Question from Shia Muslims: What is the difference between Girlfriend/Boyfriend relationship and Shia Mutah?

Shia Mutah requires no “witness”. 

If a girl and a boy both give their consent, then they could do Mutah on their own, without any witness, in complete secrecy. 

This consent is common in both Shia Mutah and the Girlfriend/Boyfriend relationship. 

Therefore, one becomes confused, how then Mutah becomes a BLESSING, while Girlfriend/Boyfriend relationship becomes Obscenity and Immorality?

When this question is asked from Shia Muslims, then they present the following 2 differences:

  1. There is ‘Iddah (i.e. waiting period) in Mutah, while Girlfriend/Boyfriend relationship has no waiting period.
  2. And if a child is born, then Father is responsible for all the expenses of the child in Mutah.


There is no waiting period for a minor girl in Shia Islam. She does not need any waiting period in order to enter into the next Mutah relationship, and could be immediately handed over to another man by her guardian in Mutah. Similarly, an old woman also does not need the any waiting period for next Mutah in Shia Islam.

Shia scholars explain that minor girl or an old woman don’t need the waiting period while this waiting period is only meant to determine the parentage of the child, just like in Sunni Islam the ‘iddah (waiting period) of prisoner or slave woman is to become free of first menstruation blood in three to seven days, as it happened in case of Saffiyyah that she became free of her menstruation blood the day that Muslims killed his father, brother and husband, and Muhammad than had sex with her the same night. 

Therefore, if according to the Shia Ulama, the waiting period was only meant for determination of the parentage of child, then we don’t have to observe this waiting period in our modern times as a quick medical test is enough to determine if woman is pregnant or not, or who is the father of the child. 

Thus, why then Shia Muslims still call the Girlfriend/Boyfriend relationship to be vulgarity, even if the issue of parentage of child has also been solved? 

And the 2nd Shia argument is that the father takes the responsibility of the child in Mutah and he bears the expenses of the child. 

Then we would say that Shia Muslims perhaps don’t know that in the Western Countries, COURTS will then compel the father to bear the expenses of the child according to his financial strength. That child also has a right to the property of the father and he is not different from the other children who are born in the so-called proper Church Marriage. 

And if fathers want to take part in the upbringing of such a child along with the mother, then courts also give this right to the father that child could visit him at the weekends and in the holidays. 

While Shia Mutah is doing an injustice against the mother in this case. If a woman becomes pregnant in Shia Mutah, and child is born, then the father will get that child, while the mother will totally lose her baby.  Now tell us if this is an injustice towards the mother or not? 

Sexual relationship with slave-woman in Sunni Islam, is even bigger Shamelessness and a crime against humanity

And Sunni Muslims are strange when they blame Girlfriend/Boyfriend relationship to be a immorality, but when a slave-woman is raped by many men in temporary sexual relationship in Sunni Islam one by one after Temporary sexual relations, then it is not an obscenity and immorality and shamelessness for them. 

Sunni Muslims also don’t deem it to be immorality that Sunni Islam compels the slave-women to move in the public with naked breasts. 

Sunni Muslims also don’t deem it to be immorality when Male-Customers are allowed by Sunni Islam to touch and check all the naked body parts of the slave women (except for vagina), just like cattle are being checked with hands before they are bought. 

And Sunni Muslims don’t deem it to be immorality when Sunni Islam allows the men to rape the slave women even without the witnesses, and still it is considered Halal. 

Fatawa Alamgiri, volume 3, page 268, Urdu edition (link):

A Singular Report is enough on religious issues. Therefore, if a slave woman comes to any person and tells him that her master has gifted me to you, then that person could trust that slave-girl and have sex with her.

In Sunni Islam, the ‘iddah (waiting period) of a prisoner/slave woman (or of that free Muslim woman who has accepted Islam, and has left her previous husband and has come to an Islamic State) is only 3 (to 7 day) of becoming free of her first menstruation blood. All this waiting period was only meant to determine the parentage of the child, which is no longer needed in the present modern era.

And Sunni Muslims don’t deem it to be immorality when Sunni Islam allows the owners to deny the parentage of their own child from the slave-woman, and thus make their own sons/daughters their slave and later sell them in the slave markets.

Sunan Ibn Majah (link):

وَلَا يَلْحَقُ إِذَا کَانَ أَبُوهُ الَّذِي يُدْعَی لَهُ أَنْکَرَهُ

… a child from a slave woman cannot be named after his father if the man whom he claimed as his father did not acknowledge him (and he becomes a bastard child).
Imam Albani declared this Hadith as Fair (Hasan). Link.
This same tradition has also been narrated by Amr bin Shoaib in Sunnan Abdu Dawud, and has again been graded as Hasan (link).

Imam Muhammad bin Ahmad Sarkhasi (d. 483 H) writes in his book Al-Mabsut, Volume 2 page 152 (link):

وولد أم الولد ثابت من المولى ما لم ينفه لأنها فراش له وقال عليه الصلاة والسلام الولد للفراش ولكن ينتفي عنه بمجرد النفي عندنا

“The son of a slave woman is attributed to the owner as long as he didn’t deny it, because she had been on a bed with him, He (i.e. prophet Muhammad) said that the son belongs to the bed, but he (the child) will be not be attributed to him if he just denied him according to us.”

And Imam Ibn Hamam writes in his book Fath al-Qadir (link):

أم الولد بسبب أن ولدها ، وإن ثبت نسبه بلا دعوة ينتفي نسبه بمجرد نفيه ، بخلاف المنكوحة لا ينتفي نسب ولدها إلا باللعان

“The slave woman’s son, even if his paternity is proven without a claim (from the father), has his parentage disassociated just by denial, unlike the wife in a Nikah whose son’s parentage cannot be dissociated except through “le’an.”

And it is written in Fatawa Alamgiri (link):

If the slave girl, who bears the child of the owner, is a Magian (i.e. Zoroastrian) or an apostate, then it is not obligatory upon the owner to own that child (and a child becomes a bastard in this case). 

Therefore, it is a surprise that even after such a shameless mishandling of the slave-woman and her child, still Sunni Muslims dare to say that western concept of Girlfriend/Boyfriend relationship is obscenity and immorality. 

Forcing slave women for Prostitution, as a source of Income by the owners in Sunni Islam

In the Indian Subcontinent, slave girls were sold in the red-light area Markets as prostitutes. They were trained in dancing and singing. They were also used as sex object too, and the owners used it as a source of income for them. The origin of this practice also lies in Islam.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab-ul-Talaq (link):

Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My owner forces me to commit fornication (in order to earn money from it). Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "(Quran 24:33) And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful."

Note: The writer of the Quran limited it only to a recommendation (i.e. not to force them for prostitution), but he didn’t punish the owner for that?

But why?

The reasons are as under:

  • Islam not only allowed the owner to rape the slave-girl, but also allowed the owner to present her as a gift to any other person, who could then rape the slave-girl too against her consent.
  • And no “Witness” was needed in Islam for having sex with the slave woman.
  • And the “witness” of a slave-woman (or slave-man) is not accepted in Islamic court. Actually, slaves are absolutely not allowed to go to court against their owners. (We have already written in detail about the “witness” of slaves above).

For proof, please read our article: Evils and Crimes against Humanity of Islamic Slavery 

Therefore, due to these reasons, a slave-girl could cry as much as she can about her rape, but her witness is not accepted in any Islamic court, which makes it impossible that owner could be punished.

That is why, the writer of Quran (i.e. Muhammad), at maximum, only recommended the owners to not to force the slave-women for fornication, but he was unable to punish the owners for forcing their slave-girls for prostitution. 

Fatawa Alamgiri, vol 3, page 268, Urdu edition (link):

A Singular Report is enough on religious issues. Therefore, if a slave woman comes to any person and tells him that her master has gifted me to you, then that person could trust that slave-girl and have sex with her.

Ibn Qaddamah writes in his book al-Mughani (link):

وقال مالك وأبو حنيفة والشافعي وجمهور العلماء : لا تجوز شهادة العبد


Imam Malik, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi'i and majority of the Islamic scholars say that witness of a slave is not accepted. 

Imam Shafii wrote in his book “Ahkam-ul-Quran, vol 2, page 142 (link):

And the testimony should be from the free men, and not from the slaves. Similarly, these free men should be the follower of our religion (i.e. they should be Muslims), while the testimony of non-Muslims free men is not accepted

Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd writes in his Fiqh Book (link):

ولا تجوز شهادة المحدود ولا شهادة عبد ولا صبي ولا كافر

The testimony of someone who has been given a fixed punishment, or of a slave, a minor or an unbeliever is inadmissible.

Due to these reasons, even if a slave woman wanted to protest against her being forced for fornication, she still could not go to the court against her owner. 

Therefore, Muhammad although gave that Recommendation in Quran that people should not force their slave-women for fornication, but still he was unable to punish those Sahaba who practiced it during his era.