(via Answering Muslims) — The Prophet of Islam allowed his followers to practice a form of prostitution called Muta. In Muhammad’s time, a Muslim could pay a woman for “temporary marriage,” which would last a few hours, days, weeks, or months (depending on the agreement). Many Muslims today claim that Muhammad eventually changed his mind about this obviously immoral practice, and that Muta is now forbidden in Islam (certain Muslim sources suggest this). But these Muslims fail to mention that some of Islam’s most trusted sources plainly declare that Muhammad never prohibited Muta. For instance, the following passage in Sahih Muslim says that Muslims were practicing Muta well beyond the lifetime of Muhammad:
Sahih Muslim 3248—Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
Some hadith claim that it was Umar, rather than Muhammad, who outlawed Muta:
Sahih Muslim 3250—Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut’a (Tamattu’ of Hajj 1846 and Tamattu’ with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger. Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.
Hence, Muslim men who want to hire prostitutes can simply point out that Muhammad, Islam’s final prophet, allowed prostitution, and that later Muslims (like Umar) cannot overrule Muhammad. Moreover, since Muhammad allowed sex with prepubescent girls, pedophiles are free to seek outchild prostitutes. That’s exactly what’s happening in Syrian refugee camps.
While the overall accuracy of this news report is excellent, the narrator makes one important (politically correct) blunder. After pointing out that Sharia allows marriage to “very young girls,” she says that this is only an “extreme interpretation” of Sharia, for “Islamic law rejects forced marriage in principle.” She seems to be confusing a few different concepts here, so let’s separate and clarify them.First, as I have pointed out, there is some disagreement in the Muslim sources as to whether Muta is allowed today. Nevertheless, since there are strong narrations reporting that Muhammad never prohibited Muta, any Muslim who signs a temporary marriage contract can easily defend his actions.Second, there is no disagreement whatsoever in the Muslim sources as to whether a grown man can marry a prepubescent girl. Both the Qur’an and the Hadith allow men to marry prepubescent girls, and Muhammad himself married and had sex with Aisha when she was only nine years old. Thus, it’s simply false to say that marriage to young girls is only allowed under an “extreme interpretation” of Sharia. Marriage to young girls is permitted under any serious interpretation of Sharia.
Third, the narrator believes that Islamic law forbids “forced marriage,” and she thinks that these marriages qualify as “forced” because the girls’ families are pressuring them. But family pressure (e.g., “You must do this for your family”) has nothing to do with the Islamic concept of forced marriage. As long as a girl or woman gives verbal consent to marriage, or even if she remains silent when asked, the marriage does not count as forced. Notice that Umm Majid (the “marriage broker”) specifically says to the girls, “I have a 70-year-old Saudi, who wants a girl no older than 13 years. Who of you wants to meet him?” One of the girls responds, “Me.” Umm Majid obtains the girl’s consent in order to make the marriage fully Sharia-compliant.
So we see once again the depressing fruits of Muhammad’s teachings and example. The Prophet of Islam allowed his followers to practice Muta. He allowed his followers to marry prepubescent girls. He allowed men to beat their wives. The result? Wealthy Saudis are taking young Muslim girls back to their hotels, beating and raping them, and it’s all perfectly in line with Sharia. (The same thing is happening in Egypt.)
Where are CAIR and ISNA when these little girls are being raped? It seems that Muslim organizations in the West are too busy complaining about Islamophobia to care much about the horrendous abuse of vulnerable little girls in the Middle East. Indeed, many Muslims get far more upset about people like me reporting the abuse than they do about the abuse itself.
You can learn a lot about a religion by noticing what tends to outrage its adherents. Welcome to Islam.
Conservative Angle Archives 
You must be logged in to post a comment.