7. Shi’i Ahadith Misused About Mut’ah
We have seen the Ahl al-Sunnah quoting certain ahadith from the Shi’i books in desperate efforts to “prove” mut’ah wrong. We will be examining these riwayat here, with the Grace and Help of Allah. Meanwhile, we strongly advise our brothers and sisters from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah and the Shi’ah Imamiyyah: whenever anyone - whether Sunni, Shi’i or otherwise - claims to you that a certain hadith exists in the Shi’i sources, demand adamantly that he must produce (i) its full Arabic text with its chain of narration, (ii) evidence of the reliability of its sanad, (iii) its primary source with the full citation, (iv) a declaration that it does not originate from a ḍa’if source book, (v) a declaration that it does not contradict the Qur’an as interpreted in authentic Shi’i ahadith, and (v) a declaration that it does not contradict superior Shi’i ahadith. When you do this, you have already won 2/3 of the battle to defeat deceit and trickery.
Hadith One
Shaykh al-Ṭusi (d. 460 H) records:
فأما ما رواه محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عن أبي الجوزا عن الحسين بن علوان عن عمرو بن خالد عن زيد بن علي عن آبائه عن علي عليهم السلام قال: حرم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لحوم الحمر الأهلية ونكاح المتعة
.
Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya - Abu al-Jawza - al-Husayn b. ‘Alwan - ‘Amr b. Khalid - Zayd b. ‘Ali - his fathers - ‘Ali, peace be upon them:
The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, forbade the meat of domestic donkey and the marriage of mut’ah.
He also documents in his Tahdhib:
واما ما رواه محمد بن يحيى عن أبي جعفر عن أبي الجوزا عن الحسين بن علوان عن عمرو بن خالد عن زيد بن علي عن آبائه عن علي عليهم السلام قال: حرم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يوم خيبر لحوم الحمر الأهلية ونكاح المتعة
.
Muhammad b. Yahya - Abu Ja’far - Abu al-Jawza - al-Husayn b. ‘Alwan - ‘Amr b. Khalid - Zayd b. ‘Ali - his fathers - ‘Ali, peace be upon them:
The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, forbade the meat of domestic donkey and the marriage of mut’ah on the Day of Khaybar.
Shaykh ‘Ali Al Muhsin comments on it:
هذه الرواية ضعيفة السند بعمرو بن خالد الواسطي، فإنه لم يوثَّق في كتب الرجال، واختُلف في مذهبه، فقيل: إنه من أهل السنة .والمشهور أنه من رؤساء الزيدية، وأغلب رواياته يرويها عن زيد بن علي، ومنها هذه الرواية
.
ومن جملة رواة هذا الحديث الحسين بن علوان، وهو سُنِّي المذهب، وعبارة النجاشي في ترجمته موهمة تحتمل عود التوثيق فيها إليه أو إلى أخيه الحسن، ولا توثيق آخر له، ولهذا فنحن متوقفون فيه، وإن وثّقه بعض الأعلام، وضعَّفه بعض آخر
.
والحاصل أن هذا الحديث اشتمل على راوٍ زيدي، وآخر سُني المذهب، وكلاهما لم يثبت توثيقهما، وما قيل في توثيقهما ليس محلاً للاعتماد والوثوق
.
This report has a ḍa’if chain, due to ‘Amr b. Khalid al-Wasiṭi, for there is no tawthiq (accreditation) for him in the books of al-rijal. There is also dispute about his sect. It is said that he was from the Ahl al-Sunnah. However, the widespread opinion is that he was from the leaders of the Zaydiyyah, and he narrated most of his reports from Zayd b. ‘Ali, including this report.
One of the narrators of this hadith is also al-Hasan b. ‘Alwan, and he was a Sunni by sect. As for the statement of al-Najashi in his tarjamah, it is inconclusive. It is possible that the tawthiq in it refers to him or to his brother, al-Hasan; and there is no other tawthiq for him. For this reason, we stop short about him, even those some of the great ‘ulama call him thiqah while others declare him ḍa’if.
In conclusion, this hadith has a Zaydi reporter, and another who belonged to the Sunni sect; and tawthiq is not established for both of them. As for the tawthiq that is said for them both, it is neither reliable nor trustworthy.
‘Allamah al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H) also declares about the hadith above:
ضعيف أو موثق
Ḍa’if or Muwaththaq.
Apparently, the best that the chain of the hadith can be is muwaththaq. However, in line with the Shi’i rijali manhaj, if a muwaththaq-chained hadith contradicts a sahih-chained hadith, the former becomes munkar (rejected) and therefore very ḍa’if. Al-Ṭusi submits:
وأما العدالة المراعاة في ترجيح أحد الخبرين على الاخر فهو: أن يكون الراوي معتقدا للحق، مستبصرا ثقة في دينه، متحرجا من الكذب غير متهم فيما يرويه
.
فأما إذا كان مخالفا في الاعتقاد لأصل المذهب وروى مع ذلك عن الأئمة عليهم السلام نظر فيما يرويه. فان كان هناك من طرق الموثوق بهم ما يخالفه وجب اطراح خبره
.
As for the ‘adalah that is required in the preference of one of two reports over another, it is: that the narrator should have the true ‘aqidah, enlightened, trustworthy in his religion, who avoids telling lies, not accused in what he narrates.
But, if he deviates in ‘aqidah from the root of the (Shi’i) sect, and narrates nonetheless from the Imams, peace be upon them, what he narrates is looked at. If there is what contradicts it from the routes of trusted narrators, it becomes obligatory to throw away his report.
As our esteemed reader can clearly see, the report of al-Husayn b. ‘Alwan and ‘Amr b. Khalid above contradicts - not one or two, but - several sahih Shi’i ahadith that explicitly establish the unbroken legitimacy of mut’ah! This makes it severely unreliable, ḍa’if jiddan. Meanwhile, an additional argument against this hadith of al-Husayn and ‘Amr is that it further contradicts the Qur’an - specifically, the Verse of al-Mut’ah and several dual-purpose ayahs, which have declared the purity of temporary marriage till the Last Hour. This makes it mawḍu’ (a fabrication) without a doubt. No wonder, after mentioning that the chain of the riwayah of Husayn and ‘Amr is either “ḍa’if or muwaththaq”, al-Majlisi immediately proceeds to proclaim:
الأظهر أنه من مفتريات الزيدية، كما يظهر من أكثر أخبارهم
The most apparent is that it is from the FABRICATIONS of the Zaydiyyah, as obvious from most of their reports.
So, the hadith is mawḍu’.
Hadith Two
Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Ash’ari is also said to have documented:
قال محمد بن أبي عمير، عن عبد الله بن سنان، قال: سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن المتعة؟ فقال: لا تدنس نفسك بها
Muhammad b. Abi ‘Umayr - ‘Abd Allah b. Sinan:
I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, about mu’tah. So, he said, “Do not desecrate yourself with it.”
The first problem with this report is that it is from a ḍa’if book. While it is true that Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa did write a Nawadir, it has not reached us through authentic means, and there is not enough evidence to establish that what we have today is a true copy of his original book. Rather, ‘Allamah al-Muhsini declares about al-Nawadir as we have it in our hands:
والحق عدم إعتبار أحاديثها المنقولة في البحار و الوسائل و المستدرك وما يوجد في النسخة المطبوعة منها
The truth is the UNRELIABILITY of its ahadith which are quoted in al-Bihar, al-Wasail and al-Mustadrak, and whatever is found in the published manuscript from it.
Whoever seeks the detailed arguments about the unreliability of the book’s transmission to al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H), al-Hurr al-‘Amili (d. 1104 H)and to us is strongly referred to the academic research of al-Muhsini on it
.
Mirza al-Nuri (d. 1320 H) also submits:
وأما ثالثا: فقوله رحمه الله} : ولذا لم ينقل عنه الحر في الوسائل {فإن فيه أنه من أين علم أن الكتاب كان عنده ولم يعتمد عليه ولذا لم ينقل عنه؟ بل المعلوم المتيقن أنه كغيره من الكتب المعتبرة لم يكن عنده، ولو كان لنقل عنه قطعا، فإنه ينقل عن كتب هي دونه بمراتب من جهة المؤلف، أو لعدم ثبوت النسبة إليه، أو ضعف الطريق إليه، كفضل الشيعة للصدوق، وتحف العقول، وتفسير فرات، وإرشاد الديلمي، ونوادر أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، والاختصاص للمفيد
.
And thirdly, as for his statement, may Allah be merciful to him {this is why al-Hurr in al-Wasail did not quote from it}, what is there is: how did he know that the book was with him and he did not rely upon it and so did not quote from it? Rather, what is undoubtably certain is that it, like other authentic books, was not with him. If it had been, he would certainly have quoted from it, because he quoted from books that are inferior to it by degrees in terms of (the unreliability of) the author, or due to the unreliability of its (i.e. the book’s) attribution to him, or the weakness of the chain (of the book) to him, like Faḍl al-Shi’ah of al-Saduq, Tuhaf al-‘Uqul, Tafsir al-Furat, Irshad of al-Daylami, Nawadir of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa, and al-Ikhtisas of al-Mufid.
He lists al-Nawadir among the ḍa’if books which al-Hurr al-‘Amili relies upon in his Wasail. So, whatever is quoted from it - in al-Bihar, al-Wasail or its published editions - is ḍa’if by default.
Meanwhile, the hadith is equally mawḍu’ on account of its opposition to the Verse of al-Mut’ah and several sahih ahadith.
Hadith Three
Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Ash’ari is further said to have recorded:
ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن الحكم، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام، قال: ما تفعلها عندنا إلا الفواجر
Ibn Abi ‘Umayr - Hisham b. al-Hakam - Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:
None does it, in our view, except the unchaste.
It comes from a ḍa’if book. Therefore, it is ḍa’if. But then, it is also obscure. What exactly is it that is done by the unchaste? It is not mentioned. So, it is not known. However, if it is were a reference to mut’ah, then the hadith would become mawḍu’ due to its contradiction with the Verse of al-Mut’ah and numerous sahih ahadith.
Hadith Four
Shaykh al-Kulayni (d. 329 H) records:
عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن علي بن أسباط، ومحمد بن الحسين جميعا، عن الحكم بن مسكين، عن عمار قال: قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لي ولسليمان بن خالد: قد حرمت عليكما المتعة من قبلي ما دمتما بالمدينة لأنكما تكثران الدخول علي فأخاف أن تؤخذا، فيقال: هؤلاء أصحاب جعفر
.
A number of our companions - Sahl b. Ziyad - ‘Ali b. Asbaṭ AND Muhammad b. al-Husayn - al-Hakam b. Miskin - ‘Ammar:
Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, said to me and Sulayman bl Khalid, “I have made mut’ah (temporary marriage) haram upon you both as long as you are in al-Madinah, because you frequently visit me and I fear that you might be arrested, and it would be said, ‘These are companions of Ja’far.’”
‘Allamah al-Majlisi comments:
ضعيف على المشهور
Ḍa’if upon the mainstream (standards).
Al-Jawahiri also states about one of its narrators:
سهل بن زياد: أبو سعيد الآدمي، الرازي … ضعيف جزما أو لم تثبت وثاقته
Sahl b. Ziyad, Abu Sa’id al-Adami al-Razi ...: decidedly ḍa’if or his trustworthiness is not established.
About another narrator, he further declares:
الحكم بن مسكين الثقفي : … مجهول
Al-Hakam b. Miskin al-Thaqafi ...: Majhul.
So, it is genuinely ḍa’if.
Those who quote it seek to prove that mut’ah is haram through it. However, it actually establishes the opposite of that! According to the ḍa’if hadith, both ‘Ammar and Sulayman were forbidden to do temporary marriage in Madinah but free to practise it elsewhere. Moreover, the prohibition covered only both of them, and did not extend generally to all Shi’is. Besides, it was done to protect both ‘Ammar and Sulayman from arrest and possible persecution or even execution. The Ahl al-Sunnah had declared mut’ah a form of zina. Therefore, the Sunni government in al-Madinah could arrest the two Shi’is and accuse them of fornication or adultery. They both could be stoned to death, or lashed, depending on their marital status, as a result of their mut’ah; and that could soil the name of Imam Ja’far - with whom they were known - among the general Sunni public. From the look of it, in line with the ḍa’if report, the Madinah governorate was stricter against temporary marriage than other Sunni provinces.
In any case, the hadith is ḍa’if. Therefore, it is of no probative value.
Hadith Five
Al-Kulayni documents:
علي بن محمد، عن صالح بن أبي حماد، عن ابن سنان، عن المفضل بن عمر قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول في المتعة: دعوها أما يستحيي أحدكم أن يرى في موضع العورة فيحمل ذلك على صالحي إخوانه وأصحابه
.
‘Ali b. Muhammad - Salih b. Abi Hammad - Ibn Sinan - al-Mufaḍḍal b. ‘Umar:
I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, saying about mut’ah: “Abandon it. Would any of you be ashamed to be seen at the place of blemish, and that is placed upon his righteous brothers and companions?”
Al-Majlisi says:
ضعيف
Ḍa’if.
Then, he adds:
قوله عليهالسلام : ) أن يرى في موضع العورة ( أي يراه الناس في موضع يعيب من يجدونه فيه ، لكراهتهم للمتعة فيصير ذلك سببا للضرر عليه وعلى إخوانه
His statement, peace be upon him (to be seen at the place of blemish) meaning, the people see him at a place where whosoever they find there is condemned, due to their abhorrence of mut’ah, hence that becomes a cause of harm to him and to his brothers.
This seems to be a conditional ban imposed to curb the harm which accrues to righteous Shi’is from ignorant Sunnis. Wherever the practice of mut’ah would not put the Shee’ah in danger, then the prohibition would not apply. In any case, the hadith is ḍa’if. Meanwhile, if its texts does question the legitimacy of mut’ah, then it is in contradiction to the Verse of al-Mut’ah, and therefore mawḍu’.
Hadith Six
Al-Kulayni reports:
علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن بعض أصحابنا، عن زرارة، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: قلت له: جعلت فداك الرجل يتزوج المتعة وينقضي شرطها ثم يتزوجها رجل آخر حتى بانت منه ثم يتزوجها الأول حتى بانت منه ثلاثا وتزوجت ثلاثة أزواج يحل للأول أن يتزوجها؟ قال: نعم كم شاء ليس هذه مثل الحرة هذه مستأجرة وهي بمنزلة الإماء
.
‘Ali b. Ibrahim - his father - Ibn Abi ‘Umayr - one of our companions - Zurarah:
I said to Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, “May I be sacrificed for you. The man marries in mut’ah and its term expires. Then, another man marries her until she separates from him. Then, the first (man) re-marries her until she separates from him three times; and she married three husbands. Is it permissible for the first (man) to re-marry her (again)?” He said, “Yes, any number of times he wishes. This one is not like the free woman. This one is rented, and she is of the status of the slave woman.”
Al-Majlisi declares:
حسن وعليه الأصحاب
Hasan, and upon it are the companions (i.e. the scholars).
However, it is actually mursal and therefore ḍa’if. Al-Majlisi grades it hasan, apparently because he belongs to the camp of Shi’i scholars who accept the marasil of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr - as in this case. Our great leader, ‘Allamah al-Khui (d. 1411 H), traces the origin of this practice:
أقول: الأصل في هذه الدعوى هو الشيخ - قدس سره -، فقد قال في أواخر بحثه عن خبر الواحد في كتاب العدة …) : ولأجل ذلك سوت الطائفة بين ما يرويه محمد بن أبي عمير، وصفوان بن يحيى، وأحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر، وغيرهم من الثقات الذين عرفوا بأنهم لا يروون ولا يرسلون إلا عمن يوثق به، وبين ما أسنده غيرهم
(…
I say: The root of this claim was Shaykh, may Allah sanctify his secret, for he had said at the end of his research concerning the solitary report in Kitab al-‘Uddah:
“... It is for this reason that the ṭaifah have equated the reports of Muhammad b. Abi ‘Umayr, Safwan b. Yahya, and other thiqah narrators - whom they know that they did not narrate or do irsal except from those that were trusted - with what others narrated in musnad (fully connected) manners....”
Then, he adds:
فمن المطمأن به أن منشأ هذا الدعوى هو دعوى الكشي الاجماع على تصحيح ما يصح عن هؤلاء. وقد زعم الشيخ أن منشأ الاجماع هو أن هؤلاء لا يروون إلا عن ثقة، وقد مر قريبا بطلان ذلك
.
From what is certain is that the origin of this claim (of Shaykh al-Ṭusi) was the claim of al-Kashi that there was ijma’ (consensus) upon the authentication of whatsoever is authentically transmitted from these people. The Shaykh had claimed that the origin of the ijma’ was that these people did not narrate except from thiqah narrators, and the fallacy of that has just been mentioned.
So, there was a claim of ijma’ by al-Kashi upon the acceptance of whatsoever Ibn Abi ‘Umayr and a few other people narrated. From this claim of al-Kashi, al-Ṭusi concluded that Ibn Abi ‘Umayr never narrated except from thiqah narrators. His conclusion became accepted among many ‘ulama; and, as such, they accepted all his ahadith indiscriminately, including even where he has not given the name of his source. However, as al-Khui demonstrates, both the ‘ijma itself and the conclusion from it were made in error. He first declares:
ولكن هذه الدعوى باطلة
But, this claim (i.e. that they narrated from thiqah narrators only) is fallacious.
Then, with specific reference to Ibn Abi ‘Umayr, he debunks the myth surrounding him:
وهذا ابن أبي عمير، روى عن علي بن أبي حمزة البطائني كتابه، ذكره النجاشي والشيخ، وروى محمد بن يعقوب بسند صحيح عن ابن أبي عمير عن علي بن أبي حمزة وروى بسند صحيح عن ابن أبي عمير عن الحسين بن أحمد المنقري، والحسين بن أحمد المنقري، ضعفه النجاشي والشيخ. وروى الشيخ بسند صحيح عن ابن أبي عمير، عن علي بن حديد وعلي ابن حديد ضعفه الشيخ في موارد من كتابيه وبالغ في تضعيفه. وتقدمت روايته عن يونس بن ظبيان آنفا. وأما روايته عن المجاهيل غير المذكورين في الرجال فكثيرة
:And this is Ibn Abi ‘Umayr. He narrated from ‘Ali b. Abi Hamzah al-Baṭaini his book. Al-Najashi and Shaykh mentioned it. Muhammad b. Ya’qub also narrated with a sahih chain from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr from ‘Ali b. Abi Hamzah; and he also narrated with a sahih chain from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr from al-Husayn b. Ahmad al-Munqiri, and al-Husayn b. Ahmad al-Munqiri was declared ḍa’if by al-Najashi and Shaykh. Shaykh too narrated with a sahih chain from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr from ‘Ali b. Hadid, and ‘Ali b. Hadid was declared ḍa’if by Shaykh at many places in his two books, and he was extremely emphatic in declaring him ḍa’if. His report from Yunus b. Ẓabyan has been previously mentioned. As for his reports from majhul narrators who are not mentioned in the rijal books, then they are several.
Basically, Ibn Abi ‘Umayr used to narrate from ḍa’if narrators, and even from al-Baṭaini who was a liar! There are sahih chains reaching up to him confirming these crucial facts. As such, the basis for accepting his narrations without question, including his marasil, is defeated by this reality. Worse still, Ibn Abi ‘Umayr himself never claimed that he narrated from reliable narrators only. It was just some ‘ulama who made the apparently erronoeous claim about him. Writing about Ibn Abi ‘Umayr and his colleagues, and the claim that they never narrated except from thiqah narrators, al-Khui further states:
ومن الظاهر أنه لم ينسب إلى أحد هؤلاء إخباره وتصريحه بذلك، وليس لنا طريق آخر لكشفه
.
From what is apparent is that it is not attributed to any of these people his information or declaration of that, and there is no other way for us to discover it.
The bottomline then is that the marasil of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr are ḍa’if like the other marasil. This is what al-Khui concludes as well:
تقدم عن النجاشي في أن الأصحاب سكنوا إلى مراسيل ابن أبي عمير، وذكر مثل ذلك الشيخ في كتاب العدة، ولكنا قد تعرضنا في المقدمة، إلى أن هذا الكلام لا أساس له، وأنه لا فرق بين مراسيله ومراسيل غيره من الثقات
.
We have earlier quoted al-Najashi saying that the companions (i.e. scholars) relied upon the marasil of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr, and Shaykh mentioned the like of that in Kitab al-‘Uddah. However, we have indicated in the Introduction that this statement has no basis, and that there is no difference between his marasil and the marasil of other thiqah narrators.
Therefore, the hadith of Zurarah above is ḍa’if, as it is a mursal report of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr. Those who quote it seek to prove:
(i) the mut’ah wife is “rented” for sex in the marriage; and
(ii) she is like a slave woman.
Well, the comparison of the temporary wife to the slave woman is strictly relative:
(a) a man may have as many slave women with whom he enjoys sexual relations as he wants;
(b) in the same manner, the husband may have mut’ah relationships with as many women as he wants at the same time;
(c) the master of a slave woman needs no wali or witnesses in order to enjoy a concubinage with her;
(d) the husband of a temporary wife needs no wali (except in the case of a virgin) and no witnesses (except where he voluntarily chooses to have them) in order to formalize the mut’ah with her;
(e) the slave woman exits the concubinage without divorce;
(f) the temporary wife separates from the husband without a divorce.
These are the only areas of similarity between the mut’ah wife and the slave concubine. In everything else, they are different. This hasan or sahih hadith of al-Kulayni, which we have already quoted in full in this book, testifies to this:
ليس فيها وقت ولا عدد إنما هي بمنزلة الإماء يتزوج منهن كم شاء وصاحب الأربع نسوة يتزوج منهن ما شاء بغير ولي ولا شهود فإذا انقضى الاجل بانت منه بغير طلاق ويعطيها الشئ اليسير
There is no specific length or any (maximum) number (of the wives) in it. They are only of the status of slave women: he marries any number of them as he wishes, and the husband of four women (also) marries from them whatever he wishes, with no wali or witnesses. When the (agreed) term expires, she separates from him without divorce, and he gives her the small thing.
As for the claim that she is “rented” for sex in the mut’ah, we will have more to say about this. But, first, let us examine the other ahadith which also described her as “rented”. Al-Kulayni gives us the second report, as well:
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن الحسين بن سعيد، ومحمد بن خالد البرقي، عن القاسم بن عروة، عن عبد الحميد، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام في المتعة قال: ليست من الأربع لأنها لا تطلق ولا ترث وإنما هي مستأجرة
.
Muhammad b. Yahya - Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa - al-Husayn b. Sa’id AND Muhammad b. Khalid al-Barqi - al-Qasim b. ‘Urwah - ‘Abd al-Hamid - Muhammad b. Muslim:
Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, said concerning mut’ah: “She is not from the four (permanent wives), because she is not divorced and she does not inherit. She is only a rented woman.”
Al-Majlisi states:
مجهول
Majhul.
And al-Jawahiri declares concerning one of its narrators:
القاسم بن عروة: أبو محمد مولى أبي أيوب الخوزي - مجهول
Al-Qasim b. ‘Urwah, Abu Muhammad, freed slave of Abu Ayyub al-Khawzi: Majhul.
Meanwhile, al-Barqi is equally said to have documented this hadith:
وعنه، عن العباس بن معروف، عن القاسم بن عروة: عن عبد الحميد الطائي، عن محمد بن مسلم، قال: قلت لأبي جعفر عليه السلام : لم لا تورث المرأة عمن يتمتع بها؟ -قال: لأنها مستأجرة، وعدتها خمسة وأربعون يوما
And from him - al-‘Abbas b. Ma’ruf - al-Qasim b. ‘Urwah - ‘Abd al-Hamid al-Ṭai - Muhammad b. Muslim:
I said to Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, “Why does the woman not inherit the one who does mut’ah with her?” He said, “It is because she is a rented woman, and her ‘iddah is forty-five days.”
This is from al-Qasim b. ‘Urwah, the same majhul narrator, and it is therefore also ḍa’if. Besides, Kitab al-Mahasin is also a ḍa’if book, as it has not reached us through authentic means.
That compounds the unreliability of the hadith.
And, here is al-Kulayni with the final hadith on this matter:
الحسين بن محمد، عن أحمد بن إسحاق، عن سعدان بن مسلم، عن عبيد بن زرارة، عن أبيه، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: ذكرت له المتعة أهي من الأربع؟ فقال: تزوج منهن ألفا فإنهن مستأجرات
.
Al-Husayn b. Muhammad - Ahmad b. Ishaq - Sa’dan b. Muslim - ‘Ubayd b. Zurarah - his father:
I mentioned mut’ah to him, “Is she from the four?” So, he said, “Marry a thousand of them, for they are rented women.”
And, al-Majlisi submits:
مجهول
Majhul.
This basically establishes that there is NO authentic basis for referring to mut’ah wives as rented women.
But then, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that she is rented. Is it really for sex? There are two possibilities here:
(i) The woman is rented for sex in mut’ah. Therefore, there can be no mut’ah without intercourse.
(ii) The woman is not rented for sex in mut’ah. As such, there can be mut’ah without intercourse.
There is no third way to this. If mut’ah is only a “rental” of the woman for sex, then any mut’ah without sex is no mut’ah. However, as al-Kulayni has reported, mut’ah can be without sex, and still be mut’ah:
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد وعبد الله ابني محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن زياد بن أبي الحلال قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: لا بأس بأن يتمتع بالبكر ما لم يفض إليها مخافة كراهية العيب على أهلها
.
Muhammad b. Yahya - Ahmad and ‘Abd Allah, sons of Muhammad b. ‘Isa - ‘Ali b. al-Hakam - Ziyad b. Abi al-Hilal:
I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, saying: “There is no problem in doing mut’ah with the virgin as long as he does not have sex with her, for fear of the disgust of the blemish upon her family.”
Al-Majlisi declares:
صحيح
Sahih.
Even the locus classicus in this matter, the mursal hadith of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr, affirms the same truth. Al-Ṭusi documents:
روى محمد بن يعقوب عن علي بن إبراهيم عن أبيه عن ابن أبي عمير عن بعض أصحابنا عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: قلت له: جعلت فداك تتزوج المتعة وينقضي شرطها ثم يتزوجها رجل آخر حين بانت منه ثم يتزوجها الرجل الأول حين بانت منه ثلاثا وتزوجت ثلاثة أزواج يحل للأول ان يتزوجها؟ قال: نعم كم شاء ليس هذه مثل الحرة هذه مستأجرة وهي بمنزلة الإماء. ومتى تزوج الرجل امرأة متعة وشرطت عليه ان لا يطأها في فرجها فليس له إلا ما اشترطت
.
Muhammad b. Ya’qub - ‘Ali b. Ibrahim - his father - Ibn Abi ‘Umayr - one of our companions - Zurarah:
I said to Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, “May I be sacrificed for you. Mut’ah was contracted and its term expires. Then, another man marries her when she separates from him. Then, the first man re-marries her when she separates from him, three times; and she married three husbands. Is it permissible for the first (man) to re-marry her (again)?” He said, “Yes, any number of times he wishes. This one is not like the free woman. This one is rented, and she is of the status of the slave woman. And when the man marries a woman in mut’ah, and she imposes a condition upon him that he shall not have sexual intercourse with her, then there is nothing for him except whatever is stipulated as a condition.”
So, then, how exactly is mut’ah a “rental” of the woman for sex?
Hadith Seven
Shaykh al-Ṭusi records:
واما ما رواه أحمد بن محمد عن أبي الحسن عن بعض أصحابنا يرفعه إلى أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: لا تتمتع بالمؤمنة فتذلها
.
Ahmad b. Muhammad - Abu al-Hasan - one of our companions - Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:
Do not do mut’ah with a muminah (believing woman), thereby humiliating her.
Then, al-Ṭusi himself declares:
فهذا الخبر مقطوع الاسناد مرسل
This report has a disconnected chain, mursal.
So, it is ḍa’if; and that basically deals with it.
Hadith Eight
Al-Ṭusi reports:
روى محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد عن علي ابن حديد عن جميل عن زرارة قال: سأل عمار وانا عنده عن الرجل يتزوج الفاجرة متعة قال: لا بأس وإن كان التزويج الآخر فليحصن بابه
.
Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya - Ahmad b. Muhammad - ‘Ali b. Hadid - Jamil - Zurarah:
‘Ammar asked, while I was with him, about the man who marries the prostitute in mut’ah. He said, “There is no problem. But, if it were the other marriage, then he must fortify his door.”
And, in his Istibsar, he proclaims:
وأما خبر زرارة فالطريق إليه علي بن حديد وهو ضعيف جدا لا يعول على ما ينفرد بنقله
As for the report of Zurarah, the route to him is ‘Ali b. Hadid and he is ḍa’if jiddan. Whatever he alone narrates is not relied upon.
Therefore, the report is ḍa’if jiddan in its sanad.
Al-Majlisi too says about the hadith:
ضعيف
Ḍa’if.
Meanwhile, it also directly contradicts this ayah of the Qur’an:
الزاني لا ينكح إلا زانية أو مشركة والزانية لا ينكحها إلا زان أو مشرك وحرم ذلك على المؤمنين
The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater: and that is made haram for the believers.
On this account alone, the hadith is mawḍu’.
Hadith Nine
Al-Ṭusi documents:
عنه عن سعدان عن علي بن يقطين قال: قلت لأبي الحسن عليه السلام: نساء أهل المدينة قال: فواسق قلت: فأتزوج منهن؟ قال: نعم. ومتى أراد الرجل تزويج المتعة فليس عليه التفتيش عنها بل يصدقها في قولها
.
From him (i.e. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya) - Sa’dan - ‘Ali b. Yaqṭin:
I said to Abu al-Hasan, peace be upon him, “The women of al-Madinah.” He said, “Unchaste.” I said, “So, can I marry from them?” He said, “Yes. And when the man intends to contract mut’ah, he does not have to do investigation about her. Rather, he should trust her in her statement.”
Al-Majlisi says:
مجهول
Majhul.
As such, this hadith of ‘Ali b. Yaqṭin is ḍa’if. It also contradicts the Book of Allah, and that makes it mawḍu’.
Hadith Ten
Al-Ṭusi records:
روى محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عن علي بن السندي عن عثمان بن عيسى عن إسحاق بن عمار عن فضل مولى محمد بن راشد عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: قلت اني تزوجت امرأة متعة فوقع في نفسي أن لها زوجا ففتشت عن ذلك فوجدت لها زوجا قال: ولم فتشت؟
!
Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya - ‘Ali b. al-Sindi - ‘Uthman b. ‘Isa - Ishaq b. ‘Ammar - Faḍl, freed slave of Muhammad b. Rashid:
I said, “I married a woman in mut’ah. But, it occurred in my mind that she had a husband. So, I investigated that and discovered that she had a husband.” Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Why did you investigate?!”
Al-Jawahiri says about one of the narrators:
علي بن السندي: روى ٨٤ رواية، وروى بعنوان علي بن السندي القمي - لم تثبت وثاقته
‘Ali b. al-Sindi: he narrated 84 reports, and he also narrated under the name ‘Ali b. al-Sanadi al-Qummi: his trustworthiness is NOT established.
This makes him majhul and ḍa’if. Al-Jawahiri also states about another narrator:
الفضل مولى محمد بن راشد :مجهول
Al-Faḍl, freed slave of Muhammad b. Rashid: Majhul.
Apparently, the report has a ḍa’if chain. It also contradicts this authentic hadith of al-Kulayni:
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن أبان، عن أبي مريم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام أنه سئل عن المتعة فقال: إن المتعة اليوم ليس كما كانت قبل اليوم إنهن كن يومئذ يؤمن واليوم لا يؤمن فاسألوا عنهن
.
Muhammad b. Yahya - Ahmad b. Muhammad - Ibn Mahbub - Aban - Abu Maryam:
Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, was asked about mut’ah. So, he said, “Verily, mut’ah today is not as it used to be in the past. They (i.e. the women) used to be faithful. But, today, they are not faithful. Therefore, investigate about them (i.e. the women).
Al-Majlisi says:
موثق كالصحيح
Muwaththaq ka al-Sahih
Therefore, the man must thoroughly investigate about the woman - including concerning her marital status - before contracting mut’ah with her. Besides, even during their marriage, he must still carry out fresh investigations if he has any suspicions. The Imam, ‘alaihi al-salam, has not placed any time limitations on the obligation to investigate.
Hadith Eleven
Al-Ṭusi reports:
وعنه عن أيوب بن نوح عن مهران بن محمد عن بعض أصحابنا عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: قيل له ان فلانا تزوج امرأة متعة فقيل له ان لها زوجا فسألها فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: ولم سألها؟
And from him (Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya) - Ayyub b. Nuh - Mihran b. Muhammad - one of our companions:
It was said to Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, “So-and-so married a woman in mut’ah. Then, he was informed that she had a husband. Therefore, he asked her.” So, Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, said, “And why did he ask her?”
Al-Jawahiri says about one of the narrators:
مهران بن محمد: مجهول
Mihran b. Muhammad: Majhul.
As such, the hadith is ḍa’if. But, it is also mursal, as our esteemed reader can see. Al-Majlisi too confirms this when he declares concerning it:
مرسل
Mursal.
Therefore, its suffers from compounded unreliability.
Hadith Twelve
Al-Ṭusi documents:
وعنه عن الهيثم بن أبي مسروق النهدي عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر ومحمد بن الحسن الأشعري عن محمد بن عبد الله الأشعري قال: قلت للرضا عليه السلام: الرجل يتزوج بالمرأة فيقع في قلبه أن لها زوجا قال: ما عليه أرأيت لو سألها البينة كان يجد من يشهد ان ليس لها زوج
And from him (i.e. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya) - al-Haytham b. Abi Masruq al-Hindi - Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr AND Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ash’ari - Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ash’ari:
I said to al-Riḍa, peace be upon him, “The man marries the woman. Then, it occurs in his mind that she has a husband.” He said, “It is not upon him. Have you seen: if he asks her for proof, there will be someone who will testify that she has no husband?”
Al-Majlisi states about the hadith:
مجهول
Majhul.
Al-Jawahiri also submits about one of the narrators:
محمد بن عبد الله الأشعري: مجهول
Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ash’ari: Majhul.
Therefore, the hadith is ḍa’if.
Hadith Thirteen
Al-Ṭusi records:
محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عن العباس بن معروف عن سعدان بن مسلم عن رجل عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: لا بأس بتزويج البكر إذا رضيت من غير اذن أبويها
.
Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya - al-‘Abbas b. Ma’ruf - Sa’dan b. Muslim - a man - Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:
There is no problem in marrying the virgin when she consents, without the consent of her parents.
Al-Majlisi declares:
مجهول مرسل
Majhul Mursal.
Thus, it is very weak. It equally contradicts this authentic hadith of the same al-Ṭusi:
فاما رواه أحمد بن محمد عن محمد بن إسماعيل عن أبى الحسن ظريف عن ابان عن أبي مريم عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: العذراء التي لها أب لا تتزوج متعة إلا باذن أبيها
.
Ahmad b. Muhammad - Muhammad b. Isma’il - Abu al-Hasan Zarif - Aban - Abu Maryam - Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:
The virgin who has a father cannot be married in mut’ah except with the permission of her father.
Al-Majlisi comments:
موثق كالصحيح
Muwaththaq ka al-Sahih
Al-Ruhani also states:
صحيح
Sahih
That then delivers the fatal blow to it.
Hadith Fourteen
Al-Ṭusi says:
وعنه عن موسى بن عمر بن يزيد عن محمد بن سنان عن أبي سعيد القماط عمن رواه قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: جارية بكر بين أبويها تدعوني إلى نفسها سرا من أبويها أفأفعل ذلك؟ قال: نعم واتق موضع الفرج قال: قلت فان رضيت بذلك؟ قال: وان رضيت بذلك فإنه عار على الابكار
.
And from him from Musa b. ‘Umar b. Yazid - Muhammad b. Sinan - Abu Sa’id al-Qimaṭ - from the one who narrated it:
I said to Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him: “A virgin girl who is still with her parents invites me to herself secretly without the knowledge of her parents. Should I do that?” He said, “Yes, and avoid the place of the vulva.” I said, “So, if she consents to that?” He said, “Even if she consents to that, for it is a shame upon the virgins.”
Al-Majlisi comments:
ضعيف على المشهور
Ḍa’if ‘ala al-Mashhur.
Al-Jawahiri too states about one of the narrators:
موسى بن عمر بن يزيد بن ذبيان: الصيقل - مجهول
Musa b. ‘Umar b. Yazid Dhibyan al-Sayqal: Majhul.
And, about another narrator, Shaykh al-Najashi (d. 450 H) submits:
محمد بن سنان … هو رجل ضعيف جدا لا يعول عليه ولا يلتفت إلى ما تفرد به
Muhammad b. Sinan he is a man who is ḍa’if jiddan (very weak). He is not relied upon, and no attention is paid to whatever he narrated without corroboration.
As such, the hadith is ḍa’if jiddan. Worse still, it is equally mursal, as its main narrator is unknown.
With that same ḍa’if jiddan chain, al-Tusi proceeds with this further riwayah:
وبهذا الاسناد عن أبي سعيد قال: سئل أبو عبد الله عليه السلام عن التمتع من الابكار اللواتي بين الأبوين فقال: لا بأس ولا أقول كما يقول هؤلاء الأقشاب
And with this chain from Abu Sa’id:
Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, was asked about mut’ah with virgins who are still with their parents. So, he said, “There is no problem (with it), and I do not say as these scoundrels say.”
Al-Majlisi says:
ضعيف
Ḍa’if.
We already know of the severe weakness of the sanad, anyway.
Then, al-Ṭusi proceeds to narrate one more hadith through that same chain:
أبو سعيد عن الحلبي قال: سألته عن التمتع من البكر إذا كانت بين أبويها بلا اذن أبويها قال: لا بأس ما لم يقتض ما هناك لتعف بذلك
.
Abu Sa’id from al-Halabi:
I asked him about mut’ah with the virgin who is still with her parents without the consent of her parents. He said, “There is no problem as long as one does not consummate what is there, so that she could be chaste by that.”
Al-Majlisi declares:
ضعيف على المشهور
Ḍa’if ‘ala al-Mashhur.
And it is actually ḍa’if jiddan due to Muhammad b. Sinan. Of course, it equally contradicts the sahih hadith of Abu Maryam, quoted above - a fact that makes its case even more hopeless.
Hadith Fifteen
Al-Tusi records:
الحسن بن محبوب عن إسحاق بن جرير قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام ان عندنا بالكوفة امرأة معروفة بالفجور أيحل ان أتزوجها متعة؟ قال فقال :رفعت راية؟ قلت: لا لو رفعت راية اخذها السلطان قال فقال: نعم تزوجها متعة قال: ثم إنه اصغي إلى بعض مواليه فاسر إليه شيئا، قال: فدخل قلبي من ذلك شئ قال: فلقيت مولاه فقلت له: اي شئ قال لك أبو عبد الله عليه السلام؟ قال: فقال لي: ليس هو شئ تكرهه فقلت: فأخبرني به قال فقال: إنما قال لي: ولو رفعت راية ما كان عليه في تزويجها شئ إنما يخرجها من حرام إلى حلال
.
Al-Hasan b. Mahbub - Ishaq b. Jarir:
I said to Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, “With us in Kufah, there is a woman who is famous for prostitution. Is it halal to marry her in mut’ah?” He said, “Did she raise a flag (i.e. openly practises prostitution)?” I said, “No. If she raised a flag, the ruler would arrest her.” So, he said, “Yes. Marry her in mut’ah.” Then, he listened to one of his slaves and confided something to him. As a result, something entered my heart concerning that. Therefore, I met his slave and said to him, “What did Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, say to you?” So, he said to me, “It is not something you dislike.” Then I said, “In that case, inform me of it.” Then he said, “He only said to me: even if she raised a flag, there would not be anything against his marriage of her. He only takes her out of a haram to a halal.”
Al-Majlisi says:
موثق
Muwaththaq.
Al-Ruhani agrees:
موثق
Muwaththaq.
The last part of the hadith is mursal and therefore ḍa’if, as it is narrated to Ishaq by an unnamed, unknown slave. As for the first part, it is muwaththaq.
A muwaththaq hadith is only conditionally authentic, and is inferior to a sahih hadith. This is why, in the case of a conflict between a muwaththaq hadith and a sahih hadith, the former becomes shadh and ḍa’if. Meanwhile, al-Ṭusi himself gives some further information on the muwaththaq hadith:
وأما العدالة المراعاة في ترجيح أحد الخبرين على الاخر فهو: أن يكون الراوي معتقدا للحق، مستبصرا ثقة في دينه، متحرجا من الكذب غير متهم فيما يرويه
.
فأما إذا كان مخالفا في الاعتقاد لأصل المذهب وروى مع ذلك عن الأئمة عليهم السلام نظر فيما يرويه. فان كان هناك من طرق الموثوق بهم ما يخالفه وجب اطراح خبره. وان لم يكن هناك ما يوجب اطراح خبره ويكون هناك ما يوافقه وجب العمل به
.
وان لم يكن من الفرقة المحقة خبر يوافق ذلك ولا يخالفه، ولا يعرف لهم قول فيه، وجب أيضا العمل به
As for the ‘adalah that is required in the preference of one of two reports over another, it is: that the narrator should have the true ‘aqidah, enlightened, trustworthy in his religion, who avoids telling lies, not accused in what he narrates.
But, if he deviates in ‘aqidah from the root of the (Shi’i) sect, and narrates nonetheless from the Imams, peace be upon them, what he narrates is looked at. If there is what contradicts it from the routes of trusted narrators, it becomes obligatory to throw away his report. However, if there is nothing that necessitates throwing away his report, and there is what agrees with it, it becomes obligatory to follow it.
Meanwhile, if there is no report from the saved sect (i.e. Shi’is) which agrees with that, and no report which contradicts it, and no opinion is known from them concerning it, it is equally obligatory to follow it.
In other words, a muwaththaq hadith - which is what a non-Imami Muslim narrates from the Ahl al-Bayt - is authentic only if there is nothing sahih that contradicts it. Al-Ṭusi also adds:
وان كان ما رووه ليس هناك ما يخالفه ولا يعرف من الطائفة العمل بخلافه، وجب أيضا العمل به إذا كان متحرجا في روايته موثوقا في أمانته، وان كان مخطئا في أصل الاعتقاد
.
And if there is nothing that contradicts what he narrated, and the ṭaifah (i.e. Shi’is) are not known to have acted contrary to it, it is obligatory to follow it as well, if he is restrained (from telling lies) in his report, trustworthy in his honesty, even if he deviates in the root of ‘aqidah.
So, what saves a muwaththaq hadith is the complete absence of any sahih Shi’i hadith that contradicts it. If there is, the muwaththaq hadith becomes matruk (rejected) and thrown away.
With that in mind, we ask: is there any sahih Shi’i hadith which contradicts the muwaththaq hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir above?
First, it directly opposes this ayah of Allah:
الزاني لا ينكح إلا زانية أو مشركة والزانية لا ينكحها إلا زان أو مشرك وحرم ذلك على المؤمنين
The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater: and that is made HARAM for the believers.
This explicitly forbids marriage with fornicators and fornicatresses. The instruction is also general, and the Ahl al-Bayt have applied the verse to both permanent marriage and mut’ah.
It also contradicts this ayah:
اليوم أحل لكم الطيبات وطعام الذين أوتوا الكتاب حل لكم وطعامكم حل لهم والمحصنات من المؤمنات والمحصنات من الذين أوتوا الكتاب من قبلكم إذا آتيتموهن أجورهن محصنين غير مسافحين ولا متخذي أخدان
Today, the good things are made halal to you; and the food of those who were given the Book is halal for you, and your food is halal for them; and also (halal to you are) the CHASTE ONES from the believing women and the CHASTE ONES from those who were given the Book before you, when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating (with them), nor taking them as girlfriends.
Only chaste Muslim and Kitabi women are halal for marriage. All others are therefore haram. Of course, there is absolutely no doubt that fornicatresses and prostitutes are NOT chaste women. As such, mut’ah with any unchaste woman - in particular, with a fornicatress or prostitute - is haram in Islam, according to the Book of our Lord.
The third ayah which the muwaththaq hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir contradicts is this:
ومن لم يستطع منكم طولا أن ينكح المحصنات المؤمنات فمن ما ملكت أيمانكم من فتياتكم المؤمنات والله أعلم بإيمانكم بعضكم من بعض فانكحوهن بإذن أهلهن وآتوهن أجورهن بالمعروف محصنات غير مسافحات ولا متخذات أخدان
And whoever of you is not able to afford to marry free believing women, let him marry from the believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess, and Allah has full knowledge about your faith. You are one from another. Marry them with the consent of their masters and give them their dowries justly: they being CHASTE, not fornicating, nor taking boyfriends.
So, even a slave girl must be chaste before she can qualify for marriage - whether permanently or in mut’ah. Alhamdulillah, there are hardly any slaves in the world today. Meanwhile, the significance of this verse to our research is in the fact that Allah generally sets lower standards for slaves and higher for free believers
. Since chastity is strictly required from slave girls before they can qualify for nikah, then the standard is even higher for free Muslimahs! Apparently, the average Muslim woman must indeed be very chaste in order to be suitable for mut’ah.
Thus, what happens to the muwaththaq hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir which opposes these verses? Al-Khui has a clear answer for this:
وقد دلت الأخبار المتواترة على وجوب عرض الروايات على الكتاب والسنة وأن ما خالف الكتاب منها يجب طرحه، وضربه على الجدار
.
The mutawatir reports have proved that it is obligatory to compare reports with the Book and the Sunnah, and that whatsoever contradicts the Book from them must be thrown away and discarded.
Shaykh al-Saduq (d. 381 H) too declares:
وكل حديث لا يوافق كتاب الله فهو باطل
Every hadith that does not agree with the Book of Allah is a fabrication.
Therefore, the hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir is mawḍu’, a fabrication.
Then, al-Saduq has this hadith too:
روى داود بن سرحان، عن زرارة عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: سألته عن قول الله عز وجل: الزاني لا ينكح إلا زانية أو مشركة والزانية لا ينكحها إلا زان أو مشرك " قال: هن نساء مشهورات بالزنا، ورجال مشهورون بالزنا، شهروا بالزنا وعرفوا به، والناس اليوم بتلك المنزلة من أقيم عليه حد الزنا أو شهر بالزنا لم ينبغ لاحد أن يناكحه حتى يعرف منه توبة
Dawud b. Sarhan - Zurarah:
I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, about the Statement of Allah, the Almighty {The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater}. He said, “They are women who are famous for zina, and men who are famous for zina. They became famous for zina and became known with it; and the people today are of that status. Whoever is judicially punished for zina or is famous for it, it is NOT appropriate for anyone to marry them until repentance is known from them.”
The annotator, Prof. ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari, comments:
الطريق صحيح
The chain is sahih.
Al-Ruhani agrees with him:
صحيح
Sahih.
Al-Ṭusi also reports this:
أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن أبي المعزا عن الحلبي قال قال: أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لا تتزوج المرأة المعلنة بالزنا ولا تزوج الرجل المعلن بالزنا إلا أن يعرف منهما التوبة
.
Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa - Abu al-Mua’za - al-Halabi - Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:
“Do NOT marry the woman who overtly commits zina, and do NOT marry the man who overtly commits zina, EXCEPT when repentance is known from them both.”
Al-Ruhani comments:
صحيح
Sahih.
Al-Kulayni is not left out either:
علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن محمد بن الفضيل قال:سألت أبا الحسن عليه السلام عن المرأة الحسناء الفاجرة هل يجوز للرجل أن يتمتع منها يوما أو أكثر؟ فقال: إذا كانت مشهورة بالزنا فلا يتمتع منها ولا ينكحها
.
‘Ali b. Ibrahim - Muhammad b. ‘Isa - Yunus - Muhammad b. al-Fuḍayl:
I asked Abu al-Hasan, peace be upon him, about the beautiful woman who is a prostitute: is it permissible for the man to do mut’ah with her for a day or more?” He said: “If she is famous for zina, then he must NOT do mut’ah with her and also must NOT marry her (permanently).”
Al-Majlisi comments:
موثق
Muwaththaq (Reliable)
Al-Ruhani says:
صحيح
Sahih.
Then, al-Kulayni reports this too:
حميد بن زياد، عن الحسن بن محمد بن سماعة، عن أحمد بن الحسن الميثمي، عن أبان، عن حكم بن حكيم، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام في قوله عز وجل: والزانية لا ينكحها إلا زان أو مشرك قال: إنما ذلك في الجهر ثم قال: لو أن إنسانا زنى ثم تاب تزوج حيث شاء
.
Humayd b. Ziyad - al-Hasan b. Muhammad b. Sama’ah - Ahmad b. al-Hasan al-Maythami - Aban - Hakam b. Hakim - Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, concerning His Statement, the Almighty {and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater}:
“That is only in the publicity (of the fornication)”. Then, he (Abu ‘Abd Allah) said, “If a person commits zina, and then repents, they can marry wherever they wish (in the halal categories).”
Al-Majlisi comments:
موثق
Muwaththaq.
And, of course, we must not forget this hadith of al-Ṭusi:
أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع قال: سأل رجل الرضا عليه السلام وانا اسمع عن الرجل يتزوج المرأة متعة ويشترط عليها ان لا يطلب ولدها فتأتي بعد ذلك بولد فينكر الولد فشدد في ذلك وقال يجحد؟ وكيف يجحد اعظاما لذلك؟ قال الرجل فان اتهمها قال: لا ينبغي لك ان تتزوج إلا مأمونة ان الله يقول: الزاني لا ينكح إلا زانية أو مشركة والزانية لا ينكحها إلا زان أو مشرك وحرم ذلك على المؤمنين
Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa - Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Bazi’:
A man asked al-Riḍa, peace be upon him, while I was listening, about the man who marries the woman in mut’ah and he imposes a condition upon her that he will not seek her child. But, she later comes with a child and he severely denies the child. So, he (al-Riḍa) said, “Does he deny? How can he deny primarily because of that?” Then, the man said, “What if he accuses her (of fornication)?” He (al-Riḍa) said, “It is not appropriate for you to marry except a faithful woman. Verily, Allah the Almighty says: {The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater: and that is made haram for the believers}.
Al-Majlisi states:
صحيح
Sahih.
Al-Ruhani concurs:
صحيح
Sahih.
Meanwhile, al-Kulayni still has more:
علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز بن عبد الله، عن محمد ابن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: سألته عن الخبيثة أتزوجها؟ قال: لا
.
‘Ali b. Ibrahim - his father - Hammad b. ‘Isa - Hariz b. ‘Abd Allah - Muhammad b. Muslim:
I asked Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, about the fornicatress, “Can I marry her?” He said, “No.”
Al-Majlisi declares:
حسن
Hasan.
Let us then cap everything with this additional hadith of al-Kulayni:
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن العلاء بن رزين، عن محمد بن مسلم قال: سألت أبا جعفر عليه السلام عن الخبيثة يتزوجها الرجل، قال: لا، وقال: إن كان له أمة وطئها ولا يتخذها أم ولده
.
Muhammad b. Yahya - Ahmad b. Muhammad - ‘Ali b. al-Hakam - al-‘Ala b. Zarin - Muhammad b. Muslim:
I asked Abu Ja’far about the fornicatress, “Can the man marry her?” He said, “No.” And he (further) said, “If he has a slave woman, he should have intercourse with her (instead), and he should not take her as the mother of his child.”
And, al-Majlisi states:
صحيح
Sahih.
The bottom-line of all this is that the hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir fails the full conditions of authenticity. It contradicts the Book of Allah as well as several sahih, muwaththaq and hasan ahadith. As a result, it is mawḍu’¸ thrown out and discarded.
Hadith Sixteen
Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 413 H) records:
وعن الحسن بن جرير قال: سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام في المرأة تزني عليها أيتمتع بها؟ قال: أرأيت ذلك؟ قلت: لا، ولكنها ترمى به قال: نعم يتمتع بها على أنك تغادر وتغلق بابك
.
Narrated al-Hasan b. Jarir:
I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, about the woman upon whom zina is committed. Can I do mut’ah with her?” He said, “Did you see that?” I said, “No. But, she is accused of it.” He said, “Yes. Do mut’ah with her, upon (the condition) that you leave and lock your door.”
This one is mursal and therefore ḍa’if, as it has no chain of narration. Moreover, its only narrator, al-Hasan b. Jarir, is muhmal (untraceable). Therefore, the hadith is very weak.
Hadith Seventeen
Al-Himyari (d. 300 H), in the book attributed to him, has this hadith:
قال علي بن رئاب: سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن المرأة الفاجرة يتزوجها الرجل المسلم؟ قال :نعم، وما يمنعه؟ إذا فعل فليحصن بابه مخافة الولد
‘Ali b. Riab said:
I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, concerning with the prostitute: “Does the Muslim man marry her?” He said, “Yes. And what prevents him? If he does, he must fortify his door, for fear of the child.”
Ayatullah al-Muhsini declares it ḍa’if.
In particular, it is from Qurb al-Isnad, a ḍa’if book
, which has not reached us through any reliable means; and there is also dispute over its exact authorship.
Moreover, the hadith is not about mut’ah specifically. Rather, it addresses marriage generally. Meanwhile, despite that it is intrinsically ḍa’if, it nonetheless also contradicts sahih and muwaththaq reports. This significantly worsens its unreliability. Most importantly, it opposes the Book of Allah, and that makes it mawḍu’.
Notes
0%
Author: Toyib Olawuyi
