Forever Until ...

Marriage is a sacred entity in all religions. Two people agree to stay together forever, and their friends and family witness their commitment to each other, and celebrate the event. As everything good in this life, marriage has its own enemies, too. In this blog, I am going to delve into one of those enemies: Mut'ah.

A brief definition of mut'ah is as follows: two people agree to stay married for a predetermined amount of time (1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, etc.), and when that time is over, they separate without any mutual rights. So, it is also called temporary marriage by those who support the idea. But not everybody is in favor of it, as will be discussed below. So, I would like to give a summary of the logic and evidence presented by both sides, and in the end, I would like to add my contribution to the discussion.

Mutah was a form of marriage that was present among Arabs even during life time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Whenever a man was to travel to a distant city and was to stay there for a certain amount of time, he would do mutah with a woman, and pay an agreed upon price in exchange for: 1- lodging, 2- overseeing his belongings and commercial goods, 3- sex work. At the end of the term, the man would leave without any obligations to the woman.

The defendants of the validity of this kind of  act say that there was no explicit Quranic verse that prohibit it. Furthermore, they present two verses in favor of mutah. The first one is from chapter Nisa (4/24):

...And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation...

They especially focus on the word "ujuurahunne" here, which literally means "compensation", claiming that it beyond doubt points at a price in exchange for a service, whereas for the dowry of the permanent marriage, other words (mahr and sadaqah) are used. (Note: this claim is incorrect, as will be discussed below.)

The second verse that is presented as a pseudo-support to the idea of mutah is from the chapter Muminun (23/5-6):

And they who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed...

They claim that this verse prohibits relationships out of the wedlock, but that mutah IS a marriage, and so, is out of the prohibition in this verse.

After these, they show hadiths that portray the presence of mutah during the time of the prophet.

Having summarized the case of the mutah supporters, I would like to give an overlook of the case against it. First of all, it is known that mutah was practiced among Arabs - including early Muslims-, though prophet Muhammad never practiced it himself. With the revelation the above-mentioned verse (23/5-6), it was forbidden. This prohibition was also reinforced with the words of the prophet (Sahih Al-Bukhari 5523).

Nevertheless, there seems to be a division of decisions on the final verdict about mutah. According to some, it was not the prophet but Umar (2nd caliph) who forbade it (Sahih Muslim 1405e). In another view, it is conditionally permissible under severe conditions (Sahih Al-Bukhari 5116), similar to the permission to eat swine under hardship (2/173). So, those who are against the idea of mutah employ two additional things. First is a reactionary, and irrational, claim, which is that "mutah is a practice of Shiites and must be shunned". Second is the rational approach, which is the use of common sense to see that "the application of mutah is prostitution in disguise and favors the breach of other injunctions in the Quran".

Now, I would like to analyze certain points from both sides, and then introduce the notion that I alluded to in the title.

The strongest evidence that is used by the mutah supporters is the verse from the chapter Nisa (4/24). Specifically speaking, as mentioned above, the word "ujuurahunna" is held as the prime evidence pointing at a "finite price for a temporary service". However, when you look at the context of that verse and consider all instances where the same word is used in context of marriage, you realize that the Quran is talking about marriage dowry (mahr), the marriage as we know it. In other words, instead of the word "mahr" that is used in the hadiths, "ujuurahunna" is used in the Quran. At only one place, the concept of "mahr" is referred to by "sadaqah" (4/4), meaning charity, and again it has nothing to do with the concept of mutah. Therefore, using the verse 4/24 as an evidence for validity of mutah is essentially wrong.

If you broaden your search and look at other uses of the same word (e.g. 3/185 ujuurakum), you see that it is also used in the context of the infinite reward that will be given in the paradise. This means an infinite reward for the efforts in a finite life with an intention to worship God eternally. That is, God does not say that we worshiped Him for a finite life and, so, we deserve a limited reward, and after that, we are doomed to annihilation. This comparison actually serves as a metaphor to see the nuance between real marriage and mutah.

In case of marriage, those uniting their lives actually love each other, which means an intention to stay together forever, and the dowry is a seal of this contract that starts with the marriage and extends into infinity. So, it is in no way a compensation for a certain service in a given time. As a support, you can remember that if the marriage is broken before any relationship occurs between the spouses (i.e. no services provided(!)), the woman is still due to retain half of the dowry (2/236-237).

When we come to the second verse (23/6), it is important to look at what is meant by "spouses - azwaj". Of course we are looking at two people joining their lives with the act of marriage, but before exploring the Quranic verses on the topic, I would like to present you an analogy.

Imagine that you own a car, and aside from that, you rented a car. They are parked side by side. Which one is yours? Any person with sound reason and conscience would say that the car owned by you is yours, not the one rented by you. And what is the difference between the two? The rental car is "yours" for a certain amount of time for which you paid the price. However, when you buy a car, you pay a price, but then it is YOUR car until it dies or until you die. Similarly, your spouse is your spouse until death and beyond, whereas mutah serves to a "rental wife concept" hiding under the cover of religion, and you can guess what that means.

Now, let's see what Quran says about the qualities of spouses:

Longing for her: There is no blame upon you whether you hint at a marriage proposal to such women or keep the proposal hidden in your hearts. Allah knows that you will think of them in that connection... (2/235) 

Being tolerant and patient with each other: ... And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good. (4/19)

Completing each other: It is He - Allah -Who created you from a single being, and out of it He made its mate, that he may find comfort in her. (7/189)

Treating each other as a sign of God: And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought. (30/21)

Satisfying each other's desires: ...each one has enjoyed the other, and they have taken a firm covenant from you (4/21)

Being a protection and adornment for each other: They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them. (2/187)

 Let's think now. Can these qualities, other than satisfying desires, take root in a rental agreement? Then, can you call people that come together through mutah as spouses in the Quranic sense? No. So, the verse from the chapter Muminun DOES prohibit that kind of relationship.

Third step of scrutiny against the mutah involves the hadiths on the issue. First of all, the fact that something was done during the life of the prophet does not necessarily mean that it is lawful to do it. Ban of alcohol or ban of interest came much later than the beginning of the revelations to Muhammad pbuh. So until a certain point in time, you could see the friends of the prophet dealing with things that we now call "haraam". But of course, those actions were abandoned once they were forbidden in the Quran. Exactly the same is true of mutah. It was the common practice at first, but it was outlawed by the Quranic verses that regulate marriage/divorce and that describe the qualities of the spouses. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to justify mutah through hadiths, when it is ruled out in the Quran.

Now let's scrutinize the case of those against mutah. First of all, you cannot reject something only because it is voiced by the scholars of the Shiites. You have to consider their claims and supports, then you can come to a final conclusion. Are you going to reject the five daily prayers, too, because they are preached by those scholars?

Second, if something is allowed under restraining conditions, you cannot generalize this permission to an unconditional acceptance. That permission is there to be used with caution, and the case of one person in history may not be the same as another one at a different point in history.

Third, use of common sense actually reveals serious problems with the practice of mutah. As told by many discussing this issue, it potentially leads to the breach of other prohibitions in the Quran. For example, a man could have mutah with a lady, and a baby girl could be conceived from that union. Years later, unknowingly, the same man could have mutah with that girl, who is actually his daughter. Or, if the girl born out of the first mutah marries a boy, who was actually the same man's son from another mutah, they are committing incest marriage. Or, the man's son does mutah with another woman with whom his father did mutah later, the boy would be committing another sin. This list can be extended. One could claim that these challenges could be overcome by a sophisticated database system, and that is true. But even if that was done, this practice is fundamentally outlawed by the Quran and by the ultimate practice of the prophet as explained above. Plus, it is obvious that this practice, similar to prostitution, results in the abuse of women at the hands of men. And that is another violation of the rights of women in Islam.

Now, I would like to add the final touch that I implied in the title and gave spoilers of throughout this article. In order to see what a proper marriage is, you can also look at a proper divorce. And when you look at the Quranic verses that arrange a divorce, you see two classes: those that start with "in", which means "if you divorce(d)" (e.g. 2/236) and those starting with "iza", which means "if you divorced" (e.g. 2/231). The purpose of both sets of verses is to ensure the protection of certain essential rights of both parties. However, in all these verses, the presence of "if" is noteworthy. This "if" implies that a proper marriage does not start with a certain intention to separate at a known time. A proper marriage starts with the intention not to end, where divorce is a possibility, hence the "if". Therefore, being a transaction to end at a known time, mutah does not formulate a proper marriage.

You cannot "unite forever" until one day later!

Change of Qibla

One strange property of our planet is the shift and reversal of its magnetic poles. Although nothing really moves on the surface, the direction of the magnetic curves changes as a result of this event. Living on this planet, throughout the story of humanity, a similar shift happened more than once in the religious realm. I am going to coin the term "change of qibla" for this phenomenon. In this blog, I would like to ponder over the events and lessons surrounding the change of qibla.

The first event took place with the creation of the first human, Adam. When he was created, God ordered the angels to prostrate before him, but Satan did not obey this order (2/34). Now let's analyze this event.

It is known that when God ordered the angels to prostrate before Adam, He did not mean to worship Adam, but rather assigned Adam as the chosen direction for the action of prostration. This is similar to the five daily prayers of the Muslims. During these  prayers, they prostrate towards Kaaba in Mecca, but they do not worship it. Rather, God sent a clear order to establish Kaaba as the qibla, hence the direction for the prostrations.

So, going back to the creation of Adam, Satan must have failed to understand this notion. That is, you do an action in a certain way, because God told so. If God changes His preference for you, than you change your action accordingly (e.g. 3/93, 3/50, 3/19, 5/3). If you become obstinate and insist on using the old qibla, thinking that it, too, was ordered by God, that means either your bigotry is overriding your submission to God or that you are honoring your own preferences over God's preference.

Second point on the same issue is that something gains value because God appoints it to such a position. So, why is Adam and humanity the qibla for the angels? Simply because God assigned humanity a value, and the rest of the creation works according to that value (2/30). The fact that humanity has such a superior value so as to become the qibla does not automatically translate to becoming minor deities. It just means that the roles in the game are set as such by the Creator. Before this, Satan might have had a high value, and fear of losing it drove Satan to disobedience and rebellion to God.

I would like to highlight a subtle point here. Satan apparently did not appreciate the fact that value comes with God's assignment, like the selection of a qibla, hence a nominal entity! He must have envisioned that value is a real and separate entity on its own that he could keep for himself. As a result, he resisted the change and wanted to retain himself as the qibla.

A second event of change of qibla can be seen in the events preceding Jesus pbuh. Before the birth of his mother, the expectation among the Jews was that the to-be-born child is going to be the expected Messiah. When they saw a baby girl, they were disappointed, because their rule told them to focus on males, not females. Although most of the chosen people by God in the known history had been men, it was still in the hands of God to appoint any one among the humans as a sign for humanity, be them male or female. Failing to catch this nuance about nominal entities and giving in to the mental comfort of a permanent law, most of the Jewish community missed the unfolding of a unique sign of God before their eyes.

Later when Jesus started conducting his holy mission, what shook the Jews even further was his intrusive and aggressive style towards status-quo (e.g. Mark 2:13-17, 2:23-28, John 8:1-11), such as introducing compassion and mercy as factors equivalent to rigid laws, destroying the system by which religious leaders abused people through religion. From one perspective, they failed to see that the same God who introduced the rigid laws was now revealing a spirit that could change the laws. A law of laws, if you will, was presented to humanity through the message of Jesus. But again, the human mind that was fixated on the deterministic rules, the previous qibla, could not keep up with the change of qibla.

The same shock repeated itself when the line of prophethood shifted from Israelites to Arabs. Although God did not explicitly say that all of His messengers would come from among the Israelites, the existing data indicated that, i.e. all the known messengers and prophets until then were Israelite, including Jesus. When God sent a messenger from among the Arabs, the human mind saw a discrepancy with the "law", i.e. previous qibla, and so rejected the change (3/72-73, 62/2-6). However, if God did not explicitly formulate something, He can change it any way He wants.

Even then, the fact that the first Muslims used to turn towards Jerusalem as their qibla for prayer told the people of the book that their way was the standard (2/143-145). Even for some of the Muslims, turning towards Jerusalem gave a reassurance as to the veracity of their way, hence an agreement with the "experimental data". When God sent orders to change the qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca, not only the people of the book but also some of the Muslims were shaken. Although it was God who was telling them to change their direction for prayer, some of the initial reactions for doing it felt like committing a sin. But again, Jerusalem is valuable and had been the qibla, not because it was valuable on its own and not because it was holy independent of God (2/177) but, because God had chosen it for a certain time. In other words, it is not that Jerusalem had a superiority independent of Allah so that He appoints it as the qibla, rather it is that Jerusalem is sacred because Allah appoints it so. When God changed His order of preference, the matter was finalized.

The similar shock occurred among Muslims when the Turks became the flag carrier of the Islamic civilization. Until the middle of the second millennium, Arabs held the authority for religion. When the Turks entered the history of the middle east and eventually acquired the control of the holy lands and most of the Muslim geography, this change of qibla was not digested well by some communities and conflicts arose afterwards.

Now, let's extract some lessons from these events and observations. First, whenever there is a  change of qibla, our mind is likely to resist even if it knows that it is God changing the qibla. The reason for this resistance is the obsession of the human mind to find unchanging rules and laws and its willingness to submit to them. For more details, you can read a previous blog and another one.

Second, when the qibla changes, using the old one becomes a sin! Although the first qibla, too, was appointed by God, the change comes as a binding law. Venerating the new qibla becomes worship.

Third, anyone who opposes the change of qibla is "backminded". That is they are stuck with the past and with their outdated perception of God's preference.

Fourth, we humans study, discover and exploit the laws of nature, all based on our instinctual presumption that these laws are going to be constant. This mentality works, because these laws are the qiblas set by God, they don't exist on their own power. Rather, we learn about them through science. You can read a previous blog on this issue and another one.

Fifth, "change of qibla" as a concept can take place until the end of time. So, we must equip ourselves with the mental and emotional tools to handle qibla changes, and to avoid sticking to the status-quo ( see Greatest Trouble - part 2, part 3). Remember, status-quo calls for stagnation in mind and thought; and such stagnation both invites the Antichrist and makes you vulnerable to him (see Greatest Trouble - part 1).

Belief In The Friends

Although socially attractive, belief in the friends is neither a part of pillars of Islam nor one of the articles of faith. However, befriending the non-Muslims is traditionally considered as a severe threat to the faith. Given the diversity among both Muslims and non-Muslims, this traditional opinion on "who to befriend" needs to be scrutinized.

First, let's see some Quranic verses that are pointed at by the conservatives to admonish the believers who not to befriend:

O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason. (3/118)

Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination. (3/28)

O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah against yourselves a clear case? (4/144)

Now, let's think. Today, we see a bewildering mix of people. There are people who do good deeds, Muslims or non-Muslims, and there are those who do evil, again Muslim or non-Muslim. Let's also appreciate the fact that we are all human beings, and the good-acting people might commit evil at times, be them Muslim or non-Muslim, and the evil-acting people might commit good at times, be them Muslim or non-Muslim. We all know that our friends, I mean real friends, shape us in the long run. So, if we have only Muslim friends, but who support hatred, injustice and violence for whatever reason or who are into unethical actions, are we obeying God? By distancing ourselves from the non-Muslims who are just, open-minded and angel-like, are we obeying God?

In a previous blog on who really is a disbeliever, I had argued that the description of a disbeliever in the Quran mostly relies on the actions rather than the words that come out of the mouth. In fact, if you look at the contexts of the above verses, too, you see that they are presented in conjunction with a certain set of evil actions. So, a person who does not believe in Islam but is not committing those evil actions do not fall under the "do not befriend" title. Then, it is not the difference of opinion, nor the difference of faith for that matter, among people but the hypocrisy and evil actions that are discredited by Allah. Indeed, another Quranic verse endorses this conclusion:

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. (60/8)

In fact, this is not the only place where the actions are highlighted:

And among the People of the Scripture is he who, if you entrust him with a great amount [of wealth], he will return it to you. And among them is he who, if you entrust him with a [single] silver coin, he will not return it to you unless you are constantly standing over him [demanding it]. (3/75)

They are not [all] the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of Allah during periods of the night and prostrating [in prayer]. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and hasten to good deeds. And those are among the righteous. And whatever good they do - never will it be removed from them. And Allah is Knowing of the righteous. (3/113-115)

What's more, the title of "Muslim" doesn't come for free, either. The believers are entitled to act upon their faiths, if they are really what they say they are:

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . (3/110)

Now, I would like to build on this surprising conclusion a not-well-known construct. To do that, first, I am going to put forward a hadith:

Narrated Abu Sa`id:
The Prophet (pbuh) said, "You will follow the wrong ways, of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a mastigure, you too will go there." We said, "O Allah's Messenger! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?" He replied, "Whom else?" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 3456)

This hadith is used in the hands of the extreme conservatives against befriending the people of the book. But we can rethink these words of the messenger of God in the light of our current context. If the criticisms in the Quran are based on the actions and not the identities, then this hadith, too, must have to do with actions rather than identities. Indeed, when the first believers were oppressed and tortured by the Meccan disbelievers, Muhammad pbuh had sent some of the Muslims to Abyssinia (today Eritrea), because they were People of the Book and because there was a just ruler.

If both the Quran and the hadith are treating people by their actions, rather than their identities, and if the Muslims are described as analog to the "people of the book" in the hadith above, it is plausible to unite Muslims, Christians and Jews under the same title of People of the Book. In fact, everybody who live by the teachings of a religion that is linked to a past revelation of God other than these three can be united under the same title. Now let's see what we can learn from the Quran with this new perspective.

First of all, according to this perspective, it makes more sense to befriend someone whose actions are Muslim but whose identity is not Muslim. By the same token, it makes more sense to distance ourselves from someone whose actions are not Muslim but whose identity is Muslim.

Second, in the Quran, people of the book are invited to a race to do good: "So race to [all that is] good." (2/148). This invitation to compete in doing good is the recipe for global peace.

Third, Quran invites the people of the book to read the book of God and check/correct themselves accordingly (e.g. 3/183, 3/66). Along the same lines, Quran warns the people of the book against the interference and the artifacts due to people who carry high societal ranks due to religion (high priests, imams, etc.) (e.g. 9/31, 57/27). So, an uninterrupted and unmediated relationship with the book of God is essential for the establishment of peace on the planet, which really means Islam. On this third item, you can further read A Rationale and Antidote for the Greatest Trouble - Part 3 and When is Quran Quran?.

I would like to close this discussion by a passage from the Bible that resonates with our current analysis:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”(Luke 10:25-37)