The following is a rebuttal by Shia Muslims (http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/umar-banned-mutah.html) proving that it was actually Umar who abrogated temporary marriages (muta), which was nothing more than prostitution.

Chapter  Eleven: The Truth: That Umar banned Mut’ah

The word Khalifa by definition means ‘to follow’ and the traditional thinking about the rightly guided khalifas is their rigid adherence to the Sunnah of the Prophet and the Book of God in all matters. To the typical Sunni adherent, none was so rigid in adherence that Umar ibn al Khattab and his reign is typically seen as an era that was the mirror image of the Shariah brought by Muhammad. The reality is very different. Contrary to such thinking Umar’s understands of the title Khalifa of the Prophet and indeed its implications were very different from what is assumed of him. To Umar felt that as the Head of State he had the carte blanche authority to rule on matters in any matter he chose fit, to the extent that he was entitled to amend and overrule the Quran and Sunnah on matters wherein he felt his position would better. We wish to make it clear that we are in no way making a claim that cannot be corroborated, the fact of the matter is this was a reality, Umar’s mindset was that as the Khalifa deemed himself to be the lawmaker, with the right to alter the regulations of the Quran and Sunnah is he saw fit. Examples of his changes are as follows:

• Surah Talaq of the Quran stipulates that there is no such thing as an impromptu triple divorce at one instance, rather the recital must take place over three periods (Al-Qur’an Surah 65, verse 1), yet Khalifa Umar ruled that his subjects could divorce their wives by uttering the divorce recital in triplicate on one occasion (Sahih Muslim, Book 009, Number 3493).
• Al-Qur’an Surah 65, verse 1 states that the final divorce must be made before two just witnesses, Umar did away with the need of witnesses altogether, after all, he entitled a man to utter the divorce immediately, without the need for a time to reflect or summon witnesses.
• Umar issued an edict that a maximum limit be set on Mehr (dower), and it took a woman to silence who pointed out that his ruling breached Surah Nisa verse 20 that sets no ruling (Jalalu’d-din Suyuti in his Tafsir-e-Durru’l-Mansur, vol. II, p.133; Ibn Kathir in his Commentary, Vol. I, p.468; Hakim Nishapuri in his Mustadrak, vol.II, p.177; and many more).
• He ruled that Tayammum cannot be performed as an alternative to water, and was unconvinced by the testimony of the Sahabi Ammar ibn Yasir (Sahih Muslim Book 003, Number 0718) even though an entire verse on Tayammum is in Surah al Maida verse 5.

The willingness to alter the Deen as he saw fit was something that in many ways exemplified the attitude of Umar ibn al Khattab, so much so that his admirers have both accepted it and praised it. Dr. Khursheed Ahmad from Delhi University, for example, wrote a book on the letters of Umar, and wrote:

“…The Ijtihaad of Hadhrat Umar was free and courageous. If he thought something to be correct or in the favour of Khilafaah, he acted upon it without any hesitation even if by doing so he had to go against the Sunnah of Rasool or Sunnah of Abu Bakr Siddique. And if the situation was not favourable, then even he would even neglect the commands and rules of Qur’an. For example the Qur’an stipulates that conquered lands be given to the Mujahideen (soldiers) who fought. But Hadhrat Umar made it a Waqf (Trust) for all the Muslims. And Hadhrat Umar took “Double Zakaat” from the Christians of Mesopotamia, while Qur’an says that “Zakaat” is only obligatory upon Muslims…”
“Hadhrat Umar kay Sarkari Khatoot” (The official letters by Hadhrat Umar), page 25, published by Idarah Islamiat, Lahore Pakistan)

In the same way that Umar gave himself the divine right to overrule the Shariah of Muhammad on the above matters, he used the same ‘free and courageous’ thinking to outlaw both types of Mut’ah, even though they were blessings that had been showered upon the Ummah of Muhammad.

We have already read the fatwa of Ibn Abbas, that we shall now cite through the following chain of transmission:

Abdulrazaq – Ibn Juraij – Atta said: ‘…Then Atta said: ‘I heard Ibn Abbas saying: ‘May Allah’s mercy be upon Umar, Mut’ah was permitted by Allah as a mercy for Muhammad’s nation, had he not prohibited it, no one would be in need of fornication except the perverted one’.

It has already been established that the Qur’an bore witness to the legitimacy of Mut’ah, and that it was originally halaal. All arguments about other verses abrogating the verse of Mut’ah have proven invalid. The only argument that remained was the belief that the Prophet had abrogated it through his Sunnah, but this has to be ruled out as all of the hadeeths contradict one another on this issue. It is also well known that a large number of companions, if not the majority of them, continued to practice Mut’ah after the death of the Prophet. This leaves us with just one ground for the abrogation of Mut’ah the true ground: that it was “abrogated” by ‘Umar, who of course had no authority to do such a thing. This acknowledgment is made in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work al-Awail, wherein we read:

“The first to make Mut’ah haraam was Umar”
Kitab al-Awail, page 1 by Hilal al-Hasan al-Askari (Madina, Saudi Arab)

Indeed, the Sahaba deemed Umar to be a liar when it came to this issue. We read in Tafseer Kabeer page 41:

Ali said: “Had Umar not banned Mut’ah then the only person to fornicate would be a wretched person.”
Tafseer al-Kabeer, Volume 4 Page 41

We should remember that “Nida ul Islam magazine” in of one of the silliest articles about Mut’ah, writes about Razi:

Before we close this research, we refer to the words of Imam Alfakhr AlRazy in response to those who claim that ‘Umar added the prohibition of temporary marriage himself. So they declared him as an apostate and attributed apostasy to all who did not stop him: “all this is erroneous. All that is left to say is that temporary marriage was permitted during the time of the Messenger, and I prohibit it with what has been authenticated with me that the Messenger of Allah prohibited it.

Yet Razi felt no problems narrating this hadeeth of Imam Ali. We ask the enemies of the Ahlulbayt: why do you disregard the words of Imam Ali relied upon by Razi and take the words of Razi instead? In fact, these words of Imam Ali are sufficient to destroy the claims of Razi and all other Umar’s advocates. We have already mentioned that Ibn Abbas discredited Umar’s fatwas on this subject. Another prominent companion Jabir bin Abdullah’s testimony refutes the assertion that the verse on Mut’ah was abrogated. We read in Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 205:

“Those who claim the verse was abrogated should be asked of the report in Sahih Muslim wherein Jabir stated ‘we contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger and during the time of Abu Bakr until ‘Umar forbade it in the case of ‘Amr b. Huraith“.

If Mut’ah was abrogated, then what compelled Jabir to say that is was practised during the reign of Abu Bakr? If Rasulullah deemed Mut’ah to be abrogated then were the companions indulging in fornication under the cloak of Mut’ah during Abu Bakr’s reign? Was the Prophet (s) not sufficient to stop this terrible practice?

Imam Ibn Qayyim, the student of Ibn Tamiyah, recorded the view of a segment of Sunni scholars that the tradition saying that Mut’ah was prohibited and hence abrogated on the conquest of Mecca is not authentic rather it was Umar who stopped it of his own accord. We also read in Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 205 Dhikr Fatah Makka:

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

It is clear that if Mut’ah’s abrogation was Sahih then Jabir would not have opposed Umar, and that if Rasulullah outlawed it, the Companions would not have practiced it during the reign of Abu Bakr.

Umar’s own testimony that he banned both types of Mut’ah that were Halal in Islam

The greatest testimony to Mut’ah’s original permissibility, and to the crime of Umar can be gauged from his own testimony. In this regards we can rely on the following authoritative Sunni texts.

1. Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 2801 & 2814
2. Musnad Ahmed, Volume 1 page 52 Hadith 369
3. Mustakhraj Abi Auwanah, Volume 7 page 159 Hadith 2713
4. Mustakhraj Abi Auwanah, Volume 4 page 255 Hadith 2697
5. Tarikh Madina, Volume 2 page 719
6. Sunnan Saeed bin Mansur, Volume 1 pages 218-219
7. Al-Mabsut by Sarkhasi, Volume 4 page 27
8. Musnad al-Shamyeen, Volume 3 page 320 Tradition 2399
9. Kanz al Ummal, Volume 8 page 93 Hadith 45715
10. al-Muhazraat, Volume 2 page 214 part 12
11. Tafseer al-Kabeer, Vol 4 pages 42 & 43
12. Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 205
13. Tafseer Qasmi, Volume 3 page 4

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Abu Auwanah Yaqoob bin Ishaq bin Ibrahim al-Nisaburi al-Isfraeini (d. 316 H) popularly known as Abu Auwanah records the following in his book Mustakhraj Abi Auwanah, Volume 7 page 159 Hadith 2713:

“Yaqoob bin Sufyan – Amr bin Asim – Hamaam – Qatadah – Abi Nadhra said: ‘I said to Jabir bin Abdullah that Ibn Abbas permits Mut’ah while Ibn al-Zubair prohibits it. He (Jabir) replied: ‘It is through me that this hadith has been circulated, I performed Mut’ah along with Allah’s Messenger and a verse was revealed regarding it but then when Umar bin al-Khatab become the caliph, he addressed the people and said: ‘The Quran is the same Quran, the apostle is the same apostle, and there existed two types of Mut’ah at the time of Allah’s apostle, I forbid both and will punish whoever performs them, one is the Mut’ah of Hajj, surely you have to separate your Hajj from your Umra, and the other is Mut’ah al-Nisa, if I catch any person who is married for an appointed duration (Mut’a), I will certainly stone him (to death).”

Yaqoob bin Sufyan: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Hafiz’ (Taqrib al-tahdib, v2, p337), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p394). Amr bin Asim: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p738), Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v3 p269). Hamaam bin Yahya: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p270), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v4 p309). Qatadah bin Da’ama: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p26), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v3 p385). Abi Nadhra al-Munder bin Malik: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p213), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p295).

A similar account can also be read in Tarikh Madina via a variant chain of narration:

Muhammad bin Jaffar – Shu’aba – Qatadah – Abi Nadhra said: ‘Ibn Abbas used to permit Mut’ah whereas Ibn al-Zubair forbade it, thus I mentioned that to Jabir bin Abdullah and he replied: ‘Through me this hadith been circulated, we performed Mut’ah with Allah’s Messenger but when Umar became the ruler he said: ‘Allah would allow His Messenger to do whatever He wished, verily the Quran’s revelation has been completed, thus perform Hajj and Umra as Allah ordered you in a complete form and perform wedlock with women in a complete form, if I catch a man who has performed temporary wedlock with a woman, surely I will stone him’’’.

Muhammad bin Jaffar: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p63). Shu’aba bin al-Hajaj: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p418). Qatadah bin Da’amah: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p26). Abi Nadhra al-Munder bin Malik: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p213).

The audacious statement of Umar has also been recorded in Mustakhraj Abi Auwanah, Volume 4 page 255 Hadith 2697 in a concise manner via a different chain of narration:

Yazid bin Sinan – Maki bin Ibrahim – Malik – Naf’e – Ibn Umar – Umar said: ‘Two types of Mut’ah existed during Prophet’s time, I prohibit both, Mut’ah of Hajj and Mut’ah al-Nisa’.

Yazid bin Sinan: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p325). Maki bin Ibrahim: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p211). Malik bin Anas: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Imam’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p151). Naf’e: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p239).

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Saeed bin Mansur (d. 227 H) records the following admission of Umar in his authority work Sunan Saeed bin Mansur, Volume 1 page 218 Tradition 852:

Saeed – Hushaim – Khalid – Abu Qulabah from Umar bin al-Khatab said: ‘Two types of Mut’ah were there during the time of Allah’s Messenger and I prohibit both and will punish whoever performs it, Mut’ah with women and Mut’ah of Hajj’

Imam Sarkhasi records:

“It is Sahih that Umar prohibited the people from committing Mut’ah and said: ‘Two types of Mut’ah existed during the time of Allah’s Messenger and I prohibit people from them, Mut’ah al-Nisa and Mut’ah al-Hajj’”.

We read in Kanz al-Ummal:

“Two types of Mut’ah were present during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s), I prohibit them both, Mut’ah of Nisa and Mut’ah of Hajj”

In Tafseer Kabeer:

Umar said: “Two Mut’ah’s existed during Rasulullah’s lifetime and I now prohibit both of them.”
Tafseer al Kabeer, by Imam Fakhr ul-Razi, Page 42 & 43

We read in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal:

Abi Nadhra said: ‘I said to Jabir bin Abdullah that Ibn Zubair prohibitis Mut’ah while Ibn Abbas allows it. He (Jabir) replied: ‘Through me this hadith has been circulated, we performed Mut’ah with Allah’s messenger, and Abu Bakr, but when Umar become caliph he addressed the people and said: ‘The Quran is the same Quran, Allah’s apostle is the same apostle, and there were two types of Mut’ah during the time of Allah’s Messenger, one was the Mut’ah of Hajj whilst the other was Mut’ah regarding women’’.
Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 52 Hadith 369

Shaykh Shu’aib al-Arnaout stated about the authenticity of this tradition:

“The chain is Sahih according to Muslim’s standards, the narrators are reliable and they are the narrators of the two Sheikhs (Bukhari & Muslim) except Abi Nadhra who is just a narrator of Muslim.”

Although the same account can also be found in Sahih Muslim but with a rather more eqviovocal wording, but when we read it in light of the admission of Umar (cited above), it is not difficult to understand meaning of the Sahih Muslim narration:

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. When ‘Umar was Installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for His Messenger 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).

There is yet another version of this earth shattering account that, whilst absent of Umar’s statement relating to Nikah al-Mut’ah still evidences his audacity by declaring the Halal Mut’ah al-Hajj as Haram. We read in Musnad al-Shamyeen by al-Tabarani, Volume 3 page 320 Tradition 2399 as well as in Kanz ul-Umal, Volume 5 page 164 Tradition 12477:

Ali bin Saeed al-Razi – Isa bin Ibrahim al-Ghafeqi – Abdullah bin Wahab – Yunus bin Yazid – Atta al-Khurasani – Saeed bin al-Musayab said: ‘Umar had prohibited Mut’ah during the Hajj season and said: ‘I used to perform it with Allah’s Messenger but I prohibit it and that is because a person comes from a far distance tired and dusty in order to perform Umra during the Hajj season, verily his dustiness, tiredness and his Talbia is only in his Umra, then when he passes by the house (of Allah) and ends the rites he wears cloth and perfume and sleeps with his woman if she was with him, until the day of Tawria he starts to get into Hajj and marches to Mina to perform Hajj without being dusty, tired. Surely Hajj is better than Umra.’’

Ali bin Saeed: Dahabi said: ‘Brilliant Hafiz’ (Tazkirat al-hufaz, v2 p750). Isa bin Ibrahim al-Ghafiqi: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p108). Abdullah bin Wahab: Dahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v2 p521). Yunus bin Yazid: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah Hujja’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v4 p484). Atta bin Abdullah al-Khurasani: Dahabi said: ‘He is one of the great scholars’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v3 p73). Saeed bin Musayab: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah Hujja’ (Al-Kashif, v1 p445).

Similarly we read in Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 2814:

Abu Musa reported that he used to deliver religious verdict in favour of Hajj Tamattu’. A person said to him: Exercise restraint in delivering some of your religious verdicts, for you do not know what the Commander of Believers has introduced in the rites (of Hajj) after you (when you were away in Yemen). He (Abu Musa) met him (Hadrat Umar) subsequently and asked him (about it), whereupon ‘Umar said: I know that Allah’s Apostle and also his Companions did that (observed Tamattu’), but I do not approve that the married persons should have intercourse with their wives under the shade of the trees, and then set out for Hajj with water trickling down from their beads.

Qadhi Yahya also acknowledged Mut’ah was prohibited by Umar NOT Rasulullah. This is proven from Ahl’ ul Sunnah’s authority work ‘al-Muhazraat’ Volume 2 page 214 part 12:

“Yahya Ibn Aktham asked a Shaikh from Basra: ‘Why do you permit Mut’ah?’ He answered: ‘Due to Umar Ibn al-Khattab’. Yahya asked: ‘How is that? Umar was the most strict one against it?’ He answered: ‘Yes, it is a Sahih narration that Umar ascended the pulpit and said: ‘Allah and His Prophet permitted you two types of Mut’ah, but I forbid you on both and will punish those who commit the same’, so we accepted the testimony of Umar (that Allah and His Prophet permitted it) but we did not accept his prohibition’.”

In short, we see that Umar did not claim that Mut’ah was abrogated by the Prophet (s). Dr. Salamah and others, therefore, are contradicting the person they believe to be the greatest of the companions. The simple fact is this: Allah (swt) allowed Mut’ah, and Umar forabde it. Does this not constitute open apostasy?

Taftazani & Qushaji’s attempt to defend Umar

Alaauddin Ali bin Muhammad Qaushaji al-Hanafi (d. 879 H) states in Sharh Tajreed Al-Aqaid, page 408:

“He prohibited both the Mut’ah, he climbed the pulpit and said: ‘O people, three things existed during the time of Allah’s Messenger, I forbid and prohibit them, and will punish those that practise them, they are Mut’ah of women, Mut’ah of Hajj and “Hay ala Khayr al-Amal”…. I respond and say that this is not a slander because disagreement of a scholar (Mujtahid) with the others doesn’t make it a slander”.

Imam Saaduddin Taftazani states in Sharh Maqasid, Volume 3 page 512:

“It has been narrated that Umar said: ‘Three things existed during the time of Allah’s Messenger, I forbid and make them Haram, these are Mut’ah al-Nisa, Mut’ah al-Hajj and “Hay ala Khayr al-Amal”…the answer is that this is issue of Ijtihad”.
Sharh Maqasid, Volume 3 page 512

Reply

Only the weakest arguments could be presented for defending such absurd behaviour. Saaduddin Taftazani and Qaushaji al-Hanafi sought to defend Umar, saying that he was a Mujtahid and was therefore entitled to Ijtihad. This argument is only taking the Kufr of Umar one step further, by offering a general permission to all Mujtahids to contravene the Qur’an and Sunnah. To claim that Ijtihad may contradict the Qur’an and Sunnah opposes the most fundamental doctrines of Islam, namely that Allah is the Lawgiver, and no one has any right to contradict him. To believe otherwise is to believe all bid’a to be permissible, which is obviously non-sense.

Maulana Maudoodi’s attempts to defend Umar

Sunni scholar Sayyid Abu’l A’la Maudoodi in his Rasail wa Masail Volume 2 page 22 wrote:

“The reality is this, of the practices that existed during the jahiliyya, Nikah Mut’ah was also one, a women would be given a gift, would then be married for a specific time. The approach of Rasulullah was that he would not deem a practise to be abrogated, until Allah revealed a specific order to him, rather he would maintain silence, or would even permit his adherents to adhere to it, subject to circumstance, until a Surah was revealed in connection with Mut’ah. In the beginning he remained silent, but when on travel or Jihad people highlighted their sexual frustrations, Rasulullah permitted it as an order had not yet been revealed to Rasulullah. When the order came he outlawed it, but this order did not reach the ears of all the people, which is why some people due to their ignorance continued to practise Mut’ah. Finally, Umar in his reign enforced the order with complete strength.”

Reply

If only Maudoodi the great commentator of the Qur’an could elaborate as to when this order took place? When was it revealed? Which verse was revealed to abolish this practise? Did such an order only reach the Ummah via the words of Rasulullah (s)? Did Allah (swt) not see the need to send a verse to put an end to this jahiliyya practise? Maudoodi’s claim that the order had not reached the ears of everyone and hence continued to be practised on account of ignorance, clearly points to the fact that the prohibition had not occurred in the Qur’an, if it had then it would have reached all the people.

The more we analyse the arguments of Maudoodi, the more weak his arguments become evident. Rasulullah (s) passed trough his life, Abu Bakr his entire reign as Khalifa, the people continued to practise Nikah Mut’ah, it was ultimately left to Umar to put his foot down who utilised his complete strength to bring this practise to an end. Was there no strength in an order that had been given by Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) that would have lead to the Sahaba to bow to such a prohibition? What strength did Umar possess to enable him to bring Mut’ah to an end, strength that Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s) had missing in their itinerary? These comments of Maudoodi are indeed amazing.

Maulana Waheed uz Zaman’s attempts to defend Umar

Maulana Waheeed uz Zaman in his famous ‘Lughaat ul Hadeeth’ Volume 4, page 9 under the chapter that looks at the words that begin with the letter “Meem” recorded the memorable words of Umar as follows, with the defence straight after:

‘Two Mut’ah’s, the Mut’ah of Hajj and Nikah Mut’ah were practised during the lifetime of Rasulullah, but I make them both haraam” – These words of Umar do not mean that he was making it haraam of his own accord, since what is halaal or haraam is limited to the realms of the Shari’ah not Umar, rather he was stating ‘I shall declare the prohibition so as to dispel any doubts from amongst the people’.

Reply

We would urge our reader to examine the Arabic text carefully, before embracing the defence of Maulana Waheed, wherein the words of Umar are as follows:

‘I make them both haraam’ – This makes the commentary of Maulana Waheed null and void. We the Shi’a do indeed believe that the domain of halaal / haraam is the excusive right of Allah and his Rasul, all are bound, including our Imams, Ali through to al Mahdi, no one has the right to deem something haraam of their own accord.

Fakhrudeen Razi’s attempts to defend Umar

We shall now present the detailed defence of Umar that was presented by his chief advocate, Fakhrudeen Razi in his authority work Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 96:

The second Proof: It has been narrated that Umar said in his speech: ‘Two types of Mut’ah existed during the life time of Allah’s messenger and I am prohibiting them and will punish one for doing it’. He said this in the presence of a large gathering of Sahaba and at that time no Sahabi objected to his comment. There are possible reasons for this.
They were aware of the prohibition of Mut’ah , that’s why they remained silent.
Or they were aware that Mut’ah was permitted but they adopted hypocrisy by maintaining silence.
Or they didn’t know if it was lawful or forbidden, thus they remained silent and they needed to look into the matter.

The first one (possibility) is the better one, while the second (possibility) makes Umar and other Sahaba infidels (Kafir), because whoever knows that the prophet made Mut’ah permissible, and deems it impermissible without providing the proof of abrogation, is certainly a kafir, and whoever believed him even though he knew that he was mistaken and was a kafir, is also a kafir. This leads us to declare takfir against the whole nation, that contradicts (Allah’s) statement ‘{you are the best of the nations}’.

Reply

The idea that the Companions would have been committing kufr by not openly renouncing Umar at that moment is entirely invalid. Umar was known for his anger and violence towards his opponents: this was the man who had threatened to murder the daughter of the Holy Prophet and all those Sahaba who were in her house. If the Companions present chose not to speak at that moment, then this would have been more than permissible. It is logical that people will take steps by assessing the environment and situation wherein they live. They were living during an era wherein the Head of State had the audacity to sanctify a Bidah and was threatening those that violated this Order with the death penalty, as such they had to take decisions on how best to react in the situation.

It was logical that when Umar was prepared to impose the most severe penalty available against those that practiced Mut’ah, the same penalty would be metted out against those that propogated the legitimacy of this practice through Hadith, for they were in effect through their words inciting, aiding and abetting others to partake in an act that he had outlawed, that made them guilty if not more guilty than those that practiced Mut’ah. A dictatorial regime that had suppressed the Hadith on the permissibility on Mut’ah to such an extent that those that knew that it was the unabrogated Sunnah of Muhammad were reluctant to convey it to the people, fearing the repercussions that they would face. Umar had in effect successfully outlawed Mut’ah via a two pronged approach, namely punishing those that practsed it or propogated its legitimacy. The propagation of traditions that evidenced the legitimacy of Mut’ah via the eye witness testimony of men of repute would have posed a far greater threat to Umar, after aall if people were to know that Umar was seeking to ban a practice that the Prophet allowed, not only would that damage his political credibility, it would risk public opposition to his directive. That is why faced with this harsh reality the Sahaba were in effect forced to conceal their own eye witness testimonies about the legitimacy of Mut’ah from the masses, to the extent that they feared any Hadith on the permissibility of Mut’ah being attributed to them. We can corroborate our stance via this tradition from Sahih Muslim Book 007, Number 2828:

Mutarrif reported: ‘Imran b. Husain sent for me during his illness of which he died, and said: I am narrating to you some ahadith which may benefit you after me. If I live you conceal (the fact that these have been transmitted by me), and if I die, then you narrate them if you like (and these are): I am blessed, and bear in mind that the Messenger of Allah combined Hajj and Umra. Then no verse was revealed in regard to it in the Book of Allah (which abrogated it) and the Apostle of Allah did not forbid (from doing it). And whatever a person (, Umar) said was out of his personal opinion.

We read in Musnad al-Rawyani, Volume 2 pages 259-260:

Reported Ubada bin al-Walid bin Ubada al-Samet who was one of the pious Ansar and from a pious family, that once Hassan bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib said: ‘My family insist that this Mut’ah is permissibe and Allah’s Messenger allowed it, but you offer a contradicting view, let us go to Salama bin al-Akwa to ask him about it, surely he is one of the pious companions of the Prophet.’
(Ubada said): ‘We then approached him, and met him in Marwan’s palace when he had lost his eye sight’. Hassan said: ‘Wait until my friend and I ask you about some hadith’. Salama said: ‘Who are you?’ He (Hassan) replied: ‘I am son of Muhammad son of Ali son of Abi Talib’. He (Salama) replied: ‘The son of my brother, well, who is the fellow with you and what do you want to ask me about?’ Hassan replied: ‘Mut’ah al-Nisa’.
(Salama) said: ‘Yes, yes my nephew, you two should keep my statement secret as long I am alive, if I die, then you can disclose it, if they (the people) wish to stone me, they would then (only be able to) stone my grave. Allah’s Messenger allowed it and we used to perform it until he passed away, Allah didn’t reveal anything to abrogate it, furthermore Allah’s Messenger didn’t prohibit us’.

These are two significant statements made by two recognized Sahaba. If anything they prove how successful Umar had been in altering public attitides towards Mut’ah, to mirror his own thinking. When Umar first banned Mut’ah, he proudly stated that he was doing so of his own accord and was essentially overruling the Sunnah of Muhammad (s). By suppressing talk about the legitimacy of Mut’ah, Umar had successfully altered public thinking about Mut’ah to such an extent that as time went by and the Sahaba died out and were followed by the Tabayeen and their children the public consensus was that Mut’ah was an abominable act outlawed by the Prophet (s). This can clearly be evidenced by the testimonies of the two esteemed Sahaba. Umar’s reign was from 13 Hijri until 23 Hijri. His legacy was such that his directive continued to have an influence over the people, and they began to in effect assume the the Prophet (s) banned Mut’ah as Caliph Umar outlawed it. That is why we see these two Sahaba living in fear of a public backlash, reluctant to disclose the truth about both types of Mut’ah decades after the death of Umar. Imran died in 52 Hijri while Salamah died in 74 Hijri, each attested to the legitimacy of the Mut’ah of Hajj and Mut’ah with women respectively, saying it was part of the Sunnah of Muhammad, but said this on the caveat that this reality be attributed to them after their deaths. These guarded comments are a testament to the success of Umar’s policy, one that quashed the practice of Mut’ah, the Sunnah of Muhammad (s), a policy that was so imbedded in the consciousness of the people that they eventually assumed that it was a haram act, to the extent that two Sahaba that knew the truth was the exact opposite, remained silent and made it clear that their eye witness testimonies be disclosed after their deaths.

The fact is Umar himself outlawed Mut’ah, and Sahaba such as Imran and Salamah remained silent because it was not appropriate to speak out openly. If these narration’s are true, then there is every indication that the situation at the time could have made many Companions fear for their lives. Furthermore, their silence could also be understood as a type of passive resistance: they did not speak out to his face, but we know from many hadeeths that many Companions (such as Ibn ‘Abbas) continued to uphold the practice Mut’ah in spite of Umar’s fatwa. Shah Abdul Aziz in Tahufa Ithna Ashari, part 7 Bab Imamate writes:

“Opposing ijma is permissible, silent opposition is also permissible.”

Sunni scholars have even acknowledged that Prophets can even recite kufr when a hostile environment requires it. According to Razi himself, Prophet Ibrahim recited Kufr in a state of Taqiyyah. We read in Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 6 page 347 that when at night Ibrahim saw the stars and said: ‘This is my lord’ (6:76):

“He peace be upon him was ordered to do Dawah for Allah, his status was of one who is forced to say kufr and it is known that when someone is forced it is permissible to say kufr, Allah almighty said ‘{not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith}’ if it is permissible to say kufr for saving one person, surely it is worthier to say kufr to save a group of rational people”.

Certainly, many Companions would have reason to be concerned about Umar. We read in Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 page 96 (Commentary of Al Nisa verse 24):

“Umar said whenever someone does Mut’ah send him to me and I shall stone him to death”.

Umar was clearly a ruthless leader, firm on his leadership, he would not tolerate voices of opposition. When Abu Bakr declared Umar his successor, the Sahaba were so fearful of the consequences they ran to Abu Bakr and said ‘What response will you give to Allah for placing Umar over us?’

According to Ahl as-Sunnah Prophets can practise kufr under duress, and by the same token the Companions could have also adopted Taqiyyah before Umar when he threatened to kill them.

The concept that silence constitutes acceptance (the principle of taqreer) is only true in respect of the Infallibles. We read in the authoritative Sunni work Fatah al-Bari, Volume 13 pages 324-325:

“It has been accepted that the silence of the Prophet (s) towards what is happening in his presence or whatever has been shown or said to him without condemnation, constitutes its permissibility, because his infallibility prevents him (s) from endorsing falsehood”

After this the author, Ibn Hajar Asqalani, states that if a claim contravenes the Quran and Sunna, then such a claim is false. One should follow the Quran and Sunnah only, and reject personal opinions. Now, the claim that Umar declared Mut’ah to be Haram contradicted the Quran and Sunnah without any doubt. We have proven that Mut’ah is Halaal from the two sources of Shari’ah, and it is the duty of Muslims to leave the words of Umar and bow their heads before the words of Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s). We have seen that many companions voiced their opposition to Mut’ah being made Haram, so the claim that the companions were silent is contradicted by vast hadeeth literature:

The opposition of Ibn Abbas to Umar’s order

Founder of Sipah-e-Sahaba Haq Nawaz Jhangvi sought to apply his false Qiyas as follows:

PERHAPS SOME OF THE COMPANIONS LIKE JABIR, IBN ABBAS AND OTHERS WHO ACTD UPON MUTA WERE UNAWARE OF ITS PROHIBITION BY THE PROPHET UNTIL IT WAS PROCLAIMED BY UMAR.

The words ‘perhaps’ proves that this Nasibi is just using baseless guess work. The amusing thing is the alleged ignorance of Ibn Abbas with the regards to the prohibition of Mutah, holds no water if we are to accept this tradition that another Nasibi cited in his anti Mutah article.

….Nevertheless, this much has to be said that Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhu) took Mut’ah to be permissible upon a certain time. Then, it was on the good counsel of Sayyidina Ali, radiyallahu ‘anhu (as in Sahih Muslim, volume 1, p 452) and under the chastening impact of the noble Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa malakat aymaanuhum-that he revoked his earlier position, as indicated in the narration from Imam Tirmidhi

Reply

Jhangvi would like us to believe that Ibn Abbas was unaware that the Prophet (s) made Mutah Haram, and therefore he continued issuing fatwa in its favour until the end of his life. The tradition cited by Mullah Shafi makes the ignorance card advanced by Jhangvi completely redundant. This alleged hadith demonstrates that Ibn Abbas had been informed of the prohibition by Ali Ibn Abi Talib – that evaporates any suggestion that Ibn Abbas was ‘UNAWARE OF ITS PROHIBITION BY THE PROPHET’. This being the case why did he maintain his stance on the permissibility of Mutah, when his alleged ‘ignorance’ had been removed by Imam ‘Ali, and (according to Jhanvi) Khalifa Umar?

The comments of Jhangvi here serve as proof that Mut’ah had not been abrogated by the Qur’an. If it had then famous exegist of the Qur’an Ibn Abbas, would certainly have known of it, and would have had no need to rely on Umar’s tactical reminder. In relation to Ibn Abbas, the comments of Jhangvi can be easily refuted for we have a plethora of textual evidence that proves that Ibn Abbas opposed Umar’s prohibition on Mut’ah.

We for example learn in Sunni books that Ibn Abbas accused Umar of banning Mut’ah and accused the guilt of all future acts to be on his head. We read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 41 Ayat Mut’ah:

Ibn Abbas said: “Mut’ah was blessing of Allah upon the Ummah of Muhammad and had Umar not prohibited it the only person to fornicate would be a playboy’

Ibn Abbas’ words evidence his opposition to Umar’s order and serves as proof that Mut’ah is halaal until the day of Judgement.

We read in Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 190:

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

We read in Al-Muhazraat , Volume 3 page 14:

“Abdullah Ibn Zubayr mocked Abdullah Ibn Abbas for believing that Mut’ah was halaal, Ibn Abbas said: ‘Go and ask your mother as to how she and your father first used this practise’. He asked his mother, and she replied: ‘Verily I conceived you through Mut’ah’

We read in Anaya Sharh Hidayah, Volume 3 page 49 Bab Nikah:

“It is unlawful but Malik said it is lawful and that is what appears from Ibn Abbas’s statement, because there is agreement that it was lawful, so it will be the case until the abrogation appears”

The book can also be downloaded from the following Salafi link:
www.almeshkat.com (Vol 4 page 391)

We read in Au jaza al Masalik fi Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik, Volume 9 page 04 Bab Mut’ah:

“In the eyes of Ibn Abbas and his Sahaba Mut’ah is permissible”.

We read in Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 1 page 51 Kitab Nikah:

“Nikah is not legally established by usage of the word ‘Mutah’ and it is false according to us and isn’t permissible, contrary to Ibn Abbas and Malik“
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 1 page 151 (Nolakshor, India)

We read in Sharah Muwatta by Imam Zarqani, Volume 3 page 54:

Ibn Abdulbar said: ‘The companions of Ibn Abbas from Makka and Yemen believed that it was lawful’

In fact, Ibn Abbas invoked the wrath Allah on those opposed to Mut’ah. We read in Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 176:

When people would say to Ibn Abbas: ‘You deem Mut’ah to be halaal, whilst Abu Bakr and Umar prohibited it’, he would reply: ‘May stones hit you from the sky, I am telling you about the orders of Rasulullah(s) and your telling me about the orders of Abu Bakr and Umar’.

We read in Fatah ul Bari. Volume 9 page 73:

Ibn Batal said: ‘The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from Ibn Abbas that Mut’ah is permissible. It is narrated by a weak chain that Ibn Abbas revoked its permissibility. The permission of Mut’ah by him is more correct and this is the doctrine of the Shia.’

The rank of Ibn Abbas amongst the followers of the companions cannot be dismissed, Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya Wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 pages 299, 300 praised him as follows:

“Ibn Abbas is the most knowledgeable person amongst the people as to what God has revealed to Muhammad. Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to say that the interpreter of the Qur’an is Ibn Abbas. He was accustomed to telling him: ‘You have acquired knowledge which we never received. You are the most expert in the book of God”‘

Imam of the Deobandis, Maulana Mohammad Abul Hassan in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari, Faizul Bari, Parah 21, Page 125, tows the traditional Sunni line that Umar reinforced the prohibition on Mut’ah made by Rasulullah (s). Interestingly in the same section he asserts that Ibn Abbas deemed Mut’ah to be halaal. How is it that a man that ‘Umar deemed to be the greatest expert of the Qur’an, upheld a practise banned by Rasulullah (s)? If Ibn Abbas was ignorant of this prohibition then clearly the alleged re-enforcement of this edict by Khalifa Umar should have convinced him, so why didn’t it?
Faizul Bari, by Maulana Mohammad Abul Hassan, Parah 21, Page 125

There are only two options:

1. Option One: Ibn Abbas was a Munafiq, proven by the fact he deemed Mut’ah halaal, when Umar made it clear that Rasulullah (s) outlawed it.
2. Option Two: Ibn Abbas deemed Mut’ah halaal, because was upholding the Sunnah Rasulullah (s) who revoked it, and he was refusing to be bound by the personal stance of Umar.

Clearly option one is unacceptable, this would destroy the character and rank of a leading Sahaba of the Prophet (s), worse it in effect renders him an apostate. Option Two clearly is the correct one, Ibn Abbas was upholding the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) not the Sunnah of Umar ibn al Khattab.

Refuting the claim that Ibn Abbas changed his position on Mut’ah

In the deeply moving article Zawaaj al Mut’ah:

Ninety-nine percent of the companions followed this opinion, but there was one percent who believed Mut’ah can be performed in extreme case of necessity in the land of war. This one percent is divided into two groups. One says, it is allowed with the Caliph’s permission, and the other says there is no need for the permission . Those who do not believe in Caliph’s permission say that it was Umar who made it haram. Their proof is based upon an opinion by a companion namely Ibn Abbas. People misused this opinion of Ibn Abbas until he clarified himself and said, Wallahi I did not mean what they did! I meant similarly to what Allah meant when he allowed the meat of dead animals and pork to be eaten in extreme necessity. This is referring to the time when people abused the rule of necessity at time of Umar, following the understanding of the one percent.

Reply One – The Sahih Sita confirm that Ibn Abbas deemed Mut’ah halaal.

As proof we can cite:

• Sahih Bukhari, Arabic-English, v7, Hadith #51
• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3261
• Sahih Muslim Sharh Nawawi Volume 1 page 52
• Sunan Kabeera Volume 7 p 215 Kitab Nikah
• Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 2 page 41

We read in Sahih Bukhari:

“Narrated Abu Jamra: I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut’ah with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah al-Mut’ah). On that a freed slave of his said to him, “That is only when it is very badly needed and (qualified permanent) women are scarce, or similar cases.” On that, Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.”

It is interesting to note that “Nida ul Islam magazine” cites no reference whatsoever and falsely attributes this saying to Ibn Abbas! Pork and dead animals CAN be eaten in times of necessity but such meat remains haraam, but in the case of Mut’ah we know that it was made permissible by Divine decree as is proved by verse 24 of Surat Nisa [confirmed by Ibn Abbas], similarly the tradition of Bukhari demonstrates that Ibn Abbas issued a fatwa that Mut’ah was permissible. Even if we were to accept the argument of necessity, this is open to interpretation and can arise in all manner of circumstances, e.g. an overseas student may need to do Mut’ah as this is the only means to control his sexual desire. If the Nasibi is using Qiyas to suggest that the Sahaba only deemed Mut’ah to be used in times of need, perhaps she could explain at the Victory of Makka as the annals of history attest that Muslims performed pilgrimage together with their wives. Hence, there was no extraordinary need for Mut’ah.

Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, Volume 5 page 228 records:

Ibn Abbas narrated “Rasulullah (s) gave us the order to practise Mut’ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, ‘Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this’, Ibn Abbas responded saying ‘I’m telling you what Rasulullah (s) deemed halaal and you’re telling me what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed”.
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 5, Page 228

If Ibn Abbas held a position that Mut’ah had been prohibited by Rasulullah (s), then why was Ibn Abbas stating that Rasulullah (s) ordered this practise, deeming it halaal?

We read in Sahih Muslim:

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

Several things are established from this tradition:

• Ibn Zubayr was alluding to the fact that Ibn Abbas was blind. Ibn Abbas became blind towards the end of his life and yet he still maintained the position that Mut’ah was halaal even in his last days.
• Ibn Abbas submitted evidence of Mutah by citing the Sunnah of the Prophet. Ibn Zubayr offered no corroborative evidence, proving a prohibition; all he did was cite a threat of force. This was a very public debate, wherein the intention was to publicly humiliate Ibn Abbas from the pulpit, in the presence of the people gathered there. If Ibn Abbas was promoting a haraam activity, why did not a single person gathered there seek to refute Ibn Abbas, by evidencing the alleged Hadeeth banning Mutah? There was no reason for those opposed to the stance of Ibn Abbas to remain silent, after all they were not under any form of threat to remain silent, on the contrary had they stood up with supporting evidence with which to silence Ibn Abbas, this would have assisted Ibn Zubayr, who had got himself trapped by the comments of Ibn Abbas. If Ibn Abbas was wrong and Mutah had been made haraam, can it be believed that the Sahaba and Tabieen that were gathered there did nothing to correct Ibn Abbas? Was there not any religious obligation to correct Ibn Abbas for this deviant belief? The failure of Ibn Zubayr and those gathered at the time to provide any nass with which to silence Ibn Abbas proves that at that time no evidence of the prohibition by ‘nass’, the people had no knowledge of such traditions, it was outlawed because Umar (and here Ibn Zubayr) found the practice distasteful – but personal opinion is of no value in the presence of what is lawful in the eyes of Allah (swt) as Ibn Abbas correctly pointed out.
• The threat of Ibn Zubayr to inflict a penalty proves that his order came at a time when he had the clout to inflict such an act, namely when he attained brief power during the Khilafath of Yazeed. This serves as a major proof on the lawfulness of Mut’ah, since the brief reign of Ibn Zubayr was well after Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. The view of Ibn Abbas is clear evidence that he believed its banning to be of Umar’s own volition and not the word of Rasulullah(s), if we are wrong in our assertion then why the objection of Ibn Zubayr? There would be no reason for a dispute if Ibn Abbas believed, like Ibn Zubayr, that Mut’ah was haram.

As such, there can be no doubt that Ibn ‘Abbas maintained this opinion until his death. Abdullah ibn Abbas died in 68 Hijri and “became blind towards the end of his life.”
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1291, Events of 68 H

We appeal to justice, Ibn Abbas lived almost 57 years after the Prophet (s), and lost his eyesight in his final years, at a time when he refuted the comments of Ibn Zubayr, so even then he upheld the validity of Mut’ah, this destroys any notion that he had revoked his position practising Nikah Mut’ah.

Advocates of the Sahaba may believe that Ibn Abbas corrected his stance/clarified any misconceptions, but he maintained this stand openly defending hisview before Ibn Zubayr’s protestations and his mocking him to consult his mother on its legitimacy serves as ample proof that Ibn Abbas deemed the prohibition on Mut’ah to be wrong and placed the blame squarely at the door of Umar.

This tradition destroys another magnificent argument that had been advanced in ‘The unlawfulness of Mut’ah’ by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi:

However, there are some of those who claim that Sayyidina Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, radiyallahu ‘anhu, believed in the lawfulness of Mut’ah right up to his later years, although this is not so. Hadrath Imam Tirmidhi, devoting a chapter to Mut’ah, has reported two Ahadith. The first one is as follows:.
Hadrath Ali ibn Abi Talib reports that the Holy Nabi, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, on the occasion of the battle of Khyber, prohibited Mut’ah with women and from (eating) the meat of domestic donkeys. This Hadith-e-Sharif appears in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as well. The second Hadith reported by Hadrath Imam al-Tirmidhi is given below:
Hadrath Ibn Abbas says: Mut’ah was there only in the early period of al-Islam until the Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa malakat aymaanuhum-was revealed. Then, he said: All private parts other that these are unlawful (that is other than those of the legally wedded wife and the bondwoman one may come to have).Nevertheless, this much has to be said that Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhu) took Mut’ah to be permissible upon a certain time. Then, it was on the good counsel of Sayyidina Ali, radiyallahu ‘anhu (as in Sahih Muslim, volume 1, p. 452) and under the chastening impact of the noble Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa malakat aymaanuhum-that he revoked his earlier position, as indicated in the narration from Imam Tirmidhi

Ibn Abbas lived many years after death of Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Had Ali Ibn Abi Talib really forbidden Mutah to Ibn Abbas, then is it believable that Ibn Abbas continued issuing Fatwa in favour of Mutah when the truth had been made manifest to him? If the alleged counsel of Imam ‘Ali was indeed correct (that Mut’ah was made haraam at Khayber) how did Ibn Abbas still believe that Mut’ah was halaal during the reign of Ibn Zubayr? In this regards we read in Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3261:

‘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.

There are a plethora of Sunni traditions regarding the dispute between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair. In light of this tradition will the defenders of the Sahaba tell us of their opinion of Ibn Abbas? Was he a hypocrite who knowing that Mut’ah was haraam still advocated an act that today’s Nasibi deem prostitution? Moreover to suggest that Ibn Abbas changed his view of Mut’ah due to the ‘chastening impact of the noble Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa malakat aymaanuhum is indeed amusing, since the tradition from Tirmidhi includes the alleged testimony of Ibn Abbas, that ‘Mut’ah was there only in the early period of al-Islam’. This is clearly false because this verse cited (Surah Mara’aij) was Makkan and the practise of Mut’ah continued well after the Hijrah, and according to Ahl as-Sunnah traditions was revoked at the time of the Victory of Makka in the 8th Hijri! Moreover (as we have already proven in the previous chapter) the verse that ‘changed’ the view of Ibn Abbas (as we have already discussed) was revealed before the verse on Mut’ah and Ibn Abbas would recite verse 24 of Nisa with the additional word ‘for a prescribed period’ to confirm that the verse was about Mut’ah!

Mufti Shafi had relied on a narration from Sunan Tirmidhi as evidence that Ibn Abbas altered his stance on Mutah:

The second Hadith reported by Hadrath Imam al-Tirmidhi is given below:
Hadrath Ibn Abbas says: Mut’ah was there only in the early period of al-Islam until the Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa malakat aymaanuhum-was revealed. Then, he said: All private parts other that these are unlawful (that is other than those of the legally wedded wife and the bondwoman one may come to have). Nevertheless, this much has to be said that Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas radiyallahu ‘anhu) took Mut’ah to be permissible upon a certain time. Then, it was on the good counsel of Sayyidina Ali, radiyallahu ‘anhu (as in Sahih Muslim, volume 1, p. 452) and under the chastening impact of the noble Ayat-Illaa ‘alaa azwaajihim awmaa malakat aymaanuhum-that he revoked his earlier position, as indicated in the narration from Imam Tirmidhi

The tradition can also be read in Sunan al-Behaqqi, Volume 7 pages 205-206 but it would have been better for Maulana Shafi and others who use this tradition in an attempt to prove Ibn Abbas believed in the impermissibility of Mutah to ascertain its authenticity. The chain includes a narrator Musa bin Ubaydah who has been declared weak by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 226, Imam Dhahabi in Al-Kashif, Volume 2 page 306 and by Imam Yahyah bin Mueen in Tarikh Ibn Mueen, page 199. Imam Jamaluddin al-Mizzi records in Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 29 page 112 that Imam Nasai and Imam Tirmidhi himself deemed him weak. Imam al-Razi records in his book Al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel that his Hadiths are Munkar. Prominent scholars of Ahle Sunnah included him in their books having the list of weak narrators such as Bukhari in Dhu’afa Saghir, page 111, Abu Naeem al-Asbahani in Dhu’afa, page 135, Ibn Haban in Majrohin, Volume 2 page 234 and Al-Aqili in al-Dhu’afa, volume 4 page 160. Also we are informed in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 10 pages 356-360:

Ibn Hanbal said: ‘He narrated Munkir hadeeth, taking narrations from him is not acceptable according to me, he narrated numerous Munkir hadeeths”

Moreover advancing of this verse as evidence is also baseless as it suggests that the only relationships that remained lawful following descent of this verse were those with wives and slave women – we know from ample evidence that women in Mutah relationships are also counted as wives as this is also a form of Nikah – and hence would not fall outside the boundaries of this verse.

Also take a look at the grave defect in the text [matan] of the cited narration. According to this narration Ibn Abbas stated that Mutah was Halal until the aforesaid verse revealed. If these were indeed the words of Ibn Abbas then can any sane person answer the question as to why Ibn Abbas was fighting with Ibn Zubayr over the permissibility of Mutah half a century after the revelation of the cited verse?

Reply Two – Ibn Abbas rejected Umar’s prohibition on Mut’ah during his lifetime

We are quoting from:

1. Fatah ul Bari, Volume 9, page 173
2. Aujaza al Masalik Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik, Volume 9 page 404
3. Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 3 page 381 Dhikr Mut’ah
4. Nail al-Autar, Volume 6 page 51, Bab al Nikah
5. Fatah ul Qadeer Sharh Hidaya, Volume 3 page 51
6. Al Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 4 page 221
7. Irwa al-Ghalil by Albaani, Volume 6 page 319

Ibn Katheer writes:

“Ibn Abbas never retreated from permitting donkey’s flesh and Mutah”

We read in Fatah ul Bari:

Ibn Batal said: ‘The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from Ibn Abbas that Mut’ah is permissible. And it is narrated by a weak chain that Ibn Abbas revoked its permissibility. permission of Mut’ah by him is more correct and this is the doctrine of the Shia.

Salafi/Wahabi Imam Nasiruddin Al-Albaani records:

“Three statements have been narrated from Ibn Abbas regarding Mut’ah, the first one is about its absolute lawfulness, the second is about its lawfulness in emergency and the last is about an absolute prohibition and this is not proven unlike the first two statements which are proven to have be stated by him. And Allah knows best.”

We read in Mirqat Sharh Mishkaat:

“Three statements have been narrated from Ibn Abbas regarding Mut’ah, the first one is about its absolute lawfulness, the second is about its lawfulness in an emergency and the last is about an absolute prohibition and this is not proven, unlike the first two statements that have been proven to be attributed to him. And Allah knows best.”
Download the book from www.almeshkat.com

We read in Fatah ul Qadeer Sharah Hidayah:

“The position of Ibn Abbas on the permissibility of Mut’ah until his last day is proven”.

In Rasal wa Masail Volume 3 pages 53-54, Maulana Sayyid Abu’l A’lal Maudoodi was asked whether Ibn Abbas revoked his position on Mut’ah by one of his supporters and this was his answer:

“The comments of the people of knowledge in connection with this are before me, and it is true that differences exist in the chapter those traditions that I have noted do not prove that Ibn Abbas deemed his opinion to be wrong, rather it would suggest that he had only issued edicts in its support…

In Fatah ul Bari, Allamah Ibn Hajr noted these comments from Makkan narrators:

‘The people of Makka noted the Fatwa of Ibn Abbas, on the permissibility to practise Mut’ah, although there are also calls wherein he revoked this position, these chains are weak, whilst Sahih traditions evidence that he deemed it permissible’ later Ibn Hajr admits that there are differences over whether he revoked it.”

Reply Three: The students of Ibn Abbas had a better idea about his stance on Mut’ah

Whilst we have proved that Ibn Abbas remained firm on the permissibility of Nikah al-Mut’a until the end of his life if our opponents still argue that he changed his mind towards the end of his life, then we should point out that his students, who are counted as revered personalities in the Sunni school had a much better knowledge of the stance of Ibn Abbas, which is why Saeed bin Jubayr, Tawoos bin Kaysan and Ata bin Riayah deemed Mut’a to be Halal. We shall now expand on this further.

The Sahaba of Abdullah bin Abbas deemed Mut’ah to be Halal

As evidence we shall cite the following Sunni texts:

1. Fatah ul Bari Sharh Bukhari, Volume 9 page 172 Bab Nikah
2. Umdah Thul Qari Fi Sharh Bukhari, Volume 8 p. 10 Bab Ghazwa Khyber
3. AuJaza al Masalik, Volume 9 page 404
4. Nail al-Autar, Volume 6 page 533 Dhikr Mut’ah
5. Sharh Zarqani Muwatta Imam Malik, Volume 3 page 54
6. Tafseer Khazan, Volume 1 page 423
7. Al-Estidkar by Ibn Abdul Barr, Volume 5 page 506
8. Kanz al-Daqaiq, Volume 5 page 289

We read the following statement about Ibn Abbas in Tafseer Khazan:

“It has been narrated from him that the verse is Muhkam and he used to permit mutah”

For those who are unaware of word Muhkam, we should elaborate that Muhkam is the type of verse that has not been abrogated whatsoever. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Munawi records in Faiz al-Qadeer, Volume 4 page 508:

“Muhkam verse is that which has not been abrogated”

Allamah Azeem Abadi records in ‘Awn al-Mabood Sharah Sunan Abu Dawood’ Volume 8 page 66:

“Muhkam verse is the one which has not been abrogated”

We read in Fatah ul Bari:

Ibn Hazm stated: ‘Those who deemed Mut’ah to be Halaal after the Holy Prophet (s) are Ibn Masud, Mu’awiya , Abu Saeed, Ibn Abbas, Salama, Ma’bad the son of Umayyah bin Khalaf, Jabir, Amr bin Huraith..”

We read in in Fatah ul Bari as well as in Sharh of Muwtta Imam Malik by Allamah Zarqani:

Ibn Abdulbar said: ‘The companions of Ibn Abbas from Makka and Yemen believed that it was lawful’

Similarly we read in Kanz al-Daqaiq:

“It is popular that Ibn Abbas permitted it and most of his companions from Yemen and Makka followed him”

Nail al-Autar states:

“Those individuals that deem Mut’ah halaal were Taus, Ata bin Abi Rabeh and Saeed bin Jubair”

Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr records:

Abu Umar said: ‘All the companions of ibn Abbas from the people Makka and Yemen, consider Mutah halal’

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

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

Ibn Tamiyah quotes the comments of Ibn Hazm:

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

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

Tawoos bin Kaysaan, Died in 106 hijrah:
He was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal.
– Tawoos narrates 85 traditions in Sahih Bukhari and 78 in Sahih Muslim.

Ibn Kathir states about him:

“He was an exalted Imam… he had met with almost 50 Sahabah and most of his traditions are narrated from Ibn Abbas. Many prominent Tabaeen have narrated traditions from him”
Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 9 page 305 ‘Events of 106 H’.

Sa’eed bin Jubair, Died in 94 or 95 hijrah:
He was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Imam Maalik bin Anas.
Sa’eed narrates 147 traditions in Sahih Bukhari and 78 in Sahih Muslim.

‘Ataa bin Abi Riyah, Died in 114 or 115 hijrah:
He was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja, and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal.
‘Ataa narrates over 100 traditions in each of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

Ibn Kathir while writing about Ata states in his esteemed work Al Bidayah wal Niahayah (Urdu), Vol 9 page 339 ‘Events of 114 H’ published by Nafees Academy Karachi:

“He was extremely Thiqa and an exalted person among all Kabar Tab’een. He met with 200 Sahabah… Ata was a Thiqa scholar and a jurist… Abu sabgh al Baqir said: ‘I never found a more learned Faqih than Ata’.”

We invite those with open minds to consult the taraajim (biographical notices) in the rijaal books for each of these 3 towering personalities and the glowing tributes paid to them by the likes of al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, and in particular al-Mizzi’s Tahdheeb al-Kamal. Use the index to locate the individuals.

Now that we have made reference to the esteemed rank of these three personalities let us now analyse the magnificent words of Nida ul Islam magazine:

Temporary marriage – i.e., Mut’ah marriage – was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became haraam until the Day of Judgement.

Were Imams of Ahle Sunnah Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa advocating haraam sexual relations? Or was it a valid difference of understanding from the sources (Ijtihad) as legal scholars frequently have in many areas?

On these grounds, Mut’ah marriage is considered to be zina (adultery or fornication), even if both parties consent to it, and even if it lasts for a long time, and even if the man pays the woman a mahr. There is nothing that has been reported in Shari’ah that shows that it may be permitted, apart from the brief period when it was allowed during the year of the conquest of Makkah.

Were Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa advocating zina? Or was it a valid difference of understanding from the sources (Ijtihad) as legal scholars frequently have in many areas? According to the quoted statement you imply that even many Companions were, na’oodhubillah, involved in zina (see the plethora of traditions which show Companions were involved in Mut’ah after he demise of the Prophet (s) – some of these have been quoted earlier). The enmity against the Shi’a makes people blind to what they say and who else they implicate!

As temporary marriage was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.

Were Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa from the days of the jahiliyya, or were they from the generation who saw, met the Companions and obtained their religious knowledge from them – decades after the Islamic Shari’a had taken its final form? It is clear they were from the latter and still proponents of Mut’ah. So was it a valid difference of understanding from the sources (Ijtihad) as legal scholars frequently have in many areas?

It is well established that temporary marriage does not agree with the interests of people because it causes loss to the offspring, uses women for fulfilment of the lusts of men, and belittles the value of a woman whom Allah has honoured. So temporary marriage was forbidden.

Now who would tell Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa who obviously thought that was NOT the case. And what about the noble Companion of the Prophet (s), Jabir al-Ansaari, who himself admitted to holding Mut’ah permissible till the end of caliphate of ‘Umar (see evidence supplied earlier in this article)? And you say we insult the Companions?

There is no doubt that contemplation in this brief message will find in it convincing proof that temporary marriage is prohibited for those who believe in Allah and are free from blind loyalty.

Did Sa’eed, Tawoos, and ‘Ataa believe in Allah and were they free from blind loyalty? Why did this ‘convincing proof’ not come to the notice of Ata’a, Tawoos and Sa’eed? Does Abu Ruqqaya possess greater knowledge than these three Tabaeen / Fuquha? Why did these reliable scholars of hadith – from whom Bukhari and Muslim narrate and believe that Mut’ah was valid decades after these Companions had passed away?

We appeal to those with open minds, if (according to Ahl as-Sunnah) all the Sahaba are stars of guidance for the Ummah, and difference amongst the ‘ulama is a blessing, and that every scholar issues a correct fatwa, then we appeal for justice before our Muslim brothers. If Ibn Abbas and his Sahaba and Tabieen can be deemed as Islamic scholars, then we see that they all ruled in favour of Mut’ah. Why is it impermissible to follow these stars of guidance, and obligatory to follow ‘Umar? This question becomes even more difficult to answer when we see how ‘Umar’s fatwa completely contradicts the Qur’an and Sunnah.

The opposition of Imran bin Husain to Umar’s order

Another prominent Sahabi Imran bin Husain also maintained the view that Mut’ah was permitted in Islam but it was Umar who subsequently made it Haram. We read the following tradition in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:

Narrated ‘Imran bin Husain: The Verse of Hajj-at-Tamatu was revealed in Allah’s Book, so we performed it with Allah’s Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur’an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (who regarded it illegal) just expressed what his own mind suggested.

By words ‘The man’ Imran bin Hussain was referring to Umar as stated by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani under the commentary:

‘He is Umar as its proven in Sahih Muslim’
Fatah al-Bari, Volume 1 page 275

At another place Ibn Hajar recorded the words of Imam Kirmani regarding the same tradition who also confirmed that it was Umar whome Imran bin Hussain has indirectly referred to:

Kirmani had an odd opinion by saying that it appears from Bukhari’s context that it meant Uthman …. While it is more deserving to say that it is Umar because he was the first one who prohibited it whilst those that came after him had just followed him’.
Fatah al-Bari, Volume 3 page 433

Some defenders of Umar often claim that Imran bin Husain was referring to Mut’ah al-Hajj and not Mut’ah al-Nisa and by words ‘The Verse of Hajj-at-Tamatu was revealed in Allah’s Book’ he was referring to 2:196 and not 4:24. First of all we would like to clarify that at no where in the original Arabic text has the word ‘Hajj’ been used and it is only the Saudi paid Wahabi translator who has incorporated this word, hence the correct English translation should be:

‘The Verse of Mut’ah was revealed in Allah’s Book’

Secondly, for such people, we would like to remind them that Umar banned both types of Mut’ah at one time, thus, although in the cited tradition Imran bin Hussain has only mentioned Mut’ah al-Hajj it doesn’t mean that he regarded Mut’ah al-Nisa as Haram or believed that Umar only outlawed Mut’ah al-Hajj. The defenders of Umar need to be more broad minded and should look at the matter in its entirety. If and ambiguity remains, we would like to cite the opinions of those Sunni scholars who attested that Imran bin Husain believed that both types of Mut’ah were allowed in Islam and it was Umar who had made both of them Haram. Qurtubi in his Tafseer of Quran, Volume 5 page 133 (under the commentary of 4:24) cited the comments of Abu Bakr al-Tartusi:

Abu Bakr al-Tartusi said: ‘Nobody allowed Nikah al-Mut’ah except Imran bin Husain, Ibn Abbas, and some Sahaba and a group of Ahlulbayt’.

Imam Abu Ishaq Thalabi in his Tafseer known as ‘Al-Kashaf al-Bayan’ Volume 3 page 385 (under the commentary of 4:24) stated a similar thing:

Thalabi said: ‘Nobody allowed Nikah al-Mut’ah except Imran bin Husain, Ibn Abbas, and some Sahaba and a group of Ahlulbayt’.

We read in Tafseer Haqqani:

“Some scholars deem Mut’ah permissible, in the same way the Sahaba Ibn Abbas and Imran bin Husain deemed it permissible, they say that this woman is also a wife”.
Tafseer Haqqani, Vol 2 page 4 (published in 1956, Deoband UP. India)

We read in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran, Volume 2 page 475:

“They have agreed that it was permissible during the early era of Islam, then the vast majority of the nation agreed that it was abrogated, whilst the remainder including the Shia stated that it is still permissible, and (the permissibility tradition) is narrated from Ibn Abbas and Imran bin Husain”

Even if for arguments sake we concede to our stubborn opponents insistence that Imran bin Husain was only referring to Mut’ah al-Hajj, can they answer the challenge thrown down by the Sahabi Imran bin Husain himself against Umar in relation to Mut’ah al-Hajj? Can they produce a single Quranic verse that abrogates Mut’ah al-Hajj? How did Umar have the audacity to abrogate the verse 2:196 of the Holy Quran?

The bottom line is Imran bin Husain was one of those companions who believed that it was Umar bin al-Khattab who had the audacity to declare both types of Mut’as to be Haraam!

Asma Bint Abu Bakr’s opposition to Umar

There can be no doubt that the Qur’an bears witness that Mut’ah was originally Halaal and it was Umar who forbade it. Supporting this are the actions of the Companions themselves, Nasibi of course know this, but as is their habit prefer to deny this fact so as to keep their subjects living in ignorance. Here is Ansar.Org’s response to this vicious Rafidi claim that appeared on the ‘frequently asked questions’ section:

Question:
Salamon Alaykom, I have heard that Zubayr Al-Sabilbi married Asma Bint Abu Bakr by Mut’ah Marriage and from this union were born, Abdalliih Ibin Zubayr and Urwah Ibin ZubayrIs this correct?So does this mean that Temporary marriage was being practiced even in the time of Aboobakr?Please note that this is the daughter of Aboobakr that is engaged, so it does not make sense to say maybe Aboobakr was not aware of this marriage.Will appreciate a sufficient replyAnswer:

Wa alikum assalam wa rahmatullah wa baraktuh

First of all brother , Abdullah & Urwah are the sons of Alzubair ibn Al-Awwam not Zubayr Al-Sabilbi.

And there were not temporary marriage between Asma Bint Abu Bakr and anyone.

And for your information brother , Abdullah ibn Alzubair was very strict in the topic of Mutaa, he believe that it is haram and was very strict with the people who said it is halaal in his time.

So how comes he was born from A Mutaa ( Temporary marrige )?!

As I said brother before , Shia used to lie sometimes to prove that they are correct!

One wonders ‘why’ these Nasibi make such confident assertions, when ample material exist confirming that Asma did indeed contract Mut’ah with Zubayr and her two sons Urwa and Abdullah were indeed the products of this union. This Nasibi should know that the ‘lie to prove that we are correct’ for Asma’s Mut’ah is discussed in the following Sunni sources:

1. Talkhees al Habeer fi Takhreej ahadeeth al Rafa al Kabeer, Volume 3 page 159 Topic 1506 (printed Cairo)
2. Musnad Abu Dawood al Tayaalsi, Volume 7 Page 227 (printed in Hyderabad)
3. Sunan Kabeera by Imam Nasai Volume 3 page 326 Tradition 5540
4. Muajam al-Kabir by Imam Tabarani, Vol 24 page 103 Tradition 277
5. Menhat al M’abood, Volume 1 page 309 by Ahmad Abdulrahman al-Bana
6. Nail al-Autar by Imam Showkani, Volume 6 page 194
7. Aqd al Fareed, Volume 3 page 157
8. Tauhfa tul Ashraaf by Imam Jamaluddin Mizi, Vol 13 page 152 Tradition 15734
9. Sharh Muwatta by Imam Zarqani, Volume 3 page 153
10. Tafseer al-Mazhari, Surah an-Nisa, Page 74
11. Sharh Ibn al Hadeed, Volume 4 page 75
12. Al-Muhazraat, Volume 3 page 14
13. Murujh al Dhahab, Volume 3 page 90 Dhikr Mu’awiya bin Yazeed
14. Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 190

Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani in ‘Talkhees al Habeer fi Takhreej al Hadeeth al Rafa al Kabeer’ Volume 3 page 159 (printed Cairo) narrates as follows:

“After the death of Holy Prophet (s), a group of Salaf deemed it Halal. Amongst the Sahaba they were Asma bint Abi Bakr, Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibn Masood, Ibn Abbas, Mu’awiya, Amr bin Huraith, Abu Saeed, Salama and Mu’abad bin Umaya bin Khalaf. He said that Jabir reported from the companions that (it was valid) during the reign of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and some part of Umar’s reign. He said that it is reported from Umar that he forbade it only if there were not two just witnesses. Some of Tab’een deemed (it halal) such as Tawous, Atta, Saeed bin Jubair and the majority of the jurists of Makka.”

Moreover we read:

“What has been reported from Asma, al-Nesa’i narrates it from Muslim Quri: ‘We went before Asma bint Abu Bakr and we asked her about Mut’ah al-Nisa, she replied: ‘I performed this Mut’ah during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s)”
http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=101&DocID=51&ParagraphID=1206&Diacratic=1
Download book from www.almeshkat.net (Volume 3 No. 1506)

Imam Shokani in his book ‘Neel al-Autar’ has also relied on the list of Sahabah and Tabayeen provided by Imam Ibn Hazam who deemed Mutah to be permissible which includes Asma bint Abu Bakar (as quoted by Ibn Hajar Asqalani). Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Baqi bin Yusuf al-Zarqani in his commentary of Muwatta of Imam Malik, also provided the names of Sahabah who believed in the legitimacy of Mutah:

“Its permissibility is proved from a group of companions such as Jabir, Ibn Masoud, Abi Saeed, Mu’awiya, Asma bint Abi Bakr, Ibn Abbas, Amro bin Huraith, Salamah and also from a group of Tabyeen.”
Download Sharah Zarqani from almeshkat.com (Volume 3 page 153)

In the version of Musnad Abu Dawood available on the internet, the tradition can be read in Volume 5 page 48 Tradition 1731:

“We came to Asma Bint Abu Bakr and asked her about Mut’ah with women. She said: ‘We performed this during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s)’”.
Musnad Abu Dawood al-Tayaalsi, Volume 5 page 48 Tradition 1731

All the narrators in this chain are authentic. Yunus bin Habib: Imam Dahabi said: ‘Hujjah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v12 p596), Imam Abu Hatim Razi said: ‘Thiqa’ (Al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v9 p237). Abu Dawood al-Teyaalsi: Dahabi said: ‘One of the celebrites of Hufaz’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p351), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p384).Shu’aba bin al-Hajaj: Dahabi said: ‘Thabt Hujjah’ (Al-Kashif, v1 p485), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p418). Muslim bin Makhraq al-Abdi al-Quri: Dahabi said: ‘authenticated’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p260), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p180).

We read in Tafseer Mazhari:

Amongst the Sahaba exist a group that believed in the legitimacy of Mut’ah. Nasai and Tahawi have stated that Asma Bint Sidiq Akbar said: “We practised it during the life of Rasulullah.”
Tafseer al-Mazhari, Surah an-Nisa, Page 74

If anyone is a pioneer/groundbreaker in a field we have to admire them, no matter who they are. Some Muslims at that time would have no doubt had concerns that their women would become rendered useless through this practise. Fortunately a woman from the upstanding household of Abu Bakr ventured out and offered herself to the Muslim males. Ansar.Org had posed this amazing rhetorical question:

And for your information brother, Abdullah ibn Alzubair was very strict in the topic of Mutaa, he believe that it is haram and was very strict with the people who said it is halaal in his time. So how comes he was born from A Mutaa ( Temporary marrige )?!

What great logic! Does the Nasibi author wants to suggest that Ibn Zubayr prior to his conception appeared in his mother’s dream and asked that she steer clear of Nikah al Mutah as he would deem it impermissible in the future?

Mu’awiya and Amr ibn al Aas were the products of a union between their mothers and several men. All because they were born in such a manner does not automatically mean they liked this type of conception, or that they believed in its legitimacy! The ‘honest’ scholar is correct. Ibn Zubayr was indeed opposed to Mut’ah, and he voiced his opposition to it when debating with Ibn Abbas. What this man of truth has forgotten to tell his adherent is the fact that the same Ibn Abbas managed to silence Ibn Zubayr by informing him that he was the product of Mut’ah, as can be evidenced in your esteemed Sunni works. Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah al-Raghib al-Isfahani reported in Muhazraat, Volume 2 page 96:

“Abdullah Ibn Zubayr mocked Abdullah Ibn Abbad for believing that Mut’ah was halaal, Ibn Abbas said: ‘Go and ask your mother as to how she and your father first used this practise’. He asked his mother, and she replied: ‘Verily I bore you through Mut’ah’

We read in Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 190:

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

In Iqd al-Fareed we read:

(Ibn Abbas said:) ‘Mut’ah was first practised by al-Zubair’

Despite such clear evidence some modern day adherents of Mu’awiya have decided to completely rewrite history by denying that Mut’ah was ever allowed in Islam! Asma openly opposed her uncle Umar on the issue of Mut’ah. Had it been abrogated she would have mentioned it, but her failure to comment proves she still deemed it to be halaal.

There’s more in the next part of this Shia rebuttal (https://islamunmasked.com/2020/08/18/umar-and-islamic-prostitution-pt-2/).

• Uncategorized