BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
by ‘Allamah Khalid Mahmud
All praise is to Allah, peace and salutations upon the Rasul after whom there is no Nabi, his progeny and Sahabah, who fulfilled his promise.
Majority of people are shocked as to how a shameless and disgusting act such as Mut’ah has found its way into the noble teachings of Islam, which is the best and most elevated way of life, and whose Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was sent to complete the best of characters. However, those who have made research into the subject know fully well that when the Persian and Roman empires fell to the Muslims, under the leadership of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Umar al Faruq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the enemies of Islam donned the garments of hypocrisy and cowardly plotted against ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Islam. One of their plots is the act known as Mut’ah.
When the forces of kufr were destroyed and their kingdoms conquered, then there remained only one strategy for the enemies of Islam to adopt and that was to befriend the Muslims, and secretly plot against them by creating differences within Islam, instead of directly opposing it. This strategy of theirs naturally took root in those areas which had been conquered by Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This strategy of theirs was a decisive plot against the victorious military conquests of Islam. An Iranian poet states it bluntly:
‘Umar broke the backs of the lions and skinned and cleaved open the Iranian lions.
The people of Iran do not fight ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu because he usurped the right of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, instead they have old enmity with the armies of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, because they conquered their lands.
One reason for the enmity which the non-Arabs have for the khalifah ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu from among the al Khulafa’ al Rashidin is that he was the conqueror of their lands. Even though this hatred was displayed in the form of religion, the reality is clearly apparent.
These wretched individuals had outwardly embraced Islam but they still remained faithful to their old Zoroastrian ways. Before Iran was conquered by the Muslims, the Sassanid’s ruled Iran, who were Zoroastrians (fire-worshippers). Those customs and practices which were common among the Sassanid’s, were slowly given Islamic names until over a period of time a new sect formed under the guise of Islam, whose sole purpose was to take revenge upon their Muslim conquerors. An entire new religion was formulated, whose fundamental principles are as follows:
The act of Mut’ah which today’s Iranian society refers to as an ‘ibadah has been actually taken from the customs of the Sassanid’s. According to them marriage was of two types, permanent and temporary. In permanent marriage the husband was called “Shohar” and the wife, “Zan” and in temporary marriage the husband was called “Meergh” and the wife, “Ziyaanagh”.
In the temporary marriage there was no need for witnesses, nor was it necessary for the woman to inform her family or seek their approval. There was no inheritance involved nor was it necessary to issue talaq (divorce). This wife was not counted within the four wives one is allowed to be married to at one time and the children born from such a union were not regarded as related to their actual father.
After the conquests of Islam, when there remained no possibility for such desires and satisfying pleasures they changed the name of this custom to the ‘ibadah of Mut’ah, and thus satisfy their passions. A woman, with whom Mut’ah is made, is not regarded as a wife; nor will she inherit; nor is there a need for talaq and neither is there a need for a witness or family member to be present. Instead she will be regarded as a woman that has been rented.
These hypocrites also took the practice of ‘Ariyat al Farj from the old customs of the Zoroastrians and coined for it an Islamic term. Professor Arthur Christian of the Copenhagen University in Denmark writes about the Sassanid culture:
The husband who was unemployed, had a choice if he so wished to give over one or more of his wives to another man, so that she may aid him in earning. The children born from this temporary marriage were understood to be the children of the first husband.
When they intended to introduce this act into Islam, it emerged in the form of this narration:
قال سألت ابا عبد الله (عليه السلام) عن عارية الفرج قال لا باس به
I asked Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah about ‘Ariyat al Farj and he said there is no problem with it.
– The social decay of the Sassanid dynasty had reached such a level that they regarded marriage to one’s blood relations as permissible in their religion. This form of marriage was referred to as “Khuwez wa Gadas” and in Austa the words “Khu’eit and Wadza” are found for this. In ‘Hag Nasak’ and ‘Darshatma Lasarnasak’ great virtue has been mentioned for this sort of marriage, amongst which it is mentioned that the mercy of the Almighty descends upon such a couple and Shaitan moves far from it.
Amongst the mufassirin of Austa, Narsi Bazramhar goes to the extent of claiming that by “Khuwez wa Gadas” all major sins are washed away. What the Chinese historian Haywan Saang has written that marriages would take place amongst the Iranians without distinction probably refers to this custom.
Now compare this custom with that which is mentioned in Furu’al Kafi (vol. 2 pg. 252):
الذى يتزوج المحارم التى ذكر الله عز و جل فى كتابه تحريما فى القران من الامهات و البنات الى آخر الآية كل ذلك حلال من جهة التزويج….
The person who marries one of his blood relations, which the Qur’an has explained to be haram, such as one’s mother, sisters, etc., then all this, is halal as far as marriage is concerned. The prohibition is only because Allah has made it haram.
However, in Dhakhirat al Ma’ad (pg. 95) the compulsory condition of “Laffa Harir” is present, which means that if one wears silk then she will not be regarded as a blood relation, because the silk has prevented their bodies from touching each other.
Nevertheless the gist of all of the above is that the act which the Iranians of today refer to as Mut’ah, was in actual fact a custom of the Zoroastrians and has no relation whatsoever with the din of Islam. This act of Mut’ah was never permitted in the history of Islam and the elevated moral standards of Islam will never permit such a shameless act for even a second.
One should also understand that the word Mut’ah has a dual meaning, which is also used when referring to Nikah Muwaqqat (temporary marriage), which has the same conditions as the conventional nikah, such as the presence of witnesses, public announcement, the right of inheritance if any of the spouses were to pass away during the period of the nikah, etc. The only difference is that in Nikah Muwaqqat the time period of the nikah has been stipulated. At other times the word Mut’ah is used when referring to the physical relationship where there is no need for witnesses; public announcement; nor is one allowed to inherit or accepted. In other words this is also called zina’ (fornication).
Regarding the first type of Mut’ah (i.e. Nikah Muwaqqat) it can be said that this was permissible for a brief period in Islam but to say that the Iranian version of Mut’ah was permissible for even a short while is an indictment on the noble status of Islamic morals.
The level of shame and modesty in Islam is such that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has declared Mut’ah (Nikah Muwaqqat) to be perpetually haram. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu says:
حرم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) يوم خيبر الحمر الاهلية و نكاح المتعة
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam declared donkey meat and Nikah al Mut’ah as haram on the day of Khaybar.
When the immoral society of Iran learned that this narration forbids their wicked lifestyle, they washed their hands of the proof and its substantiation by giving it the following interpretation:
إن هذه الرواية وردت موردة التقية
This narration has been undoubtedly reported as Taqiyyah (dissimulation).
They tried very hard to use this as a loophole but they did not ponder as to what was the necessity for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to practice Taqiyyah and with whom did he practice it.
If Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam practiced Taqiyyah then what reliance can there be on the other aspects of din, as it will be uncertain whether Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said it as Taqiyyah or as the truth. It is highly possible that those who claim this hadith has been reported under the guise of Taqiyyah consume donkey meat as well, since the prohibition of both is mentioned in the same narration. If the narration is regarded as true for not consuming the meat of donkey, then Mut’ah is haram as well, and if the narration is regarded as Taqiyyah for Mut’ah then consuming meat of a donkey is halal.
This is how they dealt with this proof, and the treachery in their actions is that they regard the Mut’ah mentioned in this hadith to be the same as the Mut’ah that they practice today. Whereas the reality is that the Mut’ah which has been prohibited in this hadith is in actual fact Nikah Muwaqqat, which has the same pre-conditions that the conventional nikah has. Shari’ah did not even condone the one differentiating quality of stipulation of time and regarded it as contradictory to the noble standard of Islamic morals, which resulted in it being declared haram in clear unequivocal words.
Therefore it is incumbent upon those individuals who claim that this was reported under the guise of Taqiyyah to accept that it refers to Nikah Muwaqqat with all its pre-conditions, but it is extremely sad and disappointing that they have taken it to refer to the Mut’ah prevalent in Iranian society, which the common man cannot differentiate from the act of zina’. Such an act of Mut’ah was never permissible and can never be. It is nothing more than slander, fabrication and deceit to say that this form of zina’ was permitted in the earlier years of Islam but ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu forbade it.
Students of Islamic studies know very well that in the beginning Islam accommodated the inherent qualities of each nation and place, and the complete prohibition of sin took place in stages. In Makkah patience and forbearance was taught, with no sign or mention of jihad. During this trying time the mu’minin had to abandon all that they possessed, such that they had to leave their homes as well. Those that left everything behind (and migrated) were called the Muhajirin and those who aided (and welcomed) them, are called the Ansar. The Muhajirin migrated to Madinah and it became their base of operations, after which the order for jihad was given. Those who were previously oppressed were now permitted to stand up against their oppressors and in fact they were encouraged to do so.
In a similar light is the order of hijab, which is amongst the decrees of Allah; this too was only revealed later. The manner of Islam during these days was to prohibit sin in stages. The prohibition of wine was not made all at once as well, but was first referred to as disliked income and only later was the label of haram tagged to it.
There are six basic sins in Islam which are,
|1- Gambling||4- False testimony|
|2-Consuming wine||5- Stealing|
|3- Backbiting||6- Zina|
All the other sins that may be prevalent in society are all its off-shoots and are all forbidden under the Islamic mode of life. However, the reality is that in the early years of Islam there were prohibitions regarding them. Consuming wine was not regarded as a sin in the period of ignorance but zina’ was regarded as a vice in those days as well. The children born from zina’ were not regarded as equals to those children who were born from a legitimate marriage. Due to this, wine was prohibited in stages but zina’ (which was already frowned upon) was forbidden from the very beginning of Islam.
Now the necessity remained to close all the doors of zina’ and as a result it was decreed that one should not even go near to zina’. This means that all the avenues that might lead one to committing zina’ were closed off and prohibited in stages, but the actual act of zina was prohibited immediately. A major reason for the uncontrollability of one’s passions could be young men being away from their wives for long periods of time. Battle with the enemy would keep them far away from their homes for extended periods of time. The battle of Khaybar alone kept them away for such a long period.
Even though Nikah Muwaqqat was against the moral standards of Islam, it was not prohibited at once. It went against the noble status of women as well, yet it was not forbidden for some time. There was a clear distinction between Nikah Muwaqqat and zina’ but Islam wanted to elevate the status of man to even greater heights. It permitted Nikah Muwaqqat when one was out on a long journey or out in battle for extended periods of time but was prohibited (in Makkah) when one was at home, engaged in his daily routine. Muslims were advised:
وَالَّذِیْنَ هُمْ لِفُرُوْجِهِمْ حٰفِظُوْنَ ۙ ﴿5﴾ اِلَّا عَلٰٓی اَزْوَاجِهِمْ اَوْ مَا مَلَکَتْ اَیْمَانُهُمْ فَاِنَّهُمْ غَیْرُ مَلُوْمِیْنَۚ ﴿6﴾ فَمَنِ ابْتَغٰی وَرَآءَ ذٰلِكَ فَاُولٰٓئِكَ هُمُ الْعٰدُوْنَۚ ﴿7﴾
And those who safeguard their private organs (from adultery, fornication and other illicit sexual acts) except when it comes to their spouses and the slave women whom they own. They will surely not be blamed about (cohabiting with) them. Whoever seeks more than this (by fulfilling their sexual desires in a manner which the Shari’ah forbids), then such persons are transgressors indeed.
The general rule of Islam is the above, but in order to safeguard the younger men from committing zina’ it was necessary to permit them to perform Nikah Muwaqqat when they were out on a long journey or in battle for extended periods of time. The permissibility of this would end as soon as they returned from battle, and then they would be permitted to perform Nikah Muwaqqat once again when they were out in battle according to the same principle. This does not mean that the order was abrogated after the first battle, but rather the abrogation was abrogated when going to battle the second time and then again abrogated upon return.
The time for termination of fast is of two types, one is at the end of the day, which signals the end of one fast and the other is on the day of Eid, as mentioned in the following hadith:
صوموا لرؤية الهلال و افلطروا لرؤيته
Begin your fast with the sighting of the moon and terminate your fast with the sighting of the moon.
This signals the termination of the days of fast. The same applies to the prohibition of Nikah Muwaqqat that its permissibility for a period, until one returns from battle, does not contradict its continual prohibition.
In the beginning this form of nikah was permitted under specific conditions; the wife who is involved in it was counted amongst the four wives that one is allowed to marry. Later, after some time, Islam completely prohibited this form of nikah such that it was no longer permissible under those specific conditions as well. The Muslims leaders then stipulated the policy that soldiers should not be kept away from home for longer than four months at a time and should be allowed to return home thereafter.
The purpose of Nikah Muwaqqat was not only for physically benefit from the woman but she would tend to her husband and safeguard his possessions as well as perform other duties of a wife. In this type of marriage there was no shamelessness or immorality whatsoever. It is reported in Tirmidhi:
فيتزوج المرأة بقدر ما يرى أنه يقسم فتحفظ له متاعه و تصلح له شيئا
He would marry a woman according to the period he would be residing in that place and she would safeguard his possessions as well as prepare food for him.
Since this benefit which he was taking from her was only temporary it was called Mut’ah. It is quite obvious that this Mut’ah has no association whatsoever with the Mut’ah prevalent in Iran, which has existed from the period of the Sassanid’s. This was not only restricted to Iran but was prevalent in India as well before the advent of Islam. The Brahmans too would practice an act of this sort to satisfy their passions. It is only Islam which has closed the doors of all illicit acts and once again elevated the status of man.
You would probably be unacquainted with the four Hindu scriptures of Rag Veed, Saam Veed, Yajar Veed and Athar Veed. In Rag Veed it is mentioned that it is permissible for one to marry or make Mut’ah with a widow. If one is unable to conceive then they perform the act of “Nayog” (which is getting inseminated by a high-caste man with the permission of the impotent husband). If one was unable to find an individual wife then they would perform Mut’ah.
Here the word “Individual wife” was used, this is in contrast to a shared wife; a woman was permitted during the Vedic period to be married to many men at one time. At times four brothers would be married to the same wife. The Shia have devised their ‘ibadah of Mut’ah from the practices of the Hindus. If the Mut’ah that they refer to is the same Mut’ah which was permissible in the early years of Islam, during extended periods of battle — as Nikah Muwaqqat — then was it ever permitted for one woman to be wedded to many men at one time? Never! So what relation does the Mut’ah of Iran and the Mut’ah of India have with this Mut’ah, which was permissible in the beginning when they went out on expeditions for a long time, and this type of Mut’ah was well-known amongst the Arabs as Nikah Muwaqqat.
Alf M in his introduction of Tafsir al Furqan writes under the heading of blood relations:
In the Vedic period multiple spouses were not only permitted but one woman was also permitted to marry a number of men at the same time. Four blood brothers would be married to the same wife. It is said that it is written in the Rag Veed that Mut’ah is also permissible as well as marriage to a widow.
He goes on further and writes:
The Iranian society has greatly surpassed that of India in the sense that in India four brothers could only marry one woman but in Iran this has gone as far as one’s blood relations. One can marry his blood sister, daughter and at times some have married their own mothers. This appalling custom is not frowned upon in Iran and since it is commonly practiced it is not seen as such.
The Shia are the inheritors of the religion of Iran and of the Zoroastrians. They may refer to themselves as Muslims but there distinguishing characteristics are all Non-Arab. Mut’ah is also one of those tragedies created by the Shia, which Muslims have to witness.
When they could not satisfy themselves with just Mut’ah, they made it into an ‘ibadah and fabricated virtues and merits for it, in order to destroy the morality of man.
One of the sub-sects of the Shia are called ‘Sami’iyyah’ (followers of Sami’ ibn Muhammad ibn Bashir), who believe that it is permissible to perform Mut’ah with other men provided they are not old, in other words it is permitted with young boys who have not reached puberty.
The famous Shia historian of the Ithna’ ‘Ashariyyah Abu Muhammad Hasan ibn Musa al Nowbakhti, who lived in the third century after hijrah, has written extensively on the various sects of the Shia, and his books have been greatly publicised in Iran. He writes:
وهمبستر شدن بانزد یکاں و خویشاں را از زناں و امرواں جائز وانند ودریں باره سخن خداوندرا که فرمودا و یزوجهم ذکرانا و واناثا (پ شوری) تاویل کرده گواه خود آوردند
They regard sexual relations with the wives of your neighbours and close relations as well as their slaves as permissible and present the verse (He pairs them as male and female) as proof and use it to substantiate that it is permissible to marry males as well.
Since they made this heinous act (anal intercourse) permissible between men it became incumbent upon them to do the same with their wives as well, and once this despicable act has been made permissible for their women as well; what principle or moral standards do they possess that can differentiate them from the nation of Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam.
It is extremely distressing that they have permitted this vile act for their wives in the name of the Qur’an. The Qur’an has clearly stated that women are your tilling fields so approach your ‘tilling fields’ as you desire, but they took this as open permissibility to do as they please without pondering whether their wives would still remain their ‘tilling fields’ if they commit such acts or if it is possible to conceive a child from such an act. Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam turned the attention of those committing such acts to the following:
اِنَّكُمْ لَتَاْتُوْنَ الرِّجَالَ وَ تَقْطَعُوْنَ السَّبِيْلَ
Verily you approach men (for sexual pleasure instead of women) and cut off the procreation (of man).
Now let us look at the narration that the Shias fabricated to legitimise there bestial actions. What is most disgraceful is that they have attributed these narrations to the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt, what can be more atrocious than that?
According to them, when Imam Jafar Sadiq rahimahu Llah was asked about indulging in sexual relations with one’s spouse from behind, he replied:
قال لا بأس قال هذه الآية
The is no problem with it.
Then he recited the following verse:
نِسَاءُكُمْ حَرْثٌ لَّكُمْ فَأْتُوْا حَرْثَكُمْ اَنّٰى شِأْتُمْ
Women are your tilling fields, so approach your tilling fields as you desire.
The early tafsir from which this reference was taken is called Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, what greater example of lewdness is there than those who fail to differentiate between the front and the back.
The Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) Shia have added a condition for its permissibility that the woman must permit it first.
When Imam Rida’ was asked this question, he presented a shocking substantiation. He said that when Nabi Lut ‘alayh al Salam prohibited his nation from this vile act, he presented his daughters as an alternative and he knew very well that they were not used to indulging in sexual intercourse the natural way so this could only mean that the Nabi of that time permitted such acts with women. We seek Allah’s forgiveness and his protection.
سألت ابا الحسن الرضا عن اتيان الرجل المرأة من خلفها فقال احلتها آية من كتاب الله قول لوط (هلؤلاء بناتى هن اطهر لكم) ولقد علم انهم لا يريدون الفرج
I asked Imam ‘Ali al Rida whether one can approach his wife from the rear and he replied: “The following verse has permitted this, it is the saying of Nabi Lut to his people:
These daughters of mine are purer for you…
He knew fully well that they did not desire the front.
Read this next narration of theirs and see to what lengths they have gone to try and justify this unnatural act:
عن ابى عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال اذا اتى الرجل المرأة فى دبرها فلم ينزل فلا غسل عليهما و ان انزل فعليه الغسل ولا غسل عليها
Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah said: “If a man indulges in intercourse with a woman from the rear and does not ejaculate then ghusl is not incumbent upon either of them, and if he does ejaculate then ghusl is only incumbent upon him and not upon her.
They publicise such vulgar rubbish in the name of Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah, whereas these illustrious individuals never said such things. The Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) Shia created a new religion under the name Fiqh al Jafari. Even if this vile act was permitted with one’s spouse, how is it possible to say that it is permissible with men as well, when one’s spouse is in one’s wedlock and a man is not. In this case, we will not have the right to point fingers at the west who permit same sex marriages. In the daily newspaper Jang London it is mentioned in one article:
Fifteen couples of the same sex have gotten married. According to reports these fifteen couples gathered at the Metropolis church where the well-known American priest, Father Brendan Pasanaj and Reverend Jean White conducted the proceedings.
If we point fingers of criticism at them, then they will immediately lift Fiqh al Jafari and the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) books of tafsir, which will force us to lower our fingers.
The daily newspaper Jang London reported the following article, which was originally printed in the London Times:
The Danish government has announced that it will recognise the rights of gay marriages, which will be effective from the 21 October 1989. Taking advantage of this a couple immediately got married in the registrar’s office, where they were issued with a marriage certificate. Ten other couples followed suit soon after this.
We are not astonished in the least at these disgraceful actions of the Europeans. The constitution which is not based on the laws of Allah, will ultimately nurture the twisted and perverted desires of man. What astonishes me is the brazenness of the Shia scholars who openly permit this vile act with woman, merely because they happen to be in one’s wedlock. You have seen for yourself how the Europeans have recognised same-sex marriages and now permit this vile act with men as well. Sad indeed is the depths of moral deprivation to which the Shia scholars have sunk into, which probably only the most fortunate will be able to climb out of.
The result of this erroneous ruling of the Shia is that many young men have turned to homosexuality because of the justification of this act being made for both sexes. The only differentiating factor that was made is that if it is done with one’s spouse then one is not sinful. In order to eliminate this differentiation, a group amongst them has now started calling for the permissibility of same-sex marriages. This is the path that has been adopted by Muhammad ibn Nusayr al Namiri, who claimed that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu possessed the power of Allah. The slogan “Ya ‘Ali Madad” is the proclamation of this very belief.
Abu ‘Amr al Kashshi writes about Muhammad ibn Nusayr al Namiri:
قول بإباحة المحارم و يحلل نكاح الرجال بعضهم بعضا فى ادبارهم إنه من الفاعل و المفعول به احد الشهوات الطيبات و ان الله لم يحرم شيئا من ذلك
He says that nikah with one’s blood relations and marriage between men is halal, and also entering each other from the rear is halal. He says that this is the desire and pleasure of both parties and Allah has not forbidden anything of this sort.
One day Muhammad ibn Nusayr was seen taking a young boy to his room, what was the reason for this? It is mentioned in Hashiyah Nigar:
يريد أن الغلام ينكحه
He hoped that the young boy would marry him.
When someone rebuked him for this, he replied:
ان هذا من اللذات وهو من التواضع لله و ترك التجبر
There is great pleasure in this act; it is a means of humbling oneself before Allah and abandoning pride.
How did this shameless and unnatural method of humbling oneself and removing pride, by fulfilling one’s desires with a young boy, begin? It all sprouted from the belief of the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) that such acts are permissible with women. When this is allowed with women can it be prevented from happening with men?
Does not the principle on which Rafsanjani encouraged youngsters to indulge in Mut’ah also open the doors for Mut’ah between men? The standards of Islamic morals and the nobility of man is most elevated and he has a most lofty status but when he falls from this mantle then he even condones acts such as homosexuality. We seek Allah’s forgiveness.
Instead of understanding the harms of Mut’ah that we have mentioned above, the Shia proclaim that this is for the protection of society. Tawfiq Al Faqiqi wrote the book al Mut’ah wa Atharuha fi al Islah al Ijtima’i, in reply to the treatise of Musa Jar Allah Turkistan entitled Ullu Shia. This book has been printed by Sayed Murtada Ridwi in Cairo. In this book the author presents the following substantiation for its necessity:
ان نفس الانسان امارة بالسوء وخلق الانسان هلوعا فى الخير جزوعا فى شر لهذا يسر الله و هو اللطيف الخبير لعباده طرق الخيرات و الاعمال الصالحة و لم يعسر عليهم نوال اللذات
The soul relentlessly commands a person to do evil and man has been created such that he is indifferent to good and eager to indulge in evil. This is why Allah has made the path of good and virtuous deeds easy for us, and he has knowledge of the intricacies and is informed about His servants. He has not made indulging one’s pleasures a matter of difficulty for them.
A famous publication of Pakistan, in the issue on 10 January 1991, printed a comprehensive discussion of the act of Mut’ah, which continued in four issues. In reply ‘Ali Akbar Shah of the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) wrote an unsatisfactory response. In the end of his treatise he quoted the following statements of Molana Mawdudi:
Ibn ‘Abbas and other Sahabah having similar views to him were of the opinion that it is permissible when one is unable to control oneself.
In the ends he adds that this is also the opinion of the majority of the ‘ulamaʼ of the Shia.
We are not of the opinion that it is permissible when one cannot control himself because those who commit zina’ are also not able to control themselves. If it is permitted in this one condition then the doors will be opened for all immoral people.
As far as the statement of Mawdudi is concerned, firstly why did he say such a thing, and as far as we know this is not the belief of Mawdudi nor is it his practice. In order to draw the Shia youth closer to him; he made this statement as a political strategy. The ‘ulamaʼ of that era immediately refuted this statement of his, and the ‘ulamaʼ of the Ahl al Hadith printed the book Tahrik Jama’at-e Islami awr Maslak Hadith in Karachi. The introduction of this book was written by Molana Muhammad Ismail from Gujranwala. On page 61 it is mentioned:
It is uncertain what fascination Mawdudi has with Mut’ah that has caused him to discard the many years of research made in the science of ijtihad and deliberation. It is separate issue altogether that he has failed in proving its legitimacy in the pure Shari’ah of Islam.
When the ‘ulamaʼ of the truth regarded all the proofs of Mawdudi as unsatisfactory for the permissibility of Mut’ah, then how does ‘Ali Akbar Shah quoting Mawdudi serve as a proof for the permissibility of Mut’ah if one is unable to control oneself.
A Shia author by the name of ‘Abdul Karim Mushtaq wrote a book entitled Ham Mut’ah kyu Karteh Hai (Why do we perfrom Mut’ah). We would have not given it any importance, had the president of Iran Rafsanjani not publicly encouraged all youngsters to indulge in Mut’ah. In today’s time lack of self-restraint is increasing and becoming common amongst our youngsters. It is highly possible that this announcement of Rafsanjani may just be the addition of fuel to the already burning fire. To safeguard all youngsters from indulging in Mut’ah as well as general protection from it, the beloved Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal Ranguni has written this book, wherein he refutes all the proofs of the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers). May Allah grant him the best of rewards on our behalf and on behalf of all those who benefit from this book.
This book is not only a reply to ‘Abdul Karim Mushtaq but to the proofs of Ayatollah Tawfiq al Faqiqi and the other Shia mujtahidin of Lakhnow as well.
We request the ‘ulamaʼ of Islam to publicise this book in their circles and distribute it amongst the youth. If there is any such youngster who has been drawn in by the Shia, then he should be given this book immediately so that those Shia who utilise Mut’ah as a ‘bribe’ will be unsuccessful in their endeavour. May Allah grant the Muslims the best understanding of these realities.
 Tarikh Adabiyati Iran, v. 4 p. 49
 Brown v. 1 p. 217
 Qanun Sasani, v. 1 p. 36-37
 Furu’ al Kafi, v. 1 p. 192
 Al Kafi vol. 2 pg. 191,193
 Iran bi ‘Ahd Sasani pg. 437-457
 Istibsar, vol. 2 pg. 75
 Al Kafi, vol. 2 pg. 252
 We learn that the Shia doctrines are based upon the narrations of the Sassanid dynasty.
 Tahdhib al Ahkam, vol. 2 pg. 186
 Surah al Mu’minun: 5-7
 Tirmidhi, vol. 1 pg. 133
 Muqaddamah Tafsir al Furqan, p. 406
 Firaq al Shia (Farsi), p. 123
 Tafsir Nur al Thaqalayn, v. 1 p. 217
 Tahdhib al Ahkam, v. 7 p. 414
 Wasa’il al Shia, v 4 p 103
 The daily newspaper Jang 19 October 1992.
 Ikhtiyar Ma’arifat al Rijal, p. 521
 Mut’ah wa Atharuha, p. 119