions and preferences must be set aside. Besides that, there were the learned companions of Muhammad to challenge the validity of Caliph Umar’s prohibition. With over-whelming living testimonies and evidences coming from prominent Muslims, Umar had no choice but to withdraw his decision to prohibit Mut’a.

We will now look at the historical works of Islam’s foremost historian. Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari records a detailed person-to-person conversation between Imran bin Sawadah and Caliph Umar, wherein Imran bin Sawadah cites objections to some of Umar’s decision such as his banning of Mut’a.

“It is also said that you have forbidden temporary marriage, although it was a license given by God. We enjoy a temporary marriage for a handful (of dates), and we can separate after three nights.” He (Umar) replied, “The Messenger of God permitted it at the time of necessary. Then people regained their life of comfort. I do not know any Muslim who has practised this or gone back to it. Now, anyone who wishes to can marry for a handful (of dates) and separate after three nights. You are right.” (History of al-Tabari, English version, Volume 14, pp 139 & 140)

Caliph Umar stated that the people can now once again engage in Mut’a. It is interesting to note Imran bin Sawadah’s comment about the right of the Muslims to practice Mut’a. He said “it was a license given by Allah. Yes, you read it right. Muslims are given a license by Allah to fornicate. It is also significant to note that Umar acknowledged that Imran bin Sawadah was “right.” And Caliph Umar reinstated Mut’a. In Islam, the dignity of women is equivalent to a “handful of dates” – the local fruit of Arabia.

There are many avenues for sexual pleasure in Islam and Mut’a is just one among the many. Carnal pleasure was the best Muhammad could come up with because he was unfamiliar with the holiness of the only true God, Jehovah. Islam is a man’s religion – made by a man, for man. Any Muslim who says that Mut’a is not in force today is clearly taking a stand against an act that is sanctioned by both Allah and his Prophet.

Another Qur’anic verse that validates the practice of Mut’a is Surah 4:24:

“And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess. This has ALLAH enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you may seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there is no blame on you what you do by mutual agreement after the fixing of the dowry. Surely ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise.” (Sher Ali)

You may wonder, where does this verse say anything about Temporary Marriage. Most English translators of the Qur’an hide the true meaning of this verse. The above English translation, like many others, states, “you may seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly.”  However, this is a deception by modern translators. In the Arabic Qur’an, the above verse does not use the Arabic equivalent of the word “marriage” (nikah) or any of its derivatives. Instead, it uses the term “Istamta’tum” which is a derivative of the word “Mut’a” denoting pleasure or enjoyment. “Istamta’tum” is derived from the root m-t-a, which is also the root for “Mut’a.”

Compare now the above translation of Surah 4:24 with the following translation by renowned Muslim scholar, Ibn Kathir:

Surah 4:24: “Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them (with a dowry) from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.”

Many English translators of the Qur’an know that the civilized world will be horrified by the presence of such teachings in the Qur’an. Thus, they do some damage control to the uncivilized teachings of Allah. They conceal the true intention of the verses and distort the true meaning of the Qur’an to suit western audiences. They do this because they are ashamed of Allah’s teachings in the Qur’an and they seek ways to make it palatable. Surah 4:24 was revealed towards the beginning of the Prophet’s stay in Medina. By the time this verse was revealed, Mut’a had become a legal custom in Medina. It was looked upon as a kind of marriage and was referred to by the term “Istimta’a.”  This term literally means, “To seek enjoyment.” On an occasion when the Prophet made a lesser pilgrimage to Mecca, the women of Mecca made themselves up especially for the event. Some of the Companions complained about the long separation from their wives, and the Prophet replied: “Then go and enjoy (Istamta’a) these women.” (See Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p286).

Regarding the meaning of Surah 4:24, Ibn Kathir stated further in his commentary:

“…the general meaning of which was given as evidence for Mut’a Marriage (Marriage for an intended short time) which was, undoubtedly, prevalent at the onset of Islam, but was abrogated thereafter. Ash-Shafi’i and a group of scholars were of the opinion that Mut’a Marriage had once been permitted but was later invalidated on two occasions.”

This commentary shows that “the general meaning of (Surah 4:24) was given as evidence for Mut’a Marriage” in Islam. It also proves that Mut’a was “prevalent at the onset of Islam.” According to the commentary, Mut’a was “invalidated on two occasions.” This is only possible if it was validated twice – a second time validation after a prohibition. This proves that Mut’a becomes validated whenever there was a need for it. Muhammad set this pattern for the Muslim community to follow. Ibn Abbas was the official legist of the Islamic law during the era of Caliph Umar and Caliph Uthman. Ibn Kathir stated the following regarding Ibn Abbas:

“Ibn ’Abbas is the most knowledgeable person among the people as to what God has revealed to Muhammad. Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to say that the interpreter of the Qur’an is Ibn’Abbas. He was accustomed to telling him: ‘You have acquired a knowledge which we never received. You are the most expert in the book of God’” (pp. 299, 300).

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 51:

Narrated Abu Jamra: I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut’a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Mut’a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, “That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce.” On that, Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.” 

This reference to the statement of Ibn Abbas, the cousin of Muhammad is sufficient to prove that Mut’a was not banned perpetually. There are many references that show that the argument of Ibn’ Abbas was strong and conclusive to the continuation of the practice of temporary contractual marriage. The verdict of Ibn Abbas was based on the fact that Muhammad made it lawful then unlawful, and then he made it lawful again when it was necessary. Also, no verse was revealed later by Allah to abrogate the practice of Mut’a. Constantly we find testimonies of great Muslim scholars who testify that unlike any other practices in Islam, Mut’a is the only practice that was revived after a prohibition. As stated earlier, it was Allah’s way to indicate that one can resort to Mut’a when it is needed. Many evidences show that Mut’a was never abrogated.

Imam Abu Ishaq Thalabi in his famed work “Al Kashaf al Bayan fi Tafseer al Qur’an” recorded the testimony of Imrain bin Hussain, a close Companion of Muhammad:

“Mut’ah was revealed in the Qur’an and no verse was revealed after it, abrogating it. We practised Mut’ah during the life of Rasulullah, he never prohibited until he died, one person prohibited it based on his own view.”

Thalabi is no ordinary scholar he was awarded a high rank by the Sunni ulamas. In Tabaqat al Kubra of Volume 3, page 23, the appraisal of Thalabi is as follows:

“Thalabi was the greatest scholar of his time with regards to knowledge of the Qur’an.”

Well, did Allah actually ban this practice later on as Sunni Muslims claim today? Islamic sources itself prove their claim to be untrue. Muslims must honestly face the truth that there is not a single statement in the Qur’an forbidding or abrogating Mut’a. Quoting the Hadith will not prove that Mut’a was banned since there are also many Sunni narrations from authentic Hadith that deny that Mut’a has been abrogated. Therefore, the Hadith literature does nothing to prove the Muslim’s case that Mut’a has been prohibited. In addition, it must be reiterated that the Hadith cannot challenge the testimony of the Qur’an. Hence, in light of the aforementioned evidences we can see that the legality of Mut’a is still in force today. What is important for sincere Muslims to take into account is that it is an indisputable fact that the adulterous practice of Mut’a was allowed on a few occasions in Islam by Allah. The undeniable proof that this extremely immoral practice had the blessing of Islam should be reason enough for us to reject this depraved religion. Islamic history shows that nothing is sacred in Islam except sex. Even on a sacred trip to Mecca to perform the lesser hajj, Muhammad permitted his men to engage in fornication (Mut’a):

Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, “At-tafsir al-Kabir,” Tafsir on Surah 4:24:

“Mut’ah marriage involves a man hiring a woman for a specific amount of money, for a certain period of time, to have sex with her. The scholars agree that this Mut’ah marriage was authorized in the beginning of Islam. It is reported that when the Prophet came to Mecca to perform ‘umrah, the women of Mecca dressed up and adorned themselves. The companions complained to the Prophet that they had not had sex for a long time, so he said to them: ‘Enjoy these women.’”

Since it was Allah who sanctioned Mut’a in the Qur’an, one would expect Muslims to highly esteem the women participating in it in. After all, are not these women conforming to the teachings of the Qur’an? Let us consider now the true status of the women who engage in Mut’a and how they are viewed in Islam. This will help us understand how Islam dignifies women. The Shia website,, (Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law), states:

“Mut’a is considered a kind of ‘rental‘ because in general a man’s basic aim in this kind of marriage is the sexual enjoyment of a woman, and in return for his enjoyment the woman receives a certain amount of money or property. In defining ‘rental’ the jurisprudents say: ‘It is to gain possession of a benefit in exchange for a specified sum.’”  “…On this point there are specified Hadith as well as the general Hadith which state that a woman who enters into mut’a is ‘rented‘.” (Al-Serat Volume XIII, No. 1, Chapter 2)

“In other words, she has been ‘rented‘ for the purpose of sexual intercourse.”  (Al-Serat Volume XIII, No. 1, Chapter 3)

While trying to rationalize this disgraceful act, Al-Islam admits that just as in the case with prostitution, the women in Mut’a are also “rented” (hired). Women who are hired for sex can never be anything but prostitutes. Why did Allah then sanction prostitution and make it lawful in the first place? The fact that Allah sanctioned adultery and prostitution, even for a brief period, is a cause for concern. How can Allah legalize prostitution and call it marriage? Let us now refer to Dr. Musa al Musawi’s statement in his book, “The Shi’ites and the Reformation.”  He said:

“This contractual marriage contains a license for licentiousness and degradation of woman’s dignity, the thing which we do not find even among permissive societies in ancient and modern history.” (p. 109).

Then he adds on page 111 the characteristics regarding this type of marriage:

“This marriage is carried out without a witness. The period of this marriage could be a quarter of an hour, or a day, or any period of time. In it, it is permissible for a man to have collectively an unaccountable number of women at the same time. The woman may not inherit her husband’s possessions, and a man does not give alimony to the spouse. Divorce is also carried out without a witness. This marriage is nothing but a license to practice sex provided that the woman is not married to another man.”  (Source: Behind the Veil)

Dr. Musawi has a Ph.D. in Islamic law from the University of Tehran. He taught Islamic philosophy and was elected as President of the Supreme Counsel of West America. Of course, his criticism of the contractual marriage is appropriate. While testifying that this type of marriage has been abolished, Dr. Musawi also admits in his book (p. 108), “All the scholars and legists without exception say that Muhammad made it lawful for his Companions from the very beginning.” And Dr. Musawi added (p. 109), “This contractual marriage contains a license for licentiousness and degradation of woman’s dignity, the thing which we do not find even among permissive societies in ancient and modern history.”

We now ask Muslims, including Dr. Musawi, “Why did Allah inspire a verse in the Qur’an to sanction a practice ‘which we do not find even among permissive societies in ancient and modern history’?” Is this not an admission that the moral standards of those permissive societies are much higher then that of Islam? If you think the world of Islam, then reflect on this fact.

Another Sunni Muslim author, Dr. Salamah also wrote:

Mut’ah, on the other hand, is an open license for sexual pleasure with as many women as one can financially afford. The women who engage in Mut’ah are hired women; thus, it can be performed with all women irrespective of their age, character, conduct or religion. It requires no witnesses, nor is there any obligation on the man’s part to provide food and shelter to the woman. The only precondition is that the woman agrees to the price and the length of the Mut’ah and that the man pays her the compensation when he has relations with her. One can discern for himself whether such a practice leads to sheer promiscuity or promotes chastity. (

Dr. Salamah is making a basically ethical argument that Mut’a is the same as fornication. We could not agree more. Why then did Allah permit fornication and promiscuity in the Qur’an? By believing that Mut’a is the same as fornication and at the same time being forced to acknowledge its original permissibility in Islam, Muslims cannot escape the fact that Allah and Muhammad approved fornication and adultery. Therefore, Muslims must admit that the Allah that they worship and the Prophet that they follow promoted prostitution and try to pass it off as marriage. This is deception on their part and many a woman became the innocent victim of their deceit.

Sunni Muslim scholars try to conceal the disgrace caused by the original permissibility of Mut’a in the Qur’an. On the one hand, they acknowledge that Mut’a is the same as adultery, but at the same time, they are forced to acknowledge that it was once permitted by Allah. In addition, it is also considered as the “good things” of Allah. To consider acts of adultery as “good things” even once is the worst theological disaster. Men can err but not God. By this single verse in the Qur’an (Surah 5:87), Islam’s god has proven himself to be the antithesis to the Holiness of God.

The truth of the matter is that the Prophet of Islam re-ignited Mut’a, a pre-Islamic practice that differs not from the act of soliciting the service of a prostitute. By regulating the institution of prostitution under the guise of religion, Muhammad and Allah have opened the floodgates for descent Muslim women to be incorporated in this age-old profession. The adulterous and fornicatory poison is the same, only the label has been changed by them. Now, Muslim women can be both prostitutes and good Muslims too. Acts of shame have become acts of virtue. Religion is supposed to transform prostitutes into chaste women. However, in the religion of Islam, we find that it is the other way round – chaste women are turned into prostitutes by its theology.  That is why Asma bint Abu Bakr, the daughter of the first Caliph, was proud to announce openly of her participation in Nikah Mut’a. With how many men she contracted Mut’a? As Muslim scholars like to say, only Allah knows best.

What has been reported from Asma, al-Nesa’i narrates it from Muslim Quri: “We went before Asma bint Abu Bakr and we asked her about Mut’ah al-Nisa, she replied: ‘I performed this Mut’ah during the lifetime of Rasulullah(s)’” (Source:  Volume 3 No. 1506)

Of course, some Muslims at that time would have had concerns that their women would become nothing more than whores through this practice. Their concerns are valid as we can see that even a woman from an upstanding household, the daughter of Caliph Abu Bakr, ventured out and offered herself to contract Mut’a with the Muslim males. Women were deceived to the point that they are unable to discern right from wrong. Calling prostitution by any other name does not make it right. Abraham Lincoln once asked, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” When someone said “five”, Lincoln said that was wrong, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so. Similarly, calling prostitution a marriage, even temporarily, does not make it so.

Imagine, Muslim mothers proudly testifying about their participation in fornication to their sons. Abdullah ibn Alzubair was opposed to Mut’a, and he voiced his opposition to it when debating with Ibn Abbas. Ibn Abbas silenced Abdullah ibn Zubayr by informing him that he was a product of Mut’a. In the esteemed Sunni works of Imam al-Raghib al-Isfahani, it is reported in Muhazraat, Volume 2, p. 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.”

Like a magical wand in the hands of a wicked witch, Islam turns descent women into whores in an instant. Islam’s witchcraft is so potent that the victims are unaware of what they have actually changed into – prostitutes and adulteresses. Islam not only robs one’s dignity but also one’s mind. Before we proceed on, let us consider once again the account of Caliph Umar’s prohibition. When Umar came to know that Amr ibn Hareeth was practicing Mut’a, he said:

Verily Allah made permissible for His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) whatever he likes and as he liked it. And thereof the Noble Qur’aan had been completed. So complete Hajj and Umra for Allah had commanded you and confirm by proper conditions the marriage of those women (with whom you have performed Mut’ah). And any person who would come to me with a marriage of fixed duration (Mut’ah), I would stone him to death (which is the penalty for committing fornication by a previously married person).’ [Muslim, Sahīh, Vol. 3, p. 331 in the book of hajj in a chapter about the scholars` views regarding the legitimacy of one who performs the mut`a while performing the `umra (Dār al-Sha`ab edition)]

“Whatever (Muhammad) likes, Allah made it permissible for his Messenger.” Among the things that Muhammad liked and that was made permissible for him was adultery and fornication. This is not just our conclusion but also that of Caliph Umar since he too believes that Mut’a is the same as adultery.  By saying that the Qur’an had been completed” by permitting whatever Muhammad likes, Umar is testifying that the things permitted to Muhammad served to fill up the contents of the Qur’an, thus completing it. And Mut’a is one of the permitted things that contributed to the finishing of the Qur’an. Since no verse was revealed later to abrogate it after its inclusion in the Qur’an, Mut’a became one of Allah’s eternal laws in the finished Qur’an.

Among the Muslim legists who believed that Muhammad made Mut’a lawful at the inception of Islam are: Ibn’Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Sahih al Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Imam al-Baydawi and the Imam Fakhr al-Razi. All these scholars are heavyweights in Islam and their testimonies are sufficient to prove that Mut’a was part of Islam. These scholars are recognized by all the contemporary scholars of Islam who are also in agreement with them that Mut’a was made lawful at the inception of Islam.

It is also important to note that the scholars who confirmed that this practice was not abolished are among the most esteemed scholars such as Ibn’Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, and the Imam Fakhr al-Razi. Moreover, as we have noted, even Caliph Umar who prohibited Mut’a was later shown to have reinstated it. As stated earlier, even if Sunni Muslims were to claim that Mut’a was allowed only for a short time during the onset of Islam, it still shows that Islam authorized fornication, adultery, and prostitution in its scripture. Can we then trust this religion to provide us with sound moral guidance? Can we trust a religion that turns women into whores and has a moral standard that is lower then the “permissive societies in ancient and modern history”?

Ample proof has been provided to show that Mut’a is authorized in Islam and it is still in force today. The claim by Sunni Muslims that it is no longer allowed in Islam does not essentially change anything. A god who sanctions a morally wrong course even once cannot be divine. This is sufficient to prove Islam false. As for Muslims who express shock at the practice of Mut’a, they are either hypocrites or ignorant of their religion. If Islam allows the raping of female war captives, in the presence of their husbands, then to pay a dower (fee) to have sex with a woman with her permission is considered noble by Islamic standards. The moral darkness of Islam is so great that even whoredom appears noble. When a religion degrades to such low levels, it should be shunned at all costs. A spiritually bankrupt religion has to appeal to the carnal to survive. The light at the end of the Islamic tunnel is indeed dark – especially for Muslim women.

Ibn Kathir wrote:

Allah said: “(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, (except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed: “(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” (This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih.) (Reference at

Can you now see the moral mire of this religion? Islam removes every fiber of decency that humans are endowed with and reduces them to levels lower than that of animals. Men, who were reluctant to engage sexually with the married captives just moments ago, now raped these very women at will after they received a single verse from Allah. (Surah 4:24). Can one really worship a god whose moral levels are so unimaginably evil? How much more evil must it take for Muslims to see that Allah cannot be the true God? These teachings of Islam do not represent the righteous moral standards of a Holy God. The Holiness of the true God is so profound that those drawing close to him in true worship are expected to reflect his Holiness in their lives. Leviticus 19:2 highlights this obligation that is placed upon all true worshippers of the true God:

“Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘Ye shall be holy; for I Jehovah your God am holy.’”

Just as the moon reflects the light from the sun, true worshippers are to reflect the holiness of Jehovah their God. Nothing less is expected from them. In the Bible, we can read God’s view of marriage in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 7:

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 7: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication. That every one of you should know how to get possession of his own wife in sanctification and honor: Not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God… For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto sanctification.”

For a Christian husband, there is no place for sex outside the limits of a single wife. This is the divine arrangement in a Christian marriage. Professed “Christians” who choose to act differently are acting on their own and are placing themselves under the adverse judgment of God Almighty.

Marriage is the first human institution ordained and designed by God. In Christianity, marriage is viewed as a sacred institution ordained by God for the lifelong union of a man and a woman. This original principal was first articulated in the Bible book of Genesis. It is stated in Genesis 2:24: “(A man) shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” Jesus reiterated this same basic position on marriage in Mark 10:8. He described the marriage union as a sacred union. Because of the faithfulness, trueness and intimacy that are meant to be in this relationship, Jesus said that “the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. In truth, they are now one – a single unit. The Christian Marriage is one man, one woman, one life – in union with their Creator. The husband and wife are of equal value and valuable in the eyes of their Creator. The sacredness of the Marriage institution is further emphasized in Hebrews 13:4:

“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”

And the following warnings are given by the Almighty God in Malachi 3:5: 

“And I will come near to you people for the judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers.”

These are the standards of gold that is laid out in the Holy Bible. Standards that honor the Originator of Marriage. Standards that honor and dignifies women. There is no such thing as a temporary marriage in the divine laws of Jehovah. In contrast, if the sun of Islam (Allah) is itself dark, how will the moon (Muslims) be able to reflect any light? If the light of Islam is dark, imagine how dark its darkness will be. In this spiritually dark condition, it is difficult for Muslims to tell the differences between acts of virtue and acts of sin. Therefore, it should not surprise us to find Muslims defending the authorization of Mut’a by Allah in the Qur’an.

Let us conclude by looking at the moral climate that prevailed during the “Golden Days” of Islam. As you read the following narration, see how women are dignified during the “Glorious Days” of Islam. Reflect also on the standard of civility displayed in early Islam. This journey back in time will expose the deception of Muslims who say that the advent of Islam improved the status of women. It will also show whether the practice of Mut’a is just an aberration or abnormality in Islam or is Islam rotten to the core. You be the judge. We will not just consider the example of ordinary Muslims but those of the elect as well. The following account shows how the pious spend a typical day during the “Golden Days” of Islam:

Mujahid said: ‘I was walking with ibn Umar in a slave market, then we saw some slave dealers gathered around one slave-girl and they were kissing her, when they saw ibn Umar, they stopped and said: ‘Ibn Umar has arrived’. Then ibn Umar came closer to the slave-girl, he touched some parts of her body and then said: ‘Who is the master of this slave-girl, she is just a commodity!’ (Musanaf ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 4 page 289 Tradition 20240)

In Urdu, the language spoken by the second largest Muslim nation, women are called “aurat,” which comes from the Arabic word “awrah.” This Arabic word refers to the genitals of a woman. In simple speech, “awrah” means the “vagina.” This means, the entire body of a Muslim woman is viewed as a huge vagina and nothing else in Islam. (Warraq, 2005. p. 316). This explains why women in Islam are required to cover from head to toe. If this is how Muslims see their women, it helps us to understand the reason behind all the degraded practices of sexual immorality such as Mut’a in Islam. Mut’a is also a fore-glimpse of Allah’s carnal Paradise which he has reserved for pious Muslim men in the hereafter.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s