[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqRfhlYQo2w?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

Sunnis generally don't accept it, but Shi'ites regard temporary marriage (zawaj al-mut'a) as sanctioned by Muhammad himself, as you can see from this clip, and hence part of Islamic law. So as Islamic groups fight against laws banning Sharia in the U.S. and pave the way for it to come to this country, will we eventually see calls from Shi'ites to legalize this thinly disguised form of prostitution? Why not?

"Kuwaiti Shaykh: 'A handful of dates is given to any woman to enjoy her sexually,'" from Translating Jihad, November 22:

In the above video, Kuwaiti Shaykh Yasir al-Habib, a Shi'a, explains and justifies the Islamic practice of zawaj al-mut'a, or temporary marriage (lit. 'pleasure marriage'), which is in a sense Islamically-sanctioned prostitution. [, ]

He also brings up a hadith or saying from one of the companions of Muhammad, who said that, "We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of the dates or flour as a dower during the life time of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until Umar forbade it because of Amr Ibn Huraith" (from al-islam.org). The last point about Umar forbidding it is where most Shi'a and Sunnis disagree--the Shi'a don't accept Umar as a legitimate caliph or successor to Muhammad, while the Sunnis do.

Subtitled video is above, transcript below (h/t Nonie Darwish):

I tell him, “Come on, if you’re a man, then give me your sister in marriage, a marriage with the intent of divorcing after one night.” I could imagine something like that, now that you mention it. You know? Now, even if you find this repulsive, the Messenger of Allah didn’t find it repulsive. The Messenger of Allah approved this marriage by recognizing it. The Messenger of Allah permitted and authorized (temporary) pleasure marriages. Now even if they later put it in a written hadith that he later forbade pleasure marriages, the important thing is that it was present (during the time of the Prophet).

If the marriage was by nature considered repulsive by the Shari’ah, meaning it was not pleasing to Almighty Allah and His Messenger (PBUH), then the Prophet from the beginning would not have permitted it. Why did he permit it? I mean, it wasn’t considered contrary to the honor of Muslim women. Why did he authorize his companions to marry Muslim women for a short time, and to “enjoy them (sexually),” [Qur’an 4:24] even with a handful of dates? A handful of dates is given to any woman to enjoy her sexually, that’s it. If you say that this is adultery, then you’re accusing the Messenger (PBUH) of adultery, or that he legitimized adultery. If you say this is repulsive, you’re accusing the Messenger (PBUH) of being repulsive, or that the Messenger of Allah legitimized that which is repulsive, Allah forbid. Is it not so?

Pleasure marriage came to solve a societal problem. It doesn’t mean that it always has to be applied. However, if my sister did that, according to its rules and laws, whether she were a widow and her husband had passed away, or she were divorced, and so forth; if she needed it (for whatever reason), then this marriage would be according to the tradition (sunnah) of Allah and His Messenger (PBUH). There is no shame in this. No shame at all.

Book: Islam In The Bible, This Chapter is Presented by Courtesy of the Author: Professor Ali Haydar (Thomas McElwain).(note the author is an ex-christian).

[size=16pt]MUT'AH/TEMPORARY MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE [/size]

Chapter Nine:
Concubinage or Marriage of Pleasure

Islamic marriage is a contract before witnesses between a man and a woman. A man may under certain circumstances contract marriage with up to four women, in addition to concubines. Concubinage is a form of marriage in which the contract includes specific limitations either on the time or the rights involved in the marriage.

The texts of the Bible can be classified in three groups: those spoken by God Himself and thus giving direct divine commands; those describing the holy example of prophets and other human beings with God-given authority to serve as such holy examples; and finally those texts describing the behavior of ordinary people whose example we might not follow. Obviously the first category is normative, whereas the last is not. The second category also has a certain degree of normative value.

There are three types of marriage mentioned in the Bible: marriage between social equals through contract and dowry, concubinage, and marriage by purchase or capture in war (slave marriage). We shall examine here only the second, concubinage.

In principle we could be certain that concubinage is meant only for those texts where the word "Pilegesh" occurs. This word is of uncertain origin. It is used once in the Bible in Exekiel 23:20 to refer to the male partner in such a relationship. The word is thus both masculine and feminine without a change in form.

But even the use of the word "Pilegesh" does not guarantee that true concubinage is meant. Genesis 25:6, as we shall soon see, gives us the only specific regulation characterizing concubinage, that is, that the children of concubines to not inherit from the father. Therefore the use of the word "Pilegesh" in Genesis 35:22 is a loose application of the word to a slave wife whose children did inherit and who was taken as a wife specifically for the purpose of bearing children. This text, however, is doubtful in any case, and should not be used. In 1Chronicles 1:32, the word "Pilegesh" refers to Keturah, the third wife of Abraham. The Genesis text is ambiguous about this marriage, and it is certain that the marriage was not specifically contracted for producing children. The Genesis text does not state whether Keturah's children inherited with Ishmael or whether they were given gifts with the children of Abraham's other concubines.

There are no texts of direct, God-given revelation that refer to concubinage as such, although many texts of legislation must refer to marriage of all types. We shall have to turn to the two lower categories of texts to find an indication of the Bible attitudes towards marriage of pleasure.

Abraham is the first holy example of concubinage in the Bible. By holy example concubinage is stated for Abraham in Genesis 25:6. The word appears here in the plural, indicating that Abraham had more than one concubine. One difference between wife and concubine is stated: the children of the wife inherit, while those of the concubine are given gifts at the father's discretion. This is the one characteristic limitation of concubinage which the Bible states. It otherwise seems to assume that concubinage is well known and needs no further description.

In Judges 8:31 we find that Gideon had a concubine by holy example, who bore a son, Abimelech, who was the first king in Israel.

In 2Samuel 5:13 by holy example David contracted concubinage as well as normal marriage with many women. 2Samuel 15:16 refers to ten women who were David's concubines. The same group of women is mentioned in 2Samuel 16:21,22 and 20:3. Another group of David's concubines is mentioned in 2Samuel 20:3. David's concubines are mentioned again in 1Chronicles 3:9.

In 1Kings 11:3 by holy example Solomon contracted marriage with seven hundred women and concubinage with three hundred. The surprising number of wives here is of course not normative. The Bible places no restriction on the number of wives. The limitation of four wives is one of the few new legislations of the Qur'an, although some maintain that the limitation follows the example of Jacob.

Two concubines are named in 1Chronicles 2:46,48 which Caleb contracted. Caleb is not specifically a holy example, but there is no mention of his ever committing an act which was condemnable. On the contrary, he is often mentioned for his courageous conduct in connection with the successor of Moses, Joshua.

1Chronicles 7:14 mentions a concubine of Manasseh, son of Joseph. Since Jacob incorporated both of Joseph's sons into the twelve, Manasseh is also a holy example.

In 2Chronicles 11:21 there is mention of concubines for Rehoboam, son of Solomon. Rehoboam, despite his political errors, can be counted as one of the twelve good kings of Judah and thus a holy example.

Song of Solomon 6:8,9 bears reference again to the holy example of Solomon in contracting concubinage.

There are thus five or six holy examples of concubinage specifically mentioned in the Bible as such. We shall now examine texts referring to concubinage that cannot be taken as holy example, and texts referring to holy example of marriage which may or may not be concubinage.

The first mention of concubinage in the Bible as that of Esau in Genesis 22:24. Esau, having given up his birthright, cannot be taken as a holy example. There is another concubine mentioned by name in Genesis 36:12, Timna who was the concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau. Both of these men were devout, although not holy examples.

There is a long and tragic story about the concubine of a Levite in Judges 19. There is every reason to believe that this Levite was devout, although he was not a holy example.

The concubine of King Saul is mentioned by name in 2Samuel 3:7 and again in 2Kings 21:11. King Saul is not a holy example, for the kingdom was taken from him for disobedience. David himself, however, continued to treat him as the anointed and gave fealty to him until his death. He can be assumed to have been generally devout.

Esther 2:14 refers to the concubines of King Ahasuerus. This king is not a holy example.

The word "Pilegesh" is not used elsewhere in the Scriptures. There are several marriages, however, that may well be examples of concubinage, some of them by holy example.

The story of Tamar in Genesis 38:13-26 is an example of a misguided attempt to obey the command to reproduce. Just as in the story of the daughters of Lot, subterfuge on the part of Tamar leaves Judah guiltless of incest. The action of Tamar only serves again to emphasize how the attempt to obey God without taking divine guidance into consideration will eventually lead astray.

Judah's behavior in this story must be examined. In verse 26 Judah recognizes his fault in not giving his third son Shelah to Tamar as the law of levirate demanded. When Judah learns that the unknown woman with whom he has contracted a marriage is his daughter-in- law, he has no more marital relations with her. It appears that Judah consistently applies marriage legislation except in denying Tamar to Shelah, for this is the only fault he acknowledges. We must therefore look for the legal basis of Judah's relations with Tamar. Verses 16-18 describe the negotiations between Judah and Tamar. These are ordinarily understood as the negotiations between a man and a prostitute. If Judah thought that Tamar was a prostitute, which is not certain, it does not imply that he did not marry her. We have already seen from verse 26 that Judah does not acknowledge having made a negotiation of prostitution. He condemns prostitution in his judgment of Tamar. We know also that Judah, as one of the twelve sons of Jacob, is a holy example. We must therefore conclude that Judah was contracting a marriage dowry. The sons of Tamar are therefore not illegitimate, despite the fact that the marriage was terminated when Judah learned who his wife was. The termination of the marriage is not described in detail. We do not know if it was terminated by divorce, by shortening a contract of concubinage, or by the elapse of the time of contract. This is possibly an example of concubinage, as it is not certain what kind of contract Judah made with Tamar.

A second example is the marriage of Moses to an Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12. We know little about this marriage. The Ethiopian is not Zipporah, Moses's first wife who bore the children of Moses known to us. Zipporah was a Midianite. Moses apparently married the Ethiopian woman while Israel was camping at Hazeroth (Numbers 11:35). The only other thing we know about the marriage is that it was strongly opposed by Miriam the sister of Moses, and that Aaron supported her. We do not know the reason for their opposition. It is possible that this marriage was one of concubinage, although there is no other evidence for this than the intimation that it may have been motivated by the desire for temporary pleasure rather than bearing children.

At this point it may be pertinent to examine the distribution of cases of concubinage. More than half of the individuals contracting concubinage are holy examples whose exemplary lives were authoritative, God-given revelation which the people of their times were required to imitate. The others, with the exception of Ahasuerus, were devout people, some of whom have no spot on their record. There is no specific record in the Bible of any wicked personage contracting concubinage. We can assume that at least the wicked kings had concubines, but it is nowhere specifically stated that this is so. In the Bible concubinage is mentioned only in connection with devout living. An explanation of this may be that wicked people generally resorted to prostitution rather than taking on the responsibility of concubinage.

The Scriptures do not deal with length of contract in marriage. Marriage as generally described in the Bible shows evidence of being permanent, although permanence of marriage is never legislated. Many of the cases of concubinage we do find appear to be of rather long term. Exodus 21:7 directly states that marriage by purchase must be permanent. This is an obvious deterent to prostitution. The inference is that other forms of contract exist.

Concubinage and polygamy both fell out of disuse sometime after the return from captivity and during the rise of rabbinicism. As concubinage fell into disuse among the Jews, problems arose. Although there is evidence of prostitution existing along side marriage and concubinage, the incidence of prostitution may have increased with the decrease in polygamy and concubinage.

Besides the increase of prostitution as such, we are justified in assuming that the present-day practice of marriage with intent to divorce began to appear. This alternative to prostitution is prevalent today in the Middle East and must have been known at the time of Jesus. It is in this context that we should read the Gospel injunctions against divorce.

Matthew 5:31,32 (Luke 16:18) quotes Deuteronomy 24:1 in regard to the bill of divorce. This is expanded in the discussion of Matthew 19:1-12; (Mark 10:1-12).

This text is generally interpreted to mean that Jesus abrogated the law of divorce for all cases except that of adultery, in which case divorce is permitted. There are two serious problems with this interpretation. The first problem is that Jesus does not have the authority to abrogate the law. He only has authority to reaffirm, clarify and apply it to new or specific situations. The law permits divorce, and even if divorce was given because of the specific situation of the hardness of hearts, Jesus could reapply it only in the situation that hardness of heart no longer existed.

The second problem is that the penalty for adultery is death. There is no use in providing for divorce in the case of adultery, because divorce can only be applied to a living person. What sense is there in divorcing someone only to execute them? This problem disappears when the term "porneia," translated fornication, is rather applied to the list of prohibited marriages in Leviticus 18:6-20. In that case the exception would not be for adultery, but for marriage contracted accidentally as incest. Divorce would thus be considered appropriate only in the rare case when the marriage at some point was found to be illegal because of a degree on kinship that had gone unnoticed earlier.

If we take Luke 16:18 to be the pure legislation, and the exception in Matthew to be the misguided clarification of a later hand, we are left with an unconditional prohibition of divorce. This is easier to deal with. Without abrogating the general law of divorce, Jesus could make the application of divorce in a specific situation unlawful. The text gives no indication of what that situation might be. We must either assume that the application is specific and limited or, on the basis of the ordered hierarchy of textual values, reject the text altogether.

If there is no indication in the text of what specific situation the prohibition of divorced applies to, we must look for such a situation first in the practice of the society of Jesus, if possible, and then in later societies in the same area. We do not have information on the practice of Jesus' time, but we do find examples in the area. The law of divorce is used in the Middle East as an alternative to prostitution. That is, marriages are contracted with the intention of divorce after even so short a term as a few hours. We may safely assume that Jesus is referring to this practice.

The legislation of Matthew 5:31,32 and Luke 16:18 is of the validity of holy example, since it consists of the words of a prophet and divine guide. It clarifies the valid application to cases in which the hardness of the hearts of a married couple contribute to their inability to live together. It clarifies that marriage with the intention of immediate divorce as an alternative to prostitution results in adultery and is therefore an invalid use of the law of divorce.

We can safely assume that Jesus's treatment of marriage with the intent to divorce forms a part of Jesus's legal reform. Jesus rejects rabbinical method as an application of the law. Marriage with intent to divorce is precisely the kind of circumvention that rabbinical method allows. Jesus, by contrast, relies on holy example in his application of the law, and sets himself up as such an example.

We do not know the specific application of holy example that Jesus made in regard to concubinage either in his own person or in regard to the holy example of earlier Scripture. In the Gospels as preserved to us, he never discusses the issue of the decrease in polygamy and concubinage. He only condemns what came to replace them, that is, marriage with intent to divorce. The general assumption that Jesus himself was unmarried has only the textual foundation that no wife is specifically mentioned. It is based on prejudices arising from later Christian ideals of monasticism. Considering Jesus's age and the mores of his time, we could more safely assume that he had one wife. That would be a consistent, modern Jewish assumption. Considering Jesus's authoritative application of the law in contrast to rabbinical method, we could even more safely assume that he could have had more than one wife and concubine. These wives and concubines could be among those mentioned in such texts as Luke 23:55 "And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid."

In summary, an examination of the whole Bible suggests the following. Concubinage, or limited marriage for pleasure, is mentioned in the Bible in regard to about ten men. It is mentioned, however, in such a way as to indicate that it was a well-known and widespread practice. Its characteristics are therefore not described in detail. There is mentioned only the fact that children of concubinage do not inherit with a man's other children. The Bible does not legislate anything about the time period of marriage, except that marriage by purchase must be permanent. Every example of concubinage in the Bible relates to a devout personage, and more than half of them relate to men whose holy example had to be followed by the people of their times.

The decrease of concubinage and polygamy among the Jews led to an increase in prostitution, and its alternative, marriage with intent to divorce. The most consistent interpretation of Jesus's opposition to divorce points to this specific practice. The Gospel thus reverts back to the holy example of the earlier Scriptures.



http://mutah.com/mutahinbible.htm

Question:
Does Islam have a loophole for sex-on-demand called 'temporary marriage'?



Summary Answer:
It is called Nikah Mut'ah, a fixed-time arrangement between a man and a woman that dissolves once the duration expires.



The Qur'an:
Qur'an (4:24) - "And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done)"

Qur'an (5:87) - "O you who believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits" Surprisingly the context for this verse (which is found in Bukhari (60:139) is temporary marriage, in this case trading an article of clothing for a few days of access to a woman's body. By calling this a "good thing," Muhammad really stood traditional morality on its ear.



From the Hadith:

Muslim (8:3252) - Muhammad clearly allowed his men to use temporary marriage as a sanctioned form of prostitution. (To be fair, the end of the hadith also seems to suggest that the practice was later forbidden. Islamic scholars disagree as to the historical context, and whether or not it is enough to supersede verse 4:24 of the Qur'an).


Additional Notes:

Since temporary marriage is a euphemism for prostitution, the Sunnis believe that it should only be practiced in certain times (such as the lifetime of Muhammad, oddly enough). The Shias take a more liberal position and freely allow the practice.

Now everyone can see that in ISLAM you have legalised prostitution, pathetic !!

Because LagosShia cannot defend this TRUTH and cannot refute it, he changes subject, as we know they are likely to do when cornered , they attack the bible out of context

If this is religion, then we are doomed !!!!

frosbel:

Now everyone can see that in ISLAM you have legalised prostitution, pathetic !!

Because LagosShia cannot defend this TRUTH and cannot refute it, he changes subject, as we know they are likely to do when cornered , they attack the bible out of context

If this is religion, then we are doomed !!!!

go and read your bible you ignorant thing!

we proudly believe in mut'ah marriage and there are conditions for it.whatever condemnation you throw at it or you imagine of it,is based on your desires and narrow thinking not related to the reality of mut'ah marriage.

again,my advice is for you to read your bible and see evidence of mut'ah marriage in it practiced by your men of God and approved by Jehovah.

Islamic Prostitution/ Nikah al Mut'a :-

According to the majority of Shi'a school of thought Nikahu’l-Mut‘ah literally means, marriage for COMFORT and FUN, and is the second form of marriage, described in the Quran (4:24).

Mut'ah is a type of marriage, used in the same way as a permanent marriage (Nikah) in order to make a man and woman physically HALAL to each other. It is a FIXED-TIME marriage which, according to the schools of Shari‘a (Islamic law), is a marriage with a preset duration. After this period expires, the marriage is automatically dissolved.
Mut'ah has many Shari'a rules / regulations .

Similar rules that apply for Nikah apply for Mut'ah - if certain types of women are haram for a man to contract Nikah then the same rule applies with Mut'ah. A man cannot contract Mut'ah with a married woman, as is the case with a normal marriage.

A woman cannot enter into Mut'ah marriage, till the time she has become pure by observing the 'iddah (waiting period) from her earlier husband; just like in Nikah. Also, the same principle/rights apply - two people cannot contract Mut'ah with the same woman at one given time

After expiration of Mut'ah marriage, again she has to observe 'iddah, before getting married (either Nikah or Mut'ah) to any other person.

There is no difference between the children of Nikah or Mut'ah. Both are considered legitimate under the Shari'a - they inherit from their parents, and all Islamic laws apply with regards to paternity.

The Mut'ah is the most controversial Fiqh topic; Sunnis and Shi‘a hold diametrically opposed views on its permissibility after Muhammad's era.

Noun form:

Enjoyment, pleasure, delight, gratification; recreation; compensation paid to a divorced woman; Muta'h, temporary marriage, usufruct marriage contracted for a specified time.

Temporary marriage (Nikahu'l Mut'ah) , like permanent marriage (Nikah), requires a marriage contract which can be VERBAL or WRITTEN, WITH or WITHOUT WITNESSES. Moreover, there is no difference between permanent marriage and temporary marriage except in some aspects of the law, such as there is no DIVORCE in temporary marriage - it terminates with the expiration of the time period. Likewise, neither spouse in a temporary marriage inherits from the other.

The temporary marriage contract is as follows:
The woman says: " I marry myself to you for the specified dowry (mention the amount) and for the specified time period (mention the time period)".

Then the man says: "I accept".

According to obligatory precaution, for the marriage of a virgin girl, it is a condition to obtain her guardian’s (father or paternal grandfather) permission.

Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Waheed ad-Deen az-Zaman, in his footnotes of Sunan ibn Majah,Volume 2, p. 76 defined Mut'ah as follows:
Mut'ah is a type of Nikah until an agreed time. It can be for a day, two days, a month, one year, three years etc.

Nawawai in his commentary of Sharh Sahih Muslim. Volume 4, p. 13, defined Mut'ah as follows:
Nikah Mut'ah is marriage for a fixed time on Mehr agreed with the woman, when the time expires the marriage comes to an end.

The Sunni scholar Allamah 'Abd Ar-Rahman al-Jazzari in his Al-fiqh 'Ala Al-Madhahib al-Arba' , (Lahore Edition) Volume 4, page 167, said:

The reality of Nikah Mut'ah is that, in the marriage recital performed with a woman, words are added which stipulate that the marriage is for a fixed time. For example a man shall say 'she shall remain as my wife for a month, or I shall have Nikah Mut'ah with you for a year." The parties themselves act as witnesses. It can occur in the presence of a Wali or witnesses, or without them.

The Sunni and Shi'a have no disagreement as to its original permissibility, though in recent years a number of Wahabis have claimed that Mut'ah was never permissible at all (contradicting the mainstream Sunni attitude). Sunnis believe that, in spite of its original permissibility in Islamic law, it was later abrogated, whereas the Shi'a reject this view.

According to the teachings of the Imams (Shi'ism) who came afterMuhammad, Mut'ah was never abrogated and continues to be applicable (halaal) until the 'Day of Judgement'. Muhammad neither deemed it haram, nor put an end to it, nor did Allah send a verse abrogating it. Rather, Mut'ah was declared impermissible by 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, in direct contradiction to the command of Allah and Muhammad.

But, according to the Imam Bukhari Hadiths (Shia), shown here, they are wrong, since it is Ali who is declaring that Mut'ah was FORBIDDEN by Muhammad.


The Verse of Mut'ah (4:24)

The most important verse of the Holy Qur'an which establishes the legitimacy of Mut'ah is verse 24 of Surat an-Nisa, known to all hadeeth commentators (Sunni and Shi'a) as "the verse of Mut'ah." This verse provides a clear and unshakeable permission for the practice of temporary marriage. In the same way that Islam has established principles to protect human beings, via rules and regulations, it has at the same time provided for legitimate means by which man can enjoy himself, and Mut'ah is one of these ways. The Shari'ah prohibits fornication, but at the same time allows the practise of Mut'ah. If anyone is unaware of this blessing from Allah (swt), then let us set out the evidences from the Holy Qur'an:

4: 24 Also (prohibited are) women already married except those whom your right hands possess. Thus hath Allah ordained (prohibitions) against you: except for these all others are lawful provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property desiring chastity not lust. Seeing that ye derive benefit [istama'tum] from them give them their dowers [ujurahunna] (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.

Allah (swt) has used the word istimta'tum, which is the verbal form of the word Mut'ah. While the word has many other numerous meanings (as will be discussed below), we see that in the same way that the terms Zakat, Saum, and hajj carry a specific Islamic definition, so does the word istimta'. The specific, Islamic meaning which the word refers to is the performance of a temporary marriage, and nobody has denied this.

To claim that Mut'ah is FORNICATION, is to claim that it is a haram sexual act. This is all the word fornication (zina) means: sexual relations that are not permitted by Allah (swt), the Lawgiver. If Allah (swt) permits a type of sexual practice, then it by definition ceases to be fornication. If one accepts that Allah (swt) has permitted a certain type of sexual practice, and yet continues to argue that such a practice is immoral and evil, then such a person has ascribed a direct insult against his Creator, Allah (swt). Before anybody can begin to say that Mut'ah is evil or an act of impiety, one must first ask if Allah (swt) has forbidden it. To do otherwise would be to merely be following one's whims and desires and introducing an impermissible innovation (bid'a) into Islamic law

*** The above is a Shia defense against Sunni attacks regarding their acceptance of Mut'ah as HALAL.

The defense is wrong on both linguistic and logical grounds since neither the word NIKAH nor the word MUT'AH are mentioned in the Arabic of this verse.

The Arabic of this verse - like so many others in the Quran - is not clear either in context or in train of thought, allowing for very DIFFERENT interpretations that can even be DIAMETRICALLY opposite.

As usual among the Muhammadan 'theologians', they would CONTORT LOGIC, PERVERT the meaning of words and TWIST CONCEPTS to fulfill any of their agenda or doctrines, in defense of their SECTARIAN beliefs ***

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 5.527 Narrated byAli bin Abi Talib
On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat.

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.50 Narrated byAli
I said to Ibn 'Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.51 Narrated byAbu 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."

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.52 Narrated byJabir 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." I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general.
Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: 'Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, "The Mut'a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful)."

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.17 Narrated byJabir bin Abdullah
When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron." He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for handling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?"

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.432 Narrated byAli
Allah's Apostle prohibited Al-Mut'a marriage and the eating of donkey's meat in the year of the Khaibar battle.

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 9.90B Narrated byAbdullah
Nafi narrated to me that 'Abdullah said that Allah's Apostle forbade the Shighar. I asked Nafi', "What is the Shighar?" He said, "It is to marry the daughter of a man and marry one's daughter to that man (at the same time) without Mahr (in both cases); or to marry the sister of a man and marry one's own sister to that man without Mahr." Some people said, "If one, by a trick, marries on the basis of Shighar, the marriage is valid but its condition is illegal."

The same scholar said regarding Al-Mut'a, "The marriage is invalid and its condition is illegal." Some others said, "The Mut'a and the Shighar are permissible but the condition is illegal."

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 9.91 Narrated byMuhammad bin Ali
'Ali was told that Ibn 'Abbas did not see any harm in the Mut'a marriage.
'Ali said, "Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a marriage on the Day of the battle of Khaibar and he forbade the eating of donkey's meat."
Some people said, "If one, by a tricky way, marries temporarily, his marriage is illegal." Others said, "The marriage is valid but its condition is illegal."


Based upon all the above, and more, Nikah al Mut'ah is only a SANCTIFIED form of PROSTITUTION used to circumvent what would otherwise be a deadly act of FORNICATION under Sharia law.

No matter how the followers of Muhammad try to interpret this verse and this so- called 'marraige', it is without a doubt, a mechanism or a religiously coated 'escape clause' to allow the Muhammadan male to relieve his SEXUAL needs ***

^^^^@Lagosshia & frosbel, you have both provided more evidence and proof as to why both the Koran and Bible are immoral books and Islam/Xtianity immoral doctrines. Thanks for sharing.