15 replies to this topic

[Yasoob Al Deen]

Salamun alaykum wa rahmetu Allahi wa barekato

Too many people are feeling confused when they are trying to defend muta to their friends or to random people. This long but structured note should help you.

Disclaimer:

The sources of ahadeeth were limited to Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim most of the time in order to prevent this article from becoming even longer, and because the two Saheehs are widely considered to be the most authentic books for the Sunnis.
This article could be improved alot. It probably has some mistakes in, due to my lack of knowledge, but the general argument should still work. I also didn't consider every single counter-response from Sunnis, including the "muta has been abrogated more than once hence the contradiction in our ahadeeth", due to the length of the article, etc.
Ahadeeth attributed to other companions that said muta had been abrogated were not considered, since they came from books other than the two Saheehs.
Apologies for bad formatting...I had alot of formatting trouble....


Contents

Attitude during the debate
Defending Muta:
  Categorising the arguments into two
  1) Establishing muta's position in Sunni and Shia Islam
  2) Defending the Morality of Muta
        A possible response by a Sunni
        Counter-response
  3) Defending the Legality of Muta
        Evidence for the ban on muta
        Response to these ahadeeth
              Was muta a practice from the time of Jahliyya which was permissible for a while to allow the people to adjust and then later made forbidden?
              Was muta made permissible for the situtation when a person is unable to control their desires?
  Evidence against the ban of muta ever occuring and Evidence For muta
        1) The Quran
        2) Some Companions said muta was permissible
        3) So how did the position that muta was banned arise?
Conclusion and Shia ahadeeth on Muta




Attitude during the debate

The opposition may be calling muta "prostiution", he or she may be saying the Shia do haraam, they do bidah, etc etc.To defend muta successfully, you should remember to keep the following attitude.

1) Stay calm. Stay in control. Okay, so they just called muta "prostiution", or whatever. Alot worse has been said about the Shia and Shia Islam. Getting angry won't do anything. In-fact, it will just make you look less intelligent, make you explain your position poorly, and satisfy the other person, etc. Don't waste time being "amazed" that they are so rude; get over it. There are ruder people out there. Just shut them up by defending muta.

2) Refuse to be side-tracked by irrelevant topics. One of the main reasons why arguments aren't always won is because the opposition keeps changing the topic being discussed. For example, a Sunni was telling me that muta was wrong one minute, and then telling me the Shia have many sects the next minute. Whether or not it is done on purpose, this is a diversion, that is irrelevant.

If you let them change the topic, then you will not have successfully defended muta, and in-fact any audience present will be less convinced of you being right in the first place.Why? Because this was their first time listening to a Shi'i defend muta. And then they you saw you fail to succeed in defending it (even if it was the result of the opposition bringing up "red herrings"). So they doubt in your ability to defend it.

Regain control. Point out that you two are discussing muta. Not whatever they change the topic to. Therefore you should stick to muta. Or, if they insist on changing the topic, let be clearly known that the topic is being changed, while the argument is finished. I do this by saying "so you don't want to discuss muta anymore? Okay, let's discuss Aisha, as you want to, then". This is an indicator that the debate is unfinished, and hence you didn't "loose".



Defending Muta:

Categorising the arguments into two

The most important part of this defence is the division of the whole debate, including both your points and his points, into two completely separate categories. The categories are:
1) the Legality of Muta
2) the Morality of Muta

What does the "legality of muta" mean? It is a discussion regarding whether muta is allowed in the Shariah. Whether is it mustahab, haraam, or makrooh, or whatever. This is a matter of fiqh/jurisprudence.
The "morality of muta" refers to whether muta is morally right or bad. Is muta a morally bad thing that is like, for example, prostitution? Is it actually a bad thing like alcohol? Etc.
Do you see the distinction?
The first is about whether the muta is actually allowed or what. It has nothing to do with whether mutah is a bad thing. It is purely about the legality of it.
The second is about whether muta is actually a bad thing in itself, just like stealing is.
Do not let the two categories mix in your debate. What do I mean? First argue about the legality of muta. Then argue about its morality. When you are discussing the legality, and the person says "but muta is a bad thing, it is like prostitution", you must say "that is part of the discussion on morality. We are discussing legality".


1) Establishing muta's position in Sunni and Shia Islam

Sunnis (who know what they are talking about, and not just any random Sunni off the street) and Shia both agree that some Sahaba (Companions) practiced muta because the Prophet allowed and recommended it.

The difference between the Sunni and Shia positions on muta is a matter of fiqh/jurisprudence. The Sunnis say that the Prophet later banned muta, whereas the Shia say the Prophet never banned muta, and that someone else banned it after the Prophet. In other words, muta was abrogated according to the Sunnis, but it was never abrogated according to the Shia.

So the reason why the Shia believe in the permissibility of mutah is because they do not believe that it was abrogated.

At this point, the Sunni may expose himself as ignorant of their own books, if he or she claims that this is not true at all. Yes, it is true: their own books of ahadeeth, such as Saheeh Bukhari, Saheeh Muslim, etc. all have ahadeeth which report this. It is therefore indisputable that mutah was once permissible in Sunni Islam. (You will see ahadeeth from the Sunni books which prove that it was once permissible in their belief later. You could also google Sunni scholars to quote them saying muta was once permissible, if you really wanted).



2) Defending the Morality of Muta

So since some Sahaba practiced muta because the Prophet allowed and recommended it, it is not possible to attack muta on moral grounds and claim that it is immoral. Why? Because muta used to be permissible in Sunni Islam. So whatever attack they make against muta, also attacks their own sect too. Any words such as "prostitution" thrown at muta would also apply to their own sect.

Some Sahaba practiced muta because the Prophet allowed and recommended it. Would Allah, subhanahu wa tala, make what is bad a permissible thing? Would the Prophet allow or recommend an evil thing?

A possible response by a Sunni:

The Sunni might say that the position of muta is like the position of alcohol, in the sense that alcohol was once permissible, but then it later became haram. Thus, muta can be an immoral thing, because alcohol is an immoral thing which was later banned.

Counter-response:

The problem with this argument is that alcohol was never actually permissible in the Shariah. Its status was: yet-to-be-banned. Whereas muta was Halaal/permissible, and then banned (according to the Sunni position). Alcohol was never turned from Halaal to Haraam. Muta however supposedly was. Also:

-As was pointed out, Also, alcohol was condemned by the Quran (for example, verse 2:219 which says that alcohol is ultimately a bad thing) and the Prophet; muta was never condemned by either.
-Allah and His Prophet would not allow or recommend evil. So how could they claim that alcohol was permissible! Can they imagine the Prophet encouraging someone to drink alcohol? The Prophet allowed and encouraged muta; so clearly alcohol and muta are not comparable.
-The comparison of the status of alcohol to the status of muta is incorrect. Alcohol was drunk pre-Islam. The ruling of it being haraam was revealed. Whereas muta was a new concept which was brought in by the Prophet. For example, according to one Sunni hadeeth (the hadeeth is given later), the Prophet allowed muta for three days and then forbade it. God and His Prophet would never make and turn something inherently bad for us permissible.
-The only reason why alcohol was not banned immediately but banned after a while (in stages) is because it could not be banned straight away (for reasons which are irrelevant here). Whereas, according to some ahadeeth (see below), muta was specifically haraam and then made halaal for some days and then made haraam again.


The Prophet would not recommend alcohol to be drunk, even if the ban hadn't been revealed yet. The Prophet would not recommend something which is harmful or recommend that people do something which is morally wrong. A few examples of ahadeeth which narrate that the Prophet recommended, or even stronger, muta include:

عن أبيه، عن جده، قال أمرنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالمتعة

(Sabra al-Juhanni reports): "Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to contract temporary marriage..."
Saheeh Muslim, Arabic version, Kitab al-Nikah, Hadeeth 3490

سبرة بن معبد أن نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عام فتح مكة أمر أصحابه بالتمتع من النساء

Sabra b. Ma'bad reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) ordered his Companions to contract temporary marriage with women..."
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Kitab al-Nikah, Hadeeth 3491

In the most common internet translation of Saheeh Muslim (which can be found here:http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/), those ahadeeth are numbered 3257 and 3258 respectively. Interestingly, the translator has perhaps deceptively translated "أمر"/"amar" as "permitted" instead of "commanded" or "enjoined" in order to hide what these ahadeeth say about the Prophet's emphasis on performing muta. Whereas the translator translates "أمر" correctly as "commanded" or "enjoined" in other ahadeeth in Saheeh Muslim, including hadeeths numbers 803, 2391, 2634, 2797, 2798, and so on.

Therefore since muta was once permissible in Sunni Islam, Sunnis cannot object to muta morally.


3) Defending the Legality of Muta

The real debate here is not whether muta is inherently wrong. The fact that it was once permissible in Sunni Islam silences the arguments of the opposition. The real debate is whether muta was banned or not; whether it was abrogated or not.

Evidence for the ban on muta

First, let us examine evidence given for the banning of Muta:

As far as evidence for the banning of muta, there is no Quranic verse. A few people bring various random verses and claim that with the revelation of these verses, the practice of muta was abrogated. The problem is that the verses they bring are always revealed in Makkah, which before the time of muta (muta happened in Medina); so they could not have abrogated a practice that was not yet established!

There are ahadeeth (in Sunni books) which say there was a ban. In the books that Sunnis consider to be most authentic (i.e. Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim), there are not many ahadeeth which say that muta was banned by the Prophet; there are only a handful of them, (although there many be multiple variants of the same ahadeeth in the books of ahadeeth). The main ahadeeth on this in Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim ahadeeth are:


1) Ahadeeth narrated (supposedly) by Imam Ali, aleyhis salam:

Narrated 'Ali bin Abi Talib: On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat.
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Hadeeth 527 and Volume 7, Book 62, Hadeeth 50
The hadeeth is found in similar variants elsewhere including here: Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Numbers 3263-3265.
The battle of Khayber occured in 7AH.

Note: They ascribe this opinion to Imam Ali, aleyhis salam, on purpose so that they might undermine us. The Shia books of ahadeeth report that Imam Ali, aleyhis salam, allowed muta, as will be seen later inshaa'Allah.

2) Ahadeeth narrated by Rabi bin Sabra who narrates it from his father Sabura al-Juhanni:

'Abd al-Malik b. Rabi' b. Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father who narrated it on the authority of his father (i e. 'Abd al-Malik's grandfather, Sabura al-Juhanni): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted us to contract temporary marriage in the Year of Victory, as we entered Mecca, and we did come out of it but he forbade us to do it.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Hadeeths 3257
The hadeeth is found in similar variants including here: Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Numbers 3252-3255,  3257, 3259-3260, 3262.
The Year of Victory (when Makkah was conquered) is 8AH.

3) Ahadeeth narrated by Iyas bin Salama:

Iyas b. Salama reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas and then forbade it.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Hadeeth 3251
The Year of Autas is 9AH.


Response to these ahadeeth:

These ahadeeth cannot be taken as reliable because they are the main ahadeeth that say that the Prophet banned muta, and yet there is contradiction and conflict between them over the timing of the supposed ban on muta. Did the Prophet ban it on the day of conquest of Khayber (7AH), or in the year of conquest of Makkah (8AH), or in the year of Autas (9AH)?

Furthermore there is even more evidence for hadeeth 1 in particular being fabricated. The hadeeth says that eating donkey meat and muta were banned on the day of Khayber. The incident of the banning of eating donkey meat is reported (i.e. found) many  many times in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim by many man different companions without any mention of the ban on muta; only the ban on eating donkey's meat is mentioned. So the Prophet could not have mentioned muta in 7AH, otherwise all these ahadeeth which report the ban on eating donkey meat would also have reported ban on muta with the ban on donkey's meat. A few examples of these ahadeeth include:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Someone came to Allah's Apostle and said, "The donkeys have been (slaughtered and) eaten. Another man came and said, "The donkeys have been destroyed." On that the Prophet ordered a caller to announce to the people: Allah and His Apostle forbid you to eat the meat of donkeys, for it is impure.' Thus the pots were turned upside down while the (donkeys') meat was boiling in them.
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 436.

Narrated Ibn Abi Aufa: We where afflicted with severe hunger on the day of Khaibar. While the cooking pots were boiling and some of the food was well-cooked, the announcer of the Prophet came to say, "Do not eat anything the donkey-meat and upset the cooking pots." We then thought that the Prophet had prohibited such food because the Khumus had not been taken out of it. Some others said, "He prohibited the meat of donkeys from the point of view of principle, because donkeys used to eat dirty things."
Saheeh Muslim, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 531.

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the eating of donkey meat and allowed the eating of horse meat.
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 530.

Narrated Ibn Umar: On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the eating of donkey meat.
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 528.

There are many many more ahadeeth narrated by various Sahaba (companions) who report the ban on eating donkey meat without even mentioning muta, let alone mentioning the ban on muta. Did all the Sahaba suffer sudden memory loss except for Ali bin Abi Talib (aleyhis salam)? Clearly, hadeeth #1 which attributes the opinion of the ban of muta to Imam Ali, aleyhis salam, is false.

This sums up the evidence given for the ban on muta. It is either insubstantial or self-contradictory.
One last hadeeth to examine is the following, which gives reasons which people today use to argue against muta:

'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in- the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi' b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu 'Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ; then he forbade us to do Mut'a. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi' b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz and I was sitting there.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Number 3261

This can hadeeth can be seen as two parts: the conflict between Ibn Abbas and Abdullah bin Zubayr as reported by Urwa and the rest of the hadeeth. We will look at the first part later.

In the rest of the hadeeth, it is interesting to note that an explanation is given for the permission for muta by Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari, which (according to him) is that it was permitted when the people were very weak (in guarding in their private parts) and that later Allah prohibited it like He later prohibted the eating of pigs and other forbidden meat. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari also says that muta originates from the time of Jahliyya (pre-Islam).

Both of these reasons given by Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari are false. Was muta made permissible for the situtation when a person is unable to control their desires? No. Was muta a practice from the time of Jahliyya which was permissible for a while to allow the people to adjust and then later made forbidden? No. There is no evidence that muta was even existent in the time of Jahliyya. Let us examine these in greater detail.

Was muta a practice from the time of Jahliyya which was permissible for a while to allow the people to adjust and then later made forbidden?

There is no evidence that muta was even existent in the time of Jahliyya. This can be seen by the following hadeeth:

I could not find this hadeeth, which I am about to quote, in the most common internet version/copy of the translation of Saheeh Bukhari (most common net copy is found here:http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/062.sbt.html), even though the hadeeth is there in Saheeh Bukhari. To prove this hadeeth is there in Saheeh Bukhari, I will quote this hadeeth from 1) an Arabic copy of Saheeh Bukhari (hence people can search in their Arabic copies of Saheeh Bukhari for it); and I will give 2) a scanned image of a publication of the translation of Saheeh Bukhari which contains this hadeeth.


1)
حدثنا يحيى بن سليمان حدثنا ابن وهب عن يونس حدثنا أحمد بن صالح حدثنا عنبسة حدثنا يونس عن ابن شهاب قال أخبرني عروة بن الزبير ان عائشة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أخبرته ان النكاح في الجاهلية كان على أربعة أنحاء فنكاح منها نكاح الناس اليوم يخطب الرجل إلى الرجل وليته أو ابنته فيصدقها ثم ينكحها ونكاح آخر كان الرجل يقول لامرأته إذا طهرت من طمثها أرسلي إلى فلان فاستبضعي منه ويعتزلها زوجها ولا يمسها ابدا حتى يتبين حملها من ذلك الرجل الذي تستبضع منه فإذا تبين حملها أصابها زوجها إذا أحب وإنما يفعل ذلك رغبة في نجابة الولد فكان هذا النكاح نكاح الاستبضاع ونكاح آخر يجتمع الرهط ما دون العشرة فيدخلون على المرأة كلهم يصيبها فإذا حملت ووضعت ومر ليال بعد أن تضع حملها أرسلت إليهم فلم يستطع رجل منهم ان يمتنع حتى يجتمعوا عندها تقول لهم قد عر فتم الذي كان من امركم وقد ولدت فهو ابنك يا فلان تسمى من أحبت باسمه فيلحق به ولدها لا يستطيع ان يمتنع به الرجل ونكاح الرابع يجتمع الناس الكثير فيدخلون على المرأة لا تمتنع ممن جاءها وهن البغايا كن ينصبن على أبوابهن رايات تكون علما فمن أرادهن دخل ‹ صفحة 133 › عليهن فإذا حملت إحداهن ووضعت حملها جمعوا لها ودعوا لهم للقافة ثم الحقوا ولدها بالذي يرون فالتاط به ودعى ابنه لا يمتنع من ذلك فلما بعث محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم بالحق هدم نكاح الجاهلية كله الا نكاح الناس اليوم

I found this text of the hadeeth in the following copy of Bukhari:

Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 6, Pages 132-133
Hadeeth found in the Book of Nikah
Date of print: 1401AH/1981CE
Publisher: دار الفكر للطباعة والنشر والتوزيع
Additional Notes: طبعة بالأوفست عن طبعة دار الطباعة العامرة بإستانبول

2)
Narrated Urwa bin Zubair: Aisha the wife of the Prophet told him that there were four types of marriage during the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance. One type was similar to that of the present day, i.e. a man used to ask somebody else for the hand of a girl under his guardianship or for his daughter's hand, and give her dowry and then marry her. The second type was that a man would say to his wife after she had become clean from her period, "Send for so-and-so and have sexual relations with him." Her husband would then keep away from her and would never sleep with her till she gets pregnant from the other man with whom she was sleeping. When her pregnancy became evident, her husband would sleep with her if he wished. Her husband did so (i.e. let her wife sleep with some other man) so that he might have a child of noble breed. Such marriage was called Al-Istibda. Another type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relation with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them and none of them would refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her, she would say to them, "You (all) know what you have done, and now I have given birth to a child. So, it is your child, O so-and-so!" naming whoever she liked, and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him. The fourth type of marriage was that many people would enter upon a lady and she would never refuse anyone who came to her. Those were the prostitutes who used to fix red flags at their doors as signs, and he who wished, could have sexual intercourse with them. If anyone of them got pregnant and delivered a child, then all those men would be gathered for her and they would call the Qaifs (persons skilled in recognizing the likeness of a child to his father) to them and would let her child follow the man (whom they recognized as his father) and she would let him adhere to him and will be called his son. The man could not refuse all that. But when Muhammad (s) was sent with the Truth, he abolished all the types of marriages observed in the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance except the type of marriage the people recognize today.

I found this translation of the hadeeth in the following copy of Bukhari:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Chapter 37, pages 44-45
Scanned image: http://www.answering...hari_p44_45.jpg

Whether this hadeeth is actually authentic (it's in Saheeh Bukhari which is a Sunni source, not a Shia source, and we are Shia) is irrelevant; it is authentic for the Sunnis who you are defending muta to.

As we can see, there is no mention of muta or a marriage like muta in the time of Jahliyya; so for a person to try to attack muta by saying that it is something from the the time of Jahliyya which the Prophet later abolished is a flawed defence, because their own, most authentic - by their standards - book of ahadeeth contradicts their attack.

Furthermore, the ahadeeth say that the Propeht made mutah permissible. In other words, he turned it from non-existent/Haraam to Halaal. For example, if we look at those ahadeeth which claim that the Prophet banned muta:

(hadeeths 2 and 3 from above, which I will only partially quote here for the sake of being brief:)

2) ...Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted us to contract temporary marriage in the Year of Victory, as we entered Mecca...
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Hadeeth 3257

3) ...Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas...
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Hadeeth 3251

These ahadeeth clearly indicate that muta was made Halaal in that year.

Furthermore, the Year of Victory and the Year of Autas are the years 8AH and 9AH respectively: both of these are in Medina! This is long after the time of Jahliyya. In-fact, this is so late it is almost at the end of the life/mission of the Messenger of God!

Also, Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari said "it was permitted in the early days of Islam, (for one) who was..." This completely contradicts hadeeths 2 and 3, since ~8AH is in no way the "early" days of Islam.
Whatever Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari has said in that hadeeth is quite wrong and should be disregarded. (Hence when that same hadeeth is examined again later, his part of the hadeeth will be ignored).

Was muta made permissible for the situtation when a person is unable to control their desires?

A person might quote that hadeeth (the one for which the Arabic is given) as well as the following hadeeth to argue that Muta was made permissible for this reason:

Narrated Abu Jamra: I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut'a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Mut'a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, "That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce." On that, Ibn 'Abbas said, "Yes."
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 51.

However when one thinks about this particular argument, one realises just how silly it is: it is near the end of the life/mission of the Prophet. It is not even during the Makkan period; this is eight years after Hijrah! Where so many of the companions of Prophet still so stuck in the lifestyle from the times of Jahliyya that they could not control themselves from committing zina and Allah had to establish a temporary marriage known as muta for them? This is about twenty-one years after the time of Jahliyyah. That's two decades!

The evidence for the ban on muta has been weighed and found rare and dismissable. Let us know look at evidence against the ban by the Prophet ever happening and at evidence for muta:


Evidence against the ban of muta ever occuring and Evidence For muta

1) The Quran

That's right: the Quran has a verse which allows muta. We could stop there and have proven muta's legality. There is no way a hadeeth can over-rule the Word of God, the Quran. (Some Sunni and Shia scholars state a hadeeth can abrogate the Quran, since the Prophet is a person inspired and instructed by God; however they say that such a hadeeth should be muttawattur ((found so many times in so many places that its authenticity is undeniable)). This clearly isn't the case here with those ahadeeth which report a ban on muta, and they are not authentic enough to abrogate the verse of muta in Quran especially because they contradict each other).

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them (with a dowry) from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have done muta with, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise
Quran [4:24]

Sdol.org explains:

In the above verse, the Arabic equivalent of the word "marriage" or any of its derivatives has notbeen used. Rather "istamta'tum", the derivative of word "mut'a" (pleasure/temporary marriage) has been used.

There are Arabic words which Islam later gave a new meaning based on their old meanings. For example, "nikah" literally means "sexual intercourse"; in Islam, it refers to the institution in which sex becomes permissible: i.e. marriage. Muta originally meant pleasure, but in Islam it refers to the temporary marriage which the Prophet established. Hence to literally translate "istamata'tum" as "enjoy" would be incorrect; it would be like translating 4:3 as

"And if you fear that you will not deal fairly with the orphans, have sex with those of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four..." as opposed to "And if you fear that you will not deal fairly with the orphans, marry those of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four..."

For the tafseer of this verse, Tafseer Ibn Kathir (Tafsir of Surah 4, Verse 24) says:

"Mujahid stated that, (So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,) was revealed about the Mut`ah marriage. A Mut'ah marriage is a marriage that ends upon a predeterminied date."

Tafseer al-Tabari says:

"Jabir did not relate "Istamta'a" to consuming the marriage in general. Furthermore Allah states, "...And there is no sin for you in what you both agree after fulfilling the duty (i.e., dowry of the first contract)". The mutual agreement after the duty refers to extending the period of temporary marriage after full payment of the previous dower, so that the woman can freely decide on the continuation of the marriage with no pressure or temptation. In this way, Allah encourages that people who are engaged in Mut'a will get more reward if they extend it to a bigger period (or perhaps convert it to a permanent marriage) by assigning a new dower after fulfilling the previous dower."
Tafsir al-Tabari, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the verse 4:24, volume 8, p180.

So, it can clearly be seen that 4:24 is referring to muta. It discusses a law relating to muta. It does not ban it. Indeed, there is no later verse which abrogated this one. (If they do claim this verse was abrogated by another, you'll see that the verse they bring you is probably a Makkan verse, while 4:24 is a Median verse; a verse cannot be abrogated by a verse which came before it obviously!)



2) Some Companions said muta was permissible

There were Companions who defended muta and said it was permissible.

Narrated Abu Jamra: I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut'a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Mut'a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, "That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce." On that, Ibn 'Abbas said, "Yes."
Saheeh Bukhari, Book 62, Hadeeth 51

Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported: We were on an expedition with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and we had no women with us. We said: Should we not have ourselves castrated? He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage for a stipulated period giving her a garment, and 'Abdullah then recited this verse: 'Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like trangressers" (al-Qur'an, v. 87).
Saheeh Muslim Book 8, Hadeeth 3243

Salama b. al. Akwa' and Jabir b. Abdullah reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriage.
Saheeh Muslim Book 8, Hadeeths 3246-3247

There is no mention of muta being banned in these ahadeeth. Remember these words were narrated by the Companion to another person after the Prophet's death. I.e. they would have known by then if muta had been forbidden. Especially if it had only been made permissible for 3 days according to one hadeeth given earlier!

'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones....[part from Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari ignored].
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Number 3261

With this last hadeeth, a few interesting observations can be made:

-This was a public dispute since Ibn Zubayr was delivering a speech, in which he attacked Ibn Abbas, when Ibn Abbas replied to him. The aim of the speech, or at least part of it, was to attack Ibn Abbas for accepting the permissibility of muta.
-Ibn Abbas submitted evidence for practicing muta that it was permitted by the Prophet. Ibn Zubayr submitted no evidence against the ban. Ibn Zubayr's response to Ibn Abbas' evidence was a threat of death.
-No-one else present disputed Ibn Abbas' evidence, nor did they claim that muta had been abrogated.
-The threat of Ibn Zubayr shows that he had the power to carry out such an action. This could only have been during his brief time when he had power, which was during the Caliphate of Yazeed bin Muawiyah. Thus, this dispute occured long after the time of Umar. Therefore, Ibn Abbas did not believe that the Prophet abrogated muta, but must have believed that Umar abrogated it, since enough time had passed after the Prophet's death and Umar's Caliphate for Ibn Abbas to have been given evidence for a supposed ban on muta by the Prophet.

Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that Jabir bin Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr and 'Umar.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Number 3248.


3) So how did the position that muta was banned arise?

It's true that muta was banned. But not by the Prophet. More ahadeeth reveal the truth. For example:

Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of Hajj and Tamattu' with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.
Saheeh Muslim,  Book 8, Number 3250.

Abu Nadra reported: Ibn 'Abbas commanded the performance of Mut'a putting lhram for 'Umra during the months of Dhu'I-Hijja and after completing it. then putting on Ibrim for Hajj), but Ibn Zubair forbade to do it. I made a mention of it to Jabir b. Abdullih and he said: It is through me that this hadith has been circulated. We entered into the state of Ihram as Tamattu' with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). When 'Umar was Installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for His Messenger (may peace be upon him) whatever He liked and as Re liked. And (every command) of the Holy Qur'an has been revealed for every occasion. So accomplish Hajj and Umra for Allah as Allah has commanded you; and confirm by (proper conditions) the marriage of those women (with whom you have performed Mut'a). And any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration (Mut'a), I would stone him (to death). Qatada narrated this hadith with the same chain of transmitters saying: (That 'Umar also said): Separate your Hajj from 'Umra, for that is the most complete Hajj, and complete your Umra.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 7, Hadeeth 2801

Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that Jibir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abi Bakr and 'Umar.
Saheeh Muslim Book 8, Hadeeth 3248

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.
Saheeh Muslim Book 8, Hadeeth 3249

We can see that muta continued to be practised in the time of the Prophet; this devastates the few ahadeeth that the Prophet allowed muta than forbade it very soon. We can also see that muta was practised during the time of Abu Bakr's Caliphate; there is no note that he objected. We can also see that they say Umar was the one who banned muta.

More ahadeeth could be found on this from books other than Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim. Ahadeeth can also be found in other books that narrate that other figures, such as some from the Taabi'oon/successors (the generation after the Sahaba), accepted the permissibility of muta such as Sa'eed bin Jubayr.

The following hadeeth in the famous early history book commonly known as Tareekh al-Tabari also explains who really banned muta:

Imran Ibn Sawadah reported: I went to Umar's house and told him that I want to give him some advice. His reply was, "The person giving good advice is welcomed anytime." I said, "Your community finds fault with you on four accounts." Umar put the top of his whip in his beard and the lower part on his thigh. Then he said, "Tell me more." I continued, "It has been mentioned that you declared the lesser pilgrimage forbidden during the months of pilgrimage..." He answered, "It is permitted. (But the reason that I forbade it was that) if they were to perform the lesser pilgrimage during the months of the pilgrimage, they would regard it as being a lieu of the full pilgrimage, and (Mecca) would be celebrated by no one, although it is part of God's greatness. You are right." I continued, "It is also said that you have forbidden temporary marriage, although it was a license given by God. We enjoy a temporary marriage for a handful (of dates), and we can separate after three nights." He replied, "The Messenger of God permitted it at the time of necessary. Then people regained their life of comfort. I do not know any Muslim who has practiced this or gone back to it (after I forbade). Now, anyone who wishes to, can marry for a handful (of dates) and separate after three nights. You are right." I continued, "You emancipate a slave girl if she gives birth, without her master's (consenting to) the emancipation... (and the fourth complain is) There have been some complaints of your raising your voice against your subjects and your addressing them harshly." ...
History of al-Tabari, English version, v14, pp 139-140

Umar's claim that the Prophet permitted it at the time of necessity may be true. However, it has been shown that the Prophet did not abrogated it. Indeed, interestingly, Umar does not actually say that the Prophet abrogated muta either; he simply says that people (at his time) were no longer under trial and temptation to commit zina. This may have been true but it is Allah and His Messenger who dictate Halaal and Haraam; not Umar. They would not forget to nullify something. If they did not abrogate muta, then that is because it is to remain Halaal.

Conclusion and Shia ahadeeth on Muta

Muta was never abrogated by the Prophet. It was banned by Umar out of his own personal opinion. Let us remember however that muta has a number of conditions, rules, and limits. For example, the woman must observe the iddah period after the muta ends.

Let us end by looking at some Shia ahadeeth which give permissibility to pratice muta. The reason for this is that this article defends the permissibiliy of muta to a Sunni. However, some Shia will then use Sunni ahadeeth to prove to other Shia that muta is permissible. This is ridiculous. The authorative ahadeeth for the Shia are the Shia ahadeeth. We cannot use Sunni books of ahadeeth, which we reject as a whole, to prove our own teachings! Here a few ahadeeth which support the permissibility of muta and say that it was Umar who banned it:

Source: Wasaa'il ash-Shia by Hurr al-Amuli, Book of Marriage, Chapters on Muta, Chapter of Lawfulness of Muta.

Translated at http://www.tashayyu....fulness-of-muta

Hadeeth 1:
Muhammad bin Yaqub al-Kulayni from a number of our companions from Sahl bin Ziyad and from Ali bin Ibrahim from his father, all from Ibn Abi Najran from Asim bin Humayd from Abu Basir.  He said: I asked Abu Jafar (al-Baqir) عليه السلام about muta.  So he said: It was sent down in the Quran "So those of them with whom you have done muta then give them their wages as a duty.  And there is no offense upon you in what you agree upon after the duty." (4:24)

Hadeeth 2:
And from Muhammad bin Ismail from al-Fadl bin Shadhan from Safwan bin Yahya from Ibn Muskan from Abdullah bin Sulayman.  He said: I heard Abu Abdillah (as-Sadiq) عليه السلام saying: Ali عليه السلام would say: Were it not for what the Bunayy al-Khattab preceded me with, none but a wretch would have fornicated.

Hadeeth 5:
And from Muhammad bin Yahya from Abdullah bin Muhammad from Ali bin al-Hakam from Aban bin Uthman from Abu Maryam from Abu Abdillah عليه السلام.  He said: Muta, the Quran was sent down with it, and the Sunnah brought it about from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله.

Hadeeth 24:
And by many chains of narrators going to Abd ar-Rahman bin Abi Layla.  He said: I asked Abu Abdillah (as-Sadiq) عليه السلام: Did anything abrogate the verse of muta?  He said: No, had Umar not prohibited it none but a wretch would have fornicated.

Supporting a Sunni hadeeth given earlier, hadeeth 31:
And from Abu Nadra from Jabir.  He said: We did muta during (the time) of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله and Abu Bakr.  And he said: We did not stop doing muta until Umar prohibited it.

Edited by Yasoob Al Deen, 23 June 2011 - 09:47 AM.

[icewizard]

ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã æ ÑÍãÉ Çááå æ ÈÑßÇÊå - Peace be upon you as well as Allah's Mercy and Blessings...
æ ÇáÕáÇÉ æ ÇáÓáÇã Úáì ÎíÑ ÎáÞ Çááå æ ÍÈíÈ ÞáæÈäÇ¡ ÇáÑÓæá ãÍãÏ¡ æ Âáå ÇáØíÈíä ÇáØÇåÑíä - And may the Prayers and Peace be upon the Best of Allah's Creations, the beloved of our hearts, the Messenger Mu7ammad as well as his Generous and Pure Family...
æ áÚäÉ Çááå ÇáÏÇÆãÉ Úáì ÃÚÏÇÁåã æ ÙÇáãíåã æ ÇáÊÇÈÚíä Úáì Ðáß ãä ÇáÃæáíä Åáì ÇáÂÎÑíä - And may the permanent curse of Allah be upon their enemies and their oppressors and those who follow the trend from the first ones to the last ones...

A+ for your homework Good job bro I recommend this lecture!

æ Úáíßã ÇáÓáÇã æ ÑÍãÉ Çááå æ ÈÑßÇÊå - And upon you be Peace as well as Allah's Mercy and Blessings...

[Philip]

I used to be against mutah but over the past few months kind of started understanding that it's probably a great thing. The Europeans do it by instinct when they say: I have to live with this person before I can be sure he/she is the right one .. I think a lot of bad relationships where Muslims are sexually active b4 marriage could have been avoided .. Or at least stopped from dragging on this way. It kind of makes sense. I never thought I'd think mutah is ok, but now am kind of convinced .. Or I see the benefits at least .. And it's surely better than having zinah .. Which is so widespread these days

Salam

[saladdin_finlandi]

Assalaamu aleikum

About your defending Shia perspective on Mutah, I accept and respect that, since it is your right. But saying that Sunni sources in fact promote Mutah and Imam Shafei, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik and all Sunni Ulema to this date were unaware of the Ahadith, you brought is not right. With all due respect, I hope before writing an article about the issue, you should not only know what Shia say about this. But you should know Sunni evidence from our books and refute it. Otherwise your evidence however wide it might be, it will always be lacking. Because each and every Hadith, or Ayah you might bring about the subject has already been answered, while you did not answer to evidence of all Sunni Ulema, who consider Mutah as Haram.

The single biggest mistake in your article I find that you don't take any consideration what is Nassekh and Mansookh. Which is the most essential question, because there are differing Hadiths to the subject and then according to Sunni legal principles you must establish, which was prior rule, which was cancelled and what was later rule, which was established.

Authentic narrations on the subject:

Quote

"Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa' (r.a): 'In the year of Autas, Allahs Messenger  permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but he prohibited it afterwards." {Sahih Muslim}

Quote

"Narrated 'Ali (r.a): Allah's Messenger  forbade the temporary marriage in the year of khaibar."   {Sahih Muslim & Sahih Bukhari}

Quote

"Narrated 'Ali (r.a): At the battle of Khaibar, the Prophet  forbade the temporary marriage (i.e Mu'ta) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses."      {Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ahmad, An-Nasa'i, At-Termidhi and Ibn Majah have all collected it}

Quote

"Narrated Rabi bin Sabra on the Authority of his father: 'Allah's Messenger  said: "I had permitted you the temporary marriage of women, but Allah has prohibited you from that till the day of Resurrection. So if anyone has a woman by temporary marriage he should let her go; and do not take back any of your gifts from them."   {Sahih Muslim , Abu Dawud, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah}

Your reply to one of these Ahadith:

Quote

Furthermore there is even more evidence for hadeeth 1 in particular being fabricated. The hadeeth says that eating donkey meat and muta were banned on the day of Khayber. The incident of the banning of eating donkey meat is reported (i.e. found) many many times in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim by many man different companions without any mention of the ban on muta; only the ban on eating donkey's meat is mentioned. So the Prophet could not have mentioned muta in 7AH, otherwise all these ahadeeth which report the ban on eating donkey meat would also have reported ban on muta with the ban on donkey's meat.

Now, if you want to talk about this in Shia perspective and say that for you Mutah is Halal, it is fine with me. But if you want to say for me that Mutah is not Haram for Sunnies, because these Ahadith are forged. You are dead wrong. Even if Ali one time mentioned only ban of donkey meat, in another Hadeeth both. Both are valid, unless there is clear evidence from Hadith science, not personal opinion that these Ahadeeth were forget. And please do bring such evidence from Sunni books. These Hadeeths are all Sahih (agreed upon) by us and there is no reason whatsoever why we should think otherwise. Also Hadiths from several Sahabis that monkey meat was forbidden does not in the least lessen value of the Ahadith that also say Mutah being an abrogated rule and now forbidden.

Above this there is Ijma3, or agreement of all Sunni Ulema that Mutah is Haram, which is legal evidence for us. And the opinion of Ibn Masood, who is considered highest of our Scholars and who lived in the prophet time, so he won't make legal opinions out of his own desire.

Also about Umar. On perspective of these Ahadeeth even if Umar had forbidden Mutah. It would only have been to fulfill the order of prophet, because several Ahadeeth of us Sunnies that are authentic according to all of our Scholars prove that prophet did indeed forbid Mutah. Especially read the last Hadeeth and "till the day of resurrection" - part.

The real question is what is the previous rule and what is the present rule. And if you want to say, Sunnies are wrong reading our evidences. You would need to prove every and each Hadeeth which says Prophet SAWS forbid Mutah unauthentic. Not according to logics, or your personal opinion, but Sunni Hadith sciences. Otherwise your words have no real value.

Edited by saladdin_finlandi, 23 June 2011 - 10:22 PM.

[Basim Ali]

,

Quite some effort seems to have been put into this article; commendably done Yasoob al Deen! ما شاء الله

saladdin_finlandi, on 23 June 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

Above this there is Ijma3, or agreement of all Sunni Ulema that Mutah is Haram, which is legal evidence for us. And the opinion of Ibn Masood, who is considered highest of our Scholars and who lived in the prophet time, so he won't make legal opinions out of his own desire.

You're forgetting that Ijma is a secondary source of law and is not to (and can not) be used as legal evidence for anything until the Qur'an and the ahadith are unclear about a matter (which doesn't seem to be the case here). That is what the Sunni reports (the famous one from Mua'dh ibn Jab'al) say regarding the use of the sources of law.

Moreover, if you're saying Ibn Masood had an opinion against Muta', the same argument can be used for Ibn Abbas as well who clearly held an opinion in favour of Muta'. Both of them were esteemed scholars and companions of the Prophet .

wa

Edited by Basim Ali, 30 June 2011 - 04:45 AM.

[Blissful]

A great article that's had alot of hard work put into it and is certainly worth a read. Shukran and Jazak'Allah

[saladdin_finlandi]

Quote

You're forgetting that Ijma is a secondary source of law and does not (and can not) be used as legal evidence for anything until the Qur'an and the ahadith are unclear about a matter (which doesn't seem to be the case here). That is what the Sunni reports (the famous one from Mua'dh ibn Jab'al) say regarding the use of the sources of law.

Ijma3 is not secondary. Ijma3 is third in grade and taabe3 (following) Quran and Sunnah, but once Ijma3 has been established, it has strong value with us. What I understand from you. You are trying to say that if there are still evidences Ijma3 has no value at all with us and anyone has right to go against Ijma. No, going against Ijma in such a case alone, not following understanding of Sunni Ulema on the case is considered one of the major sins according to us. And it is considered following one's desires over Islam.

Sadly this article does not have any value for Sunni, because it does not refute the opposing evidence from Sunni sources. The way used to refute one evidence here is not following the principles of Hadith science with Sunnies. Since with us in case of two conflicting Ahadith we will try FIRST in both As3ari and Ma3turidi to make an agreement in the two Hadiths, then if it is not possible, we will try to choose one over another. If this is not possible and evidences are equal in strength, we leave the situation for more evidence. This is the method, you should follow. And basicly to challenge Hadiths authenticity is either challenging Isnad (chain of narrators), which is most usual, proving Hadith is forged, or to prove Matn (wording) wrong, proving not that the Hadith has different wording, but that it is directly opposing stronger Ahadith. And this case is clear with us without refutation of the earlier evidence of the scholars.

[Yasoob Al Deen]

saladdin_finlandi, on 23 June 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

Assalaamu aleikum

About your defending Shia perspective on Mutah, I accept and respect that, since it is your right. But saying that Sunni sources in fact promote Mutah and Imam Shafei, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik and all Sunni Ulema to this date were unaware of the Ahadith, you brought is not right. With all due respect, I hope before writing an article about the issue, you should not only know what Shia say about this. But you should know Sunni evidence from our books and refute it. Otherwise your evidence however wide it might be, it will always be lacking. Because each and every Hadith, or Ayah you might bring about the subject has already been answered, while you did not answer to evidence of all Sunni Ulema, who consider Mutah as Haram.

Wa alaykum assalam.

I did say in the beginning of my article in the disclaimer that my article could be improved. I did not consider every single argument the Sunnis put forward.
I am not saying that the Saheehayn promote muta, only that they fail to abrogate it convincingly.

Quote

The single biggest mistake in your article I find that you don't take any consideration what is Nassekh and Mansookh. Which is the most essential question, because there are differing Hadiths to the subject and then according to Sunni legal principles you must establish, which was prior rule, which was cancelled and what was later rule, which was established.

I know all this. You have three main ahadeeth that claim the Prophet banned muta; they each contradict. You then have ahadeeth which say people like Ibn Abbas, who was very knowledgable, did not believe muta had been abrogated. Then you have ahadeeth where people say muta was still practiced until the time of Umar. Then you have ahadeeth which say Umar abrogated muta. Question: Who really banned muta? Do the math.

Quote

Also about Umar. On perspective of these Ahadeeth even if Umar had forbidden Mutah. It would only have been to fulfill the order of prophet, because several Ahadeeth of us Sunnies that are authentic according to all of our Scholars prove that prophet did indeed forbid Mutah. Especially read the last Hadeeth and "till the day of resurrection" - part.

If Umar had to ban something, it's because it wasn't banned previously. Also, if Umar banned it, then Abi Bakr = bad for not banning it?


Peace.

[saladdin_finlandi]

Quote

I know all this. You have three main ahadeeth that claim the Prophet banned muta; they each contradict. You then have ahadeeth which say people like Ibn Abbas, who was very knowledgable, did not believe muta had been abrogated. Then you have ahadeeth where people say muta was still practiced until the time of Umar. Then you have ahadeeth which say Umar abrogated muta. Question: Who really banned muta? Do the math.

This is the only thing, you should show in your article, not the lengthy discussion. Which Hadith does banning of Mutah contradict? We do say that even between Sahabah there were differences of opinion in Fiqh, because sometimes one had heard Hadith that another had not. Even Abbas later on returned from his opinion of holding Mutah acceptable. And Ibn Mas3ood who forbid Mutah is considered highest ranking Sunni Alim. Even if Abu Bakr did not punish for performing Mutah, this did not mean that he considered it Halal, or that in his age there was concensus. All narrations that you brought only show the the fact that according to them all Sahabah did not know Hadiths, which abrogated Muta at some certain time, when they told it.

You forget that according to Sunni narrations it was Ali, who considered Mutah forbidden from the start. It is his credibility upon which we are also building the Fiqh rule. So you think, we should follow your evidence and leave words of Ali and consider, he was in mistake? Ok.. That is the only way to do it, because the evidence you told  is not valid to us. There are also two different Sahih narrations from Ali with us showing the same opinion from him. So if anyone wanted by using Sunni evidence go against this case, he would have to build it to the fact that Ali was the one, who was wrong and mislead Sahabah in this issue intentionally, or unintentionally. And if we say, Mutah is Haram, we say it is Ali who was right.

Quote

If Umar had to ban something, it's because it wasn't banned previously. Also, if Umar banned it, then Abi Bakr = bad for not banning it?

This is conclusion without evidence. Allowing difference of opinion is not bad from Abu Bakr. And if you read the history, during caliphate of Abu Bakr Muslims were busy with other things, than thinking about minor Fiqh issues. So your Hadith makes sense. And it is possible, Abu Bakr did not publicly denounce it forbidden. But that Hadith does not contradict Ahadith, which say that prophet forbid Mutah. Since it only tells understanding of single Muslim, which was built upon his knowledge. And he might not have known the Hadith in which prophet forbid Muta.

If Umar banned something, it doesn't mean that it is not possible, prophet banned it before that. But it only shows how single Sahabi saw the situation. Not all Sahabas were Alim and knowledgeable of every single Hadith on every Ikhtilaf. So this Hadith can not be considered to oppose Hadiths that say, prophet abrogated Muta.

The fact that Sunnies have Sahih evidence, which CLEARLY comments without doubt that the rule of Mutah was abrogated means, Umar did not need to forbid Mutah only by his own accord, because evidence was available. Your case is weak, since you are trying to go against Machoor Hadeth. Machoor means, three different people in every chain until collector of Hadiths. So you are in fact trying to say, four Hadiths that are Sahih were in fact mawdoo3. If you have any knowledge on Hadith science, you know that this is very, very, very weak case. Even to discredit one Sahih Hadith is hard enough not to mention four.

Edited by saladdin_finlandi, 24 June 2011 - 09:23 AM.

[a believer]

Great post! JazakAllah!

[Master Chief]

Very nice article, I should add it to my favourites for future reference

[Gypsy]

This is really great article.

Will be useful for future references.

I don't buy the Sunni hadith that the Prophet had banned it in the year of Khaybar. Not when Umar al-Khattab himself said, "I've banned the 2 things that was halal in the time of the Prophet, Muta and Tamatu".

Edited by Zareen, 25 June 2011 - 09:47 AM.

[Saved]

A great article. Keep it up brother! I am HIGHLY impressed.

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

Bismillah

Yasoob Al Deen, on 23 June 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

There are ahadeeth (in Sunni books) which say there was a ban. In the books that Sunnis consider to be most authentic (i.e. Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim), there are not many ahadeeth which say that muta was banned by the Prophet; there are only a handful of them, (although there many be multiple variants of the same ahadeeth in the books of ahadeeth).

Actually the Ahkam are derived from even single hadith. And to have "handful" is just great.

Quote

The main ahadeeth on this in Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim ahadeeth are:


1) Ahadeeth narrated (supposedly) by Imam Ali, aleyhis salam:

Narrated 'Ali bin Abi Talib: On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat.
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Hadeeth 527 and Volume 7, Book 62, Hadeeth 50
The hadeeth is found in similar variants elsewhere including here: Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Numbers 3263-3265.
The battle of Khayber occured in 7AH.

Note: They ascribe this opinion to Imam Ali, aleyhis salam, on purpose so that they might undermine us. The Shia books of ahadeeth report that Imam Ali, aleyhis salam, allowed muta, as will be seen later inshaa'Allah.

2) Ahadeeth narrated by Rabi bin Sabra who narrates it from his father Sabura al-Juhanni:

'Abd al-Malik b. Rabi' b. Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father who narrated it on the authority of his father (i e. 'Abd al-Malik's grandfather, Sabura al-Juhanni): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted us to contract temporary marriage in the Year of Victory, as we entered Mecca, and we did come out of it but he forbade us to do it.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Hadeeths 3257
The hadeeth is found in similar variants including here: Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Numbers 3252-3255,  3257, 3259-3260, 3262.
The Year of Victory (when Makkah was conquered) is 8AH.

3) Ahadeeth narrated by Iyas bin Salama:

Iyas b. Salama reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas and then forbade it.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Hadeeth 3251
The Year of Autas is 9AH.


Response to these ahadeeth:

These ahadeeth cannot be taken as reliable because they are the main ahadeeth that say that the Prophet banned muta, and yet there is contradiction and conflict between them over the timing of the supposed ban on muta. Did the Prophet ban it on the day of conquest of Khayber (7AH), or in the year of conquest of Makkah (8AH), or in the year of Autas (9AH)?

All these reports states that Mut'ah was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah . The ikhtilaf is regarding date of banning. Ibn Jawzi gave preference to the report of Ali because of two reason. Firstly that the report of Ali is agreed upon, while others are reported alone by Muslim. Secondly, Ali was more knowledgeable than those companions who narrated prohibition of Mut'ah. They could have known the prohibition when the Prophet repeated it. Or that the Prophet (S) just gave exception for few days based on the need of some people. However, later on he re-announced its prohibition. Or it might be that some Sahaba did mistake while mentioning the year of Prohibition. There are many possibilities. So,
ÇÐÇ ÌÇÁ ÇáÓÈÈ ÈØá ÇáÚÌÈ

This discussion regarding dates could go for many days but there is no doubt regarding the actual Prohibition. Specially when the Qur'an also supports its prohibition (Ahkam of Nikah, Talaq, Iddah etc).

Quote

Furthermore there is even more evidence for hadeeth 1 in particular being fabricated. The hadeeth says that eating donkey meat and muta were banned on the day of Khayber. The incident of the banning of eating donkey meat is reported (i.e. found) many  many times in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim by many man different companions without any mention of the ban on muta; only the ban on eating donkey's meat is mentioned. So the Prophet could not have mentioned muta in 7AH, otherwise all these ahadeeth which report the ban on eating donkey meat would also have reported ban on muta with the ban on donkey's meat. A few examples of these ahadeeth include:

This is ridiculous argument. It is not necessary that a companion should narrate every thing related to an incident. There are reports that the Prophet (S) said "man kuntu mawla..." during at Ghadir Khum, while there are others which states that he also mentioned hadith thaqlain there. Most of the reports do not mention them simultaneously.

Quote

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Someone came to Allah's Apostle and said, "The donkeys have been (slaughtered and) eaten. Another man came and said, "The donkeys have been destroyed." On that the Prophet ordered a caller to announce to the people: Allah and His Apostle forbid you to eat the meat of donkeys, for it is impure.' Thus the pots were turned upside down while the (donkeys') meat was boiling in them.
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 436.

Narrated Ibn Abi Aufa: We where afflicted with severe hunger on the day of Khaibar. While the cooking pots were boiling and some of the food was well-cooked, the announcer of the Prophet came to say, "Do not eat anything the donkey-meat and upset the cooking pots." We then thought that the Prophet had prohibited such food because the Khumus had not been taken out of it. Some others said, "He prohibited the meat of donkeys from the point of view of principle, because donkeys used to eat dirty things."
Saheeh Muslim, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 531.

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the eating of donkey meat and allowed the eating of horse meat.
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 530.

Narrated Ibn Umar: On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the eating of donkey meat.
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 528.

There are many many more ahadeeth narrated by various Sahaba (companions) who report the ban on eating donkey meat without even mentioning muta, let alone mentioning the ban on muta. Did all the Sahaba suffer sudden memory loss except for Ali bin Abi Talib (aleyhis salam)? Clearly, hadeeth #1 which attributes the opinion of the ban of muta to Imam Ali, aleyhis salam, is false.

See above.

Quote

This sums up the evidence given for the ban on muta. It is either insubstantial or self-contradictory.

A person who doesn't have grasp in a field shouldn't teach it to others.

Quote

One last hadeeth to examine is the following, which gives reasons which people today use to argue against muta:

'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in- the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi' b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu 'Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ; then he forbade us to do Mut'a. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi' b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz and I was sitting there.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Number 3261

Quote

In the rest of the hadeeth, it is interesting to note that an explanation is given for the permission for muta by Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari, which (according to him) is that it was permitted when the people were very weak (in guarding in their private parts) and that later Allah prohibited it like He later prohibted the eating of pigs and other forbidden meat. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari also says that muta originates from the time of Jahliyya (pre-Islam).

Where does it say that Mut'ah was originated from Jahiliyyah?

Quote

Furthermore, the Year of Victory and the Year of Autas are the years 8AH and 9AH respectively: both of these are in Medina! This is long after the time of Jahliyya. In-fact, this is so late it is almost at the end of the life/mission of the Messenger of God!

Also, Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari said "it was permitted in the early days of Islam, (for one) who was..." This completely contradicts hadeeths 2 and 3, since ~8AH is in no way the "early" days of Islam.
Whatever Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari has said in that hadeeth is quite wrong and should be disregarded. (Hence when that same hadeeth is examined again later, his part of the hadeeth will be ignored)

Where does Ibn Abi 'Amrah said that it was prohibited in early days, such that it contradict those reports which states it was prohibited in later days of islam??

ÇËÈÊ ÇáÚÑÔ Ëã ÇäÞÔ

[Yasoob Al Deen]

Ibn Taymiyyah, on 27 June 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

Actually the Ahkam are derived from even single hadith. And to have "handful" is just great.

You've missed the point completely. Reread my article more carefully. These ahadeeth are contradicted by numerous other ahadeeth in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim.

Quote

All these reports states that Mut'ah was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah . The ikhtilaf is regarding date of banning.

Yeah, you've really missed the point. Did you even read my article? How can there be three saheeh ahadeeth which contradict each other? And now you say there is a debate amongst some Sunni scholars regarding which is correct! The conditions for acceptance into Saheeh Muslim are already strict so there are few ahadeeth in it relative to the total number that have a defect in the isnaad.
If you are arguing over which date is correct because the ahadeeth contradict, then by this logic, you should be arguing over whether it was the Prophet or Umar who banned muta, as the ahadeeth contradict on this issue too.

Quote

Ibn Jawzi gave preference to the report of Ali because of two reason.

Do you mean the one that is suspicious because no-one else reported it being banned on the Day of Khaybar yet numerous companions reported the banning of donkey meat on the same day? lol

Quote

Or it might be that some Sahaba did mistake while mentioning the year of Prohibition.

So you're saying the Sahaba are not all reliable reporters?! lol

Quote

This discussion regarding dates could go for many days but there is no doubt regarding the actual Prohibition.

Read my article. It's post #1. Here is an example of a hadeeth I give in my article to counter the ban:

Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of Hajj and Tamattu' with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Number 3250.

Quote

Specially when the Qur'an also supports its prohibition (Ahkam of Nikah, Talaq, Iddah etc).

References? Some of these verses apply to permanent marriage, not temporary marriage.

Quote

This is ridiculous argument. It is not necessary that a companion should narrate every thing related to an incident. There are reports that the Prophet (S) said "man kuntu mawla..." during at Ghadir Khum, while there are others which states that he also mentioned hadith thaqlain there. Most of the reports do not mention them simultaneously.

When only three ahadeeth contradict each other and one of them is suspicious, and there are ahadeeth which oppose the former three ahadeeth....one gets suspicious.

Quote

A person who doesn't have grasp in a field shouldn't teach it to others.

A person who ignores the article, should not be replying to it.

Quote

Where does it say that Mut'ah was originated from Jahiliyyah?

My mistake.

I won't be bothering to reply to your next post if you ignore the article's arguments again in your response to it.

Edited by Yasoob Al Deen, 29 June 2011 - 02:25 PM.

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

Yasoob Al Deen, on 29 June 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

You've missed the point completely. Reread my article more carefully. These ahadeeth are contradicted by numerous other ahadeeth in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim.

You were saying "there are not many ahadeeth which say that muta was banned by the Prophet; there are only a handful of them".
What point were you making by this statement? Your point was there is only handful hadith regarding prohibition of Mut'ah, so I said being handful doesn't lower its strength.
What is the meaning of "handful" to you, is a different thing. You might not be aware that we have more just three hadith in our support, adding to it the verses of Meerath, Nikah, Iddah etc.

Quote

Yeah, you've really missed the point. Did you even read my article? How can there be three saheeh ahadeeth which contradict each other? And now you say there is a debate amongst some Sunni scholars regarding which is correct! The conditions for acceptance into Saheeh Muslim are already strict so there are few ahadeeth in it relative to the total number that have a defect in the isnaad.

I read your article. There is nothing special in it. Shia normally use the same arguments. When a hadith is being narrated, then it could come in many way. Like a sahabi says that Prophet (S) said such and such thing, or like if a sahabi says Prophet did such and such thing. In the first case the ikhtilaf is hard to find, while in later case there could be some Ikhtilaf due to understanding of Sahaba or some other narrator. Like if a sahabi says that Prophet did something on this day and other says that Prophet did it on other day, so both could be true even though there is apparently some disagreement among their narrations.

In our case, the narrations prohibiting Mut'ah has one thing in common that is they all attribute prohibition to Prophet, alaihissalat wassalaam. Even though they differ regarding time of Prohibition. This kind of differences actually doesn't affect the authenticity of a hadith especially when there is way of reconciliation. In fact this is not even a contradiction if we look at it carefully.

I give you an example which you can digest. The hadith of Thaqalain is reported to have been said by Prophet (S) on different occassions, particularly the Final sermon and also at Ghadir KHumm. Shia do not hesitate to take it as evidence. But isn't there any contradiction? If we look through the mind set of Yasoob then yes, there is contradiction but actually there is not. He could have said it during both ocassions.
Note:- According to sunnis the hadith thaqlain is proven during Ghadir Khumm only, the other one is weak, not because of so called contradiction but due to other reasons.

SO, to solve the problem in simple statement, Prophet (S) actually prohibited it during Khaibar but it was allowed later on during Fath for some days based on enquiry of some people and after it he prohibited it till the day of Judgement by the will of Allah.
And add to your memory that the year of Awtas was same as year of Fath, and that is 8 AH. I don't from where you get it was 9AH.

Quote

If you are arguing over which date is correct because the ahadeeth contradict, then by this logic, you should be arguing over whether it was the Prophet or Umar who banned muta, as the ahadeeth contradict on this issue too.

Umar prohibited it because it was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (SAW). Umar came accross some people still doing it so he announced it on mimbar.
The Prophet (ASWS) only permitted mut'ah during safar, and that too after Fath has been prohibited till the day of Judgement. You wont find a report stating that he (SAW) allowed it while he was in madina.

Quote

Do you mean the one that is suspicious because no-one else reported it being banned on the Day of Khaybar yet numerous companions reported the banning of donkey meat on the same day? lol

As i said before just because only Ali narrated it doesn't mean it is suspicious. Sahaba used to narrate according to need. So when someone talk to them regarding the donkey meat they would simply say Prophet prohibited on such occasion without talking about other things happaned durin that occasion. Statement of Ali is also reported by Zaidiyya and Ithna Ashariyya in their book. Zaidi accept it while Ithna Ashari scholar say that it was taqiya from Imam Ali. I guess this report has been dicussed before from shia books.

Quote

So you're saying the Sahaba are not all reliable reporters?! lol

Grow up. There is no reliable and even the greatest hafiz of Hadith who cannot make mistake. We do not believe in the infallibilty of Sahaba.
http://alsonnah.word...e-prophet pbuh/
http://alsonnah.word...sguided-part-1/

Quote

Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of Hajj and Tamattu' with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.
Saheeh Muslim, Book 8, Number 3250.

If Jabir did not come come accross the final prohibition that doesn't mean other also did not know it. Ali bin Abi Talib, Ibn Umar, Saburah, Abu Hurairah etc all narrates that ot was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (S). If we are going to operate with your way then we will lose most of the narrations.
Now the report talks about two types of tamattu' (hajj and Nikah),
1). Regarding Nikah Mut'ah almost all companions, except very few, supported Umar's view and there is consensus on it of Sunni.
2). No one supported Umar in his view regarding Hajj Tamattu. It was rejected by the later consensus.
Now see the difference what is called Umar's Fatwa and that of the Fatwa of the Messenger of Allah (SAW).

Quote

References? Some of these verses apply to permanent marriage, not temporary marriage.

The verses are general, there is no hint of exception for temporary marriage in it.

Quote

When only three ahadeeth contradict each other and one of them is suspicious, and there are ahadeeth which oppose the former three ahadeeth....one gets suspicious.

It is only you don't know how to deal with a matter. There are verses in quran which appears contradictory, but there is not contradiction.

Quote

A person who ignores the article, should not be replying to it.

As though your article is some kind of newly invented treasure. There is not anything new in it, and i have read your article.

Quote

My mistake.

I won't be bothering to reply to your next post if you ignore the article's arguments again in your response to it.

Who cares... I myself wont be able to post since I'll be away from my pc for over a month, except if Allah will.