Chapter Ten: Was Mut’ah abrogated by the Sunnah?

 

Serious contradictions and fabrications in Sunni claims regarding different timings of Mut’ah’s prohibition

Any notion of Allah (swt) offereing contradictory views on any matter is beyond the realms of plausibility as He (swt) after all states in Quran, 004:082:

“Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy (differences)”.

When it comes to the Sunni stance on the Islamic prohibition on Mutah there exist eleven evidential contradictions that we shall evidence below.

1st Timing: When Surah Mominoon or Surah Ma’arij were revealed

A hadith was falsely ascribed to Hadhrat ‘Aisha suggesting that Mut’ah was prohibited when Surah Muminoon or Surah Ma’arif were revealed. A Hadith was also attributed to Ibn Abbas to this effect which can be read in Sunan Tirmidhi.

Those who fabricated these traditions were so stupid that they didn’t even know that both Surah Muminoon and Surah Ma’arij were Meccan Surahs while Mut’ah was practiced for many years after the revelation of the said verses i.e. until Khaibar or the victory of Mecca in 7th or 8th Hijri. We have discussed this at length in the previous chapter.

2nd Timing: When verse 24 of Surah Nis’a was revealed

Another tradition falsely attributed to Ibn Abbas is that he claimed Mut’ah was prohibited when verse 24 of Surah Nisa was revealed (see Tafsir Dur-e-Manthur).

The fool who fabricated this tradition failed to recognize that Ibn Abbas never forbade Mut’ah and died believing that it had never been abrogated by Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). We should also point out that Ibn Abbas himself testified that this very verse was revealed in connection with the permissibility of Mut’ah and his recitation of the said verse with the additional words ’till the prescribed time’ is evidence to this effect. This has also been discussed in detail earlier.

3rd Timing: When verse of Inheritance was revealed

Baihaqi in his Sunnan has three traditions that suggest that Mu’tah became redundant when the verse of inheritance was revealed. The three traditions have been ascribed to Abu Hurayrah, Ali ibn Abi Talib (volume 7 page 332) and Abdullah ibn Masud respectively.

4th Timing: When verse of ‘Iddah (waiting period) was revealed

Just like the third timing Sunan Baihaqi has three traditions from the same Sahaba Abu Hurayrah, Ali ibn Abi Talib and Abdullah ibn Masud stating the verse of iddah brough about an end to Mut’ah. Haythami has also recorded the same opinion of Abu Hurayrah

5th Timing: When verse of divorce was revealed

Interestingly traditions have also been falsely attributed to the same three Sahaba, all attesting that Mut’ah came to an end with the verse of divorce. We have the tradition attributed to Abu Hurayrah in Fatah al-Bari with traditions recorded by Imams Bayhaqi Haythami. Similar traditions have been ascribed to Ali (as) and Ibn Masud (ra).

6th Timing: Khaibar (6th Hijri)

We then see a departure from the opinion that Mutah was brought to an end to by the Quran, rather it became otiose via the Sunnah. In this connection a tradition was falsely attributed to Imam Ali (as) in Sahih Muslim, wherein he attests that Mutah was outlawed on the day of Khaibar in the 6th Hijri.

In this connection there exists another hadith fabricated in the name of Ibn Umar that Mut’ah was prohibited at Khaibar. It is recorded in ‘Hadith Kathayma’ by Kathayma bin Suleman Vol 1 page 68 and reads as follows:

أخبرنا خيثمة حدثنا أبو يعقوب اسحاق بن يسار بنصيبين حدثنا عبيد الله وهو ابن موسى عن أبي حنيفة عن نافع عن ابن عمر قال نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم خيبر عن متعة النساء

 Hadith Kathayma by Kathayma bin Suleman Vol 1 page 68

7th Timing: Umarahtul Qadha (7th Hijri)

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his book Talkhees al-Habeer, Vol 4 page 277 Topic 1063 records a tradition from Hassan that Rasool (saw) prohibited Mut’ah at Umratul Qadha. Then Ibn Hajjar al-Asqalani also brings the tradition of Sabra bin M’abad wherein he also claims that Rasool (s) prohibited Mut’ah at Umrahtul Qadha.

Ibn Hajjar al-Asqalani has indulged into a discussion pertaining to the science of Hadith and stated that this second Hadith is a ‘Shahid’ (a supporting tradition) to the first tradition of Hassan i.e. collectively both of these traditions become stronger as both corroborate each other:

قال عبد الرزاق في مصنفه عن معمر عن عمرو عن الحسن قال ما حلت المتعة قط إلا ثلاثا في عمرة القضاء ما حلت قبلها ولا بعدها وشاهده ما رواه بن حبان في صحيحه من حديث سبرة بن معبد قال خرجنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيا قضينا عمرتنا قال لنا ألا تستمتعوا من هذه النساء

 

8th Timing: Victory of Mecca (8th Hijri year)

 

  • Again a tradition is fabricated in name of Sabra al-Juhani that Mut’ah was prohibited by the Holy Prophet at the time of the victory of Mecca in 8th Hijri [Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3253].
  • A second tradition is fabricated against Abdullah Ibn Umar wherein he claims the Holy Prophet prohibited Mut’ah at the victory of Mecca. The said tradition can be found in:
     Nasikh al-Hadith wa Mansukh by Ibn Shahin Hadith, Vol 2 page 96 Hadith 451

9th Timing: At Hunain or Autas

During the battle of Hunain, the Holy Prophet also sent out an army to Autas expedition.

  • A person fabricated another tradition which claimed Mut’ah was prohibited at Hunain in 9th Hijri. This tradition is recorded by Nisai and Darqutni as mentioned by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in:
     Talkhees al-Habeer’ Vol 4 page 278 Topic 1603

    لرابع : يوم حنين ، رواه النسائي من حديث علي ، والظاهر أنه تصحيف من خيبر وذكر الدارقطني : أن عبد الوهاب الثقفي تفرد عن يحيى بن سعيد عن مالك بقوله حنين ، في رواية لسلمة بن الأكوع أن ذلك كان في عام أوطاس
  • Along the same line, a tradition has been falsely attributed to the Sahabi Salama bin al-Akwa, namely that Mut’ah was prohibited at Autas i.e. during the battle of Hunain, when the Holy Prophet sent an army to Autas to fight the Kuffar [Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3251].
  • A third tradition was fabricated in the name of Ibn Umar wherein he attested that Mut’ah was prohibited by the Holy Prophet at Hunain.

Note: It should be pointed out at this juncture that there are three Sunni fabricated (totally contradory) traditions in the name of Ibn Umar.

  • The First tradition claims Ibn Umar said Mut’ah was made Haram by Rasool (saw) at Khyber (6 Hijri).
  • The Second tradition claims Ibn Umar said Rasool (saw) made Mut’ah Haram at Victory of Mecca (7-8th Hijri)
  • The Third tradition claims Ibn Umar said Rasool (saw) made Mut’ah Haram at Hunain (8th Hijri).

10th Time: At Tabuk (9th Hijri)

 

  • Another tradition was fabricated that Mut’ah was prohibited during the battle of Tabuk in 9th Hijri. This tradition was falsely attributed to Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari and recorded in
    1.  Ahkam-ul-Quran al-Jasas, Vol 3 page 101
    2. Mua’jam al-Awsat by Tabrani, Vol 2 page 450 Hadith 951 .Ibn Hajjar al-Asqalani argues that whilst this tradition of Jabir may not be strong in terms of its authenticity but there are two more traditions which are ‘Shahid’ to this tradition making the former acceptable:

    لكن عند ابن حبان في صحيحه من حديث أبي هريرة ما يشهد له .
    وأخرجه البيهقي من الطريق المذكورة بلفظ { خرجنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في غزوة تبوك فنزلنا ثنية الوداع } فذكره ، ويمكن أن يحمل على أن من فعل ذلك لم يبلغه النهي الذي وقع يوم الفتح ، ولأجل ذلك غضب صلى الله عليه وسلم .
  • On this topic, another tradition was falsely attributed to Ali Ibn Abi Talib that claimed the Prophet made Mut’ah Haram at Tabuk. It has been recorded in the book al-Tamheed by Ibn Abdul Barr:
    1.  al-Tamheed by Ibn Abdul Barr, Hadith 1567 [Declared 'Hasan' by the website]
    2.  Tarikh Ibn Abi Kathayman, Hadith 3158 [Declalred 'Hasan' & all narrators of Bukhari]

Note: It should be noted at this point that there are two Sunni traditions about Ali bin Abi Talib, that contradict one other.

  • The first authentic tradition claims that Ali said that the Prophet (saw) made Mut’ah Haram at Khyber (7th Hijri).
  • The second authentic Sunni tradition claims Ali said that Prophet (saw) made Mut’ah Haram at Tabuk (9th Hijri).

11th Time: Hujjat-ul-Widda (10th Hijri year)

Again a hadith was fabricated and it was attributed to Sabra al-Juhani that the Sahaba practiced Mut’ah upon the orders of the Holy Prophet at the time of farewell pilgrimage in the 10th Hijri and it was then made Haram. This Sahih hadith can be found with different chains of narration in:
 Sunnan Abu Dawud, Hadith 1778
 Mustakhraj Abi ‘Awana, Hadith 3241
 Sunnah Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Nikah, Hadith 1952

Similarly a Hadith was fabricated and attributed to Ali bin Abi Talib which we can read in Kanz al Ummal, Volume 16 page 527 Hadith 45751.

Contradictions could never be from Allah’s Side

Humans might seek to employ deceptive games but Allah (swt) is the best of Planners. Allah (swt) says in Quran:

“Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy (differences)”.

Whilst the advocates of the Caliphate School of thought coined all manner of tradition to evidence the prohibition of Mu’tah, the contradictions have trapped them.

Let us now look at the excuses submitted as a mechanism to provide a veil over the quagmire of confusion.

First lame Sunni excuse to cover up the contradictions

So severe were the contradictions that Sunnies themselves realized it and hence they offered all manner of lame excuse. Unhindered by the lack of supporting evidence to justify their stance began to appear a series of lame excuses from their side without any bases or proof, arguments were submitted such as:

  • whilst the hadith said it was Umratul Qadha in 7th Hijri, the narrator actually wanted to say Khaibar in 7th Hijri. This is indeed a very strange excuse.
  • whilst the Sunni traditions refer to Autas, the narrators wanted to say the victory of Mecca.
  • whilst Sunni traditions carrying multiple chains refer to Hunain or Autas, the and actually wanted to say the victory of Mecca.
  • although Hadith said it was Tabuk in 9th Hijri, the narrators actually wanted to say the victory of Mecca. It should be kept in mind that there are multiple (so called) Sahih Sunni Hadiths, but today all these Sahih Hadiths are rejected by our opponents via a simple lame excuse that each narrator actually wanted to refer to the victory of Mecca and not Tabuk.

These are such strange excuses that not a single sane person would ever accept them and sensible Sunnies are themselves fully aware of this. A major flaw in this approach lies in its inability to explain the eleven different occasions when Mutah was outlawed, such an excuse would only cater five or six of the different times mentioned in Sunni books.

Second lame Sunni Excuse: Mut’ah was made Halal and then Haram on many occasions

So absurd is the notion that Mutah was outlawed on eleven different occasions that this reality became unpalatable to the post modern Sunni digestive system. A further baseless excuse was advanced, that Mutah was allowed and banned on several occasions, the number of occasions in question varied greatly amongst Sunni apologists, that were split into five categories of opinion, namely:

  1. Mut’ah was made Halal twice and then also made Haram twice.
  2. Mut’ah was made Halal thrice and then made Haram thrice.
  3. Mut’ah was made Halal for seven times on seven different occasions and haram on seven occasions.
  4. Mut’ah was made Halal and then Haram on an unspecified number of occasions.
  5. Noting in Sharia has been made Halal and Haram twice, and any suggestion that it has cannot be entertained.

Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Patee in Tafseer Mazhari, page 572:

“Imam Shaafiyee said: ‘I don’t know of anything in Islam that was Halaal on one occasion, then made Haraam, then made Halaal and then Haraam with the exception of Mut’ah’. Some scholars have said that it was abrogated on three occasions others have said more’.”

The confusion and contradictions are so bewildering (even with the efforts to understand them from the likes of Qadi Iyyad and Nawawi) that Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Qurtubi commented in his Tafsir, Volume 5 page 130:

Other (scholars) who collected the chains of narrations said: ‘It (Mut’ah) was made Halal and Haram on seven occasions’

Ibn Katheer also made similar comments in his Tafseer of this verse:

“The verse refers to Nikah Mut’ah that was allowed in the beginning of Islam, but was then abrogated. Shafi and a group amongst the Ulema said that it was Mubah twice and abrogated twice. Some say that it was mubah once and then abrogated, so say that it occurred on may occasions”
 Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Surah an-Nisa, Page 3

We appeal to those with logic, do there exist any other exampoles of soemthing being mind halal and haraam on several occasions save Mutah? Is this not a completely farcical belief?

The advocates of Umar sought to prohibit Mut’ah by fabricating false Hadiths, but Allah is the best of Planners against such deceptive methods.

Sahih Sunni Hadiths claiming that Mut’ah was ‘permanently’ prohibited on different times

The advocates of Umar may seek to dupe their adherents through the conniving methods, but Allah is the best of planners.

Another grave contradiction in these so called ‘Sahih’ Sunni Ahadith is this that they point to Mut’ah being prohibited until the Day of Judgment on different occasions.

One: The ‘permanent’ prohibition on Mut’ah at Khaibar (6th Hijri)

We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3265:

Muhammad b. ‘Ali narrated on the authority of his father ‘Ali that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the contracting of temporary marriage and eating of the flesh of the domestic asses.

Similarly we read in Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3266:

‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) heard that Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) gave some relaxation in connection with the contracting of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Don’t be hasty (in your religious verdict), Ibn ‘Abbas, for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the doing of it-And eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3267:

‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) said to Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the Day of Khaibar forbade forever the contracting of temporary marriage and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

Two: The ‘permanent’ prohibition on Mut’ah at Umratul Qadha

Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani records traditions from Abdul Razzaq and Sahih Ibn Habban :.

قال عبد الرزاق في مصنفه عن معمر عن عمرو عن الحسن قال ما حلت المتعة قط إلا ثلاثا في عمرة القضاء ما حلت قبلها ولا بعدها وشاهده ما رواه بن حبان في صحيحه من حديث سبرة بن معبد قال خرجنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيا قضينا عمرتنا قال لنا ألا تستمتعوا من هذه النساء

The tradition of Abdur Razzaq says that Mut’ah was neither made Halal BEFORE Umratul Qadha nor AFTER it i.e. it was prohibited ‘forever’ at Umratul Qadha.

Three: Mut’ah was yet again made Halal at Mecca despite it being outlawed ‘forever’ on two previous occasions

Although Mut’ah had already been made HARAM ‘forever’ twice by so called ‘Sahih’ Sunni Hadiths, another ‘Sahih’ Hadith attests to Mut’ah being made HALAL at the victory of Mecca and then once again made permanently Haram until the day of resurrection. We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3262:

Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) prohibited the contracting of temporary marriage and said: Behold, it is forbidden from this very day of yours to the Day of Resurrection, and he who has given something (as a dower) should not take it back.

Also in Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3255:

Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father that while he was with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon hm) he said: 0 people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until the Day of Resurrection. So he who has any (woman with this type of marriage contract) he should let her off, and do not take back anything you have given to then (as dower).

Four: Mut’ah was yet again made Halal at Hunain/Autas despite it being made Haram ‘forever’ thrice before

Although Mut’ah had already been made Haram ‘forever’ thrice by now, further alleged ‘Sahih’ Sunni Hadiths point to it being made Halal once more at Hunain/Autas. (Please remember that during the battle of Hunain, the Holy Prophet had also sent an expedition towards Autas).

We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3251:

Iyas b. Salama reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas and then forbade it.

Five: Mut’ah was yet again made Halal at TABUK despite its being made ‘permanently’ haram on ‘four’ previous occasions

Although Mut’ah had already been made permanently Haram on four previous occasions as per ‘Sunni’ Sahih Hadiths, further Sunni traditions refer to Mut’ah becoming Halal for a fifth time, at Tabuk.

Narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari:
We came out and our women were also with us with whom we had done Mut’ah marriage. Holy Prophet (s) then said: ‘This (Mut’ah) has been made Haram till the day of resurrection’. Those women then said us al-Wida (Good Bye) at the spot. That was the day when from that place started to be called ‘Shaniat-ul-Wida’ while before that it was known as ‘Shaniat-ul-Rikaab’.

1. Silsila Sahiyah, Vol 3 page 8 Hadith 1010
2. Mujam al-Awsat al-Tabarani, Vol 2 page 450 Hadith 951
3. Ahkam-ul-Quran al-Jasas, Vol 3 page 101

Ibn Hajar Asqalani recorded this tradition of Jabir at Tabuk and also recorded traditions from Abu Hurayrah about Tabuk recorded by Ibn Habban and Imam al-Bayhaqi:

الخامس : غزوة تبوك ، رواه الحازمي من طريق عباد بن كثير عن ابن عقيل عن جابر قال : { خرجنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى غزوة تبوك حتى إذا كنا عند الثنية مما يلي الشام ، جاءتنا نسوة تمتعنا بهن يطفن برجالنا ، فسألنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عنهن وأخبرناه ، فغضب وقام فينا خطيبا فحمد الله وأثنى عليه ، ونهى عن المتعة ، فتوادعنا يومئذ ولم نعد .
، ولا نعود فيها أبدا .
فبها سميت يومئذ ثنية الوداع } ، وهذا إسناد ضعيف ، لكن عند ابن حبان في صحيحه من حديث أبي هريرة ما يشهد له .
وأخرجه البيهقي من الطريق المذكورة بلفظ { خرجنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في غزوة تبوك فنزلنا ثنية الوداع } فذكره ، ويمكن أن يحمل على أن من فعل ذلك لم يبلغه النهي الذي وقع يوم الفتح ، ولأجل ذلك غضب صلى الله عليه وسلم .

 http://islamport.com/d/1/krj/1/17/122.html

And also there is a so called ‘Sahih’ Hadith on the practice of Mutah at Tabuk attributed to Ali Ibn Abi Talib that can be located in the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.  al-Tamheed by Ibn Abdul Barr
2.  Tarikh Ibn Abi Khutaymah with a Hassan chain (all narrators of Bukhari) .
3.  Tarikh Ibn Abi Khutaima with a Hasan chain

Six: Mut’ah yet again became Halal at the Farwell Pilgrimage despite it being ‘permanenlty’ made haram on ‘five’ previous occasions

Although Mut’ah had already previously been made Haram ‘forever’ until the day of Resurrection, on five separate occasions in alleged ‘Sahih’ Sunni Hadiths, Sunni literature points to this outlawed practice being made HALAL for the sixth time at the time of the farewell pilgrimage (Hujatul Wid’a) in the 10th year of Hijri. This Sahih hadith can be found with different chains of narration in:
1.  Sunnan Abu Dawud, Hadith 1778
2.  Mustakhraj Abi ‘Awana, Hadith 3241
3.  Sunnah Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Nikah, Hadith 1952

In this tradition, once again Sabra is saying that the Holy Prophet told them to perform Mut’ah with women at Hujjat-ul-Wid’a (10th hijri) and after some time Mut’ah was again made permanently Haram until the day of Resurrection.

Question:

Can our Sunni brothers as well as hardline Nawasib tell us from whence came the the lame excuse that Mut’ah as made Halal and Haram on seven occasions? How is it possible when it had already been permanently outlawed until the Day of Judgment on six previous occasions? This lame excuse has absolutely no proof and is solely based upon conjecture.

Some Sahaba continued to partake in Mut’ah despite its prohibition on eleven previous occasions

Whilst the outlawing of Mutah on eleven occasion (bringing the alleged Quranic verses and Hadith together) have major contradictions within them, it is worthy to note that there exist a plethora of Sunni narrations that evidence the fact that there existed a body of Sahaba opinion that insisted that Mutah remained halal until the Day of Judgment. Their views are free of the quagmire of contradictions that we have discussed earlier. The view of these Sahaba evidence the fact that:

  1. Despite Mut’ah allegedly being outlawed on eleven ocacsions, Sahaba and Sahabiat continued to enter into Mut’ah marriages and knew of no single instance when Mut’ah was prohibited.
  2. Male and female Sahaba kept on performing Mut’ah until Umar Ibn Khattab declared Mut’ah marriage Haram of his own volition during his caliphate.
  3. Many Sahaba gave no credence to the edict of Umar Ibn Khattab and even after him attested to Mut’ah marriage being Halal.

We shall cite over fifty of these contradiction free traditions in the next Chapter. To corroborate our stance we deem apt at this juncture to cite a heated verbal exchange between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubayr.

When were those traditions pointing to Mut’ah’s prohibition on eleven ocacsions fabricated?

The historical dispute between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubay on the issue of Mut’ah marriage, proves that up until 68th Hijri i.e. 58 years after the death of the Holy Prophet, there was complete ignorance over Mutah being prohibited on eleven occasions, from which one can deduce that those traditions were fabricated later.

This dispute happened during the Caliphate of Ibn Zubayr. Ibn Abbas died in 68 hijri and became blind at end of his life. Let us see the events which happened during this historical fight as recorded in Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Nikah:

“Urwa Ibn Zubair reported that Abdullah Ibn Zubair stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as he has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are a rude person and devoid of sense. By my life, Mut’ah was practised during the lifetime of the leader of pious (he meant Allah’s Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: Just do it yourself, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones”.
 http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=3220

Please note that:

  1. This dispute occurred in the presence of Masses of Sahaba and Tabaeen.
  2. Ibn Abbas openly attested to Mutah remaining Halal and substantiates his stance by arguing that it was practiced during the entirety of the life of the Prophet (s) and was thus Halal.
  3. Ibn Zubayr had no answer to this argument of Ibn Abbas and resorted to threatening to punish Ibn Abbas. How is it that Ibn Zubayr and indeed not a single worshipper from amongst the Sahaba and Tabieen was able to cite the prohibition on Mutah on atleast one of the eleven occasions when it was supposedly outlawed? This demonstrates that those narrations pointing to Mutah being banned on eleven occasions were not in existence ad the time of the dispute in 68 Hijri. They were clearly fabricated at a later date.

When the younger brother of Abdullah ibn Zubayr, Urwa also chose to debate with Ibn Abbas on Mutah, he challenged Urwa to seek the counsel of his mother on Mut’ah marriage. Ibn Qayyim recorded in his book Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 190:

Abdulrazaq said: Mu’amar narrated from Ayub that Urwa said to Ibn Abbas: ‘Don’t you fear Allah by permitting Mut’ah? He (Ibn Abbas) replied: ‘O Urwa, ask your mother’.

Moreover, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani recorded the following Sahih tradition about Asma daughter of Abu Bakr, the mother of Ibn Zubayr in his book Talkhees al-Habeer, Volume 3 page159 Topic 1506:

“What has been reported from Asma, al-Nesa’i narrates it from Muslim Quri: ‘We (the masses of Sahaba and Tabaeen) went before Asma bint Abu Bakr and we asked her about Mut’ah al-Nisa, she replied: ‘I performed this Mut’ah during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s)”

So, instead of telling Ibn Abbas about those eleven timings of prohibition, those masses of Sahaba and Tabayeen went to Asma bint Abi Bakr who confirmed the permissibility of Mut’ah.

Despite this the people remained unsatisfied. When the Hajj season commenced and Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari came to Mecca. A large number of Sahaba and Tabayeen gathered around him and asked him about Mut’ah. Rather then referring to it being banned on eleven occasions he told those masses the following:

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248:

Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we (masses of Sahaba & Tabaeen) 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 theHoly Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the tinie of Abi! Bakr and ‘Umar.

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3249:

Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until ‘Umar forbade it in the case of ‘Amr b. Huraith.

Sunah al Kubra by al Behaqi, Kitab al Haj, Hadith 8958:

Jabir was asked: Ibn Zubayr tells people to refrain from Mut’ah, whilst Ibn Abbas says it is permissible. Jabir replied: ‘We practised Mut’ah during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s) and Abu Bakr. When Umar became khalifa he delivered a sermon: ‘Rasulullah (s) and the Quran have not changed, during the life of Rasulullah (s) there were two types of Mut’ah, I ban them and shall punish one who breaks this, one is Mut’ah with women, and I shall stone any man who marry temporary with a woman, the other is Mut’ah of Hajj, separate your Umra and your Hajj because it is the perfection for Hajj and Umra”’.

So we learn from above traditions that:

  1. The grand Sahaba and Sahabiat kept on doing ZINA (fornication) in name of Mut’ah until the end or at least until the middle of the Caliphate of Umar Ibn Khattab i.e. 8-10 years after the death of the Holy Prophet.
  2. 58 years after the death of the Holy Prophet, when masses of Sahaba and Tabayeen gathered around Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, he was unable to recollect the prohibition of Mu’tah on even one occasion let alon eleven, but simply told them that Ibn Abbas was correct in his Fatwa regarding the permissibility of Mut’ah and it was Umar Ibn Khattab who forbade Mut’ah for the first time after case of Amr bin Huraith.
  3. None from amongst the Sahaba and Tabayeen that gathered around him contradicted Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari and pointed to any of those alleged eleven timings when Mut’ah was outlawed.

This undeniable historical incident proves beyond any doubt that:

  • Masses of Sahab and Tabayeen were unaware of any of those eleven alleged timings of the prohibition of Mut’ah even 58 years after the death of the Holy Prophet.
  • This means that all those traditions about eleven alleged timings were not in existence at that time and not a single Sahabi or Taba’i in Mecca knew about them and did not advance them as refutation to Ibn Abbas or Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari.

The truth is that these fabricated traditions about eleven different timings of the prohibition of Mut’ah did not exist during the entire first century. Our assertion can be evidenced by the fact that great Tabayee such as Saeed Ibn Jubyr, ‘Ataa bin Abi Riyah, Tawoos bin Kaysaan and other jurists from Mecca and Yemen kept on following the Fatwa of Ibn Abbas until the second century and accordingly believed that Mut’ah was Halal.

Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Patti in his Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3 page 19 makes this comment:

“Ibn Hajr Asqalani cites those Tabayeen that gave Fatwas on Mut’ah being halaal, they were Ibn Jurrayj, Tawoos, ‘Ataa’, the students of Ibn Abbas, Sa’eed bin Jubair and the Fuqaha of Makka.”
 Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3, Page 19

Ibn Tamiyah quotes the comments of Ibn Hazm:

“Among the Successors of the Companions, Tawoos, Sa’eed bin Jubair, ‘Ataa’, and the rest of the Makkan jurists believed in its permissibility.”
Ibn Tamiyah al-Harrani, al-Muntaqaa min Akhbaar al-Mustafa, edited by Muhammad Hamid al-Faqqi, 2 volumes, Cairo: al-Maktabat al-Tijariyya, 1931 edition, volume 2, page 520

These students of Ibn ‘Abbas were all given a very high rank by the Sunni ‘ulama. We shall present some brief facts about these great individuals.

Tawoos bin Kaysaan:

Died in 106 hijrah, Tawoos narrates 85 traditions in Sahih Bukhari and 78 in Sahih Muslim.

Sa’eed bin Jubair:

Died in 94 or 95 hijrah. Sa’eed narrates 147 traditions in Sahih Bukhari and 78 in Sahih Muslim.

‘Ataa bin Abi Riyah:

Died in 114 or 115 hijrah. ‘Ataa narrates over 100 traditions in each of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

None of these great Tabayeen, Imams and Jurists of Mecca and Yemen were aware of any of those eleven alleged timings relating to the the prohibition of Mut’ah, otherwise they would have surely given preference to the Hadith of Holy Prophet over everything else and would have accepted it. This again shows that referring to Mut’ah being banned on elevem different ocacsions didn’t exist during the first century, rather they were fabricated much later.

Analyzing the claim that Mut’ah was made haraam at Khaibar

It has been vastly claimed by our opponents that Mut’ah was made haram at Khaibar. In Sahih Muslim (Book 008, Number 3266) there is repetition of this tradition about Khaibar but actually it is only one hadith from Ali Ibn Abi Talib wherein he is telling Ibn Abbas that the Holy Prophet(s) prohibited Mut’ah at Khaibar. Our opponents have also relied upon the very wrodings attributed to Ali bin Abi Talib. Let us begin with an author, who audaciously goes by the name of Abu Sufyan (one of the greatest enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt), writes in his masterpiece ‘The Shi’a Practice of Forbidden Temporary Marriage’:

In the days before the battle of Khayber the Prophet Muhammad (s) permitted the use of temporary marriage. Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa’ (ra): ‘In the year of Autas, Allah’s Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but he prohibited it afterwards.” {Sahih Muslim} Unfortunately the Shi’ah had conveniently forgotten the part where it was forbidden, and have fabricated many lies trying to justify this clear haram act…. Insha-Allah firstly I will quote just some of the hadeeth clearly stating that this form of marriage is haram.Narrated ‘Ali (ra): Allah’s Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khayber.” {Sahih Muslim & Sahih Bukhari} Narrated ‘Ali (ra): At the battle of Khayber, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (i.e. Mu’ta) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.” {Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ahmad, An-Nasa’i, At-Termidhi and Ibn Majah have all collected it} …Anyone with the right mind can see that temporary marriage is clearly forbidden, but again the shia have rejected all Hadeeth in this matter and still continue to follow their desires, even if it is zina (fornication, adultury etc.). “.

The article Zawaj al Mut’ah also attests:

In the history of Islam, The Prophet (saws) allowed Mut’aha a twice in his lifetime. The first time the Prophet (saws) allowed it for three days, at the war of Khaiber, and after three days it was made Haram . Once Ali argued with a man who believed in Mut’aha and told him that the Prophet (saws) made Mut’aha and the meat of donkey Haram on the day of Khaiber (Bukhari vol. 7, pg. 287 and vol. 4 pg. 134).”.

In ‘The unlawfulness of Mut’ah’ – Hanafi author Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi also decided to mock the Shi’a by citing the very tradition attributed to Maula Ali (as) in Bukhari:

It is very strange that the sect which believes in the lawfulness of Mut’ah-despite its claim to love and obey Sayyidina Ali ibn Abu Talib (karramallahu wajhahu)-elects to oppose no less a person that him on this particular issue.

The author of ‘Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah) & Its Illegitimacy in Islam’ also alleges that Imam Ali (as) narrated that Mut’ah was haraam at Khayber:

Imam Muslim has narrated that according to Mohammad Bin ‘Abdullah Bin Numayr who said: “My father had narrated to us according to ‘Ubaidullah according to Ibn Shahãb according to Alhassan and ‘Abdullah the sons of Mohammad Bin ‘Ali according to their father according to ‘Ali (r.a.a.) that he heard Ibn ‘Abbas (r.a.a.) being lenient towards temporary marriage, so he said, ‘wait Ibn ‘Abbas, the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it on the day of Khaybar when he also prohibited the meat of domestic camels.’ “

Reply One

To begin with, for the Ahl as-Sunnah to cite the words of Imam Ali (as) from Sahih Bukhari in order to convince the Shi’a is indeed very stupid. It goes against the rules of Sunni / Shi’a polemics. It’s like a Christian seeking to mock Muslims for rejecting the divinity of Christ by citing the Bible as their evidence! We do not accept Bukhari because of the lies he perpetuated against the Prophet (s) and his family; we reference it because Sunnis accept it, not because we accept it ourselves. Therefore, when enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) present arguments from a work that we already consider being rife with forgeries and lies, it is of no interest to us.

Reply Two – History proves that this tradition is fabricated

History is a very essential tool to prove the authenticity of such fabricated Hadiths and in the case of this particular tradition, history proves without any doubt that this was falsely attributed to Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Please note the following facts about this tradition, which will help us to understand why it is an out and out fabrication:

  1. This tradition claims that Ali CLEARLY forbade Ibn Abbas from Mut’ah and told him that it was made Haram by Holy Prophet.
  2. Contrary to this other authentic Sunni traditions prove that Ibn Abbas continued to issue fatwas in favor of Mut’ah until the end of his life when even whilst effected by blindness, that courted the mockery of Ibn Zubair calling him blind both physically and in terms of knowledge.
  3. Ibn Abbas lived many years after death of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as). If Ali Ibn Abi Talib forbade Mut’ah to Ibn Abbas, why did he continue to issue fatwas on the permissibility of Mutah until his dying days?
    [Note: Sunni conjecture is this that Ibn Abbas was unaware that Prophet made Mut'ah Haram, he therefore continued issuing fatwa in its favor. Amazingly by quoting this hadith, the Ahle Sunnah are themselves contradicting their conjecture, as this hadith evidences that the ignorance of Ibn Abbas was lifted by Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as). Where does this leave such absurd conjecture?]
  4. Not only did Ibn Abbas issued fatwa in favor of Mut’ah until his dying days, but after him the greatest of Tabayeen such as Atta, Tawus and all other students of Ibn Abbas, continued issuing fatwa in favor of Mut’ah. Had this tradition been authentic (i.e. not fabricated) then there would have been no reason for Ibn Abbas or his students to continue issuing fatwa in favor of Mut’ah.

Please see above the authentic traditions about Ibn Abbas recorded in Sahih Muslim and other books wherein till the end of his life he gave Fatwa that Mut’ah was Halal and fought Ibn Zubayr over it, and how great Tabayeen who were his students and jurists from Mecca and Yemen kept on issuing fatwas that Mut’ah was Halal.

During the very public Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubayr dispute, not a single Sahabi or Taba’i (including Ibn Zubayr) who cited this Khaibar tradition as proof against Ibn Abbas, or even his mother Asma bint Abi Bakr or Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari.
This historical incident alone is enough to prove that this tradition had been fabricated long after this incident.

Reply Three – Sunni and Shia traditions confirm that Imam Ali (as) believed that Mut’ah was halaal

We should also point out that the idea that Imam Ali (as) believed that Mut’ah was haram, as the Khayber hadeeth suggests, contradicts basic facts of history. The following hadeeth is present in important Sunni commentaries:

Narrated Abdulrazaq and Abu Dawoud in (book) Nasikh and narrated ibn Jareer from al-Hakam that he was asked whether the verse on Mut’ah has been abrogated, he said: “No, Ali (ra) said that if it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrongdoer).” 
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 486

Not only in Sunni source but Shia texts also confirm the same as we read the following in Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 250:

سمعت ابا جعفر عليه السلام يقول: كان علي عليه السلام يقول: لولا ما سبقني إليه بني الخطاب ما زنى إلا شقي

Abu Jaffar (as) narrated that Ali (as) used to say: ‘If the son of Khatab did not prohibit it, no one would perform fornication except the wretched’.
Hadi Najafi said in Maouwsuat Ahadith Ahlulbayt, Volume 5 page 396: ‘The chain is reliable’.

We see that Maula Ali (as) held Umar personally liable for all future acts of Zina, hence any narration where Imam Ali (as) said that Mut’ah is haram is to be discarded. The reality is Ibn Abbas was following Ali Ibn Abi Talib completely in this regards. It is narrated in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 41 Ayat Mut’ah:

Ibn Abbas said: “Mut’ah was blessing of Allah upon the Ummah of Muhammad and had Umar not prohibited it, no one would perform fornication except the wretched’.
 Tafseer Dur e Manthur , Surah Nisa verse 24

Here is the admission of Ibn Abbas that after getting the opinion of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, he always followed him:

وقال سعيد بن جبير كان بن عباس يقول إذا جاءنا الثبت عن علي لم نعدل به

Ibn Abbas said: ‘When we had got any opinion from Ali Ibn Abi Talib, then we never differed from that opinion.’
Al-Isaba by Ibn Hajar, volume 4 page 568

The tradition about the prohibition of Mut’ah at Khaibar by Ali Ibn Abi Talib is therefore only a fabrication and Ibn Abbas never knew about it and thus never followed it. Instead of this, he followed the real tradition of Ali Ibn Abi Talib wherein he declared that had Umar ibn Khattab not prohibited Mut’ah at his own behest, none would have comitted fornication except the wretched one.

Reply Four – The Sunni scholars have themselves rejected the notion that Mut’ah was made haraam at Khayber

Additionally, we also see that the Sunni scholars have rejected the narration of Bukhari and Muslim wherein Mut’ah was banned on the Day of Khayber. We read in Umdatul Qari, Volume 8 page 311:

وقال ابن عبد البر وذكر النهي عن المتعة يوم خيبر غلط وقال السهيلي النهي عن المتعة يوم خيبر لا يعرفه أحد من أهل السير ورواة الأثر

Ibn Abdulbar said: ‘The prohibition of Mutah on the day of Khaybar is wrong’. al-Sohailli said: ‘On the prohibition of Mutah on the day of Khaybar, none from amongst the historians and narrators are aware of it.’

We read Abu Umar’s opinion on the prohibition of Mut’ah at Khayber in different Sunni books:

“This is absolutely wrong. Temporary marriage never took place in Khayber.”
1.Sharh al-Mawahib al-Luduniyah by Zarqani, Volume 2 page 239
2. Sharh Muwatta, Volume 2 page 24

In various Sunni books, Abu Awaanah is quoted as writing in his Sahih:

وقال أبو عوانة في صحيحه سمعت أهل العلم يقولون : معنى حديث علي أنه نهى يوم خيبر عن لحوم الحمر ، وأما المتعة فسكت عنها

“I have heard scholars saying that the tradition related by Ali only talked of the prohibition on eating the meat of domestic asses and there was no mention of Mut’ah, and the tradition is silent on that matter”.
1. Fatah ul Bari, Volume 9 page 145
2. Nail al Autaar, Volume 6 page 146
3. Sunan Baihaqi, Volume 7 pageg 201
4. Subul Islam, Volume 4 page 485
5. Zaad al Maad Volume 1 page 443

Do the present day Nawasib consider themselves more knowledge than these scholars?

Reply Five – Why did a plethora of Sahaba narrate the prohibition on eating donkey flesh but not a prohibiton on Mut’ah at Khayber?

In all the traditions recorded by Bukhari in chapter 155 of Maghazi concerning the events in Khayber, only one speaks about the prohibition on Mut’ah, that attributed to Ali (as) the remainder narrations refer to a prohibition on eating domestic donkeys, but make no reference to a prohibition on Mut’ah. These narrations are:

  • Tradition No.668-669, from Anas bin Malik (only domestic asses is mentioned).
  • Traditions No.684, 68e, 687, from Ibn Omar (the prohibition of the meat of domestic asses and garlic IS mentioned)
  • Tradition No.688, from Jabir bin Abdullahi (only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned).
  • Traditions No.689 and 690, from Ibn Aufa (only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned).
  • Tradition No. 693, from Bara ‘a bin Azib ( only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned).
  • Tradition No. 694 from Ibn Abbas (only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned).
  • In Sahih Muslim- Tradition No.4440, only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned.
  • Tradition No.4765, from Abu Tha’laba (only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned).
  • Traditions No.4768 & 4769, from Abu Aufa (domestic asses is mentioned).
  • Traditions No.4770, 4771, 4772, 4773, from Adi Ibn Thabit , from Bara’ and Abdullah bin Aufa, (only domestic later asses is mentioned).
  • Traditions No. 4774, 4775, from Salma bin Akwa’ and Ibn Abbas ( only domestic asses is mentioned).
  • Tradition No.4776, from Yazid bin Ubaid (only domestic asses is mentioned).
  • In Sunan Nisai- vol.7 pg. 205, there are nine traditions and all except one, say that on the Day of Khayber only the flesh of domestic asses was prohibited.

We would appeal to those with brains to use some logic, Rasulullah (a) makes an open declaration at Khayber that eating donkey flesh and contracting Mut’ah is haraam. How is it that all these Sahaba heard about domestic asses but became deaf about Mut’ah?

Please note Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari both were also present at Khaibar and they didn’t know about any such prohibition at Khaibar even 58 years after the death of the Prophet (s) and took this ignorance to their graves!

Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari:

Jabi narrated following traditions about a prohibtion on eating the meat of domestic asses at Khayber.

  1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 530
  2. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7 Book 67, Number 429
  3. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7 Book 67, Number 433
  4. Sahih Muslim, Book 021, Number 4779
  5. Sahih Muslim, Book 021, Number 4780

Jabir bin Abdullah reports: “ We ate during the time of Khaibar the (flesh) of horses and of wild asses, but Allah’s Messenger prohibited us (to eat) the flesh of domestic asses.

How come Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari was aware of the prohibtion of domestic asses at Khaybar but knew nothing about any such prohibition of Mut’ah even 58 years after the death of Rasool Allah (saw)?

Please note that this tradition is reported by the Tabayee nsmely Ibn Juraij from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari. Ibn Juarij was a great Alim and Jurist Taba’i who himself beleived strongly that Mut’ah was Halal (see next chapted for details about Ibn Juraij).

Salama bin al-Akwa:

This Sahabi also believed that Mut’ah remained Halal until the Prophet (s) died. A detailed account about this Sahabi appears later in this chapter. It is worth noting that this Sahabi was also present at Khaybar and was well informed of the oprhibition on eating donkey meat at Khaybar, but knew absolutely nothing about any prohibition on Mut’ah on the same day. We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 021, Number 4775:

Salama b. Akwa’ reported: We went to Khaibar with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). Then Allah granted (us) victory over them. On that very evening of the day when they had been granted victory, they lit many fires. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: What are those fires and what for those have been lit? They said: (These have been lit) for (cooking) the flesh. Thereupon he said: Of what flesh? They said: For the flesh of the domestic asses. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace bo upon him) said: Throw that away and break them (the earthen pots in which the fiesa was being cooked).

Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

Abdullah Ibn Abbas was also present at Khaybar. He was fully aware the eating donket meat had been oulawed at Khaybar but knew nothing about Mut’ah being outlawed at Khaybar.

We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 021, Number 4774:

Ibn Abbas reports:
I do not know whether the Prophet forbade the eating of donkey-meat (temporarily) because they were the beasts of burden for the people, and he disliked that their means of transportation should be lost, or he forbade it on the day of Khaibar permanently.

Note: All Sahaba knew very well that the Prophet (s) prohibited eating the meat of domestic asses at Khaybar, but there was a dispute among them about the REASON as to why it was forbidden. Some Sahaba:

  1. thought it was made forbidden as Khums money was not paid before cooking them.
  2. were of the view it had been temporarily forbidden while Rasool (s) wanted those donkeys for transportation of goods which they got as war booty at Khaibar.
  3. the eating of domestic asses had been permanenlty banned as they ate dirty things.

Please see fatwa of Deoband on this issue on the following website wherein they have mentioned all these different opinions:
 www.darululoom-deoband.com(Cached)

Saeed Ibn Jubayr:

The following Narration of Abdullah Ibn Abu Aufa is important while it speaks about

  1. Khums
  2. Saeed Ibn Jubayr (Tabayee) narrated it from Ibn Abu Aufa and this who considered Domestic Asses Haram but still he was straunch supporter of Mut’ah-ul-Nisa.

We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 383:

Saeed Ibn Jubayr narrates from Abdullah Ibn Aufa:

We were afflicted with hunger during the besiege of Khaibar, and when it was the day of (the battle of) Khaibar, we slaughtered the donkeys and when the pots got boiling (with their meat). Allah’s Apostle made an announcement that all the pots should be upset and that nobody should eat anything of the meat of the donkeys. We thought that the Prophet prohibited that because the Khumus had not been taken out of the booty (i.e. donkeys) ; other people said, “He prohibited eating them for ever.” The sub-narrator added, “I asked Said bin Jubair who said, ‘He has made the eating of donkeys’ meat illegal for ever.”

This Saeed bin Jubayr was a great Taba’i and Imam and we will read in detail about him in the next chapter wherein we shall evidence that he was a staunch supporter of Mut’ah-ul-Nisa.

Reply Six: Mut’ah or Nikah was not permitted with Ahle Kittab Women at that time

It is very important to understand that there was no Muslim woman present at Khaybar, and Mutah or Nikah was not permitted with Ahle Kitab women until after Khaybar. This permission of Nikah/Mutah with Ahle Kitab women was granted later in Surah Ma’idah.

الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَّكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلُّ لَّهُمْ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ

[Shakir 5:5] This day (all) the good things are allowed to you; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste from among the believing women and the chaste from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you) ; when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is of no account, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

Ibn Kathir al-Damishqi writes about time of revelation of this Surah Ma’idah:

At-Tirmidhi recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said, “The last Surahs to be revealed were Surat Al-Ma’idah and Surat Al-Fath (chapter 48).”Al-Hakim collected a narration similar to that of At-Tirmidhi in his Mustadrak, and he said, “It is Sahih according to the criteria of the Two Shaykhs and they did not record it.” Al-Hakim narrated that Jubayr bin Nufayr said, “I performed Hajj once and visited `A’ishah and she said to me, `O Jubayr! Do you read (or memorize) Al-Ma’idah ‘ I answered `Yes.’ She said, `It was the last Surah to be revealed. Therefore, whatever permissible matters you find in it, then consider (treat) them permissible. And whatever impermissible matters you find in it, then consider (treat) them impermissible.”’ Al-Hakim said, “It is Sahih according to the criteria of the Two Shaykhs and they did not record it. ”

Ibn Qayyim says in Zaad al Maad, Volume 3 page 183:

وأيضا : فإن خيبر لم يكن فيها مسلمات وإنما كن يهوديات وإباحة نساء أهل الكتاب لم تكن ثبتت بعد إنما أبحن بعد ذلك في سورة المائدة بقوله ۔۔۔

“In Khayber there were no Muslim women but there were Jewish women and marriage with Ahl’ul Kitab (Jews & Christians) wasn’t permissible during that time. The permission came later on in Surah Mai’da…Muslims were not interested in marrying the women of their enemies before the victory. And after the victory, these women became captives and became slave women to the Muslims”

The fools who fabricated the tradition of the prohibition of Mut’ah at Khaybar did not know that their lie would be exposed in this way.

Reply Seven: The Incidents which happened on Day of Khaybar

It should be kept in mind that during the battle of Khaybar:

  • Muslims were busy in besieging the Jewish fortress.
  • When victory came they busied theselves with collecting booty.
  • The whole Muslim Army was hungry. They didn’t even wait to give away the Khums money of domestic asses and slaughtered them and cooked the food.
  • When the Prophet (s) came to know about the cooking of domestic asses, he (s) ordered them to throw out the cooked food made up of donkey meat.
  • These pots were washed out and cooking had to commence from the start.
  • Khaybar was one of the most busiest day for Muslims.

Questions:

With these facts in mind:

  1. at what point did Muslims take the time out to engage in Mut’ah Marriage?
    There were no women close proximity of the Muslim army. Any type of Nikah/Mutah was impossible with the women of Khayber as the Shar’iah at that time have prohibited marital relations with the people of the book.
    Rasool Allah (s) was likewise busy during the conquest of Khaybar.
    The Jews eventually surrendered and conceded defeat, the Prophet (s) accordingly agreed conditions of surrender with the deafeated Jews.
    It is against the Wisdom of Allah (swt) to prohibit a non related thing (i.e. Mut’ah with women) at that very important time of day when Rasool (saw) & the Muslims were pre-occupied with Jews and the spoils of war etc.
  2. There were over 16 Sahaba that recorded the prohibition on eating donkey meat (including two great Sahaba Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari). If Rasool Allah (s) prohibited Mut’ah at Khaybar, why did not the men remain ignorant of this reality, even 58 years after the death of the Prophet (s)?

Analyzing the claim that Mut’ah was made haraam at the time of the conquest of Makka

It is alleged that Sabra and one of his relatives went out with the Prophet (s) and they were allowed to contract temporary marriages. They both had cloaks although Sabra’s was old. Despite this, the woman accepted Sabra’s cloak as dower because he was more handsome than his relative. Later the Messenger of Allah (s) supposedly forbade Mut’ah. Abu Ruqqaya quoted the hadeeth as follows:

According to Sabra Bin Ma’had AlJuhany who said: I was with my cousin when we passed by a woman who liked my youth and a robe which my companion had. So she offered temporary marriage with the robe as the dowry. I married her and spent the night with her. In the next morning, I went to the mosque and heard the Messenger of Allah saying: ‘O people, I had permitted you temporary marriage before, whoever of you has any part in it currently must part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them, as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of resurrection.’ ” [narrated by Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, and Darimi]

Reply One: Why this tradition of Mecca not quoted to silence Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari?

We already saw above (with a plethora of Sahih Sunni Hadiths) that Sahaba and Sahabiat remained ignorant of any prohibition on Mut’ah at Mecca and thus they kept on doing Mut’ah (Zina, as per Nasibi theory) until the middle of Umar’s era. Then Umar personally forbade it. Despite this many Sahaba like Abdullah Ibn Abbas kept on issuing edicts that Mut’ah was Halal and never revoked this stance until his death in 68 Hijri i.e. more than half a century after death of Rasool (s). Ibn Abbas fought against Ibn Zubayr over this matter.

Despite this very public debate watched over by a sizeable number of Sahaba and Tabayeen in Meccan, not a single one of them quoted this tradition as a riposte to Ibn Abbas that would have proved that Rasool (saw) made Mut’ah Halal. No, instead of presenting any such tradition, the Sahaba and Tabaeen went to Asma bint-e-Abi Bakr en masse and she likewise corroborated the opinion of Ibn Abbas. This large body of Sahaba and Tabaeen then gathered around Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari and he also testified that Ibn Abbas was correct and that Umar Ibn Khattab prohibited Mut’ah after the incident of ‘Amr bin Huraith (Sahih Muslim).

This historical event is enough to prove that this tradition of Mecca was fabricated much later, had it been in existence at that time Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari would have never concurred with the view of Ibn Abbas, and would have quoted the prohibiton at Mecca, rather than Umar banning it following the incident of ‘Amr bin Huraith.

Reply Two: If Mut’ah had already been banned ‘forever’ at Khaybar (6th Hijri), then how did it become Halal at Mecca (7th -8th Hijri)?

We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3267:

‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) said to Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the Day of Khaibar forbade forever the contracting of temporary marriage and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

We appeal to justice, if Mut’ah was permanenty banned at Khaybar why was it one again Halal during the victory of Mecca?

Reply Three: The revelation of the verse of Mut’ah at Hunain/Autas (9th Hijri) destroys the notion of a prohibition during the victory of Mecca (8th Hijri)

We are quoting directly from the great Sunni scholar al Hafiz Jalaludeen Suyuti who writes in his book ‘Lubab al-Nuqool, fi Asbab al-Nuzul’ page 55:

روى مسلم وأبو داود والترمذي والنسائي عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال أصبنا سبايا من سبي أوطاس لهن أزواج فكرهنا أن نقع عليهن ولهن أزواج فسألنا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فنزلت والمحصنات من النساء إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم يقول إلا ما أفاء الله عليكم فاستحللنا بها فروجهن

“Muslim, Abu Daud, Tirmidhi, and Nasai narrate from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) that he said: we have captive married women during Awtas (battle), thus we disliked to have sexual intercourse with them as long they were married, then we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace to upon him), Then its been revealed regarding that:” And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” Married women that have come from War Booty. We then deemed it halaal to take such women.

وأخرج الطبراني عن ابن عبا س قال نزلت يوم حنين لما فتح الله حنينا أصاب المسلمين نساء من نساء أهل الكتاب لهن أزواج وكان الرجل إذا أراد أن يأتي المرأة قالت إن لي زوجا فسئل صلى الله علية وسلم عن ذلك فأنزل الله والمحصنات من النساء الآية

Tabrani narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: the verse descended at Hunayn, as after the victory of Hunayn, Muslims got hold of many married female captives from Ahlul-Kitab (people of the Book) but whenever one tried to approach them, they said: ‘We already have husbands’ thus people referred the matter to Rasulullah (s) and it was at that time that this verse descended”.

In the light of the testimonies of the two Sahaba we just read, when we read the complete verse:

Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except the forbidden women) the rest are lawful unto you to seek them with gifts from your property (i.e., dowry), provided that you desire protection (from sin), not fornication. So for whatever you have had of pleasure (Istamta’tum) with them by the contract, give unto them their appointed wages as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you both agree (in extending the contract) after fulfilling the (first) duty. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

we come to know that it was not revealed ‘exclusively’ about the permissibility of Mut’ah rather this was mentioned as an addendum but the main reason for which it was revealed was:

- to prohibit marrying married women in alien states
- to permit the marriage with other women
- in this connection, the aspect of Mut’ah was also revealed according to which

Muslims were asked to pay the stipulated dowries to the women they performed Mut’ah with and if the couple mutually agreed on something afterwards having stipulated as such, there would be no blame on them.

Now no one can advance the notion that in the above cited testimonies of the Sahaba, Autas means the victory of Makka, the reason being that there was no concept of ‘women of the people of the book’ and the captives during the victory of Makka, thus, it should be accepted that the incident is about an occasion ‘after’ the victory of Makka. Moreover, the permissibility of Mut’ah being mentioned by Allah in the aforesaid verse negates any alleged concept according to which Mut’ah had been made Haram during the events of Khayber and the victory of Makka, the events that had taken place ‘before’ the descent of the verse. Moreover, it is not that the verse is exclusively about the permissibility of Mut’ah which again proves that Mut’ah was neither Haram nor Mubah after it, rather the verse is presenting Mut’ah as an already permissible thing [by default] and ‘only’ an aspect of Ahkaam pertaining to Mu’tah was mentioned in this verse. Verily, the Nass of the Quran proves that all those traditions that talk about the prohibition of Mut’ah that too on different contradictory occasions are worthless pieces of paper.

Please also remember that:

  1. Both these Sahaba Abu Saeed Khudri and Ibn Abbas (who mentioned above that the verse 24 of Surah Nis’a was revealed at Hunain) also believed that it’s next part was revealed about Mut’ah al-Nisa.
  2. Interesting Abu Saeed Khudri also believed strongly that Mut’ah was Halal and it was made Haram by Umar Ibn Khattab after the incident of ‘Amr bin Huraith.

Badruddin al-Aini records the following testimony of the famed Sahabi Abu Saeed Khudri in Umada tul Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 17 page 246:

Abu Saeed Khudri amd Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: ‘We contracted temporary marriage up until the (first) half of the Umar’s [ra] caliphate until he forbade it in the case of Amr Bin Huraith’.

  • And it is Taba’i Qatadah (who is Imam among Tabayeen and very knowledgeable) who is narrating this tradition of Autas from Abu Saeed Khudri in above mentioned tradition (Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, Timidhi, Nisai). But very interesting fact is this that this same Qatadah also believed that 2nd part of this Verse was revealed about Mut’ah marriage. We read in Tafseer Tabari:
    حَدَّثَنَا اِبْن بَشَّار , قَالَ : ثنا عَبْد الْأَعْلَى , قَالَ : ثنا سَعِيد , عَنْ قَتَادَة , قَالَ : فِي قِرَاءَة أُبَيّ بْن كَعْب : ” فَمَا اِسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ إِلَى أَجَل مُسَمًّى

    Here this same Tabaayee Qatadah is narrating about this 2nd part of this same verse that Sahabi Ubai bin Ka’ab used to recite it with extra words of ’till prescribed time’.

  • And about Ibn Abbas (who has narrated above that this verse was revealed at Hunain), we already know how strongly he believed that 2nd part of this same verse was about Mut’ah and he always recited it with extra words of ’till prescribed time’.

Reply Four – Ibn Qayyim testified that a group of Sunni scholars rejected the claim that Mut’ah was made haraam at the victory of Makka

Ibn al Qayyim states in Zaad al Maad, Volume 3 page 403:

“It has been said that there are two groups regarding it: a group that says Umar was the one who prohibited it and Allah’s messenger had already ordered us to follow the path of the guided Caliphs, thus this group didn’t accept the authenticity of Subra bin Mabad’s tradition regarding the prohibition of Mut’ah during the year of (Mecca’s) conquest because it was narrated by Abdulmalik bin al-Rabee bin Sabra from his father from his grand father, and he was criticized by Ibn Moin and despite its necessity Bukhari did not place this tradition in his Sahih (book) and it is a rule of Islamic rules, that had he (Bukhari) deemed it authentic he would not have hesitated to record it”

Reply Five – Was Sabra the only person to have heard the prohibition during the victory at Makka?

It is also strange that amongst all the multitude of companions only Sabra saw the Prophet (s) standing between the ‘pillar and the gate’ (Sahih Muslim Book of Nikah 008, Number 3256) declaring the prohibition of Mut’ah. Were all the others deaf? Had they ALL gone to the toilet at the same time? Or did they intentionally cover this hadith up as they enjoyed practicing what today’s Nasibi call prostitution?

Reply Six – The chain is weak

Finally, we should point out that the chain of narration contains Omara bin Ghazia who has been declared weak by Ibn Hazm as recorded in Tahdib al-Tahdib, Volume 7 page 422.

Reply Seven – The traditions are replete with contradictions

Finally, the contradictions that are inherent in the tradition itself casts doubt on its veracity:

  • Kanz al Ummal, Volume 8 page 295 has three separate narrations from Sabra concerning the prohibition on Mut’ah, the first says Rasulullah (s) banned Mut’ah it at Khayber, the second says it was banned during the Victory of Makka, the third says that it was banned at the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage. We leave it for those with open minds to think about this, one book, one narrator, and three different narrations about when Mut’ah was abrogated!
  • Here are few Sahih Sunni traditions with different chains, from this same Sabra wherein he claims that they practiced Mut’ah at farewell prilgrimage and then it was made Haram.
    We have already provided the references above.
  • In Sahih Muslim No.3253, the quotation reads “the permission (to make Mut’ah) was for 15 days after entering Mecca” while in Sahih Muslim 3257, the quotation reads, ”as we entered Mecca”.
  • In Sunan Ibn Maja, chapter 44 tradition No.1962 the tradition records that the prohibition occurred the “next day” after (Sabra) contracted Mut’ah. While in Muslim 3258 it says that it was made haram after three nights.
  • In Muslim 3253, it is recorded that Sabra and his cousin were the ones who went out to seek a woman with a view to contracting Mut’ah. Sabra belongs to the clan of Jahina which belongs to Qatha’ah tribe. However, in Muslim tradition No.3258 Sabra is reported to have said “So I and a friend of mine from Bani Sulaim went out…” .
  • In Muslim tradition No.3253, we understand that it is Sabra who made Mut’ah with the woman after giving his cloak as a dower. However in Musnad Ahmad, Volume 3 page 405, we are told that Sabra was the ugly one with the new cloak and hence the woman contracted Mut’ah with his cousin despite his old cloak as he was handsome.

No rational man would believe that such contradictory traditions negate a verdict contained in the Qur’an.

Analyzing the claim that Mut’ah was made haraam at the time of Autas(/Hunain)

Another so called Sahih hadith which opponents of Mutah present is following:

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3251:

Iyas b. Salama reported on the authority of his father (Salama bin al-Akw’a) that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas 1847 and then forbade it.

Reply One:

Once again opponents have to answer the following two questions:

  1. Why were the Sahaba are practicing Mut’ah at Hunain (9th Hijri) when according to your own so called Sahih Hadiths Mut’ah had alread been banned ‘forever’ until the day of Resurrection thrice at Umratul Qadha, Khaybar and the victory of Mecca?
  2. Why were the masses of Sahaba and Tabayeen ignorant of the prohibition at Autas even 58 years after the death of Rasool Allah (s)?

Reply Two: The Sahabi Salama bin al-Akwa believed that Mut’ah was never prohibited by Rasool (s)

In next chapter you will read the traditions in detail wherein Umar Ibn Khattab banned Mut’ah, and threatened to stone those that entered intoi such a contract. Sunni Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Harun al-Rawyani (d. 307 H) has recorded an account in his authority work Musnad al-Rawyani regarding the Sahabi Salama bin al-Umri bin al-Akwa wherein whilst discussing Mut’ah he said:

Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) allowed it and we used to perform it until he passed away, Allah didn’t reveal anything to abrogate it, furthermore Allah’s Messenger didn’t prohibit us’.

The efforts of the Sunni scholars to justify the contradictions

Imam Nawawi in Sharh Muslim, Volume 1 page 450 [Printed Delhi] quotes the comments of Qadhi Iyad:

“Muslim narrated from Muslama bin Akwa that Mut’ah was Mubah at Autas while Sabra’s tradition stated that it was Mubah at the time of the victory of Makka, but both of these are the same, it was then made Haram. Ali [r]‘s narration mention its prohibition at Khayber which was prior to the victory of Makka. Apart from Muslim, others narrated from Ali that it was prohibited by Prophet (s) at the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage, this was said by Isaac bin Rashid but no one has agreed with this, this was a mistake. Imam Malik narrated from Ali, so did Sufiyan bin Uyaina, Umrah and Yunsu etc from Zuhri but it also mention the day of Khayber. Similarly, Muslim narrated from individuals through Zuhri and that is Sahih. Abu Daud narrated from Rabi bin Sabra who narrated from his father Sabrah ibn Ma’bad al-Juhani that Mut’ah was Mubah at the time of the Final Pilgrimage and was then made Haraam until the day of Judgment. Hasan Basri said that Mut’ah was never Halaal, save at Umrah tul-Qadha, this was also narrated by Sabrah ibn Ma’bad al-Juhani. The narration by Sabra which is in Muslim does not mention any specific time but the narrations of Muhammad bin Saeed, Isaac bin Ibraheem and Yahya bin Yahya refer to the victory of Makka. Scholars asserting Mut’ah was made Mubah at the Final Hajj are wrong, as there was no need for its practice at that time nor were the Sahaba without women, in fact, women accompanied many of the Sahaba, thus the Sahih opinion is that on this occasion, only the prohibition took place as mentioned in various tradition is that prohibition was announced there as there was a large gathering, and the words could have spread easily to those who were absent by those who were there, moreover the religion and Shari’ah was then being completed, the regulations covering various other things pertaining to Halal and Haram were mentioned on that day, Mut’ah was was likewise declared Haraam ad infinitum.

Qadi Iyad has stated that it is quite possible that the prohibition of Mut’ah that was made at Khayber, and those at Umrah tul-Qadha, the victory of Makka and Autas ratified the actual prohibition that took place at Khayber because the narration relating to the prohibition at Khayber is indisputably Sahih and has been narrated by Thuqat and reliable people but the account narrated by Sufiyan says that the Prophet outlawed Mut’ah and the donkey flesh on the day of Khayber. Scholars have said that this statement is comprised of two parts, first the prohibition of Mut’ah which was mentioned irrespective of time whilst the prohibition on donkey flesh occurred on the day of Khayber…Qadi Iyad has said that this is the best opinion….

Now the question arises, if Mut’ah was permanently prohibited at Khayber, why was it made Mubah at Umrah tul-Qadha, Victory of Makka and Autas? It can be said that having been made Haraam, it was then made Mubah as per necessity by the Prophet (s) and then made Haraam forever. Thus, a picture emerges wherein the Prophet (s) prohibited it at Khayber, then at Umrah tul-Qadha, and then made it Mubah during the victory of Makkah as per necessity, and then on the same day as the victory of Makkah made Haram forever. This case will render the narrations which say that its permission was given at the Farewell Pligrimage, Saaqit because they are narrated by Sabra whilst people more reliable than Sabra have narrated that it was made Mubah at the victory of Makkah., and whatever happened at the Farewell Pilgrimage was nothing but a prohibition, hence only those narrative elements should be accepted wherein the majority of the narrators and Sahaba agree i.e. its prohibition took place on the day of the victory of Makkah whilst the prohibition at the Farewell Pilgrimage was a mere ratification of the previous prohibition.

As for the claim of Hasan al Basri, that the prohibition of Mut’ah was never made either before or after Umrah tul-Qadha but only at the Umrah tul-Qadha, to refute this, the reliable traditions which mention that the prohibition was made on the day of Khayber shall suffice, which took place before Umrah tul-Qadha, as shall suffice the traditions which mention Mut’ah being made Mubah at the victory of Makkah and Autas, that happened after Umrah tul-Qadha. And then this tradition is narrated by Sabrah Jahni and he is also the narrator of other traditions and those traditions are Sahih, such traditions shall be abandoned. And some scholars have commented that Mut’ah was made Mubah twice and Haraam twice”.

After this lengthy quote of Qadi Iyad, Nawawi seeks to set out his own view:

“The authoritative statement and the Sahih view in our eyes is that both the prohibition and permissibility of Mut’ah took place twice. It was Halaal before Khayber but was prohibited on the Day of Khayber. Then, at the time of the victory which is also known as Autas because both are successive, it was deemed Mubah, three days later it was made Haraam forever, and its ratification remained there. It is incorrect to state that it was only allowed up until Khayber and was then made Haram forever on the day of Khayber and what happened on the day of victory of Makkah was a mere ratification, like what Mazari and Qadi have stated. This is because the narrations recorded by Muslim, unequivocally prove that Mut’ah was made Mubah on the day of the victory of Makkah. Thus it is not permissible to make such traditions Saaqit and there is no difficulty in believing that Mut’ah was made Mubah twice”.

So what we are left with is a quagmire of confusion, where the Sunni ‘ulama have offered all manner of excuse to understand / rationalize the contradictions, namely we are left with:

  • The battle of Autas (Hunayn) – which occurred after the victory of Makka. Narrations referring to the permissibility of Mut’ah at Autas should be understood as referring to the victory of Makka to ensure that no contradictions arise with those traditions which mention the victory of Makka.
  • Traditions pointing to Mut’ah being made Mubah at Tabuk are recorded but shall not be adopted as the narrator’s mistakenly wrote Tabuk instead of writing Khayber.
  • Traditions pointing to Mut’ah being made Mubah and then subsequently Haram at the Farewell Pilgrimage are also recorded in the books but these should also be rejected because the same narrator also said that Mut’ah had been made Mubah and subsequently Haram at the time of the victory of Makka.
  • The narration that Mut’ah was made Mubah at Umrah tul-Qadha is on the authority of Hasan al-Basri as well as by Sabrah Jahni who is also the narrator of traditions mentioning Farewell Pilgrimage and victory of Makkah but since they are in contradiction with the former mentioning Umrah tul-Qadha, the former shall not be accepted.
  • Qadi Iyad advanced the view that the prohibition of Mut’ah was actually made at Khayber and all that happened afterwards was a mere ratification/ reaffirmation.
  • Nawawi opposed the view of Qadi Iyad, pointing out that if Mut’ah was made haraam forever at Khayber, then what are we to do with the traditions on the victory of Makka which unequivocally mentions that Mut’ah was made Mubah on that occasion? Therefore the truth is that Mut’ah was once made Haram at Khayber, then made Mubah at the victory of Makkah and then made Haram for a second time, only on this occasion it was for eternity.

This is not Nawawi’s own research if we analyze Sahih Muslim we come to know that Imam Muslim had already advanced this view as he gave the following citation to the chapter: ‘Chapter on Nikah al-Mut’ah discussing that it was Mubah then was abrogated then again made Mubah and then was once again abrogated and its prohibition is there till Qayamah’. If we do some research we would come to know that prior to Imam Muslim, Imam Shafiyee had already advanced this view as recorded by Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Patee in Tafseer Mazhari, page 572:

“Imam Shaafiyee said: ‘I don’t know of anything in Islam that was Halaal on one occasion, then made Haraam, then made Halaal and then Haraam with the exception of Mut’ah’. Some scholars have said that it was abrogated on three occasions others have said more’.”

The confusion and contradictions are so bewildering (even with the efforts to understand them from the likes of Qadi Iyyad and Nawawi) that Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Qurtubi commented in his Tafsir, Volume 5 page 130:

وقال غيره ممن جمع طرق الاحاديث فيها: إنها تقتضي التحليل والتحريم سبع مرات

Other (scholars) who collected the chains of narrations said: ‘It (Mut’ah) was made Halal and Haram on seven occasions’

Ibn Katheer also made similar comments in his Tafseer of this verse:

“The verse refers to Nikah Mut’ah that was allowed in the beginning of Islam, but was then abrogated. Shafi and a group amongst the Ulema said that it was Mubah twice and abrogated twice. Some say that it was mubah once and then abrogated, so say that it occurred on may occasions”

Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Fatah ul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9 page 133 wrote:

قال السهيلي‏:‏ وقد اختلف في وقت تحريم نكاح المتعة فأغرب ما روي في ذلك رواية من قال في غزوة تبوك، ثم رواية الحسن أن ذلك كان في عمرة القضاء، والمشهور في تحريمها أن ذلك في غزوة الفتح كما أخرجه مسلم من حديث الربيع بن سبرة عن أبيه وفي رواية عن الربيع أخرجها أبو داود أنه كان في حجة الوداع، قال ومن قال من الرواة كان في غزوة أوطاس فهو موافق لمن قال عام الفتح ۔۔۔۔

“Suhaili stated that of the traditions on Nikah Mut’ah that are contradictory, the strangest narration is that it was Haraam at Tabuk. The traditions that comes second says that the prohibition was at Umrah Dhu’l-Qada but the famous view is that it was banned at the time of the victory of Makka as narrated in Muslim by Sabra Juhani. There are also narrations from Sabra in Abu Dawood that it was made haraam at the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage. As for the remaining tradition which talks about the prohibition at Autas, it conflicts with the tradition of the victory of Makka.

From this, it is evident that Mut’ah was abrogated on six occasions, Khayber, Umra tul Qadha, the Victory of Makka, Tabuk, Autas and the Farewell Pilgrimage. Here, only the Hunayn version is left as we also have tradition mentioning Hunayn, but either Sehli failed to recollect it or he left this because its narrator was mistaken or perhaps because Autas and Hunayn are the same.

The Tabuk tradition was narrated from Ishaq bin Rahvia, Ibn Habban from Abu Hurairah. The narration of Hasan al Basri has been recorded by Abdulrazak with the additional words ‘Mut’ah was neither Mubah before Umrah al-Qadha nor after it’ but these addition words are an objectionable mistake on the part of the narrator, namely Umar bin Ubaid who was an unreliable narrator of Hadith whilst Saeed bin Mansoor has recorded this very tradition in Sahih without the said additional part. The narration mentioning the conquest of Makka in Sahih Muslim has acquired an evidential level, as has the narration citing Autas narrated by Salma b. al-Akwa in Sahih Muslim. As for the Final Pilgrimage narration from Sabra Juhani in Sunan abi Dawood. these demonstrate that the only narrations that constitute evidence free from deficiency in a Sahih way are only those mentioning the victory of Makka, The tradition mentioning Khayber whilst Sahih in terms of its chain, has had its meaning subject to interpretation amongst the scholars. But the Umrah al-Qadha tradition does not carry a Sahih chain because it is the Mursal of Hassan al-Basri and all of his Mursal traditions are weak because he would accept Hadith from anyone, even if the tradition was Sahih, it is quite possible to take its meaning as Khayber because both took place in the same year. We are left with the Tabuk narration, Abu Hurrayra stated that the Sahaba practiced Mut’ah on that occasion, it is possible that it was actually done in some period prior to that while only the separation from women took place there or perhaps the prohibition occurred before but Sahaba were unaware of it at the time at thus they kept practicing it, that is why the prohibition was in an acerbic manner. Besides, there is some objection in the said narration of Abu Hurirrah as the narration is from Musal bin Ismaeel from Ikrama bin Ammar and there are some criticisms on both of them. The narration of Jabir is not Sahih because it is narrated by Ibad bin Kathir, and he was Matruk.

The tradition mentioning Farewell Pilgrimage is also in contradiction with others of his narrations, and his narration regarding the victory of Makka is more Sahih, and the version recorded in Abo Dawood only talks about the prohibition thus is it possible that only prohibition had taken place for the purpose of ratification and reaffirmation. As we have said that there is nothing Sahih and unequivocal except Khayber and the victory of Makka.

We see another account of a Sunni discrediting the Sunni narrations on the prohibition of Mutah. If we are to accept Ibn Hajar’s view that the only authentic narrations are those that pinpoint the prohibition to Khayber and the victory of Makkah that would mean that Mut’ah was twice made Mubah and twice made Haram. We should point out that Ibn Qayyim vigorously opposed such a notion. Commenting in Zaad al Maad, Volume 1 page 442 he said:

“Differences have appeared over the prohibition of Mut’ah in four statements. Firstly, it is said that it occurred at Khayber, this is the view of a group of scholars including Shafiyee and others. Secondly, it is said that it occurred during the time of the victory of Makka as asserted by a group that includes Abu Uyaina. The third statement that has come in this regards says that it was the same year of Hunayn, but basically it is the very second group we mentioned because the Hunayn took place in succession with the victory of Makka. Fourthly, The Farewell Pilgrimage, but this was a mistake of the narrators who confused the Farewell Pilgrimage with the victory of Makka….The correct view is that Mut’ah was made Haram in year of the victory of Makka took place because it is proved from Sahih Muslim that Sahaba practiced Mut’a with the permission of the Prophet (s), and if the prohibition of Mut’ah took place at Khayber, that would mean that the prohibition took place twice but this is something that is impossible as we find no other example in the Sharia, in fact it cannot take place in the Sharia, moreover Muslim women were not there at the time of the victory of Maka and by that time, it was permissible to marry non Muslim women “

The reality is that is not rational to assume that Allah (swt) continually prohibited and permitted the same act. Ibn Qayyim’s statement on this matter (same page as above) is absolutely correct:

“…If we accept that Mut’ah was cancelled on the Day of Khayber then what we are saying is that cancellation occurred twice and this has never happened in religion for sure and will not happen”.

Ibn Qayyim is arguing that it is impossible for Mut’ah to have been banned and permitted twice as such a strange shuffling of laws in Islam is inconceivable. Let us now turn to the comments of Shaykh Abdur Rahman bin Shaykh bin Muhammad bin Sulayman who in his book ‘Majma al-Nahar fi Sharh Muntaqi al-Bahar’ Volume 1 page 321 [Constantinople edition] has advanced a view different from all other Sunni scholars:

“Nikah Mut’ah was Mubah between the period of Khayber and the victory of Makka , but was subsequently abrogated via the ijm’aa of the Sahaba to the point that it is unacceptable for a Qadhi [Judge] to deem it permissible, if someone deems it Mubah he is a kaffir”

This interpretation would mean that Nikah al-Muta’h was not prohibition at Khayber but actually was made Mubah and this permissibility [Ibahat] remained up until the victory of Makka.

These were the comments of some of the Sunni scholars who were perplexed and unable to solve the mystery created by their elders who recorded contradictory reports regarding the permissibility and abrogation of Nikah al-Mut’ah. The traditions found in Sunni books regarding the prohibition and permissibility of Mut’ah at the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage and the victory of Makkah are Sahih in terms of their respective chains and their narrators are similar and united but Sunni scholars are adamant to turn their eyes from them by advancing the view that the narrator was mistaken by mentioning it as Farewell Pilgrimage he should have actually mentioned the victory of Makka.

Ibn al-Hashimi’s absurd notion that those who believe in the legitimacy of Mut’ah commit blasphemy against the Prophet (s)

Among the different anti-Shia websites making feeble attempts to defend the madhab of Muawiyah, www.ahlelbayt.com is also one of these and its author Ibn al-Hashimi is a stubborn Nasibi who instinctively shuts his eyes from all those authentic texts of his school, that goes against his beliefs. He wastes internet space with this comment:

The fact of the matter is that the Ahlus Sunnah considers Mutah to be Haram (forbidden), and believes this prohibition to be from the Prophet (s). It is upto the Shia follower to slander the Prophet (s) by saying that he would allow such a practise to continue.

  Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi’s article – top
  Screen shot of Ibn al-Hashmi’s article – text

Reply

First of all we would to refer this Nasibi to the discussion we did so far in this chapter wherein we have refuted the notion that Mut’ah was abrogated by Prophet (s). Secondly, we will repeat a reference that we have previously cited from Imam Ibn Hajar Asalani’s authority work ‘Talkhees al Habeer fi Takhreej al Hadeeth al Rafa al Kabeer’ Volume 3 page 159 (printed Cairo):

“After the death of Holy Prophet (s), a group of Salaf deemed it Halal. Amongst the Sahaba they were Asma bint Abi Bakr, Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibn Masood, Ibn Abbas, Mu’awiya, Amro bin Huraith, Abo Saeed, Salama and Mu’abed-the sons of Umaya bin Khalaf. He said that Jabir reported from the companions that (it was valid) during the reign of the Prophet, Abubakr and some part of Umar’s reign. He said that it is reported from Umar that he forbade it only if there were not two just witnesses. Some of Tab’een deemed (it halal) such as Tawous, Atta, Saeed bin Jubair and the majority of the jurists of Makka.”
  http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=101&DocID=51&ParagraphID=1206&Diacratic=1

This is not a list those Sahaba and Tabayeen that deemed Mutah to be Halal after Holy Prophet (s) but according to the ‘fatwa’ of Ibn al-Hashimi, this is an indictment of all those that committed blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (s) . For Ibn al Hashmi the self proclaimed defender of the Sahaba, his Fatawa carries serious implications for the very people he advocates for, after all one who commits blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (s) is an apostate and can be killed according to Islamic rulings. Hashimi, has issued a clear cut kufr fatwa against the above cited esteemed Sunni personalities without any ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ – one wonders how he can call himself a Sunni and yet attack the Sahaba in such a disgraceful manner.

Coming to the last sentence stated by Ibn al-Hashmi:

It is upto the Shia follower to slander the Prophet (s) by saying that he would allow such a practise to continue.

Reply

This is one of the strangest objections submitted by our opponent’s namely, ‘how can the Prophet (s) allow such an absurd practice to continue’. We have evidenced the legitimacy of Mut’ah from a plethora of authentic Sunni traditions, that contain the testimonies of the Sahaba, proving that our Prophet (s) allowed them to practice Mutah, as such there should no shame in attributing the practice of Mutah to the Prophet (s). Having said that, what right does Ibn al-Hashimi have to assert that anyone who claims that Prophet (s) allowed Mutah actually slanders him (s) when his school believes the Prophet (s):

  • allowed a woman to suckle a grown-up man in order to make him her mahram (Sahih Muslim Hadith Number 3426)
  • had no control over his wishes even during fasting and would kiss and suck the tounge of his wives (Bukhari,V3,Number 150, Sunan Abu Daud Book 13, Number 2380).

Some final points to think over

We feel it apt to summarise some points for our opponents to mull over:

  • If Mut’ah was indeed abrogated and this is evidenced from proven from tawatur narrations then then questions must be asked as to why Imam Ali (as) and his descendants, the Sahaba and Tabaeen such as Ibn Abbas, Jabir ibn Abdullah, Imran bin Husain, Mu’awiya bin Hind, Ibn Jurayj, Saeed bin Jubair, Mujahid, ‘Ataa etc vouched for its legitimacy. Did all of these individuals turn their backs on the religion of Islam? If so then it clearly becomes incumbent upon the Ahl as-Sunnah Ulema to issue a declaration of apostasy against all of them
  • The reality is no tawatur traditions confirming the prohibition of Mut’ah exist. To rely on the existing traditions as proof that Mut’ah is haram is indeed a false premise, since the traditions that Mut’ah is halaal can be established from tawatur narrations. If the Ahl as-Sunnah are relying on Ahad [lone] narration’s as ‘proof’ the question arises as to why they are relying upon questionable lone traditions in favour of proven traditions?

Furthermore, we know that a group from amongst the Sahaba believed that Mut’ah was halaal after the death of Rasulullah (s). In the Urdu translation of Muwatta Imam Malik page 39, Maulana Waheed uz Zaman Khan said:

“Amongst the great Imams and the majority of the Ulema Nikah Mut’ah is not permissible, they however acknowledge that Mut’ah was practised, and was made haraam on the Day of Khayber, it was then practised at Umrah Dhul Qada, it was then made haraam at the time of the victory of Makka, was then allowed at the Battle of Autas, it was then made haraam, it was then allowed at Tabuk, and then made haraam at the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage. The people benefited from the continual bans and permissions, some practised Mut’ah whilst others refrained from it, to the extent that after the death of Rasulullah (s), this state of affairs continued during the reign of Abu Bakr, as was the case with the early portion of Umar’s khilafath, wherein it was deemed to be halaal. Umar then prohibited it from the pulpit and the people subsequently stopped practising Mut’ah. Some Sahaba continued to maintain the position that Mut’ah was permissible, such Jabir ibn Abdullah, Abdullah ibn Masud, Abu Saeed, Mu’awiyah, Asma bint Abu Bakr, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Umro bin Harees, Salma bin Akwa. A group amongst the Tabaeen also upheld the legitimacy to practise Mut’ah.”

Imam of the Salafis Ibn Tamiyah also listed those Sahaba that believed in the legitimacy of Mut’ah after the death of Rasulullah (s).We are quoting directly from his work ‘al-Muntaqaa min Akhbaar al-Mustafa’, edited by Muhammad Hamid al-Faqqi, 2 volumes, Cairo: al-Maktabat al-Tijariyya, 1931 edition, volume 2, page 520.

According to Ibn Hazm: “Ibn Mas’ud, Mu’awiya, Abu Sa’eed (al-Khudri), Ibn ‘Abbas, Salama and Ma’bad, the sons of Umayya bin Khalaf, Jabir (bin ‘Abdullah al-’Ansaari), and ‘Amr bin Huraith continued, after the death of the Prophet, to consider it (i.e. Mut’ah) lawful. Moreover, Jabir reported, regarding all the Companions, that they continued to uphold its lawfulness during the time of the Prophet and of Abu Bakr and almost till the end of ‘Umar’s caliphate.” then he (i.e. Ibn Hazm) adds, “Among the Successors of the Companions, Tawoos, Sa’eed bin Jubair, ‘Ataa’, and the rest of the Makkan jurists believed in its permissibility.”

Consider these illustrious names and now contemplate the comments of Haq Nawaz Jhangvi:

THE UNLAWFULNESS OF MUTA IS AGREED UPON BY THE UMMAH I.E. CONSENSUS EXCEPT THAT OF THE SHITTES HOLD IT LAWFUL

Now our question is a simple one, if the Consensus is that the whole Muslim Ummah deems Mut’ah to be haraam, save the Shi’a (who are non Muslim) then what can we say of the above named individuals that believed that Mut’ah was halaal after the death of Rasulullah (s), do they not come within the definition of Muslim Ummah, or were they Rafidi Shi’a? In his efforts to attack the Shi’a, Jhangvi has blasphemed his own esteemed Salaf (Sahaba and Taabi’een)!

It is on this basis that we argue that Mut’ah was halaal during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s), and this was the position during the early portion of Umar’s khilafath, as attested by the traditions.

 

Shia Pen Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications.
Shia Pen uses the "Google Groups" system for its newsletters. Subcribe Now →