Proof of the Shi`ah for the Permissibility of Mut`ah
Appendix
October 29, 2015The Prohibition of Mut`ah in Light of the Rulings of the `Ulamaʼ of Ahl al-Bayt
October 29, 2015- Proof of the Shi‘ah for the Permissibility of Mut‘ah
- The First Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Second Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Third Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Fourth Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Fifth Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Sixth Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Seventh Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Eleventh Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Twelfth Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Thirteenth Proof of the Shi‘ah
- The Last Arrow in the Insolence of the Shi‘ah
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Proof of the Shi‘ah for the Permissibility of Mut‘ah
The First Proof of the Shi‘ah
The Shia have presented a few proofs from which they substantiate that the performance of Mut’ah is halal and merits great reward. We will now examine their proof.
The Shia claim that Mut’ah was always halal and was never declared haram. To substantiate this claim they put forward the following verses of the Noble Qur’an:
فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهٖ مِنْهُنَّ فَاٰتُوْهُنَّ اُجُوْرَهُنَّ فَرِیْضَةًؕ وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَیْكُمْ فِیْمَا تَرٰضَیْتُمْ بِهٖ مِنْۢ بَعْدِ الْفَرِیْضَةِؕ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ کَانَ عَلِیْمًا حَکِیْمًا
So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.[1]
All the scholars of the Shia from their leading muhaddithin and Fuqaha’ to their lesser mujtahidin all rely heavily on this one verse and base their ruling of permissibility upon it.
Answer
The readers would have already come across the explanation of this verse in the previous pages where it was clearly proven that this verse has no relation whatsoever to the Mut’ah of the Shia. This verse encourages one to marry halal women and after deriving physical benefit from them, one should ensure that the dowry is immediately handed over to her, and no delay should be made in this matter. When the preceding and following verses of this verse are studied in conjunction with it then it becomes clear that this verse does not mention the Shia definition of Mut’ah nor is there the possibility of it being implied.
In fact this verse is rather a proof for the prohibition of Mut’ah. The reason for this is that the words “As properly married men and not as fornicators” negates the permissibility of Mut’ah because this makes it clear that the purpose of nikah is not merely to satisfy one’s lust but to marry in a proper manner perpetually. Now in the Mut’ah of the Shia neither is the woman recognised as a wife and nor does she possess the rights of a wife. Its purpose is only for satiation of one’s lust.
One should contemplate deeply as to whether this verse proves the permissibility of Mut’ah or its prohibition. (it is obvious that it proves its prohibition.) If this verse is accepted to refer to the Shia Mut’ah, then the sequence of the entire verse will be ruined, and it will be in contradiction with the preceding and following verses because the first part of the verse makes mention of the incumbency of nikah and adhering to the conditions of nikah, whereas the latter part of the verse permits taking benefit from a woman without adhering to the conditions of nikah.
– Besides what has been mentioned above, other verses of the Qur’an clearly explicate that it is impermissible to have such relations with any woman except for those whom one has married or those female slaves that one owns.
– The greatest error of the Shia ‘ulamaʼ is that they took this verse to refer to Mut’ah merely because of the letters ‘م’, ‘ت’ and ‘ع’ appear, followed by “their due compensation”. This led them on insisting that this proves the permissibility of Mut’ah, and to justify their claim and their fabricated narrations which mention its virtues and rewards from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the scholars of the Ahlul Bayt.
It is extremely sad that they did not consider that how would Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt — whose morality and sense of honour is unparalleled — ever condone such acts which even the average Muslim cannot approve of.
Nevertheless this verse has no relation in the least to the technical definition of Mut’ah by the Shia and instead this verse proves the prohibition of Mut’ah.
The Second Proof of the Shi‘ah
The Shia claim that this verse was revealed in the following manner:
فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهٖ مِنْهُنَّ اِلى اَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى
For the benefit that you derive from them “until the stipulated period”.
This permits Mut’ah for a short period. They say that this narration is also mentioned in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah which makes it known that Mut’ah is permissible.
Answer
1. The Noble Qur’an is present in the houses of the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia, is it possible for any person to show us the following verse with the words “Until the stipulated period”?
2. As far as the Shia Qur’an is concerned, we will accept their claim and ask them to please produce the authentic Qur’an, which is missing with their absent Imam in his cave, and show us the relevant verse, as the current Qur’an that is present in every one’s home does not contain the words “Until the stipulated period”.
3. Even if this narration is found in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah then it is defined as Qira’ah Shadhah (uncommon recitation). To prove the permissibility of Mut’ah from such narrations is unacceptable and including the commentary of a verse as part of the actual verse even more so.
Allamah Mazhari says that the recitation of “Until the stipulate period” is an uncommon narration and should not be taken as part of the Qur’an.
هذه شاذة لا يحتج بها قرأنا و لا خبرا و لا يلزم العمل بها
This is uncommon and should not be regarded as the Qur’an nor as a narration and should not be practiced upon.[2]
Allamah Shihab al Din Sayed Mahmud al Alusi rahimahu Llah mentions while enumerating the proofs for the prohibition of Mut’ah:
والقرأة التى ينقلونها عمن تقدم من الصاحبة شاذة
The narration that has been reported from the Sahabah is uncommon (and not part of the Qur’an).[3]
Allamah Qadi Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Showkani rahimahu Llah explains:
و اما قراءة ابن عباس و ابن مسعود و ابى ابن كعب و سعيد ابن جبير (رضى الله عنهم) فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهٖ مِنْهُنَّ اِلى اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى فليست بقرأن عند مشترطى التواتر و لا سنة لادل روايتها قران فيكون قبيل تفسير الأية و ليس ذلك لحجة
As far as the recitation reported from Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Ubay ibn Ka’b, and Sa’id ibn Jubayr radiya Llahu ‘anhum of “For the benefit you have derived until a stipulated period” is concerned, then this is not a part of the Qur’an as the condition of tawatur[4] is not found in it. This is also not a hadith because it has been said to be Qur’an, therefore it is rather the tafsir of the verse and that is not a valid proof.[5]
It became known from this that the narration of “until a stipulated period” which has been reported from some Sahabah is not part of the Qur’an nor is it found in the Qur’an. The most that can be said about it is that it is Qira’ah Shadhah (uncommon recitation) which has been abrogated or it may be a part of the tafsir of the verse.
4. Even if it is the tafsir of this verse then its meaning will not be that which the Shia scholars take it to mean, because this will remove the difference between temporary and perpetual marriage. Instead of perpetual prohibition how is it possible to take it to mean temporary permissibility? Molana Muhammad Idris Khandhlawi rahimahu Llah writes:
“Until a stipulated period” is the extremity of “For the benefit you derive”. The word ‘اجل’ (period) is nakirah (indefinite noun) which includes both lengthy and brief, i.e. a lengthy period of time or a brief period could both be referred to by the word ‘اجل’. Now the word “اَسْتِمْتَاعٌ” means to derive benefit, which would make the meaning of the verse: “After a legitimate nikah, regardless of the period that you derive benefit, the entire mahr will be incumbent upon you.” Just as the entire mahr is incumbent upon that person who after marrying a woman takes benefit from her for a lengthy and extended period of time, so too is the entire mahr incumbent upon that person who after marrying a woman took benefit from her for a short period of time. That is to say the entire mahr will still be incumbent upon him even if he only took benefit from her for a brief period of seclusion (known as Khalwah Sahihah).[6]
It is apparent from this explanation that even if the words “Until a stipulated period” were to be accepted as the tafsir of this verse then too it would not refer to the technical definition of Mut’ah by the Shia. The reason for this is that the wording of the Qur’an does not permit it. In this verse the mahr is being discussed and not the payment for Mut’ah. Even the preceding and following verses indicate that after marrying a woman in the appropriate manner and then deriving benefit from her, whether it is for a lengthy period or for a brief encounter, in all instances the entire mahr will be wajib (obligatory).
It is indeed distressing that the Shia scholars did not understand the extremity and boundary of deriving benefit. Instead they took it to refer to their own version of Mut’ah and their conceived interpretations for the Qur’an.
Nevertheless to award the words “until the stipulated period” the rank of the Qur’an or hadith is not correct in any instance. Molana Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Muhaddith Dehlwi rahimahu Llah writes:
We say that they have brought such a word into the Qur’an about which there is unanimity that it is not from the Qur’an. For the Qur’an to be narrated by tawatur is a condition of both the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia. This is also not a hadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, so how then can it be regarded as a certificate of approval. The reality is that some narrations are shadh (uncommon) or abrogated. To use that narration against that which is continuous and explicit in the Noble Qur’an, and discard those clear explicit verses of the Qur’an for that shadh narration — which has never been reported from one reliable chain of narration — can never be justified. It is a common principle of both Shia and the Ahl Sunnah that when two proofs — both equal in strength and reliability — contradict each other in halal and haram then the proof of prohibition will be favoured. In this instance the proofs of the Shia are nothing but fabrications. To date no one has ever heard this recitation nor has it been seen in the Qur’an present with the Arabs and non-Arabs alike.[7]
Allamah Jar Allah writes:
In my personal opinion the grammar and prose of this verse all negate that this noble verse was revealed regarding Mut’ah. If we accept this verse to permit Mut’ah then the entire sentence construction of this verse will be ruined, which would leave this verse critically flawed.[8]
Even if the recitation of “Until a stipulated period” is accepted then it is possible that it refers to the handing over of the mahr and not to nikah. If this is the case then it is not impossible to say that this refers to the period of nikah. Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmed ibn ‘Ali al Jassas al Razi rahimahu Llah writes:
و لو كان فيه ذكر الاجل لما دل ايضا على متعة النساء لان الاجل يجوز ان يكون داخلا على المهر فيكون تقديره فما دخلتم به منهن بمهر الى اجل مسمى فاتوهن مهورهن عند حلول الاجل
Even if the words ‘Until a stipulated period’ was mentioned in this verse then too Mut’ah would not be proven because it is possible that the period mentioned here refers to the mahr. In this case the verse would mean that when you go to your wives, with the entire mahr that you had promised to hand over to her on a stipulated time, then you should hand over that mahr as soon as that time arrives.[9]
The Third Proof of the Shi‘ah
According to the Shia the third proof for the permissibility of Mut’ah is the verse:
مَا یَفْتَحِ اللهُ لِلنَّاسِ مِنْ رَّحْمَةٍ فَلَا مُمْسِكَ لَهَا
There is none to withhold the mercy that which Allah opens to His people.[10]
The Shia mufassir ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi reports that a certain individual of Kufah asked Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah regarding this verse, to which he replied:
و المتعة من ذلك
And Mut’ah is amongst them.[11]
The Shia mufassir Maqbul Ahmed Dehlwi also writes:
This is a part of that mercy.[12]
Answer
1. To present this verse for the permissibility of Mut’ah is a deceiving ploy. If one has to study the verses that precede it then one will discover that this has no relation to Mut’ah whatsoever. In the preceding verse the majesty and might of Allah is discussed, and this verse too refers to the same emphatically stating that none can challenge the might of Allah. If He so wishes then he may cause it to rain and for crops to sprout and rizq (sustenance) to be distributed. Similarly if he wishes to bestow His spiritual favours by sending Ambiya’ and revealing Divine Books there is none to challenge Him. If Allah wishes to open the doors of His mercy then none has the ability to close it. No person has the ability to prevent the rain from falling or stop the sustenance from being distributed amongst the entire creation. He is the Mighty, the Wise.
In addition to this if one were to study the verses that follow it then too one will discover that it discusses the immense power and might of Allah. It is once again disappointing that here too the Shia have fabricated narrations in the names of the scholars of the Ahlul Bayt, and taken mercy to refer to Mut’ah.
2. It is astonishing that they do not study the entire verse; instead they only look at one part of the verse and attempt to justify their own invented laws. The entire verse is as follows:
مَا یَفْتَحِ اللّٰهُ لِلنَّاسِ مِنْ رَّحْمَةٍ فَلَا مُمْسِكَ لَهَاۚ وَمَا یُمْسِكْۙ فَلَا مُرْسِلَ لَهمِنْۢ بَعْدِهٖؕ وَ هُوَ الْعَزِیْزُ الْحَکِیْمُ
There is none to withhold the mercy Allah opens to His people (such as rain, sustenance, spiritual upliftment) and there is none to release the mercy that He withholds. He is the Mighty, the Wise.[13]
Also see the translation that the Shia scholar Farman ‘Ali makes:
When he opens the doors of His mercy for the people there is none who can close it and when he withholds something then there is none who can release it. He has power over everything and the Wise.[14]
If the Shia mujtahidin remain adamant on their claim then we say to them that they should read the entire verse. If the beginning of the verse permits the performance of Mut’ah, as you claim, then the concluding portion of this verse will prohibit it. The words of the Shia translator: “When he withholds something then there is none who can release it” is a clear proof for the prohibition of Mut’ah.
Can any person even imagine that Allah will permit Mut’ah in the beginning of a verse and then prohibit it when concluding the verse? Is it possible to imagine that Allah can contradict Himself in this manner? Allah forbid!
We seek Allah’s protection from these fabrications and distortions
The reality of the matter is that this verse has no relation to Mut’ah at all and it is impossible for any person to use this as a proof for the permissibility of Mut’ah.
The Fourth Proof of the Shi‘ah
In trying to substantiate their claim that Mut’ah is permissible they take proof from the statements of some Sahabah. In the books of the Shia and the daily newspaper ‘Jang’ it has been reported on the authority of Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah radiya Llahu ‘anhu that Mut’ah is halal.
Answer
1. It has already been explained in the previous pages that the Nikah Muwaqqat which was permitted for a short while was not the concocted Mut’ah of the Shia. Even though the words Mut’ah were used when referring to it, since witnesses were essential for it, it is not the same Iranian Mut’ah practiced today. In addition, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited this form of Mut’ah until the Day of Qiyamah. Now Nikah Muwaqqat is not permissible, whether it be called nikah or Mut’ah.
2. Since Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not participate with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the Battle of Khaybar, it is possible that he did not learn about the prohibition of Nikah Muwaqqat immediately and continued to assume that Nikah Muwaqqat is still permissible until ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu clarified the matter.
3. Abu Nadarah tnarrates that he was sitting with Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu when a person came to him and informed him that Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma have disagreed regarding both the Mut’ah’s (i.e. Nikah al Mut’ah and Hajj al Tamattu’). Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu then said: “We performed this in the time of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam when we accompanied him on a journey, then Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu prohibited it. So we left them both.”[15]
4. One learns from this narration that Jabir is referring to the time that they accompanied Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on a journey and he wishes to inform the questioner that it was not prohibited at that time. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu then later publicly announced the prohibition of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, so that if any person did not know of its prohibition he will become aware that Nikah Muwaqqat has now been prohibited. This makes it clear that Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not of the opinion that the Iranian version of Mut’ah is permissible. Instead he is only mentioning the time when it was not haram.
5. A lengthy hadith has been narrated from Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which has been reported from Imam Hazimi rahimahu Llah. It is also mentioned in this narration that:
نهى عن المتعة فتوادعنا يومئذ النساء و لم نعد و لا نعود اليها ابدا
Mut’ah was prohibited and on that very day we separated from the woman.
We did not return to them thereafter nor will we ever do so.[16]
This narration also makes it clear that according to Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu Mut’ah (i.e. Nikah Muwaqqat) did not remain permissible because Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited it.
6. In addition to this there is a narration of prohibition reported from Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu as well. Molana Shabbir Ahmed ‘Uthmani rahimahu Llah states:
و الا جابر جملة من روى فى تحريمها و حديثه حسن يحتج به
There is a narration reported from Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu concerning the prohibition of Mut’ah. This narration is both authentic and reliable, and can be cited as proof.[17]
To still include Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu among those who claim Mut’ah is permissible, after the above mentioned clarifications, is a grave injustice.
The Fifth Proof of the Shi‘ah
The most renowned of the Shia mujtahidin, ‘Abdul Karim Mushtaq, reports a narration from Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha:
روا النسائ و الطحاوى عن اسماء بنت ابى بكر (رضى الله عنمها) قالت عملناها على عهد رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
We practiced it during the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[18]
Answer
1. Molana Qadi Thana’ Allah Panipati rahimahu Llah has reported this narration on the authority of Imam Tahawi and Imam Nasa’i. It should be borne in mind that this narration from Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha cannot be found in Sunan Nasa’i, so the status of its chain of narration could not be ascertained. It is possible that Qadi Thana’ Allah took this narration from Imam Nasa’i’s Sunan al Kubra. If that is the case then to the status of its chain of narration will have to be ascertained.
2. As far as the narration in Tahawi is concerned, then there are two narrations of Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha in this book. One concerns Mut’ah in Hajj (Hajj Tamattu’) and another regarding Mut’ah with women. In her narration regarding Mut’ah with women these words are not mentioned, which makes it apparent that this was said with regards to hajj and not about Mut’ah. (This view has also been accepted by the Shia historian Mas’udi.)
3. Bear in mind “We practiced it” refers to Mut’ah in hajj (Hajj Tamattu’) but even if it is taken to mean Mut’ah or Nikah Muwaqqat then it is quite obvious that Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha is not describing her own practice but it is a manner of relating one’s history. She would then in actual fact be discussing Nikah Muwaqqat that was permitted in the early years of Islam, mentioning how it used to occur in that era. The purpose of her explanation was not to declare that it is still permissible or Allah forbids, that she still practiced it.
Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha reported an incident that has occurred, in accordance with the manner of Arabs, and was not describing her own practice or view. We will illustrate this with another example, to put any doubts at rest. Imam Bukhari reports in his Sahih:
عن اسماء قال قالت نحرنا فرسا على عهد رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) فاكلناه
We slaughtered a horse during the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and we consumed it.[19]
Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani rahimahu Llah has also reported this with the words ‘ذبحنا’ instead of [20] نحرنا
The Shia mujtahidin would probably assume that Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha consumed the entire horse herself, after which they will have memorial for the horse every year, wherein they will weep for it and wonder why she consumed it.
Bear in mind that she used the words ‘We slaughtered’, whereas in that era it was not common for women to slaughter animals. The men would undertake the responsibility of slaughtering the animals. Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha is describing the events that occurred in that era, that they would slaughter horses during the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The purpose of her statement is not to make it known that she would slaughter the animals in that era.
This explanation makes it known that ‘We practiced it’ means that during the lifetime of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, for a short period of time, Nikah Muwaqqat or Mut’ah was permitted and not prohibited and thus practiced by the people.
If the Shia mujtahidin are not satisfied with this explanation then they will have to explain the meaning of the following statement of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:لقد كنا مع رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و أله) نقتل اباءنا و ابناءنا و اخواننا و اعمامنا
Undoubtedly we would kill our fathers, sons, brothers and uncles with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[21]
They should please prove that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu killed his father — Abu Talib — his brothers and uncles with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Both Shia and Ahlus Sunnah know full-well that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not kill them, which would mean that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is describing the conditions of that era, that for the sake of one’s din one did not take into account whether those who opposed Islam were one’s fathers, brothers or sons. This is in no way a description of his own actions.
This will prevent any person with knowledge from laying such false allegations against Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha and slandering her pure personality for the purpose of fulfilling one’s own lustful desires.
A Reply to the Substantiation from Muruj al Dhahab
Shia mujtahidin say that it is recorded in Tarikh Mas’udi that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu asked ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu as to why he conceals the issue of Mut’ah. He said to him:
سل امك تخبرك فان اول متعة سطح مجمرها بين امك و ابيك
Ask your mother, she will tell you. The first stove of Mut’ah that was heated was heated by your father and mother.[22]
One learns from this that the daughter of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhuma performed Mut’ah.
Answer
The Shia mujtahidin have been deceptive in the manner that they relate this narration from Tarikh Mas’udi. This incident relates to Mut’ah in Hajj (known as Hajj Tamattu’) and not Mut’ah with women. It is mentioned just after this narration,
يريد متعة الحج
This refers to Mut’ah of Hajj.
Now the complete translation:
Ask your mother, she will tell you because the first stove of Mut’ah became apparent from the stove that belonged to your mother and father. This refers to Mut’ah of Hajj.[23]
The claim of the Shia mujtahidin that ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhum was the issue from Mut’ah is ridiculous because the nikah of Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu was such an open and well-known matter that almost all historians have mentioned it. Even Mas’udi has accepted that Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu performed an orthodox nikah and Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha was a virgin at that time.
لان الزبير تزوج اسماء بكرا فى الاسلام و زوجه ابوا بكر معلنا فكيف تكون متعة النساء
Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu married Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha while she was still a virgin and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu performed their nikah publicly. So how can this be Mut’ah?[24]
This makes is clear that Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha were properly married to each other and did not perform Mut’ah.
A Reply to the Substantiation from Muhadarat al Raghib
The Shia mujtahidin again accuse Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha of performing Mut’ah based on the narration in Muhadarat al Raghib . The Shia mujtahid Athir Jarawi writes:
Read the third volume of Muhadarat al Raghib, pg. 94, and you will find that not only did the illustrious Sahabi, Zubair ibn ‘Awwam radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Asma’ radiya Llahu ‘anha — the sister of Umm al Mu’minin ‘Aʼishah radiya Llahu ‘anha — oppose ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu verbally, they also performed Mut’ah to contradict him and as a result a distinguished individual like ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu was born.[25]
Answer
To claim the ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair was the issue from the act of Mut’ah is a blatant lie of the Shia. They have no clear narration in this regard. They tried to seek refuge behind the profile of Mas’udi but Mas’udi (who is also a Shia) did not aid them in the least. Now they lay the same accusation on the authority of Muhadarat al Raghib Isfahani, to which we firstly say:
لعنة الله على الكاذبين
May Allah’s curse be upon the liars.
And then we demand that they present its chain of narration.
As far as the belief of Raghib Isfahani is concerned, remember he is among the eminent scholars of the Shia. Sheikh Hassan ibn ‘Ali al Tabarsi clearly states in the end of his book, Kitab al Israr al Imamah:
انه اى الرااغب كان من حكماء الشيعة الامامية له مصنفات نائقة مثل المفردات فى غريب القرآن و افانين البلاغة و المحاضرة
Raghib Isfahani was among the eminent scholars of the Shia Imamiyyah. Among his renowned works are al Mufradat fi Gharib al Qur’an, Afanin al Balaghah and Muhadarat.[26]
It is evident that Raghib Isfahani was from the Shia Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers). Thus his opinion might be regarded as binding by the Shia but has no importance among the Ahlus Sunnah. When one does a little more research then it becomes clear that all these narrations are regarding Hajj Tamattu’.
The Sixth Proof of the Shi‘ah
Shia scholars claim that the famous Sahabi, ‘Imran ibn Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu has stated that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam never prohibited Mut’ah and that absolutely no ruling was revealed regarding Mut’ah.[27]
Answer
This proof of the Shia is once again the result of misunderstanding and confusion on their part. Simply seeing the words Mut’ah and coming to the conclusion that this refers to Mut’ah with women is a baseless and feeble claim. The narration of ‘Imran ibn Hussain concerns Mut’ah in hajj (Hajj Tamattu’) and not Mut’ah with women. Imam al Bukhari rahimahu Llah has reported this statement of ‘Imran ibn Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu in Kitab al Hajj, under the chapter:
The chapter of (Hajj) Tamattu’ during the era of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[28]
Imam Muslim also reported this statement under the appropriate heading in his book of hadith.[29]
This makes it clear that this statement of ‘Imran ibn Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu concerns Hajj Tamattu’ and not Mut’ah with women. ‘Imran ibn Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself clarifies that it concerns Hajj Tamattu’. Abu al Raja’ reports that ‘Imran ibn Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu said regarding Mut’ah in Hajj:
قال قال عمران ابن حصين نزلت آية المتعة فى كتاب الله يعنى متعو الحج و امرنا بها رسول الله (صلى الله عليه سلم) حتى مات
The verses of Mut’ah were revealed in the Qur’an, i.e. Mut’ah in Hajj, and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ordered us to adhere to it until he left this world.[30]
Imam al Nawawi rahimahu Llah writes about all these narrations that they all establish that ‘Imran ibn Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu was referring to Hajj Tamattu’.[31]
و هذه الروايات كلها متفقة على ان مراد عمران التمتع بالعمرة ال الحج جائز و كذلك القران
The Shia mujtahidin only report half of ‘Imran ibn Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu narration. The other half is very conveniently omitted, as it opposes their view. How can narrating only half of a narration to prove your definition of Mut’ah be just?
The Seventh Proof of the Shi‘ah
The Shia scholars and mujtahidin say that an eminent Hanafi Imam, the author of al Hidayah, has stated that Imam Malik rahimahu Llah regarded Mut’ah as permissible and it is entirely lawful.
Answer
The opinion attributed to Imam Malik rahimahu Llah by the author of al Hidayah is not the correct view of Imam Malik rahimahu Llah because he too is of the opinion that Mut’ah is haram. Imam Malik rahimahu Llah narrates:
مالك عن ابن شهاب عن عبدالله و الحسن ابن محمد بن علي عن ابيهما عن علي ابن ابى طالب ان رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) نهى عن متعة النساء يوم خيبر و عن اكل لحوم الحمر الانسية
Imam Malik reports… from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited Mut’ah with women as well as consuming the meat of donkeys on the day of Khaybar.[32]
This narration from Muwatta’ Imam Malik clearly proves that Imam Malik rahimahu Llah was of the opinion that Mut’ah is haram, therefore the opinion attributed to Imam Malik rahimahu Llah is actually the opinion of one of his students. The Shia also attended the gatherings of Imam Malik rahimahu Llah and they were the ones who asked about Mut’ah. The author of al Hidayah thought this to be the opinion of the students of Imam Malik. Now if the words ‘Students of’ were to be omitted from the text, is it not the fault of the scribe. It is absolutely incorrect to believe that Imam Malik rahimahu Llah regarded Mut’ah as permissible.
Allamah Abu ‘Amr Yusuf ibn ‘Abdul Barr al Maliki rahimahu Llah writes:
و على تحريم المتعة مالك و اهل المدينة و ابو حنيفة فى اهل الكوفة و الاوزاعى فى الشام و الليث فى اهل المصر و الشافعى و سائر اصحاب الآثر
Imam Malik and the people of Madinah, Imam Abu Hanifah and the people of Kufah, Imam Awza’i in Syria, Imam Layth ibn Sa’d in Egypt, as well as Imam Shafi’i and all the Muhaddithin unanimously agree that Mut’ah is haram.[33]
One learns from this that just as all the Fuqaha’ and Muhaddithin agree that Mut’ah is haram, so too does Imam Malik regard it as prohibited. ‘Qadi ‘Ayyad al Maliki rahimahu Llah unambiguously writes:
وقع الاجماع من جميع العلماء على تحريمها الا الروافض
There is consensus of all the ‘ulamaʼ that Mut’ah is haram, with the exception of the Rawafid, (who claim that is permissible).[34]
The Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Proof of the Shi‘ah
Some of the Shia scholars and mujtahidin take proof for the permissibility of Mut’ah from the statements of the students of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and that too chiefly from Ibn Jurayj rahimahu Llah and Ibn Hazm rahimahu Llah, claiming that they regard it as permissible.
Answer
1. This claim of the Shia is inaccurate. It has already been explained in the preceding pages that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarded Nikah Muwaqqat as permissible on a few conditions but he then withdrew this opinion. If any of his students continued to regard it as permissible that is no fault of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He retracted his previous opinion and adopted the opinion that all the ‘ulamaʼ of truth are agreed upon. The Qur’an and hadith also inform us of the same, that Nikah Muwaqqat is not permissible under any circumstances. Abu ‘Amr Yusuf ibn ‘Abdul Barr al Maliki rahimahu Llah writes:
اصحاب ابن عباس من مكة و اليمن على اباحتها ثم اتفق فقهاء الامصار على تحريمها
The students of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu from Makkah and Yemen first regarded it as permissible then later consensus was made on its prohibition (when the ahadith of its prohibition became known and the retraction of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu made public).[35]
Now to include the students of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu amongst those who regarded Mut’ah as permissible is a fallacious lie.
2. In the same manner Ibn Jurayj first had the opinion that it was permissible then when the proofs of its prohibition became clear, he withdrew this opinion. Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani rahimahu Llah writes:
و قد نقل ابو عوانه فى صحيحه عن ابن جريج انه رجع عنها
Imam Abu Uwanah has reported in his Sahih that Ibn Jurayj retracted this opinion (of the permissibility of Mut’ah).[36]
3. As far as Imam Ibn Hazm is concerned, it is also proven that he withdrew this opinion. Ibn Hajar rahimahu Llah writes:
و قد اعترف ابن حزم مع ذلك بتحريمها لثبوت قوله (عليه السلام) انها حرام الى يوم القيامة
Ibn Hazm accepted that Mut’ah is haram because of the decree of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that it is forbidden until the Day of Qiyamah.[37]
Now consider if the students of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Ibn Jurayj and Ibn Hazm regard Mut’ah as permissible or haram? If one insists on being stubborn and shouting one slogan then there is no cure for stubbornness.
The reality is that these pioneers in ‘Ilm also regarded Mut’ah as haram, the same as the rest of the believers of Islam.
The Eleventh Proof of the Shi‘ah
The famous Shia scholar ‘Abdul Karim Mushtaq writes in his book, Ham Mut’ah Kyu Karteh Hai, pg. 12, that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also performed Mut’ah which he substantiates from the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu where he says that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam performed Mut’ah. (Musnad Ahmed volume 1 page 337)
Answer
العياذ بالله لا حول و لا قوة الا بالله سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم
Allah forbid! There is no power and no might except from Allah! Indeed Allah is pure and this is a false allegation!
This is a very severe and demeaning allegation against Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which only a non-Muslim could possibly lay against Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Those people, who have made the object of their lives the fulfilment of their lustful desires and passions, do not pay heed to whom they lay such false accusations. Only those who are ignorant of the purity, honour and status of the ambiya’ can levy such accusations, merely to propagate their false beliefs. The readers have already come across their claim in the preceding pages that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Allah forbid, performed Mut’ah.
In reply to this claim we would firstly like to say that it is an atrocious lie, an utter fabrication and sheer falsehood. If the Shia ‘ulamaʼ have any sense of self-respect then they should report this narration in full and severely deal with ‘Abdul Karim Mushtaq.
Musnad Ahmed is present before me at this very moment and I have read through all the narrations reported by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu and I have not found a single narration of his that can prove this claim. Wherever the word Mut’ah has appeared it does not refer to Mut’ah with women but to Hajj Tamattu’, in other words that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam performed Hajj Tamattu’. I did not find one single narration that indicates that the word Tamattu’ refers to Mut’ah with women. If the author, ‘Abdul Karim Mushtaq, desires complete satisfaction then he should please send the page number and chapter where this narration can be found and I will provide him with a reply. If his purpose is only to publicise his Shia beliefs and lay false allegations against the pure and noble personality of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then we — the Ahlus Sunnah — will never excuse such actions.
The Twelfth Proof of the Shi‘ah
The Shia quote a few reports from the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir al Tabri rahimahu Llah, from which they substantiate that Mut’ah is permissible.
Answer
Ibn Jarir al Tabri rahimahu Llah has indeed mentioned the opinions of a few individuals who regarded Mut’ah as permissible but to conclude from it that Mut’ah with women is permissible and that the respected author also regarded it as halal is great error indeed. It has already been mentioned before that a few of the Sahabah did regard Mut’ah (i.e. Nikah Muwaqqat) as permissible before they learnt of its prohibition. Once they learnt of its prohibition they retracted their previous opinion.
Ibn Jarir al Tabri rahimahu Llah did not report their opinions in order to try and establish the permissibility of Mut’ah but rather to explain the reality of the matter during the time of the Sahabah. Therefore it is incorrect for the Shia to substantiate from these statements. As far as the personal opinion of Ibn Jarir al Tabri rahimahu Llah is concerned then one should know that he regarded it as impermissible. After reporting the opinion pertaining to its permissibility and prohibition he writes:
و اولى التأولين عن ذلك الصواب تاويل من تاوله فما نكحتموا منهن فجامعتموهن فاتوهن اجورهن لقيام الحجة بتحريم الله تعالى متعة النساء على غير زوجه النكاح الصحيح او الملك على لسان رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
The best explanation of the verse, (give them their due compensation as an obligation) is that one should hand over the specified mehr to those women that you marry and consumated, because besides one’s legitimate spouse and female slave, its prohibition has been proven from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and proof has been established in this regard.[38]
The Thirteenth Proof of the Shi‘ah
The Shia mujtahidin say that the prohibition of Mut’ah is the ruling of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and how is it permissible for a common member of the ummah to abrogate the decree of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? If the order of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was unknown to him, who gave him the permission to forbid Mut’ah? This is the personal opinion of ‘Umar and not the opinion of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. ‘Abdul Karim Mushtaq writes:
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu forbade it, even though this prohibition was unlawful because no member of the ummah has the permission to issue any ruling contrary to the Qur’an and Sunnah.[39]
It is extremely sad that Doctor Kalim Siddiqi also says:
Its prohibition began with ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. ‘Umar was not a nabi such that his opinion is binding. This was his personal opinion.[40]
Answer
1. This claim of the Shia scholars and mujtahidin is utterly baseless. The prohibition of Mut’ah was clearly declared in the Qur’an and hadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The prohibition of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is clear and explicit. For one to say that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the only one that prohibited Mut’ah is a major inaccuracy, when the Rasul of Allah declared it haram.
2. Even if we accept — hypothetically — that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu did announce it as haram and prohibited during his khilafah then too it does not mean that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not prohibit it before him. Even if ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the one who prohibited it, then too one should not assume that his prohibition is not incumbent to follow as both the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia accept that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said regarding the al Khulafa’ al Rashidin:
فعليكم بسنتى و سنة الخلفاء الراشدين المهديين
My sunnah and the sunnah of my al Khulafa’ al Rashidin is incumbent upon you all.[41]
Just as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam instructed the Sahabah to adhere strictly to his sunnah, he instructed them to hold fast onto the Sunnah of the al Khulafa’ al Rashidin as well.
The Shia scholars also agree with this. Sheikh Abu al Hassan al Daylami reports:
فعليكم بما عرفتم من سنتى بعدى و سنة الخلفاء الراشدين
It is incumbent that you follow what you recognise of my Sunnah after me and the Sunnah of the al Khulafa’ al Rashidin.[42]
The author of Kashf al Gham, ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa al Ardabili also writes that Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu signed a peace treaty with Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the following conditions:
على ان يعمل فيهم بكتاب الله تعالى و سنة رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) و سيرة اخلفاء الراشدين
Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu will rule over them in accordance with the Qur’an and in accordance with the sunnah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the al Khulafa’ al Rashidin.[43]
For example, during the khilafah of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu a person who consumed wine was meted with the punishment of eighty lashes, whereas during the khilafah of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu the punishment was only forty lashes. In support and collaboration with this ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu states:
جلد النبى (صلى الله عليه و سلم) اربعين و ابو بكر اربعين و عمر ثمنين و كل سنة
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lashed (the one who consumed wine) forty times, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu also lashed forty times and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu eighty times, and all are Sunnah.[44]
If this action of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was against the Qur’an and Sunnah, the question will arise as to why ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is supporting his action and includes it also as the sunnah. One may also ask as to why ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu acted in accordance with his decree. If one doubts this then refer to the Shia book, Furu’ al Kafi, under the heading of the punishment for the one who consumes wine. You will find it written there:
ان فى كتاب علي (صلوة الله عليه) يضرب شارب الخمر ثمانين
It is in the book of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that the one who consumes wine should be lashed eighty times.[45]
This explanation makes it clear that even if ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu had decreed it as haram, or after hearing the prohibition of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam announced it publicly, then according to the direction of hadith his actions will also be regarded as sunnah and incumbent to follow. An illustrious and distinguished Sahabi like ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu made this his practice as well.
3. It is worth pondering over whether ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu made this decree based upon his own deliberation or after hearing the prohibition of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The narrations bear witness that ‘Umar also narrated the decree of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam when announcing its prohibition. ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma narrates that when ‘Umar became khalifah, he delivered a sermon in which he said:
فقال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) اذن لنا المتعة ثلاثة ايام ثم حرمها
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said that we were permitted to perform Mut’ah (Nikah Muwaqqat) for three days then it was prohibited.[46]
This makes it clear that his decision was not based upon his own understanding but on the hadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which he would in turn relate to the people.
Imam al Bayhaqi rahimahu Llah reports:
صعد عمر المنبر فحمد الله و اثنى عليه ثم قال ما بال رجل ينكحون هذه المتعة بعد نهى رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم عنها)
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu ascended the mimbar, he then praised Allah and lauded Him, after which he said: “What has happened with some people that they continue to perform Nikah al Mut’ah, even though Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had prohibited it.”[47]
Imam al Tahawi rahimahu Llah says:
خطب عمر فنهى عن المتعة و نقل ذلك عن النبى (صلى الله عليه و سلم) فلم ينكر عليه ذلك منكرا و فى هذا دليل على متابعتهم له على ما نهى عنه
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu delivered a sermon and he prohibited Mut’ah, which he narrated from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. None contradicted him on this matter, which is a proof of their agreement on this prohibition.[48]
Ibn Hajar rahimahu Llah writes:
ان عمر لم ينه عنها اجتهادا و انما نهى عنها مستندا الى نهى رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not prohibit it of his own accord but he narrated the decree of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, wherein he prohibited Mut’ah.[49]
In light of the above explanations, it becomes plainly visible that the announcement of the prohibition of Mut’ah made by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu during his khilafah was not his own personal opinion but was based upon the order issued by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It was in light of this hadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that he publicly announced its prohibition. To construe that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu acted on his own judgement in prohibiting Mut’ah is incorrect because Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself had declared it as haram much prior to that.
The Last Arrow in the Insolence of the Shi‘ah
In support of the permissibility of Mut’ah, the Shia scholars say that the narrations which mention the prohibition of Mut’ah do not corroborate each other. Whatever narrations have been reported in this regard, differ from each other. At times a narrator mentions that it was prohibited on a certain date, while another says that it happened on another date. They say that further proof is required for the prohibition of Mut’ah because its prohibition is unclear.
Answer
The prohibition of Mut’ah in the books of hadith as well as other books of the Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah has been explained in a very explicit manner. The words ‘Until the Day of Qiyamah’ is also clearly mentioned in these narrations. To turn away from such narrations only displays the stubbornness of the Shia. When and where it was prohibited, in this there is a difference of opinion. However, there is unanimity in all the narrations that it was prohibited.
- Some of the ‘ulamaʼ are of the opinion that it was prohibited during the Battle of Khaybar. It was permitted for three days and was then prohibited perpetually.
- According to some scholars it was prohibited in the same year as conquest of Makkah.
Despite this difference of opinion both groups are unanimous that it was prohibited until the Day of Qiyamah. To regard it as permissible now, will be acting in contradiction with the Shari’ah. To regard Mut’ah as permissible merely because there is a difference of opinion with regards to the date that it was prohibited is a feeble substantiation.
There is a much difference of opinion regarding the exact date that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was born. Some narrations mention a specific date while others something totally different. Would it be correct to then conclude that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was not born? If the Shia can come to this conclusion then there is no cure for such ignorance.
There are difference of opinions with regards to the exact date that Mi’raj (Ascension) took place, so will you now conclude that Mi’raj never occurred?
A few points should be borne in mind regarding the differences of opinion about the date that Mut’ah was prohibited:
1. Those scholars who are of the opinion that it was prohibited during the Battle of Khaybar mean that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam announced its prohibition in the Battle of Khaybar and then later permitted it for three days on the occasion of the conquest of Makkah. The reason for this is that those laws which are associated with the occasion of battle apply at that time only. Since the conquest of Makkah took place without any battle being fought, its permissibility was abolished forever and it was decreed as haram until the end of time.
Imam al Shafi’i rahimahu Llah, Imam al Nawawi rahimahu Llah, Imam al Bukhari rahimahu Llah and other scholars as well, are all of this opinion that it was permitted twice and then finally prohibited for all eternity. Imam al Shafi’i rahimahu Llah goes to the extent of saying that besides Mut’ah (Nikah Muwaqqat) he does not know of any other thing that was first made haram, then permitted and then again made haram till the end of time.
According to these scholars it was prohibited in Khaybar, and then permitted for three days and finally prohibited for once and for all.
2. Those scholars who are of the opinion that Mut’ah was prohibited on the occasion of the conquest of Makkah say that it was not prohibited during the Battle of Khaybar. The reason for their opinion is that in the light of other ahadith one will have to say that Mut’ah was not specifically prohibited on the Battle of Khaybar. Although the meat of donkeys was prohibited in Khaybar, Mut’ah was prohibited in another occasion, which was the conquest of Makkah. Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah rahimahu Llah, Abu Uwanah rahimahu Llah, Imam Suhayl rahimahu Llah, Ibn ‘Abdul Barr rahimahu Llah and Ibn Qayyim rahimahu Llah, are all of the opinion that Mut’ah was not prohibited twice but on one occasion only, and that was in the year that the conquest of Makkah took place. If the narrator mentions both these dates as the dates of its prohibition then it can be regarded as an error by the narrator.
There are a few objections on this last opinion, which are essential to resolve.
a. The first objection is that the Battle of Awtas took place after the conquest of Makkah, wherein Mut’ah was permitted for three days, so how is it possible to say that it was prohibited forever in the conquest of Makkah?
Answer
The Battle of Awtas took place in Shawwal, immediately after the conquest of Makkah (which occurred in Ramadan) and since these two battles took place very close to each other, those narrations that mention its prohibition in the year of Awtas actually mean the conquest of Makkah. Since the time period between the two events was very close, it is also referred to as the year of Awtas, whereas in reality its prohibition took place during the conquest of Makkah. This opinion is not only ours but that of the senior Muhaddithin as well. Ibn Qayyim rahimahu Llah writes:
و عام اوطاس هو عام الفتح لان غزوه اوطاس متسلة بفتح مكة
The year of Awtas is the same as the year of the conquest of Makkah, because the Battle of Awtas took place immediately after the conquest of Makkah.[50]
Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani rahimahu Llah writes:
يحتمل ان يكون اطلق على عام الفتح عام اوطاس تقاربها
It is possible that the year of the conquest of Makkah is meant by the year of the Battle of Awtas, because of their closeness to each other.[51]
Imam al Nawawi rahimahu Llah writes:
يوم فتح مكة هو يوم اوطاس شئ واحد
The day of the conquest of Makkah and the day of Awtas imply the same thing.[52]
One learns from this that wherever the year of Awtas is mentioned, it refers to the conquest of Makkah because of these two events transpiring so close to each other.
b. In the narration of Saburah radiya Llahu ‘anhu which has the words “The year of Awtas”, he himself clarifies that it refers to the conquest of Makkah.
غزا مع رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) فتح مكة ……ثم استمتعت منها فلم اخرج حتى حرمها رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم
We went to battle alongside Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the conquest of Makkah… then we performed Mut’ah (Nikah Muwaqqat) and did not leave (Makkah) until it was prohibited by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[53]
It has also been reported from him:
امرنا رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) بالمتعة عام الفتح حين دخلنا مكة ثم لم نخرج منها حتى نهانا عنها
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam permitted us to perform Mut’ah in the year of the conquest of Makkah, when we entered Makkah, and we did not leave (Makkah) until it was prohibited by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[54]
Saburah radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrates that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
نهى عنه المتعة و قال الا انها حرام من يومكم هذا الى يوم القيامة
Prohibited Mut’ah and said, ‘Undoubtedly it is Haram upon you from this day until the day of Qiyamah.[55]
He also narrates that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
و ان الله حرم ذلك الى يوم القيامة
Allah has prohibited it until the day of Qiyamah.[56]
Saburah radiya Llahu ‘anhu even goes to the extent of saying:
رأيت رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) قائما بين الركن و هو يقول
I saw Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam standing between the al Rukn al Yemeni and the al Hajar al Aswad when he said… (the prohibition of Mut’ah).”[57]
These narrations make it clear that according to Saburah radiya Llahu ‘anhu the year of Awtas and the year of the conquest of Makkah are the same. Mut’ah (Nikah Muwaqqat) was permitted only for three days prior to the conquest of Makkah, then Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam announced the decree of Allah and prohibited it until the Day of Qiyamah, while standing between the al Rukn al Yemeni and al Hajar al Aswad. It is for this reason that the year of Awtas and the conquest of Makkah refer to the same time.
c. If the year of Awtas is considered as different to the conquest of Makkah, and one insists that it was permitted and then abrogated then we will be forced to say that this used to occur during battles, which is incorrect as it will not be possible to corroborate this answer with hadith. How is it possible to say that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited the act of Mut’ah until the Day of Qiyamah after the conquest of Makkah, which was in Ramadan and then again permitted it in the battle of Awtas, which took place in Shawwal (a month later)? Such an action is far-fetched from the noble rank of Risalah, that a perpetual prohibition is abrogated for a few days only. Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani rahimahu Llah also writes:
و يبعد ان يقع الاذن فى غزوة اوطاس بعد ان يقع التصريح قبلها فى غزوة االفتح بانها حرمت الى يوم القيامة
It is far-fetched to believe that Mut’ah was permitted in the Battle of Awtas, after it was explicitly stated in the conquest of Makkah that it has been prohibited until the Day of Qiyamah.[58]
If one was to object to this and say that in those ahadith relating to the Battle of Khaybar one learns that Mut’ah was prohibited during the Battle of Khaybar, thus permission was granted for it, even though it was prohibited?
We would reply that the meat of donkeys was prohibited in the Battle of Khaybar and not Mut’ah with women. Regarding the narration reported from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu where it was mentioned that Mut’ah was prohibited in the battle of Khaybar, one should bear in mind that just as ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma regarded Mut’ah (Nikah Muwaqqat) as permissible, he also regarded the meat of donkeys as halal. Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani rahimahu Llah writes:
ان ابن عباس كان يرخص فى الامرين معا
Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu considered both of them to be permissible (i.e. Mut’ah and the meat of donkeys).[59]
When ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu learnt about the stance of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding these matters then he specifically refuted these acts and clarified its prohibition by saying that just as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited consuming donkey meat so too did he prohibit the performance of Mut’ah with women, even though the prohibition occurred in the conquest of Makkah. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu only intended to refute the ruling of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu that is why he mentioned both Mut’ah and donkey meat together. Ibn Qayyim rahimahu Llah writes:
هذا الحديث رواه علي ابن ابى طالب محتجا به على ابن عمه عبد الله بن عباس فى مسألتين فانه كان يبيح المتعة و لحوم الحمر فناظره علي ابن ابى طالب فى مسالتين و روى له تحريمين
‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu reported this narration in order to refute two rulings of his cousin ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as he regarded the performance of Mut’ah as well as the consumption of donkey meat as halal. This is why ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu debated with him regarding both these rulings and narrated the prohibition of both.[60]
و اطلق تحريم المتعة و لم يقيده بزمن كما جاء ذلك فى مسند امام احمد باسناد صحيح ان رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) حرم لحوم الحمر الاهلية يوم خيبر و حرم متعة النساء و فى لفظ حرم متعة النساء و حرم لحوم الحمر الاهلية يوم خيبر هكذا رواه سفيان بن عيينة مفصلا مميزا
The prohibition was mentioned in general and not fixed to a specific date, as it is reported in Musnad Ahmed with an authentic chain of narration that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited the meat of donkeys on the Day of Khaybar, and he also prohibited the performance of Mut’ah. In another narration it is reported in the following manner that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited Mut’ah and also prohibited the meat of donkeys on the Day of Khaybar. Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah has reported the narration in this manner.[61]
This elucidation makes it clear that each of them were prohibited at different times and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu only mentioned them together because he was refuting both these rulings. Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani rahimahu Llah writes:
و الحكمة فى جمع علي بين النهى عن الحمر و المتعة ان ابن عباس كان يرخص فى الامرين معا
The wisdom behind joining the prohibition of Mut’ah and meat of donkeys is that Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarded both of them as permissible, so ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu refuted both of them simultaneously.[62]
The summary of the above is that ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu intention was to refute both these rulings of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu at the same time, (and not to point out that they were prohibited together). If the Shia refuse to accept this explanation regarding the exact date it was prohibited then let us illustrate this from the books of the Shia themselves. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu has said:
حرم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و سلم) لحوم الحمر الاهلية و نكاح المتعة
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited the meat of donkeys and Nikah al Mut’ah.[63]
This narration does not mention the date of its prohibition to be Khaybar nor the conquest of Makkah, but explicitly states that it has been prohibited. Even though the senior scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah differ with regards to the date that it was prohibited, they all unanimously agree that it was indeed prohibited. Wherever it has been reported that a senior scholar has issued a ruling regarding its permissibility, it is also proven that the very same scholar later retracted that ruling. The foundations, on which the Shia have based their ruling on the permissibility of Mut’ah, have been utterly obliterated by our elucidations. In addition, it has been proven without an essence of doubt that the proofs cited by ‘Abdul Karim Mushtaq have no credibility whatsoever.
We beseech Allah to safeguard all our Muslim brothers from this vile act of Mut’ah and bestow the Shia scholars with the understanding to abstain from it. Amin
May the Iranian president Rafsanjani retract his statement, encouraging others to perform Mut’ah, without this retraction it is impossible for any Muslim to come to any understanding with them.
و صلى الله على خير خلقه سيد الانبياء و المرسلين سيدنا و مولانا محمد و أله و اصحابه و سلم
[1] Surah al Nisa’: 24
[2] Nawawi, v. 1 p. 450
[3] Ruh al Ma’ani, v. 5 p. 7
[4] Tawatur: Reported by such a large number of people that it is inconceivable for them to have all agreed upon a lie.
[5] Nayl al Awthar, v. 6 p. 148
[6] Ma’arif al Qur’an v. 2 p. 49
[7] Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah, p. 630
[8] Ullu Shia, p. 175
[9] Ahkam al Qur’an, v. 2 p. 148
[10] Surah al Fatir: 2
[11] Tarjumah Maqbul, p. 867
[12] ibid
[13] Surah al Fatir: 2
[14] Tarjumat al Qur’an, by Farman ‘Ali
[15] Sahih Muslim, v. 1 p. 451
[16] Fath al Mulhim, v. 3 p. 444, Tafsir Mazhari
[17] Fath al Mulhim, v. 3 p. 442
[18] Tafsir Mazhari, Ham Mut’ah kyu Karteh Hai
[19] Sahih Bukhari, v. 2 p. 829
[20] Fath al Bari, v. 21 p. 53
[21] Nahj al Balaghah, v. 1 p. 120
[22] Muruj al Dhahab, v. 3 p. 90
[23] Ibid v. 3 p. 112
[24] Muruj al Dhahab, v. 3 p. 82
[25] Jawaz Mut’ah, p. 68
[26] Al Kuna wa l-Alqab, v. 2 p. 268, A’yan al Shia, v. 6 p. 120, al Dhari’ah fi Tasnif al Shia, v. 5 p. 45
[27] Ham Mut’ah Kyu Karteh Hai, p. 11
[28] Sahih Bukhari, v. 1 p. 213
[29] Sahih Muslim, v. 1 p. 402
[30] ibid
[31] ibid
[32] Muwatta’ Imam Malik, p. 206
[33] Awjaz al Masalik Sharh Muwatta’ Imam Malik, v. 4 p. 304
[34] Fath al Bari, v. 19 p. 208
[35] ibid
[36] Fath al Bari, v. 19 p. 208
[37] ibid
[38] Tafsir Ibn Jarir, v. 5 p. 13
[39] Ham Mut’ah Kyu Karteh Hai, p. 17
[40] The weekly paper Roz Zindagi, 8 June 1991
[41] Tirmidhi, v. 2 p. 92
[42] Irshad al Qulub, v. 1 p. 37
[43] Kashf al Gham, v. 1 p. 570
[44] Sahih Muslim, v. 3 p. 72, Muwatta’ Imam Malik p. 357, Musannaf ‘Abdur Razzaq, v. 7 p. 379, Musnad Ahmed, v. 1 p. 82, Kitab al Khiraj, p. 165, Ibn Majah, p. 185.
[45] Furu’ al Kafi, v. 3 p. 117
[46] Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 141
[47] Fath al Bari, v. 19 p. 207
[48] ibid
[49] ibid
[50] Zad al Ma’ad, v. 2 p. 184
[51] Fath al Bari, v. 19 p. 203
[52] Sharh Muslim of Imam al Nawawi, v. 1 p. 451
[53] Sahih Muslim, v. 1 p. 451
[54] ibid
[55] ibid
[56] ibid
[57] ibid
[58] Fath al Bari, v. 19 p. 203
[59] ibid
[60] Zad al Ma’ad, v. 2 p. 184
[61] ibid
[62] Fath al Bari, v. 19 p. 204
[63] Al Istibsar, v. 3 p. 142