Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

4. The Sunni Contradictions

When exactly was mut’ah banned permanently? This is a question which Sunnis will never be able to firmly answer till the end of the world. This is due to the severe conflicts between their “authentic” ahadith on the matter. For instance, Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) reports:

   وحدثنا محمد بن عبدالله بن نمير حدثنا أبي حدثنا عبيدالله عن ابن شهاب عن الحسن وعبدالله ابني محمد بن علي عن أبيهما عن علي أنه سمع ابن عباس يلين في متعة النساء فقال مهلا يا ابن عباس فإن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم نهى عنها يوم خيبر وعن لحوم الحمر الإنسية

Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah b. Numayr - my father - ‘Ubayd Allah - Ibn Shihab - al-Hasan and ‘Abd Allah, sons of Muhammad b. ‘Ali - their father:

‘Ali heard Ibn ‘Abbas allowing mut’ah with women. So, he said, “Don’t be hasty, O Ibn ‘Abbas, for the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, forbade it on the Day of Khaybar as well as the flesh of domestic asses.”1

The incident, allegedly witnessed by Muhammad b. ‘Ali, apparently took place after the death of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi. Of course, this eye-witness was born only after the Messenger of Allah had passed away. Here, we see Amir al-Muminin, ‘alaihi al-salam, supposedly citing the ban at Khaybar to stop Ibn ‘Abbas from allowing mut’ah after the Prophet had died. This suggests that the ban at Khaybar was a permanent one. It is the only logical explanation for the action attributed to ‘Ali. Interestingly, we often see the Ahl al-Sunnah quote this hadith as well as evidence of the permanent prohibition of mut’ah. The Battle of Khaybar occurred in 7 H. So, mut’ah supposedly had been banned eternally since then.

But, Imam Muslim has another interesting report:

   حدثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم أخبرنا يحيى بن آدم حدثنا إبراهيم بن سعد عن عبدالملك بن الربيع بن سبرة الجهني عن أبيه عن جده قال أمرنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بالمتعة عام الفتح حين دخلنا مكة ثم لم نخرج منها حتى نهانا عنها

Ishaq b. Ibrahim - Yahya b. Adam - Ibrahim b. Sa’d - ‘Abd al-Malik b. al-Rabi’ b. Sabrah al-Juhani - his father (al-Rabi’) - his grandfather (Sabrah):

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ORDERED us to perform mut’ah in the Year of the Conquest as we entered Makkah. Then, we did not come out of it until he forbade us from it.2

What? But, this was in 8 H, a year after Khaybar! What happened to the permanent ban, which ‘Ali supposedly quoted against Ibn ‘Abbas?

Meanwhile, this must be put in its proper context. Sabrah was one of the soldiers who conquered Makkah with the Messenger of Allah, as Imam Muslim reports:

   حدثنا أبو كامل فضيل بن حسين الجحدري حدثنا بشر ( يعني ابن مفضل ) حدثنا عمارة بن غزية عن الربيع بن سبرة أن أباه غزا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فتح مكة قال فأقمنا بها خمس عشرة ( ثلاثين بين ليلة ويوم ) فأذن لنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم في متعة النساء

Abu Kamil Fuḍayl b. Husayn al-Jahdari - Bishr b. Mufaḍḍal - ‘Amarah b. Ghaziyyah:

Al-Rabi’ b. Sabrah reported that his father was on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, during the Conquest of Makkah. He (Sabrah) said: “So we stayed there for fifteen days (including thirteen full days), and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, permitted us to do mut’ah with women.”3

As such, when Sabrah “entered Makkah”, he was doing so as part of a military force that had conquered the holy city. As the soldiers were entering as conquerors, the Prophet commanded them to do mut’ah, and they camped in there for fifteen days.

The Year of the Conquest of Makkah is also known as the Year of al-Awṭas, and this is another relevant riwayah of Imam Muslim concerning it:

   حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا يونس بن محمد حدثنا عبدالواحد بن زياد حدثنا أبو عميس عن إياس بن سلمة عن أبيه قال رخص رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم عام أوطاس في المتعة ثلاثا ثم نهى عنها

Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah - Yunus b. Muhammad - ‘Abd al-Wahid b. Ziyad - Abu ‘Umays - Iyas b. Salama - his father (Salama):

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, allowed mut’ah for three days during the Year of Awṭas. Then, he forbade it.4

The annotator, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Baqi, explains:

    ( عام أوطاس ) هذا تصريح بأنها أبيحت يوم فتح مكة وهو ويوم أوطاس شيء واحد

(Year of Awṭas) this is an explicit statement that it was allowed on the day of the conquest of Makkah, which is also the same as the Day of Awṭas.5

So, mut’ah was supposedly made compulsory as the conquering soldiers entered Makkah, and was banned again three days later.

Interestingly, Imam Muslim has this “sahih” report which overturns everything:

   وحدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا ابن علية عن معمر عن الزهري عن الربيع بن سبرة عن أبيه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم نهى يوم الفتح عن متعة النساء

Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah - Ibn ‘Ulayyah - Ma’mar - al-Zuhri - al-Rabi’ b. Sabrah - his father (Sabrah):

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, forbade mut’ah with women on the Day of the Conquest.6

That same day? Not three days after it? What then are we supposed to believe?

Meanwhile, ‘Umar supposedly considered the ban of mut’ah after this three-day allowance - which alleged occurred only during the conquest of Makkah - as permanent. Imam Ibn Majah (d. 273 H) tells us:

   حدثنا محمد بن خلف العسقلاني. ثنا الفريابي عن أبان بن أبي حازم، عن أبي بكر بن حفص، عن ابن عمر، قال: لما ولى عمر بن الخطاب، خطب الناس فقال: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أذن لنا في المتعة ثلاثا، ثم حرمها. والله !لا أعلم أحدا يتمتع وهو محصن إلا رجمته بالحجارة إلا أن يأتيني بأربعة يشهدون أن رسول الله أحلها بعد إذ حرمها .

Muhammad b. Khalaf al-‘Asqalani - al-Faryabi - ‘Aban b. Abi Hazim - Abu Bakr b. Hafs - Ibn ‘Umar:

When ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭab became the wali, he addressed the people and said, “Verily, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, permitted us to practise mut’ah for three days. Then, he made it haram. I swear by Allah, if I know of any married person doing mut’ah, I will stone him with stones except if he brings to me four people who testify that the Messenger of Allah (later) declared it halal after prohibiting it.”7

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ and two others say:

   حديث صحيح وهذاسند حسن

A sahih hadith, and this chain is hasan.8

NOTE: This hadith is actually ḍa’if. Concerning one of its narrators, al-Hafiẓ (d. 852 H) states:

   أبان بن عبد الله بن أبي حازم بن صخر بن العيلة بفتح العين المهملة البجلي الأحمسي الكوفي صدوق في حفظه لين

Aban b. ‘Abd Allah b. Abi Hazim b. Sakhr b. al-‘Aylah al-Bajali al-Ahmasi al-Kufi: Saduq (very truthful), there is weakness in his memory.9

Then, Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H) gives more details:

   أبان بن عبد الله البجلي من أهل الكوفة وهو الذي يقال له أبان بن أبي حازم، يروى عن أبان بن تغلب وأهل الكوفة، روى عنه الثوري ووكيع والناس. وكان ممن فحش خطؤه وانفرد بالمناكير، أخبرنا الهمداني قال سمعت عمرو بن علي يقول: ما سمعت يحيى بن سعيد القطان يحدث عنه بشئ قط - يعنى أبان البجلي .

Aban b. ‘Abd Allah al-Bajali, from the people of Kufa, and he was the one called Aban b. Abi Hazim. He narrated from Aban b. Taghlib and the people of Kufah. Al-Thawri, Waki’ and the people narrated from him. He was one of those whose mistakes were terrible, and who narrated manakir (repugnant reports) without corroboration. Al-Hamdani informed us, and said: I heard ‘Amr b. ‘Ali saying: “I never heard Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qaṭṭan ever narrating anything from him” - he meant Aban al-Bajali.10

In normal circumstances, a narrator like this is not just ḍa’if, but also munkar. So, his reports are very weak and thrown away. But, here we are again with our Sunni ‘ulama!

Yet, even this “backup” provided by Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 H) does no good either:

   وقد حدثنا أبو محمد عبد الله بن يوسف الأصبهاني أنبأ أبو محمد عبد الرحمن بن يحيى الزهري القاضي بمكة ثنا محمد بن إسماعيل الصائغ ثنا أبو خالد الأموي ثنا منصور بن دينار ثنا عمر بن محمد عن سالم بن عبد الله عن أبيه عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه قال صعد عمر على المنبر فحمد الله وأثنى عليه ثم قال ما بال رجال ينكحون هذه المتعة وقد نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم عنها ألا وإني لا أوتي بأحد نكحها إلا رجمته

Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah b. Yusuf al-Asbahani - Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Yahya al-Zuhri al-Qaḍi - Muhammad b. Isma’il al-Saigh - Abu Khalid al-Umawi - Mansur b. Dinar - ‘Umar b. Muhammad - Salim b. ‘Abd Allah - his father - ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭab, may Allah be pleased with him:

‘Umar climbed the pulpit, and thanked Allah and extolled Him. Then, he said, “What is the problem of men who are contracting the nikah of this mut’ah despite that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, had forbidden it? Take note: if anyone who has contracted its nikah is brought to me, I will stone him.”11

Al-Bayhaqi himself expresses doubt about the authenticity of this riwayah immediately after quoting it:

   فهذا إن صح يبين أن عمر رضي الله عنه إنما نهى عن نكاح المتعة لأنه علم نهي النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم عنه

So, this one, IF AUTHENTIC, shows that ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, only forbade the nikah of mut’ah because he knew of its prohibition by the Prophet, peace be upon him.12

This was perhaps due to the presence of Mansur b. Dinar in the sanad. Al-Hafiẓ documents about him:

   منصور بن دينار السهمي :عن الزهري قال النسائي ليس بالقوى وقال البخاري روى عن نافع وحماد في حديثه نظر * وقال يحيى بن معين ضعيف قلت … وذكره العقيلي في الضعفاء … وذكره ابن حبان في الثقات … وقال أبو زرعة صالح وقال أبو حاتم ليس به بأس وقال العجلي لا بأس به

Mansur b. Dinar al-Sahmi: he narrated from al-Zuhri. Al-Nasai said: “He is not strong.” Al-Bukhari said, “He narrated from Nafi’ and Hammad. THERE IS PROBLEM WITH HIS HADITH.” Yahya b. Ma’in said: “Ḍa’if.” I say: And al-‘Aqili has mentioned him in al-Ḍu’afa and Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al-Thiqat Abd Abu Zur’a said: “Salih” while Abu Hatim said, “There is no problem with him.” Al-‘Ijli also said, “There is no problem with him.”13

We have capitalized, in particular, the statement of Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H), because it is a jarh mufassar. Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) has narrated that al-Bukhari himself said:

   إذا قلت فلان في حديثه نظر، فهو متهم واه .

When I say “there is problem with the hadith of so-and-so”, then he is accused (of fabricating ahadith), weak.14

This changes everything, since a jarh mufassar supercedes any praise for the narrator. That then makes this second report mawḍu’ or at least ḍa’if jiddan.

Meanwhile, having exposed the weakness of both riwayahs above, we will nonetheless proceed to take them into consideration within our discourses, in order to leave our opponents with no excuse anywhere.

So, simply put, the second permanent ban of mut’ah occurred a year after the first one. ‘Umar here challenged everyone to bring forward any evidence that the Prophet ever allowed it after this second ban - and none, it seems, ever came forward. But, what was he even suggesting? Has the Qur’an not banned zina several years before Khaybar and the conquest of Makkah? Was ‘Umar implying that the Prophet could have permitted fornication after the ban by Allah?

Yet, there is a further report of a third permanent ban on mut’ah two years after the conquest of Makkah! This is the hadith by Imam al-Darimi (d. 255 H):

   أخبرنا جعفر بن عون عن عبد العزيز بن عمر بن عبد العزيز عن الربيع بن سبرة ان أباه حدثه أنهم ساروا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم في حجة الوداع فقال استمتعوا من هذه النساء ثم غدوت فإذا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قائم بين الركن والباب فقال يا أيها الناس اني قد كنت أذنت لكم في الاستمتاع من النساء الا وان الله قد حرم ذلك إلى يوم القيامة فمن كان عنده منهن شيء فليخل سبيلها ولا تأخذوا مما آتيتموهن شيئا

Ja’far b. ‘Awn - ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz - al-Rabi’ b. Sabrah - his father:

We journeyed with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, during the Farewell Hajj and he said, “Do mut’ah with these women”.... Then, in the morning, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, stood between al-Rukn and the door and said, “O mankind! Verily, I have been allowing you to do mut’ah with women. But, surely, Allah has made that haram till the Day of al-Qiyamah. So, whoever has something of them with him, let him free her, and do not take back anything from what you gave them (as dowries).”15

Shaykh Asad comments:

   إسناده صحيح

Its chain is sahih16

Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H) has documented it too17 , and al-Albani (d. 1420 H) says about it:

   صحيح

Sahih18

And al-Arnauṭ agrees:

   إسناده صحيح

Its chain is sahih19

Here, we are back again at the beginning! Our Sunni brothers consider mut’ah to be a form of fornication, and also declare that the mut’ah wife is no “wife”. Rather, she is a fornicator. Alhamdulillah, fornication was made haram during the Makkan era, before our Prophet migrated to Madinah. Therefore, by Sunni logic, mut’ah was already banned before the Hijrah. But, their books tell us that the following occurred after the Hijrah:

1. The Messenger re-ban mut’ah permanently at Khaybar seven years after the Hijrah. This makes sense since he was only repeating the Qur’anic ban on fornication and adultery.

2. However, the same Prophet “ordered” his Sahabah to indulge in mut’ah - read: to indulge in fornication - during his conquest of Makkah in 8 H!

3. Moreover, after three days - or on that same day - he banned mut’ah again permanently.

4. Then, during his Farewell Hajj in 10 H, he ordered his Sahabah once more, saying: “Do mut’ah with these women”. By Sunni logic, he was only saying: “Do fornication with these women”! Thereafter, he banned it permanently again, for the last time!

If this is not mockery of Allah and His Messenger by the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, what then is it? Al-Hafiẓ Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H), meanwhile, thinks he has an explanation:

   فقد نص الشافعي على أنه لا يعلم شيئا أبيح ثم حرم ثم أبيح ثم حرم غير نكاح المتعة وما حداه على هذا رحمه الله إلا اعتماده على هذين الحديثين كما قدمناه .وقد حكى السهيلي وغيره عن بعضهم: أنه ادعى أنها أبيحت ثلاث مرات وحرمت ثلاث مرات وقال آخرون أربع مرات وهذا بعيد جدا والله أعلم .

   واختلفوا أي وقت أول ما حرمت فقيل في خيبر وقيل في عمرة القضاء وقيل في عام الفتح وهذا يظهر وقيل في أوطاس وهو قريب من الذي قبله وقيل في تبوك وقيل في حجة الوداع .

Al-Shafi’i had explicitly stated that he did not know of anything that was made halal, then made haram, then made halal and then made haram other than the marriage of mut’ah. Nothing drew him, may Allah be merciful to him, to this conclusion except his reliance upon these two hadiths, as we previously discussed. Al-Suhayli and others have also narrated from one of them that he claimed that it (mut’ah) was made halal three times and was made haram three times. The others said: four times. But, this is very unlikely, and Allah knows best.

They disagree on the exact time when it was FIRST made haram. It is said that it was at Khaybar, and it is said that it was at the ‘Umrah al-Qaḍa. It is said that it was during the Year of the Conquest, and this is the most likely; and it is said that it was at Awṭas, and this is nearer to the one before it. It is said that it was at Tabuk, and it is said that it was at the Farewell Hajj.20

But, this only worsens things for the Ahl al-Sunnah. On the specific question of zina (fornication and adultery), this is also what this Makkan ayah says:

    ولا تقربوا الزنا إنه كان فاحشة وساء سبيلا

And do not approach zina. Verily, it is an indecency, and an evil way.21

This verse - by the ijma’ of the whole Ummah - has never been abrogated. It has been in force since before the Hijrah; and it continued unimpeded till the death of the Messenger. In other words, during all those times that the Prophet and his Sahabah were practising mut’ah, this ayah was well in authority. It is thus either of two things (i) mut’ah is a form of zina too or (ii) mut’ah is NOT a form of zina. The Sunnis maintain that temporary is fornication. So, what they are saying - in essence - is that Prophet Muhammad was contradicting his Lord repeatedly, by “allowing” or “commanding” and even “practising” what his Lord had long declared haram! Apparently, if they joined the Shi’ah in saying that mut’ah is NOT a form of zina, then some of their unintentional mockeries of Allah and His Messenger would disappear.

But, even then, they would have to show us which verse of the Qur’an abrogated mut’ah? Of course, this ayah must be proved to have been revealed after the Verse of al-Mut’ah and Surah al-Maidah, and it must be explicit in its ruling against temporary marriage. We say categorically here: no such verse exists. Meanwhile, since only an ayah can abrogate an ayah (as the Qur’an itself declares), then the Verse of al-Mut’ah remains in force till this day, and till the end of days.

This automatically leads us to another conclusion: all the reports about how mut’ah was banned permanently - only to be unbanned sometime later - are careless fabrications. They were “rushed up” to justify ‘Umar’s ban of that legitimate form of nikah. No wonder, they contain so many serious contradictions among themselves, even in reports by the same individuals, and all of them altogether also oppose the Qur’an!

Unsurprisingly, all these alleged repeated bans of mut’ah were completely unknown to the generality of the Sahabah, as Imam Muslim reports:

   حدثني محمد بن رافع حدثنا عبدالرزاق أخبرنا ابن جريج أخبرني أبو الزبير قال سمعت جابر بن عبدالله يقول كنا نستمتع بالقبضة من التمر والدقيق الأيام على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وأبي بكر حتى نهى عنه عمر في شأن عمرو بن حريث

Muhammad b. Rafi’ - ‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - Abu al-Zubayr:

I heard Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah saying, “We used to contract mut’ah by giving a handful of dates and flour (as the dowry) during the eras of the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr UNTIL ‘Umar forbade it in the case of ‘Amr b. Hurayth.22

They continued to practise mut’ah till the death of the Prophet, and he did not warn, stop or penalize them. Abu Bakr too allowed them to freely go ahead with it throughout his rule. There is a usual Sunni excuse that the information concerning the ban on mut’ah did not reach these Sahabah, and that they continued it due to that! But, does that make any sense? The ban on mut’ah was supposedly announced at least three times in public; and yet, the generality of the Sahabah - including even Abu Bakr - never heard it?! Moreover, did the Sahabah not know of any of the ayahs in the Qur’an which make fornication and adultery haram? If they did, why did they continue to perform mut’ah (considering the Sunni claim that it is fornication), and why did the Messenger and Abu Bakr allow them?

Even more interesting is the dogged refusal of Ibn ‘Abbas, raḍiyallahu ‘anhu, to back down on mut’ah till his death. The Ahl al-Sunnah say that Imam ‘Ali allegedly informed him that mut’ah had been banned at Khaybar:

   وحدثنا محمد بن عبدالله بن نمير حدثنا أبي حدثنا عبيدالله عن ابن شهاب عن الحسن وعبدالله ابني محمد بن علي عن أبيهما عن علي أنه سمع ابن عباس يلين في متعة النساء فقال مهلا يا ابن عباس فإن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم نهى عنها يوم خيبر وعن لحوم الحمر الإنسية

Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah b. Numayr - my father - ‘Ubayd Allah - Ibn Shihab - al-Hasan and ‘Abd Allah, sons of Muhammad b. ‘Ali - their father:

‘Ali heard Ibn ‘Abbas allowing mut’ah with women. So, he said, “Don’t be hasty, O Ibn ‘Abbas, for the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, forbade it on the Day of Khaybar as well as the flesh of domestic asses.”23

Yet, long after ‘Ali’s death, he was still defending mut’ah. Imam Muslim again:

   وحدثني حرملة بن يحيى أخبرنا ابن وهب أخبرني يونس قال ابن شهاب أخبرني عروة بن الزبير أن عبدالله ابن الزبير قام بمكة فقال إن ناسا أعمى الله قلوبهم كما أعمى أبصارهم يفتون بالمتعة يعرض برجل فناداه فقال إنك لجلف جاف فلعمري لقد كانت المتعة تفعل على عهد إمام المتقين ( يريد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ) فقال له ابن الزبير فجرب بنفسك فوالله لئن فعلتها لأرجمنك بأحجارك

Harmalah b. Yahya - Ibn Wahb - Yunus - Ibn Shihab - ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr:

‘Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr stood in Makkah and said, “Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He made blind their eyesight. They give fatwas allowing mut’ah.” He was referring to a certain man. So, he (the man) called him and said, “You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense! I swear by my life, mut’ah was practised during the time of the Imam of the pious” - he meant the Messenger of Allah. So, Ibn al-Zubayr said to him, “Just do it yourself. By Allah, if you do it, I will stone you with your stones.”24

We know the identity of that man in this further hadith of Imam Muslim:

   حدثنا حامد بن عمرو البكراوي حدثنا عبدالواحد ( يعني ابن زياد ) عن عاصم عن أبي نضرة قال كنت عند جابر بن عبدالله فأتاه آت فقال ابن عباس وابن الزبير اختلفا في المتعتين فقال جابر فعلناهما مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ثم نهانا عنهما عمر فلم نعد لهما

Hamid b. ‘Amr al-Bakrawi - ‘Abd al-Wahid b. Ziyad - ‘Asim - Abu Naḍrah:

I was with Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, a person came and said, “Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn al-Zubayr disagree concerning the two types of mut’ah.” So, Jabir said, “We practised both of them along with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Then, ‘Umar forbade us from them both, and we have not reverted to them.”25

It was Ibn ‘Abbas, and he had become blind at that time - apparently during the rebel “caliphate” of Ibn al-Zubayr in Makkah. That was towards the very end of the lifetime of Ibn ‘Abbas. Commenting on these reports and others, ‘Allamah al-Albani concludes:

   وجملة القول: أن ابن عباس رضى الله عنه روى عنه فى المتعة ثلاثة أقوال :

   الأول: الإباحة مطلقا .

   الثانى: الإباحة عند الضرورة .

   والآخر: التحريم مطلقا , وهذا مما لم يثبت عنه صراحة , بخلاف القولين الأولين , فهما ثابتان عنه .

The summary is: three opinions are narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allaah be pleased with him, about mut’ah:

The one: he permitted it unconditionally.

The second: he permitted it in cases of necessity.

The last: he forbade it unconditionally, but this is from what is NOT authentically transmitted from him, unlike the first two opinions which are authentically transmitted from him.26

So, basically, there is solid evidence that Ibn ‘Abbas continued to defend mut’ah even in his old age, and there is none that he ever retracted his statements on it. Meanwhile, Sunnis generally excuse the pro-mut’ah positions of the generality of the Sahabah after the Prophet on an desperate argument that the information of its abrogation had not reached them. But, will they say the same about Ibn ‘Abbas? In that case, was he really a stubborn heretic who dared to openly and knowingly oppose Allah and His Messenger? Was that his character? Well, with the persistent Sunni claim that Imam ‘Ali informed him about the ban of mut’ah, we are afraid, there is no other possible conclusion other than that Ibn ‘Abbas was from the Ahl al-Bid’ah.

Interestingly, when he defended mut’ah by stating that it was practised during the time of the Messenger, Ibn al-Zubayr - also a Sahabi - became silenced. Ibn al-Zubayr did not mention anything about its alleged “abrogation” or “ban” as a counter-argument, which is extremely baffling. No doubt, if he had known of any rejection of mut’ah by the noble Prophet, he would have instantly corrected Ibn ‘Abbas on his submission, and would have saved his face. The fact that Ibn al-Zubayr was unable to bring down Ibn ‘Abbas’s suggestion that mut’ah was accepted throughout the Messenger’s lifetime raises a lot of question marks about all Sunni ahadith against it.

This hot exchange between the two took place long after the death of ‘Umar and ‘Ali. Yet, neither Ibn ‘Abbas nor (especially) Ibn al-Zubayr seem to be aware of any claim that mut’ah had been banned by the Prophet of Allah! This tells us that all these anti-mut’ah reports were most probably manufactured only after the period of the confrontation between those two Sunni heavyweights.

Notes

1. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1027, # 1407 (31)

2. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 1023, # 1406 (22)

3. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 1023, # 1406 (20)

4. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1405 (18)

5. Ibid

6. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 1023, # 1406 (25)

7. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Yazid b. Majah al-Qazwini, al-Sunan (Damascus: Dar al-Risalah al-‘Alamiyyah; 1st edition, 1430 H) [annotators: Shu’ayb al-Arnauṭ, Muhammad Kamil and Ahmad Barhum], vol. 3, p. 138, # 1963

8. Ibid

9. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Muṣtafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 1, p. 51, # 140

10. Abu Hatim Muhammad b. Hibban b. Ahmad al-Tamimi al-Busti, Kitab al-Majruhin [annotator: Mahmud Ibrahim Zayad], vol. 1, p. 99

11. Abu Bakr Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. ‘Ali b. Musa al-Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra (Makkah al-Mukarramah: Maktabah Dar al-Baz; 1414 H) [annotator: Muhammad ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 7, p. 206, # 13949

12. Ibid

13. Shihab al-Din Abu al-Faḍl Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Lisan al-Mizan (Beirut: Manshurat Muasassat al-A’lami li al-Maṭbu’at; 2nd edition, 1390 H), vol. 6, p. 95, # 331

14. Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 4th edition, 1406 H) [annotators of the twelfth volume: Shu’ayb al-Arnauṭ and Ṣalih al-Samar], vol. 12, p. 441, # 171

15. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Darimi, Sunan (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Husayn Salim Asad], vol. 2, p. 188, # 2195

16. Ibid

17. Abu Hatim Muhammad b. Hibban b. Ahmad b. Hibban b. Mu’adh b. Ma’bad al-Tamimi al-Darimi al-Busti, Ṣahih Ibn Hibban bi Tartib Ibn Balban (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 2nd edition, 1414 H) [annotators: Muhammad Naṣir al-Din al-Albani and Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 9, p. 454, # 4147

18. Ibid

19. Ibid

20. Abu al-Fida Isma’il b. Kathir al-Dimashqi, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah (Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1408 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Shiri], vol. 4, p. 220

21. Qur’an 17:32

22. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1405 (16)

23. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1027, # 1407 (31)

24. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 1023, # 1406 (27)

25. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1405 (17)

26. Muhammad Naṣir al-Din al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami; 2nd edition, 1405 H), vol. 6, p. 319, # 1903

1. Mut’ah In The Qur’an

Nikah al-Mut’ah, or simply mut’ah, is marriage between two consenting adults for a specified period of time. It is a form of marriage, which is why it is called a nikah. Since its duration is fixed, it is also often called “temporary marriage”. The woman, before the mut’ah, must NOT be in a pending marriage with anyone else. Moreover, both parties must be adult believers; and both must be chaste. In exceptional, emergency cases, the man is permitted to enter into a temporary marriage with a chaste Jewish or Christian woman.

However, the woman can only marry a chaste Muslim man - whether in mut’ah or in a permanent marriage. In addition, both parties must mutually agree on the dowry and the length of the union. In the case of a woman who has never married, the consent of her father is obligatory for the mut’ah. Also, the man cannot have sex with her (i.e. the woman who has never married) throughout the agreed duration of their nikah. After the expiration of the marriage, the woman enters into a period of ‘iddah in temporary unions that involved intercourse. The children of such a marriage are legitimate, and belong to the husband; and they inherit him.

The spouses in mut’ah too may also inherit each other if their marriage contract explicitly provides for it. Meanwhile, unlike in permanent marriages, there is no restriction to the number of temporary marriages a man may contract, simultaneously or consecutively. Also, mut’ah is available to single men and woman, as well as to married men, including those who already have four permanent wives.

During the life of Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, temporary marriage was legislated and practiced within the Ummah. Allah Himself decreed it in His Book, in the Verse of al-Mut’ah:

    فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ولا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة إن الله كان عليما حكيما

Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is prescribed. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.1

This ayah was not revealed like this. Rather, its original version included extra phrases that leave no doubt about its import. For instance, Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) records:

   أخبرنا أبو زكريا العنبري ثنا محمد بن عبد السلام ثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم أنبأ النضر بن شميل أنبأ شعبة ثنا أبو سلمة قال : سمعت أبا نضرة يقول قرأت على ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما {فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة} قال ابن عباس: فما استمعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى قال أبو نضرة : فقلت ما نقرأها كذلك فقال ابن عباس : والله لأنزلها الله كذلك

Abu Zakariyyah al-‘Anbari - Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Salam - Ishaq b. Ibrahim - al-Naḍr b. Shumayl - Shu’bah - Abu Salamah - Abu Naḍrah:

I read to Ibn ‘Abbas: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He said: “{Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period}”. Abu Naḍrah said: I said, “We do not recite it like that!” Ibn ‘Abbas replied, “I swear by Allah, Allah certainly revealed it like that.”2

Al-Hakim comments:

   هذا حديث صحيح على شرط مسلم

This hadith is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.3

And Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) concurs:

   على شرط مسلم

Upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim4

Imam Ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari (d. 310 H) also documents:

   حدثنا ابن المثنى، قال: ثنا محمد بن جعفر، قال: ثنا شعبة، عن أبي سلمة، عن أبي نضرة، قال :قرأت هذه الآية على ابن عباس} :فما استمتعتم به منهن {قال ابن عباس} :إلى أجل مسمى{، قال قلت: ما أقرؤها كذلك !قال: والله لأنزلها الله كذلك ثلاث مرات .

Ibn al-Muthanna - Muhammad b. Ja’far - Shu’bah - Abu Salamah - Abu Naḍrah:

I read this verse to Ibn ‘Abbas: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah} [4:24]. He said: “{for a specified period}”. I said, “We do not recite it like that!” He replied, “I swear by Allah, Allah certainly revealed it like that.” He said it three times.5

Al-Hafiẓ (d. 852 H) says about its first narrator:

   محمد بن المثنى بن عبيد العنزي بفتح النون والزاي أبو موسى البصري ….ثقة ثبت

Muhammad b. al-Muthanna b. ‘Ubayd al-‘Unaza, Abu Musa al-Basri.... Thiqah (trustworthy), thabt (accurate).6

He also states concerning the second narrator:

   محمد بن جعفر الهذلي البصري المعروف بغندر ثقة صحيح الكتاب إلا أن فيه غفلة

Muhammad b. Ja’far al-Hazali al-Basri, better known as Ghandar: Thiqah (trustworthy), sahih al-kitab (i.e. ahadith from his books are sahih) except that there was some negligence in him.7

Ghandar’s negligence, of course, did not affect his riwayat from Shu’bah, as al-Hafiẓ quotes:

   وقال ابن أبي حاتم سألت أبي عن غندر فقال كان صدوقا وكان مؤدبا وفي حديث شعبة ثقة

Ibn Abi Hatim said: “I asked my father about Ghandar and he replied, ‘He was saduq (very truthful), and was a teacher and in the hadith of Shu’bah, he is thiqah (trustworthy).’”8

So, apparently, this sanad is sahih too without any doubt.

Al-Ṭabari further records:

   حدثنا أبو كريب قال ، حدثنا يحيى بن عيسى قال ، حدثنا نصير بن أبي الأشعث قال ، حدثني ابن حبيب بن أبي ثابت ، عن أبيه قال : أعطاني ابن عباس مصحفًا فقال : هذا على قراءة أبيّ قال أبو كريب قال يحيى : فرأيت المصحف عند نصير، فيه : (فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى ) .

Abu Kurayb - Yahya b. ‘Isa - Nasir b. Abi al-Ash’ath - Ibn Habib b. Abi Thabit - his father:

Ibn ‘Abbas gave me a mushaf. He said, “This is upon the qiraat of Ubayy b. Ka’b”.

Abu Kurayb narrated that Yahya said: “I saw the mushaf with Nusayr. In it was {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period}.9

Commenting upon this same chain with another narration, Prof. Ibn Yasin states:

    ورجاله ثقات إلا يحيى بن عيسى صدوق، وابن حبيب هو عبد الله، وسنده حسن .

Its narrators are thiqah (trustworthy), except that Yahya b. ‘Isa is saduq (very truthful) as well as Ibn Habib - and he was ‘Abd Allah, and its chain is hasan.10

Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211 H) too reports:

   عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال: أخبرني عطاء أنه سمع ابن عباس يراها الان حلالا، وأخبرني أنه كان يقرأ} فما استمتعتم] به [منهن إلى أجل فآتوهن أجورهن {

‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - ‘Aṭa:

I heard Ibn ‘Abbas while he saw it as halal, and he used to recite {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a period, give them their prescribed dowries}.11

This sanad is sahih, as we have discussed in the Preface.

Meanwhile, al-Hafiẓ Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) has some more relevant information for us:

    وكان ابن عباس ، وأبيّ بن كعب ، وسعيد بن جُبَيْر ، والسُّدِّي يقرءون : "فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ".

Ibn ‘Abbas, Ubayy b. Ka’b, Sa’id b. Jubayr and al-Suddi used to recite: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period, give them their prescribed dowries}.12

So, apparently, that extra phrase makes it impossible to apply to the verse to the permanent marriage as lots of the Ahl al-Sunnah do. The permanent marriage is never contracted “for a specified period”. As such, the verse is explicit in its legislation of temporary marriage.

Ibn ‘Abbas, raḍiyallahu ‘anhu, also made this clear. Al-Ṭabari says:

   حدثنا حميد بن مسعدة، قال :ثنا بشر بن المفضل، قال :ثنا داود، عن أبي نضرة، قال :سألت ابن عباس عن متعة النساء، قال :أما تقرأ سورة النساء؟ قال :قلت بلى. قال: فما تقرأ فيها :فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى؟ قلت :لا، لو قرأتها هكذا ما سألتك !قال :فإنها كذا .

Hamid b. Mas’adah - Bashar b. al-Mufaḍḍal - Dawud - Abu Nadrah:

I asked Ibn ‘Abbas concerning mut’ah with women. He replied, “Do you not read Surah al-Nisa?” I said, “I do.” He said, “So, do you not read in it {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period} [4:24]?” I said, “No. If I had recite it like that, I would not have asked you!” He said, “Verily, it is like that.”13

About the first narrator, al-Hafiẓ comments:

   حميد بن مسعدة بن المبارك السامي بالمهملة أو الباهلي بصري صدوق

Hamid b. Mas’adah b. al-Mubarak al-Sami or al-Bahili, Basri: Saduq (very truthful).14

What of the second narrator? He has an even better verdict:

   بشر بن المفضل بن لاحق الرقاشي بقاف ومعجمة أبو إسماعيل البصري ثقة ثبت عابد

Bashar b. al-Mufaḍḍal b. Lahik al-Raqashi, Abu Isma’il al-Basri: Thiqah (trustworthy), thabt (accurate), a devout worshipper of Allah.15

And al-Hafiẓ states about the third narrator:

   داود بن أبي هند القشيري مولاهم أبو بكر أو أبو محمد البصري ثقة متقن كان يهم بأخرة

Dawud b. Abi Hind al-Qushayri, their freed slave, Abu Bakr or Abu Muhammad al-Basri: Thiqah (trustworthy), extremely precise. He used to hallucinate during the last part of his life.16

Thus, this chain too is hasan. Hamid b. Mas’adah was saduq (very truthful), and Dawud’s late-life hallucinations were not serious. Note, in the riwayah, how Ibn ‘Abbas quoted the ayah as evidence of mut’ah.

So, what is that extra phrase “for a specified period”? Was it an interpolation by Ubayy, Ibn ‘Abbas and others like them? Or, is it only a case of tahrif, in which some parts of the Kitab have been expunged? To us, the best explanation of the status of the extra phrase is in this verse:

    واذكروا نعمت الله عليكم وما أنزل عليكم من الكتاب والحكمة يعظكم به

And remember the Favours of Allah upon you, and that which He has sent down to you of the Book AND the Hikmah, whereby He instructs you.17

This ayah informs us that Allah has sent down two things to this Ummah: the Qur’an and the Hikmah. The same thing is repeated elsewhere:

    وأنزل الله عليك الكتاب والحكمة

And Allah sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book and the Hikmah.18

It is often claimed that the “Hikmah” is the Sunnah of the Prophet. However, it is apparently more than that. The Hikmah too used to be “recited” like the Qur’an:

   واذكرن ما يتلى في بيوتكن من آيات الله والحكمة إن الله كان لطيفا خبيرا

And remember that which is recited in your houses of the Verses of Allah and the Hikmah. Verily, Allah is Subtle, Aware.19

So, we know that “for a specified period” was revealed by Allah too within the Verse of al-Mut’ah, as testified by Ibn ‘Abbas. We also know that some of the Sahabah and Tabi’in used to “recite” it. However, we know as well that it is not part of the Qur’an nonetheless. Therefore, that phrase naturally falls under the Hikmah category. Allah revealed it to explain the ayah. It may be recited with the verse, and it may be excluded from it. Some of the Salaf - such as Ibn ‘Abbas, Ubayy b. Ka’b, Sa’id b. Jubayr and al-Suddi - chose to recite it with the ayah.

In the Shi’i books, the Verse of al-Mut’ah is also cited as evidence of its divine legislation. Shaykh al-Kulayni (d. 329 H), for instance, documents:

   عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، وعلي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه جميعا، عن ابن أبي نجران، عن عاصم بن حميد، عن أبي بصير قال: سألت أبا جعفر عليه السلام عن المتعة، فقال: نزلت في القرآن } فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة فلا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة {

A number of our companions - Sahl b. Ziyad AND ‘Ali b. Ibrahim - his father - Ibn Abi Najran - ‘Asim b. Humayd - Abu Basir:

I asked Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, concerning mut’ah. So, he replied, “It is revealed in the Qur’an {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is prescribed}.20

‘Allamah al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H) says about this hadith:

    حسن كالصحيح

Hasan ka al-Sahih.21

So, this is a hasan hadith which is equal to a sahih hadith.

Al-Kulayni again records:

   علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن علي بن الحسن بن رباط، عن حريز، عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي عبد الله قال: سمعت أبا حنيفة يسأل أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن المتعة فقال: أي المتعتين تسأل؟ قال: سألتك عن متعة الحج فأنبئني عن متعة النساء أحق هي؟ فقال: سبحان الله أما قرأت كتاب الله عز وجل } فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة { ؟ فقال أبو حنيفة: والله فكأنها آية لم أقرأها قط .

‘Ali b. Ibrahim - his father - Ibn Abi ‘Umayr - ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Rabaṭ - Hariz - ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi ‘Abd Allah:

I heard Abu Hanifah asking Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, about mut’ah. So, he (Abu ‘Abd Allah) said, “Which of the two mut’ahs are you asking about?” He (Abu Hanifah) replied, “I (already) asked you about mut’ah of Hajj. So, inform me about mut’ah with women. Is it correct?” He (Abu ‘Abd Allah) said, “Subhan Allah! Do you not read the Book of Allah {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries}?” Then, Abu Hanifah said, “I swear by Allah, it is as though it is a verse I have never read”.22

Al-Majlisi comments:

   حسن

Hasan.23

Notes

1. Qur’an 4:24

2. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Ṣahihayn (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Muṣtafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 2, p. 334, # 3192

3. Ibid

4. Ibid

5. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir b. Yazid b. Kathir b. Ghalib al-Amuli al-Ṭabari, Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Qur’an (Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: Ṣidqi Jamil al-‘Aṭṭar], vol. 5, p. 19

6. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Muṣtafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 2, p. 129, # 6283

7. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 63, # 5805

8. Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1404 H), vol. 9, p. 85, # 129

9. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir b. Yazid b. Kathir b. Ghalib al-Amuli al-Ṭabari, Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Qur’an (Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: Ṣidqi Jamil al-‘Aṭṭar], vol. 5, p. 18

10. Prof. Dr. Hikmat b. Bashir b. Yasin, Mawsu’at al-Ṣahih al-Masbur min al-Tafsir bi al-Mathur (Madinah: Dar al-Mathar li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’ wa al-Ṭaba’at; 1st edition, 1420 H), vol. 3, p. 239

11. Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 498, # 14022

12. Abu al-Fida Isma’il b. ‘Umar b. Kathir al-Qurshi al-Dimashqi, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Aẓim (Dar al-Ṭaybah li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 2nd edition, 1420 H) [annotator: Sami b. Muhammad Salamah], vol. 2, p. 259

13. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir b. Yazid b. Kathir b. Ghalib al-Amuli al-Ṭabari, Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Qur’an (Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: Ṣidqi Jamil al-‘Aṭṭar], vol. 5, p. 18

14. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Muṣtafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 1, p. 246, # 1564

15. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 130, # 705

16. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 283, # 1822

17. Qur’an 2:231

18. Qur’an 4:113

19. Qur’an 33:34

20. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 448, # 1

21. Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 226

22. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, pp. 449-450, # 6

23. Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 230

2. Reign Of The Verse Of Al-Mut’ah

It is absolutely beyond doubt that Allah decreed mut’ah with women for the Ummah during the mission of His last Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi. There are authentic ahadith in both Sunni and Shi’i sources confirming this. So, naturally, the next question is - has the Verse of al-Mut’ah been abrogated? This question stands at the heart of a huge dispute between the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Shi’ah over the legitimacy of mut’ah after the Messenger’s death. The Sunnis argue that mut’ah was abrogated by the Prophet, and that it has thereby become a form of zina (fornication). On the other hand, Shi’is maintain that the Verse of al-Mut’ah was never abrogated, and that mut’ah remains a command of Allah and the valid Sunnah of His Messenger till the Day of al-Qiyamah.

The Shi’i position is well-captured in this hadith of al-Kulayni (d. 329 H):

   علي، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن عمر بن أذينة، عن زرارة قال: جاء عبد الله بن عمير الليثي إلى أبي جعفر عليه السلام فقال له: ما تقول في متعة النساء؟ فقال: أحلها الله في كتابه وعلى لسان نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله فهي حلال إلى يوم القيامة فقال: يا أبا جعفر مثلك يقول هذا وقد حرمها عمر ونهى عنها؟! فقال: وإن كان فعل، قال: إني أعيذك بالله من ذلك أن تحل شيئا حرمه عمر، قال: فقال له: فأنت على قول صاحبك وأنا على قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فهلم ألاعنك أن القول ما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وأن الباطل ما قال صاحبك، قال: فأقبل عبد الله ابن عمير فقال: يسرك أن نساءك وبناتك وأخواتك وبنات عمك يفعلن، قال: فأعرض عنه أبو جعفر عليه السلام حين ذكر نساءه وبنات عمه .

‘Ali - his father - Ibn Abi ‘Umayr - ‘Umar b. Uzaynah - Zurarah:

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umayr al-Laythi went to Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, and said to him, “What is your opinion of mut’ah with women?” So, he (Abu Ja’far) said, “Allah made it halal in His Book and upon the tongue of His Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. Therefore, it is halal till the Day of al-Qiyamah.”

Then he (al-Laythi) said, “O Abu Ja’far! Someone of your calibre saying this, despite that ‘Umar had made it haram and had forbidden it?!” He (Abu Ja’far) said, “Even if he did so.” He (al-Laythi) said, “I seek refuge for you with Allah from that, from making halal something that ‘Umar made haram.” He (Abu Ja’far) said to him, “Your follow the teaching of your companion and I follow the teaching of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family. So, invoke the curse of Allah (upon the wrong party between us) - (I say) that the truth is what the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, said, and that the falsehood is what your companion said.”

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umayr then advanced and said, “Would it make you happy if your wives, daughters, sisters and the daughters of your uncle do (mu’tah)?” So, Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, turned away from him when he mentioned his wives and the daughters of his uncle.1

‘Allamah al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H) says:

   حسن

Hasan.2

Al-Laythi was apparently a Sunni, who held ‘Umar in extremely high esteem. He did not believe in the legitimacy of mut’ah, solely on the premise that ‘Umar forbade it. The Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet, ‘alaihim al-salam, by contrast, follow his Sunnah, and uphold its legality. So, the official position of the chosen ones from the Messenger’s offspring is that mut’ah is decreed in the Qur’an and its verse had never been abrogated. As such, temporary marriage remains halal till the Last Hour. The Ahl al-Bayt also believe that it is a bid’ah to consider mut’ah to be haram, and that whosoever does so has opposed the Prophet of Allah. Al-Laythi insulted Imam al-Baqir, ‘alaihi al-salam, by asking if it would please him if his wives and the daughters of his uncle did mut’ah. Of course, mut’ah is haram for married women. A woman in Islam can only have one husband at a time. It is also very likely that the daughters of the Imam’s uncle were also already married at that time. Thus, due to al-Laythi’s mocking (or perhaps ignorant) insult, the noble Imam turned away from him.

Interestingly, there are some authentic Sunni riwayat which also confirm this Shi’i hadith. Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) has this surprising one:

   حدثنا حامد بن عمرو البكراوي حدثنا عبدالواحد ( يعني ابن زياد ) عن عاصم عن أبي نضرة قال كنت عند جابر بن عبدالله فأتاه آت فقال ابن عباس وابن الزبير اختلفا في المتعتين فقال جابر فعلناهما مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ثم نهانا عنهما عمر فلم نعد لهما

Hamid b. ‘Amr al-Bakrawi - ‘Abd al-Wahid b. Ziyad - ‘Asim - Abu Naḍrah:

I was with Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, a person came and said, “Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn al-Zubayr disagree concerning the two types of mut’ah.” So, Jabir said, “We practised BOTH of them along with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Then, ‘Umar forbade us from them both, and we have not reverted to them.”3

This hadith is significant in many ways. Among them, it establishes that the Prophet himself was practising both types of mut’ah - including that with women - along with his Sahabah. Moreover, Jabir explicitly stated that it was ‘Umar who first banned both of them.

The same fact is reiterated in this hadith of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H):

   حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا إسحاق ثنا عبد الملك عن عطاء عن جابر بن عبد الله قال كنا نتمتع على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وأبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهم حتى نهانا عمر رضي الله عنه أخيرا يعني النساء

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Ishaq - ‘Abd al-Malik - ‘Aṭa - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

We used to do mut’ah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, until ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, later forbade it, that is (mut’ah with) women.4

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ says:

   إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.5

So, ‘Umar himself initially allowed it. Abu Bakr, on the other hand, had no problem with it throughout his rule.

Imam Muslim equally reports:

   حدثني محمد بن رافع حدثنا عبدالرزاق أخبرنا ابن جريج أخبرني أبو الزبير قال سمعت جابر بن عبدالله يقول كنا نستمتع بالقبضة من التمر والدقيق الأيام على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وأبي بكر حتى نهى عنه عمر في شأن عمرو بن حريث

Muhammad b. Rafi’ - ‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - Abu al-Zubayr:

I heard Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah saying, “We used to contract mut’ah by giving a handful of dates and flour (as the dowry) during the time of the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr UNTIL ‘Umar forbade it in the case of ‘Amr b. Hurayth.6

This one repeats emphatically that the practice of mut’ah continued unimpeded and uninterrupted from the time of the Prophet till ‘Umar forbade it.

It is indeed of great interest that the Sahabah generally were engaging in mut’ah with women - and this naturally included sexual intercourse with them - and the Prophet never rebuked or punished a single one of them! This occurred till his death, and also during the rule of Abu Bakr. If mut’ah were haram, then the intercourse within it would have been zina (fornication or adultery), and it would have been obligatory upon the Messenger to investigate the cases and punish the mut’ah practitioners. After all, they were not doing it in secret. This was how Jabir knew that it was a general practice, in the first place. So, was the Prophet failing in his duties? Or, was he condoning disobedience and illegal sex? Or, was it that he never forbade it - as the Ahl al-Bayt and Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah claimed - and therefore had nothing to probe or penalize in it? What about Abu Bakr? Why would he allow zina to flourish in his domains?

Imam Ahmad still has more reports for us:

   حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا يونس ثنا حماد يعني بن سلمة عن علي بن زيد وعاصم الأحول عن أبي نضرة عن جابر بن عبد الله قال تمتعنا متعتين على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم الحج والنساء فنهانا عمر عنهما فانتهينا

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Yunus - Hamad b. Salamah - ‘Ali b. Zayd AND ‘Asim al-Ahwal - Abu Naḍrah - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

We practised two forms of mut’ah during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him: Hajj and woman. But, ‘Umar forbade us from them both. So, we desisted.7

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ comments:

   إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.8

He also records:

   حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا عفان ثنا حماد أنا علي بن زيد وعاصم الأحول عن أبي نضرة عن جابر بن عبد الله قال تمتعنا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم متعتين الحج والنساء وقد قال حماد أيضا متعة الحج ومتعة النساء فلما كان عمر نهانا عنهما فانتهينا

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - ‘Affan - Hamad - ‘Ali b. Zayd AND ‘Asim al-Ahwal - Abu Naḍrah - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

We practised mut’ah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, two types of mut’ah: the mut’ah of Hajj (i.e. Hajj al-Tamattu’) and mut’ah with women. But, when ‘Umar forbade us from them both, we desisted.9

Al-Arnauṭ again says:

   إسناده صحيح

Its chain is sahih10

Then, Imam Ahmad tops them with this:

   حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا عبد الصمد ثنا حماد عن عاصم عن أبي نضرة عن جابر قال متعتان كانتا على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فنهانا عنهما عمر رضي الله تعالى عنه فانتهينا

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - ‘Abd al-Samad - Hamad - ‘Asim - Abu Naḍrah - Jabir:

There used to be two types of mut’ah during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him. But, ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, forbade us from them both. So, we desisted.11

Al-Arnauṭ declares:

   إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.12

So, the Sahabah were heavily into mut’ah with women till the deaths of both the Prophet and Abu Bakr, and also for a long time during ‘Umar’s rule. They freely practised it, even after the Messenger’s demise, and they freely allowed it.

Meanwhile, when ‘Umar banned mut’ah, his action naturally attracted opposition from some Sahabah. One of them was ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud, about whom Imam Muslim reports:

   حدثنا محمد بن عبدالله بن نمير الهمداني حدثنا أبي ووكيع وابن بشر عن إسماعيل عن قيس قال سمعت عبدالله يقول كنا نغزو مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ليس لنا نساء فقلنا ألا نستخصى ؟ فنهانا عن ذلك ثم رخص لنا أن ننكح المرأة بالثوب إلى أجل ثم قرأ عبدالله { يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تحرموا طيبات ما أحل الله لكم ولا تعتدوا إن الله لا يحب المعتدين }

Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah b. Numayr al-Hamdani - my father, Waki’ and Ibn Bishr - Isma’il - Qays:

I heard ‘Abd Allah saying, “We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and we had no women with us. So, we said “Should we castrate ourselves?” But, he forbade us to do that. Then, he permitted us to do nikah (marriage) with the woman for a stipulated period, giving her a garment (as the dowry).” Then, ‘Abd Allah recited, {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you; and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits} [5:87].13

Ahmad has documented it too:

   حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا وكيع عن بن أبي خالد عن قيس عن عبد الله قال كنا مع النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ونحن شباب فقلنا يا رسول الله ألا نستخصي فنهانا ثم رخص لنا في ان ننكح المرأة بالثوب إلى الأجل ثم قرأ عبد الله { لا تحرموا طيبات ما أحل الله لكم }

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Waki’ - Ibn Abi Khalid - Qays - ‘Abd Allah:

“We were with the Prophet, peace be upon him, and we were youths. So, we said to the Messenger of Allah, “Should we castrate ourselves?” But, he forbade us (to do that). Then, he permitted us to do nikah (marriage) with the woman for a stipulated period, giving her a garment (as the dowry).” Then, ‘Abd Allah recited, {Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you} [5:87].14

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ comments:

   إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs15

Apparently, Ibn Mas’ud issued this statement in response someone’s declaration of mut’ah as haram. No doubt, this was ‘Umar. It is indeed of great interest that mut’ah was considered by Ibn Mas’ud to be one of the “good things” mentioned by Allah in His Book. This was clearly why he quoted the ayah in connection with it. Al-Hafiẓ Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852 H) has this commentary of that hadith:

    وظاهر استشهاد ابن مسعود بهذه الآية هنا يشعر بأنه كان يرى بجواز المتعة

Apparently, Ibn Mas’ud’s use of this verse here as evidence shows that he considered mut’ah to be permissible.16

Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 H) has the same opinion:

    ) ثم قرأ عبد الله يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تحرموا طيبات ما أحل الله لكم ( فيه إشارة إلى أنه كان يعتقد اباحتها كقول ابن عباس وأنه لم يبلغه نسخها

(Then, ‘Abd Allah recited, {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you} [5:87]) there is an indication in it that he considered it permissible, as Ibn ‘Abbas also did, and that information concerning its abrogation did not reach him.17

The last part of al-Nawawi’s submission is only a desperate excuse. As Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, raḍiyallahu ‘anhu, claimed, the generality of the Sahabah freely practised mut’ah - unimpeded and interrupted - from the time of the Prophet till the rule of ‘Umar! Is it then possible that the information of its alleged abrogation also did not reach any of them - until suddenly, after ‘Umar banned it?

Meanwhile, there are a number of fawaid from the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud:

1. It establishes that mut’ah was NOT practised amongst the Muslims initially. This was why no Muslim did it until after the Messenger “permitted” them. This refutes the claim that the Muslims only carried on the practice of mut’ah from the Jahili era.

2. It also shows that mut’ah is one of the “good things” mentioned by Allah, and made halal by Him, in His Book. We will explain, in the next chapter, how Ibn Mas’ud concluded that Qur’an 5:87 is also about mut’ah, among others.

3. It further confirms that mut’ah is truly a form of nikah (marriage). So, the parties in it are legally husband and wife.

Notes

1. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 449, # 4

2. Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 229

3. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1405 (17)

4. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 3, p. 304, # 14307

5. Ibid

6. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1405 (16)

7. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 3, p. 356, # 14877

8. Ibid

9. Ibid, vol. 3, p. 363, # 14959

10. Ibid

11. Ibid, vol. 3, p. 325, # 14519

12. Ibid

13. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1404 (11)

14. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 1, p. 432, # 4113

15. Ibid

16. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Ṣahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Ṭaba’ah wa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 9, p. 102

17. Abu Zakariyyah Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sharh Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) vol. 9, p. 182