Continuation of the benefits of the verse: “And the married, except what your right hands possess. That is the decree of Allah upon you…”

Continuation of the benefits of the noble verse: . Among the benefits of this noble verse is the obligation to spend money in marriage, and that there is no marriage without money, based on His saying: . Accordingly, money is necessary in marriage. There are three cases in this. The first case is that a specific amount is stipulated, such as saying, “The mahr is one thousand riyals.” Is this permissible or not? It is permissible, and there is no doubt in it. The second case is that its absence is stipulated; he says, “I give you my daughter in marriage,” and the husband accepts and says, “On the condition that there is no mahr,” so he marries her on the condition that there is no mahr. In this, the scholars have two opinions. The first opinion is that the marriage is valid and she is entitled to the mahr of the like (mahr al-mithl), and this is the madhhab (school of jurisprudence). The second opinion is that the marriage is not valid, and this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). He said: “Because Allah stipulated that for it to be lawful, it must be with money. If the absence of money is stipulated, the condition is negated, and that is its lawfulness.” His saying is a saying; the saying of Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) is a saying. Perhaps the marriage of shighar is derived from here, as there is no money in it, and if money is mentioned in it, it is mentioned but not intended. The third case is that it is left silent about; it is not stipulated and specified, nor is its absence stipulated. He says, “I give you my daughter in marriage,” and he says, “I accept.” In this case, the marriage is valid and she is entitled to the mahr of the like, as stated in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This is if she is divorced before consummation. If she is divorced after consummation, she is entitled to the mahr of the like, as established in the hadith of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him). Among its benefits is that the one seeking marriage is the husband. Is it possible for the wife to seek? It is not possible. Does a woman seek a husband? We say it is possible. A woman can propose herself to a person, praising him? In any case, regarding the second point, it is rare but it has happened. This woman offered herself to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). And 'Umar offered his daughter Hafsa to Abu Bakr and Uthman, and there is no harm in that. But the norm is that the one seeking is the husband. Among its benefits is that if the mahr is stolen, it is not considered. Where is this taken from? From His saying: It is money, but it is not his, and Allah attributed the money to him. Among its benefits is what we refer to regarding what was pointed out to brother Khalid: If the mahr is khamr (intoxicants), it is not valid. Why? Because it is not money. Among its benefits is the permissibility of the benefit of money as mahr. Where is this taken from? Perhaps we take it from money if we consider money to be the substance and the benefit, or from wages if we say money is the substance. We say that Allah called them wages, and wages can be for benefits and substances. In any case, the mahr can validly be a benefit. If the benefit returns to the wife, the matter is clear. If it returns to someone else with her permission, there is no harm, as in the story of Musa with... because the mahr was to graze his sheep for eight years. So the benefit is for whom? For her father, but with her consent. If she consents, the right is hers; otherwise, the mahr belongs to the woman.
Is it valid for the husband to make her mahr his service to her, such as washing her clothes or the like? It is valid, as the brother said, this is a benefit. This is a benefit. But some scholars said it is not valid, because this is enslaving the husband, and the opposite is correct. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Women are vessels” meaning... in our view, so how does she serve her husband? In any case, if the benefit is the husband serving the wife, there is disagreement among scholars, considering that using him is a type of humiliation and the opposite of what the Shari'ah intends, which is that men are protectors and maintainers of women. So what is correct? The correct view is that if there is a need, there is no harm. That is, if he cannot find a woman to marry except in this case. But if the mahr is grazing her sheep or repairing her orchard, which is not direct service, there is no doubt in its permissibility. Among its benefits is the prohibition of mut'ah (temporary marriage), based on His saying: The one who does mut'ah does not want chastity; he wants fornication. Because whoever wants chastity, chastity is not achieved except through staying together. As for staying with her for two or three days or a week, this does not increase chastity but only increases the intensity. Because a person who restrains himself and is content with himself may become chaste to some extent. But if he enjoys himself for two or three days, his desire increases, so chastity is not achieved. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) stipulated that he be chaste, and marriage of mut'ah is only fornication to release this water that is restricted for him. Therefore, none of the rulings of marriage are established by it. There is no divorce, no lineage, no waiting period, and no chastity. None of the rulings of marriage follow from it, even for those who say it is permissible; none of the rulings of marriage follow from it. This indicates that it is fornication, as indicated by the Sunnah. In the hadith of Subayr ibn Mughayrah al-Juhani, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) announced in the Farewell Pilgrimage or in the Conquest that mut'ah is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection. This prohibition is a permanent report, so it is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection. We said it is a permanent report because no one can claim it was abrogated. Because setting its limit as the Day of Resurrection makes its abrogation impossible. If its abrogation were possible, it would be possible to lie about the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and that is impossible. Some scholars permitted mut'ah out of dire necessity. They said: If a person fears for himself committing zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) because he has a strong desire and because zina is easy to commit—as found in lands of disbelief—and he fears for himself committing zina, then there is no harm in doing mut'ah. This is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), and he said it is like carrion; if a person is forced to do it, he does it, otherwise not. His evidence is that it involves committing the lesser of two harms to avert the greater. What is the greater? Zina, where a person feels like a goat finding a female goat on the road, so he mounts her and walks on. This is zina. But mut'ah has a type of connection between the man and the woman. What is it? A connection for the period they agreed upon. So it has something of a relationship that no one doubts. But zina is different. However, the stronger opinion is that it is not permissible absolutely, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: This is the correct view. Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) denied Ibn Abbas greatly in this issue, and this opinion is a place of denial. Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) generalized and said: and he made it absolute. Because the reality of mut'ah is hiring a woman to fornicate with her for a specific period. This is mut'ah. When the mut'ah is completed, she exits from the door she entered from, and she does not observe a waiting period or anything at all. Is zina not this? As for dire necessity, the Lawgiver set a limit for it. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: As for committing these two harms, it is said: This harm is like the first, like zina; there is no difference between them. The resulting relationship is as if one agrees with a woman to fornicate with her for specific nights, and a relationship occurs between them in these nights. So the correct view is absolute prohibition.

The questioner : It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he retracted his opinion on the permissibility of mut'ah. Is this correct?

The Shaykh : No, he did not retract. He retracted from what was attributed to him regarding its absolute permissibility.

The questioner : Regarding marriage from the aspect of divorce?

The Shaykh : Marriage from the aspect of divorce is not mut'ah, and there is no condition in it. But there is a prohibited deception. Deception of whom? Of the wife and her family. Because if the wife and her family knew that this man intends to divorce her when he travels, for example, or when a woman is purified from post-natal bleeding, they would not marry her to him.

The questioner : What is the way out then?

The Shaykh : The way out is that he does not do it.

The questioner : The man fasts during the day, but at night he cannot fast at night?

The Shaykh : He prays, he prays. Then there is something lighter than this. There is something lighter. First, in the current situation, desire is reduced—it does not eliminate it, but what eliminates it is not permissible. As for the second thing, he masturbates, for example, because masturbation is lighter than mut'ah, and marriage does not have divorce. That is, out of dire necessity. Masturbation is lighter than zina... Khalid informed us, it needs verification.

The Shaykh : This is not mut'ah as long as they did not stipulate a condition.

The questioner : You mentioned that there are means that are less severe than temporary marriage. If we say that dire necessity is an excuse, this opens up a great door. Everyone who is compelled and overcome by desire would say, “I am compelled.”

The Shaykh : No, no, this is not correct. I mean, if the situation is such that a man goes to a place of prostitution and commits unlawful sexual intercourse, or he engages in the secret habit, which is less severe? Perhaps in our lands—and praise be to Allah—there are no places where unlawful sexual intercourse is easily available, but in another country it is not a big deal. We say it is a case of dire necessity. Be silent if it is told to you that it is lawful, because some scholars have permitted it. Does he commit a sin out of dire necessity? No, he does not commit a sin, because this is removing the greater of two harms. It is lawful for him.
We stopped at His saying: . Among the benefits of this noble verse is the prohibition of temporary marriage. It has been mentioned that all the scholars of the Sunnah say it is forbidden, but the Rafidah (the Twelver Shi'ah) differed on this. And you would be amazed that they differ on this while their imam says it is forbidden and declares it. But this is not strange for one who follows his desires. Here is 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), who narrated, or was among those who narrated, wiping over leather socks, and yet the Rafidah do not say that wiping over leather socks is valid. And 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was among those who narrated the prohibition of temporary marriage, and they do not say it is forbidden. And 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said from the pulpit of Kufah and declared that the best of this Ummah (the Muslim community) are Abu Bakr and 'Umar, and they say no, they are not the best of this Ummah. Rather, some of them say that they died upon hypocrisy, and some of them say that they were disbelievers, and the like of that, which indicates that the foundation of their belief is not upon guidance, but upon desire. Otherwise, if they truly followed the Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet), they would not have gone to the point of contradicting 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), who is the best of the Ahl al-Bayt. So temporary marriage is forbidden. But is it considered temporary marriage if a man marries with the intention of divorcing after a specific period? We have previously stated that it is not temporary marriage, but it contains deception and fraud. And I saw, after speaking to you about this, that Shaykh Muhammad Rashid Rida has words supporting this. He says: “In it is a blemish for the Muslims, for people will know about them that they are playing with their marriages. Then, in it is a blockage of the door of marriage, because every person knows that these people marry and then divorce upon travel, so he does not trust them and does not feel safe that they will do what they did. And in that case, it becomes a blockage of the door of marriage. For this reason, it is incumbent upon us, if a benefit presents itself to us, not to rush to take it until we see what results from it. It may result in harms that are greater than the benefit.” And those who said it is permissible say: “Because every person, if his wife does not suit him, he will divorce her.” But we say: There is a difference between a person who did not enter the marriage except on the condition that he will divorce her on a specific day, and another person who entered the marriage on the condition that she is his wife, but he found... prevents the continuation of the marriage. This is a great difference. Then we say: Do you not say that if a man marries a woman with the intention of facilitating the divorce of the first husband, with the intention of facilitating but without the condition of facilitating, then the marriage is defective? This is like that. This one intended to divorce after a specific time, and this one intended to divorce after a specific time. And actions are by intentions, and every person will get what he intended. If they say, “This one may desire to stay and remain,” we say, “And the one who facilitates the divorce? He may desire to stay and remain.” In any case, I do not see that it is permissible for a person to marry with the intention of divorcing when he travels. But the question remains: Is the marriage valid or not? The school of the Hanbalis is that the marriage is not valid. The marriage is not valid because the intention of temporary marriage is like its condition, just as the intention of facilitating is like a condition. And among its benefits is: that the mahr (the bridal gift) is established by the husband’s enjoyment of his wife, by His saying: . And on this basis, the mahr is established by intercourse and by enjoying the woman in a way that is only for the husband with his wife, such as kissing and embracing, and the like of that. And it is also established by seclusion, as that came from the Rightly Guided Caliphs. And among its benefits is: that the mahr is made like a wage. The aspect of this is that it is compensation for a benefit, not for an object. If it were for an object, it would be called a sale, but it is for a benefit, which is the husband’s enjoyment of the wife, so it became like a lease or hire contract. And among its benefits is: that the mahr is obligatory like the obligation of a wage upon the lessee. But if the one who has the right permits it, does it drop? The answer is: Yes, by His saying: . And here is an important issue: When Allah named the mahr a wage, does the husband treat his wife while feeling that she is like a hired worker, or is the husband’s companionship with his wife and his treatment of her higher and nobler than that? The second one, the second one. Because if he feels that he is like a worker who hired her to enjoy her, the purpose of marriage, which is affection and mercy, is not achieved. Allah the Exalted said: . And because if he felt that feeling, he would be angry when she refrains from him for a reason or without a reason, until he might divorce her. But if he feels that the matter is higher and nobler than that, he says: Yes, the mahr is a wage because it is in exchange for a benefit, but the one to whom the mahr is paid is not like a hired worker. So the compensation, even though it is called a wage, the one compensated is not like a hired worker. And among its benefits is: the obligation to give women their mahr, by His saying: , meaning it is obligatory upon you to give them their wages. And among its benefits is: that if the husband and wife agree to an increase, decrease, or dropping of the mahr, there is no blame, by His saying: . And among its benefits is: that we take an important rule, which is: that what Allah the Mighty and Majestic obligated as a right for a person and he dropped his right, there is no sin on the one who did not fulfill it. If Allah obligated a right for a person and he dropped his right, there is no sin on him if he did not fulfill it. And this rule will have many branches, among them: responding to the invitation to the wedding feast. Responding to the invitation to the wedding feast is obligatory by the right of whom? By the right of the husband. So if he drops it, there is no sin on him if he invites me. If he invites me and I say, “I have work, I cannot come,” and the like of that, and he says, “You are excused,” then there is no sin on you, because the right is his. And the thing that Allah obligated from the category of rights of people over one another, if the one who has the right drops it, it drops. And among its benefits, and this is a benefit that may be distant: that whoever insults the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) must be killed, even if he repents. And whoever insults Allah, if he repents, he is not killed. Did you understand? Which is greater? Insulting Allah or insulting the Messenger? Insulting Allah is greater. But Allah informed us about Himself that whoever repents to Him, He accepts his repentance. But the right of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), we do not know that he dropped it. It is the right of a human being, so he is killed for the right of the Messenger, but his repentance is accepted. He is killed while his repentance is accepted. How? We say: We accept his repentance, and when we kill him, we wash him, shroud him, pray over him, and bury him with the Muslims because he repented. But the killing is necessary. And among its benefits is: establishing two of the names of Allah, which are: Al-'Alim (the All-Knowing) and Al-Hakim (the Wise). Their explanation has been previously given with a sufficient explanation.