Umar stopped the Practice of Mutah

Mutah was in vogue peacefully during the time of Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and the holy companions used to act on it during the time of the first caliph. Remarkably, the daughter of the caliph, mother of faithfuls, Ayesha’s elder sister, Asma binte Abi Bakr had established Mutah with Zubair at a simple dower of two Yemeni chadors.[1]

[1] Covering sheets

Even during the period of Umar considerable time passed while Mutah was commonly practiced. Suddenly an incident occurred as a result of which the second caliph developed a dislike of Mutah in his heart. The incident is as follows:

1)  Abdur Razzaq has narrated the incident of Amr bin Hareeth from Jubair in his book. Jubair states that the companion, Amr bin Hareeth went to Kufa and performed Mutah with a slave-girl and she became pregnant. When caliph Umar asked Amr bin Hareeth regarding this, the latter confessed and the former prohibited Mutah immediately.[2]

[2] Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Pg. 138

2)  Abdur Razzaq has narrated from Ibne Abbas through a correct chain that nothing except Umme Arakah made the caliph Umar hostile to Mutah. She became pregnant and when Umar asked, “From where did this come?” She said, “Salmah bin Umayyah performed Mutah with me”. According to the narration of Abu Al-Zubair, it was Mabad bin Umayyah instead of Salmah bin Umayyah in this incident.[3]

[3] Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Pg. 138

3)  Umar bin Shabah states that Salmah bin Umayyah performed Mutah with the slave-girl of Hakim bin Umayyah bin Auqas, Aslama. A child was born to her but Salmah rejected him. After saying this, Ibne Kabi has also said that when caliph Umar came to know about this incident, he prohibited Mutah.[1]

[1] Isabah fi Marefatus Sahaba, Vol. 2, Pg. 63, Egypt

4)  It is narrated from Urwah bin Zubair that Khawla binte Hakim came to caliph Umar and said that Rabia bin Umayyah performed Mutah with a minor girl and she became pregnant. Caliph Umar became surly and came out pulling at his cloak and saying, “Is this Mutah? If I would have prohibited it before I could have stoned them now.”[2]

[2] Muwatta Imam Malik Vol. 2, Pg. 30, Egypt

The compiler of Tafsirul Ayaat has baselessly derived from the above narration of Muwatta in his book Madhkur,[3] that Rabia bin Umayyah had performed Mutah with a lady from the family of the second caliph and hence, the caliph was infuriated. According to me, this conclusion is not justified. It is already discussed above that the daughter of the first caliph had performed Mutah with Zubair out of which, Abdullah bin Zubair was born. This shows that women of reputed families used to perform Mutah freely during those times. There are no apparent conditions, which prove that caliph Abu Bakr disliked this act of his daughter. Then why should caliph Umar, who is regarded subordinate in rank to him, hate this permissible act for the ladies of his house?

[3] Pg. 298

Anyway, I do not want to argue as to which of the above incidents is true. The fact is that caliph Umar got angry over a displeasing incident and he stopped the practice of Mutah after half the period of his caliphate had passed. 

Allamah Qaushiji, an Ahle Sunnat scholar writes in Sharh Tajwid:

Caliph Umar ascended the pulpit and said:

“O people! Three things were in vogue during the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) but I abolish them and consider them unlawful. I would punish one who commits them. They are performing Mutah with women, Mutah of Hajj and saying ‘Hayya alaa khairil amal’[1] in the prayer-call (Azaan).”

[1] Hasten to the best of the deeds

Imam Razi writes: It is narrated from caliph Umar that he said in a sermon that Mutah of Hajj and Mutah with women was in vogue during the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) but he was prohibiting them and would punish anyone who performs them.[2]

[2] Tafsir Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 195, Egypt

The books of Ahle Sunnat are full of innumerable narrations of such incidents on this topic. Here are some more references:

(1)  Kanzul Ummal[3]

[3] Vol. 3

The narrations in this book are taken from the following sources:

a)  Abu Salih scribe of Laith Samarqandi

b)  Tahawi

c)  Ibne Jurair Tabari

d)  Ibne Asakir

e)  Zaad Al-Maad by Allamah Ibne Qayyim[4]

[4] Vol. 1, Pg. 243

These are historical events, which cannot be denied by any Islamic sect. I have presented them in a chronological order. It  is as clear as daylight that there was no proof of prohibition of Mutah till the first half of the period of caliphate of the second caliph. The prohibition of Mutah was same as other new laws declared by him from the pulpit. When objected, he used to say, “Everybody including women behind veil are more aware of Islamic laws than Umar.”

There were people who knew that acts permitted by Muhammad are permitted till the Day of Judgment and those prohibited by Muhammad are prohibited till the Day of Judgment. They knew that no one, be it a common man or a caliph, has any right to amend the Islamic laws. They were not ready to respect this declaration of caliph Umar. Even Abdullah bin Umar, his own son, did not consider this saying worthy of attention: “I prohibit Mutah with women and Mutah of Hajj.” 

Read this narration of Sahih Tirmidhi which is certified ‘correct’ by Hafiz Tirmidhi:

Salim bin Abdullah said to Ibne Shahab, “I heard that a Syrian asked Abdullah bin Umar about Mutah of Hajj. Abdullah bin Umar said that it was permissible. The Syrian said that the latter’s father had prohibited it. Abdullah bin Umar said, ‘My father prohibited it but the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) used to practice it. Then, should one obey my father or the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.)? What is your opinion?’ The Syrian said that one should obey the command of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.).” Imam Tirmidhi says that this tradition is ‘good’ and ‘correct’.[1]

[1] Sahih Tirmidhi, Pg. 106, Nawal Kishor Press, Zaad Al-Maad, Allamah Ibne Qayyim, Vol. 1, Pg. 215

Similarly, Urwah bin Zubair objected to Abdullah bin Abbas regarding Mutah of Hajj that the latter considered it permissible while Abu Bakr and Umar did not. The conversation of that time is quoted in Kanzul Ummal,[1] in brief. However, Allamah Ibne Qayyim has quoted it in detail in Zaadul Maad[2] and also expressed some of his views:

“Urwah said, ‘But Abu Bakr and Umar did not permit it.’ Ibne Abbas said, ‘By Allah, you will not stop from waywardness till Allah sends chastisement on you. I am informing you about the command of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) and you are talking about Abu Bakr and Umar!’ Urwah said, ‘Abu Bakr and Umar knew the Sunnah (practice) of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) better than you and they were more obedient.’”

After quoting this conversation, the Allamah writes:

“And we can tell Urwah that Ibne Abbas knew the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) more than him and was better than him. Ibne Abbas was better than him in the matter of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.), Abu Bakr and Umar and no Muslim can doubt it.”

It is quoted on Pg. 215 of the book, Madhkur after this conversation, ‘This is the opinion of scholars’. Then, he further argues and writes:

“After all, why did Ibne Abbas and Abdullah bin Umar not say that Abu Bakr and Umar knew the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) better than they did (so that it is necessary to follow them)? Actually, no obedient companion can agree to oppose the Nass (explicit order) of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) through this answer. They knew the commands of Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.s.) better. They feared Allah and hence, did not subordinate the saying of an infallible (Prophet) to the sayings of non-infallibles.”

[1] Vol. 8, Pg. 293
[2] Vol. 1, Pg. 219

This was the reason that companions like Imam Ali (s), Abdullah bin Abbas, Imran bin Hasin, Ubayy Ibne Kaab, Abdullah bin Masud, Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, Abu Saeed Khudri, Amir Muawiyah, Abu Saeed, Salmah Ibne Umayyah bin Khalaf, Mabad bin Umayyah bin Khalaf, Amr bin Hareeth, Asma binte Abi Bakr and followers of companions like Tawus, Saeed bin Jubair, Ataa, all the jurists of Mecca, people of Yemen and Ibne Juraih considered Mutah lawful in spite of the prohibition of caliph Umar. They did not respect the saying of caliph Umar against the Divine command and order of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.). 

Please read the following:

A)   Allamah Ibne Jazm states that the following companions considered Mutah permissible even after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.):

Ibne Masud, Muawiyah, Abu Saeed, Ibne Abbas, Salmah bin Umayyah, Jabir bin Abdullah, Amr bin Hareeth. It is narrated from Jabir that during the whole life of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) and Abu Bakr and in half the period of the caliphate of Umar, all companions practiced Mutah.[1]

[1] Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Pg. 138

B)   Ibne Jazm has narrated from companions other than Ibne Abbas in Muhli and said that after the Prophet (s.a.w.s.), a large group of senior companions was formed over the lawfulness of Mutah. They include and the following companions:

Asma binte Abi Bakr, Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibne Masud, Ibne Abbas, Muawiyah, Amr bin Hareeth, Abu Saeed, Salmah bin Umayyah bin Khalaf, Mabad bin Umayyah bin Khalaf. Jabir states that all the companions considered Mutah lawful during the time of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.).[1]

C)   Imam Ali (s) said, “If Umar had not prevented people from Mutah, except an unfortunate evil one, none would have committed fornication.”[2]

[1] Neelul Autaar, Vol. 6, Pg. 44
[2] Tafsir Jameul Bayan, by Hafiz Ibne Jurair Tabari Vol. 5, Pg. 9

Companion Imran bin Hasin says that the verse of Mutah was revealed in the Book of Allah. No such verse was revealed after that which could have abrogated it. The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) permitted us and we performed Mutah accordingly. 

D)  The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) passed away but did not prohibit us from it. After that, a person (i.e. Caliph Umar) said whatever he pleased.[3]

E)   Jabir bin Abdullah says that during the time of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) and the first caliph they used to perform Mutah for as many days as they wanted by giving a handful of dates or flour. Later on, caliph Umar prohibited Mutah due to the incident of Amr bin Hareeth.[4]

F)   Companion Abu Saeed says that anyone among them could perform Mutah by giving a cup of parched barley meal (sattu).

[3] Tafsir Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 95 and Tafsir Gharaibul Quran, Allamah Nishapuri
[4] Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, Pg. 45, Delhi

Abu Saeed also says, “We used to perform Mutah by giving a piece of cloth during the time of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.).”[1]

G)   Allamah Ibnul Barr says, “People of Mecca and Yemen are having a similar ideology as that of Ibne Abbas regarding the lawfulness of Mutah.” Ibne Jazm has also said that followers (Tabi’in) like Tawus, Saeed bin Jubair, Ataa and all the jurists of Mecca considered Mutah lawful.[2]

H)    Followers of companions like Tawus, Ataa, Saeed bin Jubair and all the jurists of Mecca considered Mutah lawful. Ibne Juraih, a jurist of Mecca was among those famous persons who considered Mutah lawful.[3]

This was the condition of scholars who had the knowledge of truth and the secrets of Islamic law. They were masters in jurisprudence, traditions, commentary and recitation. But even such people are not rare who went all the way to justify the acts of their leaders

A large group tried their best to find a way out of the prohibition of Mutah by the second caliph. While the caliph himself had given this explanation at the time of his declaration:

“Two Mutas (Mutah of Hajj and Mutah with women) were in vogue during the time of Prophet (s.a.w.s.). I prohibit them and would punish one who commits them.”[4]

[1] Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 7, Pg. 295
[2] Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Pg. 138
[3] Neelul Autaar, by Allamah Shaukani Vol. 6, Pg. 44
[4] Tafsir Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 195

However, some scholars and excellent personalities say that Mutah was abrogated during the time of Prophet (s.a.w.s.) itself and caliph Umar declared it openly. Before abrogating a command of Quran, following questions naturally come to one’s mind:

(1)  Was this order abrogated through a verse or a tradition?

(2)  Was the abrogating verse revealed before or after its revelation?

(3)  Whether the abrogating verse is really contradicting the command or not?

(4)  Can a tradition abrogate the command of a Quranic verse?

(5)  Was the abrogating tradition revealed before that command or after it?

(6)  Is the abrogating tradition really opposed to the command of that Quranic verse or not?

(7)  If the tradition is contradicting the command, does it have enough authenticity that the command of a verse be considered abrogated?

Come let us hear the replies to these questions from people who support the abrogation of the command of Mutah.

First Question

That is, what is the abrogator of this verse? There is a vast difference of opinion in it.

Many people say that this verse was abrogated by a saying of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) (the sayings will be discussed later). While Imam Shafei and others believe that this order was abrogated only by another verse. However there is a difference of opinion in the selection of this verse.

1)  Imam Shafei says:

“The abrogator of the verse of Mutah is this verse of Surah Momin: ‘And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blamable.’[1] because a woman with whom Mutah is performed is neither a wife nor a slave-girl.

2)  It is narrated from Ataa Khorasani that: The verse of Mutah was abrogated by this saying: “O Prophet! When you divorce women, divorce them with Iddah.” (i.e. they should observe Iddah).

3)  Caliph Umar said: “Mutah was abrogated by Nikah, divorce, Iddah and inheritance.”

All three sayings are quoted in Tafsir Lubaabut Tawil[2] by Allamah Khazin Baghdadi. The fourth saying is of Allamah Ibne Jazm, which he has quoted in his book, Marefatun Nasikh wal Mansookh:

“The abrogators of Mutah are those verses in which a wife is entitled to an eighth or fourth part of inheritance because the Mutah wife is not entitled to inheritance.”

It would be better to describe the conditions of abrogation before writing my opinions on these sayings.

Allamah Ibne Qayyim Jawzi says: The abrogation of a command depends on four conditions and those who consider that Mutah of Hajj is abrogated cannot fulfill even a single condition. Firstly, a Nass (text) or explicit order should be present for abrogation. Secondly, that another Nass or explicit order should be contradictory to the former command. 

[1] Surah Mominoon 23:5-6
[2] Vol. 1, Pg. 423

Thirdly,that Nass should be strong enough to stand against the proofs of the first command. Fourthly, that contradictory order should have been issued after the first one.[1]

He further explains:

“When we see the companions of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) that they have a difference of opinion regarding an issue about which it is proved that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) himself did it or ordered it and some companions say that it was abrogated later on or it was not general but a restricted one while other companions say that the order is not abrogated but still present; then a saying of one who supports or considers it restricted will not be accepted if it is against Islamic law and without a proof. At the most, both the sayings will contradict each other and the decision of their dispute would rest on ‘proof’.

When a dispute arises, it is obligatory to turn towards Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.s.) according to the command of Quran (and it should be taken according to the saying and practice of Messenger only and not due to trust others’ sayings. Thus, if Abu Zar or Uthman say that Mutah of Hajj is abrogated or it is restricted while Abu Musa and Abdullah bin Abbas say that it is permissible and its command is general, the responsibility of presenting a proof falls on one who claims it to be abrogated.”[2]

It shows that it is the responsibility of Ahle Sunnat to present a proof, since it is they who believe in the abrogation of Mutah. Also that proof should fulfill all the conditions. We Shias know that it was in vogue in the time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and is present even today. 

[1] Zaadul Maad, Vol. 1, Pg. 212
[2] Zaadul Maad, Vol. 1, Pg. 213

 The purpose is that the liability of proving the prohibition of Mutah is on Ahle Sunnat. None of the verses presented by them as proofs of abrogation fulfill the required conditions as would become clear later on.

Second and Third Questions

It is necessary to discuss both these questions together in order to maintain sequence. The first verse, which is alleged to be the verse of abrogation of Mutah is:

“And who guard their private parts, except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blamable”[1]

Firstly, this verse was revealed long before the verse of Mutah. As Surah Mominoon was revealed in Mecca while verse of Mutah was revealed approximately eight years after Hijrat. How can a verse revealed in Mecca be an abrogator of a verse revealed a number of years later?

Secondly, according to all those who support the lawfulness of Mutah, the Mutah wife is a spouse. Then how can the argument of Shafei and Allamah Ibne Jawzi: “As a woman of Mutah is neither a wife nor a slave-girl while relations with only wife and slave-girl are permitted in this verse. Hence, relations with a woman of Mutah are prohibited” be considered correct? Everybody can understand it because we consider the woman of Mutah, a wife. A detailed debate is already over in the forgone pages. According to the partisans of Mutah, a woman of Mutah is a wife just as is she is in a permanent marriage.

Thus, it is proved that neither this verse (which is called abrogator) was revealed after the verse of Mutah nor does it oppose the order of Mutah. 

[1] 23:5-6

Due to this, it is impossible to cal lit abrogator. Hence, Allamah Zamakhshari of Ahle Sunnat has quoted in the exegesis of this verse in his Tafsir Kashaf:

“If you ask me whether there is any proof of prohibition of Mutah in this verse or not, I would reply in the negative. Since a woman who has performed the Nikah of Mutah (if Mutah is permissible), is also included in marriage.”[1]

The second verse is:

“O Prophet! When you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed time…”[2]

That is, the women should observe Iddah.

Firstly, the Ahle Sunnat do not present an evidence that this verse was revealed after the command of Mutah even though its responsibility rests on them alone while it is known that the practice of divorce was in vogue from the beginning of Islam. It did not start after the battle of Hunain that somebody could say that this verse was revealed after the order of Mutah.

Secondly, implying prohibition of Mutah through this verse is just like shooting ‘arrows’ in the dark. It is neither commanded in this verse that divorce is compulsory for all marriages so that one can present a proof that as there is no divorce in Mutah, it is not lawful nor anyone says that Iddah is not necessary after the completion of the period of Mutah so that it could claimed that since there is no Iddah in Mutah, it is unlawful.

The only command in this verse is: “It is obligatory for a woman to observe Iddah after divorce.” Where is the explanation in this verse that to which women and when, a divorce be given? Hence a pair of questions arises against the Ahle Sunnat in this verse also.

[1] Tafsir Kashaf, Vol. 2, Pg. 287
[2] Surah Talaq 65:1

 Similarly, according to the fourth saying, the verse of inheritance is an abrogator of the command of Mutah because there is no inheritance in Mutah. Firstly, thinking that the verses of inheritance were revealed after the verse of Mutah is the best example of ignorance of Islamic History. Since the verses of inheritance were revealed during the early times of Hijrat[1] while the command of Mutah was issued after the battle of Hunain or Autaas.

Secondly, there is a difference of opinion about the inheritance of a Mutah wife. Scholars who grant the right to inheritance to a Mutah wife would consider this proof of Allamah Ibne Hazm absolutely invalid.

Also, even those who do not support the inheritance of the Mutah wife do not say that she is not a spouse, and hence, she would not receive inheritance but they say that the verse of inheritance is only about a permanent wife.

Since their proofs show that the verse of inheritance indicates the order of a special category just as the verse of divorce is revealed for a permanent wife only and has no connection with the Mutah wife. So, can anyone raise an objection to it? This objection can surely be raised only when a category of permanent wives is deprived of the right to inheritance. For example, a killer of husband is deprived of the right to inheritance. However, Ahle Sunnat scholars do not object at that time and peacefully accept it. Since it is definitely proved from traditions that even though a killer wife is considered a spouse, she is not entitled to inheritance.

[1] The Prophet’s migration to Medina

To conclude, when every wife, in spite of being a spouse does not get inheritance how can this argument be correct that since a Mutah wife does not inherit, she is not a spouse at all?

Thus, both questions regarding this verse fall against the sense taken by Ahle Sunnat. As for the saying of caliph Umar that Nikah, divorce, Iddah and inheritance together abrogate Mutah, firstly, I have a doubt in this matter. How can a person who says, “I prohibit these acts even though they both were in vogue during the time of Prophet (s.a.w.s.),” say that this command is abrogated by so and so verses? Since belief in both these things would imply that verses of prohibition of Mutah were revealed continuously but, God forbid, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) did not pay any attention to them and a sin remained in vogue.

Secondly, a long discussion is already over regarding the abrogation by the verse of divorce, verse of Iddah and verse of inheritance. While the thought of abrogation of the command of Mutah through the verse of Nikah is very amusing because just as Nikah includes the permanent marriage, it also includes Mutah, as Allamah Zamakhshari has said. With a word that imagines the prohibition of permanent and temporary marriage, it shows the knowledge of the narrator.

In addition to this, the revelation of the verse of Nikah before battle of Hunain or Autaas is established because the issue of Nikah was clarified in the beginning of Islam itself. That is why Sir Syed Ahmad Khan says:

“Majority of Muslims say that there is permission for Mutah in this verse without a doubt, but this command was abrogated.

However, the objection is weak according to me because of the verses selected for the abrogation of this order.”[1]

Since it was not possible to prove the abrogation of the command of Mutah through Quranic verses, the Ahle Sunnat tried to abrogate it through traditions. Nevertheless, the condition is same here too. No two people agree over a saying. The wonder of this divine saying is evident:

“Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.”[2]

Fourth Question

Before presenting these narrations, one should know that according to the majority of Ahle Sunnat scholars, the abrogation of the verses of Quran is not possible through traditions. The sect of Imam Shafei says:

“According to Shafei religion, Sunnah (traditions) cannot abrogate verses of Quran.”[3]

Thus, after it is proved that the verse of Mutah is not abrogated by any other verse, we can at least consider the followers of Imam Shafei believers in lawfulness of Mutah. As for Hanafi and other such people, who believe that a tradition can abrogate the Quran, our discussion would be aimed them only. The decision of remaining three questions associated with traditions will be easily finalized by the discoveries of Ahle Sunnat only.

[1] Tafsir Quran, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Vol. 2, Pg. 216
[2] Surah Nisa 4:82
[3] Tafsir Lubaabut Tawil, Allamah Khazin Baghdadi Vol. 1, Pg. 423

The discussion would become very lengthy if all the traditions are presented separately. Hence, I present their summary in the form of discussions of Ahle Sunnat scholars.

(1)   Allamah Nawawi has quoted the following paragraphs of Qazi Ayaz in Sharh Sahih Muslim:

“Imam Muslim has narrated from Salmah bin Akoo that Mutah was legalized in the battle of Autaas. It is narrated from Sabrah that it was legalized on the day of the Meccan conquest. Autaas and conquest of Mecca have the same meaning. Then it was made unlawful on the same day. According to a tradition from Imam Ali (s), Mutah was made unlawful in the battle of Khyber and this battle was fought before the conquest of Mecca.

Apart from Imam Muslim, others have narrated from Imam Ali (s) that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) prohibited Mutah in the battle of Tabuk. The chain of this narration is: Ishaq bin Rashid, Zuhri, Abdullah bin Muhammad Hanafiyyah, Muhammad Hanafiyyah, Imam Ali (s). However, no one has obeyed this narration and Ishaq bin Rashid has made a mistake in it. Since this same narration is quoted by Imam Malik in Muwatta from the chain of Zuhri. It is also quoted by Sufyan bin Uyinnah, Amri, Yunus etc. There is a mention of Khyber in it. Even Imam Muslim has quoted this narration from the chain of Imam Zuhri about the prohibition in Khyber only and it is true.

Abu Dawood has narrated from Sabrah Jehni that Mutah was prohibited in the Farewell Hajj[1]. According to Abu Dawood, it is the most correct saying among all the narrations. It is also narrated from Sabrah that Mutah was legalized at the time of the Farewell Hajj. Then the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) immediately prohibited it till the Day of Judgment.

[1] Arabic = Hajjatul Wada'

Fifth saying: And it is narrated from Hasan Basri that Mutah was never legalized except at the time of Umratul Qaza[1]. It is worthy of discussion that this narration is also from Sabrah only. However, Imam Muslim has not discussed the limitation of time in any narration of Sabrah except in the narration of Muhammad bin Saeed, Ishaq bin Ibrahim, Yahya bin Yahya in which, he has mentioned that prohibition of Mutah was done at the time of the conquest of Mecca.

According to the saying of the scholars of traditions, a narration, which says that Mutah was legalized at the time of the Farewell Hajj is a mistake of the narrator because there was no need to make it lawful on that day nor were the companions alone and away from women. Most of the companions had come to Hajj along with their spouses hence what was the need to legalize Mutah? The fact is that only prohibition was made at the time of the Farewell Hajj as found in many narrations. The revival of prohibition was because the people had gathered in large numbers and the religion was reaching completion. Islamic law was becoming perfect (so that those present there may inform the absentees about these laws). Apart from the prohibition of Mutah, he had once again explained the permissible and prohibited acts on that day. He made the absolute prohibition on Mutah evident by saying, “Now this order is prohibited till the Day of Judgment.”

However Qazi Ayaz said, that “the mention of different venues in different traditions, like the battle of Khyber, ‘Umrah Qaza’, conquest of Mecca or Autaas, shows the possibility that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) prohibited Mutah on all these occasions because the report of prohibition of Mutah at the time of the battle of Khyber is correct and there is no scope of doubt in it, rather that tradition is from reliable and trustworthy narrators.

[1] Lapsed Umrah pilgrimage, in the year Treaty of Hudaibiyah was signed.

 But according to a narration from Sufyan: “The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) prohibited Mutah and donkey meat on the day of Khyber.” Some people say regarding this narration that there are two separate parts in it. It means that the narrator said, “The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) prohibited Mutah” (and did not specify a time of prohibition of Mutah). Then he said, “and donkey meat on the day of Khyber”. If it is read like this then the specification of time as the day of Khyber will be for prohibition of donkey meat only. The time of prohibition of Mutah will not be understood. The need of reading it like this is so that the meaning of various narrations will become harmonious and concordant.

I think that the only credible possibility is that Mutah was prohibited at the time of the conquest of Mecca. As for donkey meat, it was doubtlessly banned at the time of Khyber only.”

Qazi Ayaz says that the best saying is what we have stated previously that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) prohibited Mutah on a number of occasions. Then also, those narrations, which say that Mutah was legalized at the time of Umratul Qaza, conquest of Mecca and battle of Autaas. It seems that even after prohibition, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) might have permitted it according to the need of that time. In such a condition, one has to believe that Mutah was prohibited forever in the battle of Khyber and Umratul Qaza, but at the time of the conquest of Mecca it was legalized for the time being due to the need, and then again it was prohibited forever.

As for the narration, which considers it to be legalized at the time of the Farewell Hajj, it will be annulled because it is narrated from Sabrah Jehni and reliable narrators have also narrated from Sabrah Jehni that Mutah was legalized at the time of conquest of Mecca and banned at the time of the Farewell Hajj. Thus, the narration of Sabrah over which most companions are unanimous, will be accepted. That is, the narration that Mutah was prohibited at the time of the conquest of Mecca and the repetition of its prohibition at the time of the Farewell Hajj was to emphasize the former order.

As for the saying of Hasan, Mutah was permitted only at the time of Umratul Qaza and not before or after that, it is rejected by those traditions, which say that Mutah was prohibited in the battle of Khyber (because the incident of Khyber occurred before Umratul Qaza). Those narrations reject it which say that Mutah was legalized at the time of the ‘conquest of Mecca’ or battle of Autaas. Apart from this, the narration on which the saying of Hasan is based is also narrated from Sabrah Jehni. The narrations of permission and prohibition on other times are also narrated from him only and those narrations are more correct. Hence this narration, which is against the correct narration, will be rejected.

Some scholars believe that Mutah was legalized many times and banned twice and abrogated. Allah knows best.”[1]

After this, Imam Nawawi writes about his sect as follows:

“It is a correct belief that (Mutah) was prohibited and permitted twice viz. it was permissible before the battle of Khyber but prohibited after it and again it was permitted on the day of conquest of Mecca and it is also the day of Autaas because both are same. Then it was again prohibited in that period only after three days till the Day of Judgment and this prohibition would remain till then. It is not permissible to say that legalization of Mutah was confined to the period ofKhyber and the prohibition on the Day of Khyber is forever. The order on the day of conquest of Mecca was just an emphasis on prohibition. The command of permission was not prior to the conquest of Mecca (hence, the order of prohibition was given once again) as understood by Mazri and Qazi. Thus, those narrations which Muslim has mentioned about legalization of Mutah on the day of Khyber are clear. Hence it is unlawful to annul them and there is no hindrance in prohibition of this legalization twice.”

[1] Sharh Sahih Muslim, Imam Nawawi Vol. 1, Pg. 450, Mujtabai Press, Delhi

Even Imam Shafei and Imam Muslim believe that Mutah was legalized and prohibited a number of times. 

Imam Muslim has titled the chapter of Mutah as follows:

“Chapter of Mutah and discussion that Mutah was legalized then abrogated, again legalized and again abrogated and that its abrogation will continue till the Day of Judgment.”

Imam Shafei says:

“I do not know any act in Islam which was legalized and then prohibited, again it was permitted and again prohibited except Mutah. Some even say that Mutah was abrogated thrice and even more than that.”[1]

[1] Tafsir Mazhari, Qazi Thanaullah Panipati Pg. 72

The wordings discussed above are taken from Sharh Sahih Muslim. Now let us take a stroll through Sahih Bukhari to understand how diligent a search those poor scholars had to make due to various types of narrations and how much they are struggling. They are trapped in the whirlpool of narrations in such a way that there is no way of salvation. Hafiz Ibne Hajar Asqalani writes:

“Sohaili says that there is a difference of opinion about the time of prohibition of Mutah. The poorest narration is that in which it is said that it (was prohibited) in the battle of Tabuk. It is narrated from Hasan that the prohibition was issued at the time of Umratul Qaza. While it is famous that the prohibition was issued at the time of the conquest of Mecca, as narrated by Muslim from Rabi bin Sabrah. According to a narration of Abu Dawood from Rabi, it was prohibited at the time of the Farewell Hajj. Narrators who say that it was prohibited in the battle of Autaas are like those who say that it was done in ‘Aamul Fath’.”[1]

[1] Year of conquest

Considering all these, six occasions are found, viz. Khyber, Umratul Qaza, conquest of Mecca, Autaas, Tabuk and the farewell Hajj. The addition of Hunain is imminent because it is also present in a narration, which I had stated earlier thus either Sohaili was unaware or he purposely left it because its narrators were unreliable. Or because the battles of Autaas and Hunain are same. As for the narration of Tabuk, it is recorded by Ishaq bin Rahuyah and Ibne Habaan by their own chains from the tradition of Abu Huraira. As for the narration of Hasan Basri, it is recorded in their own way by Abdullah and he adds ‘Maa kaanat qablaha wa laa baadiha’ (There was nothing before it and after it). This addition is a favorite deed of its narrator, Amr bin Ubaid and he is ‘The eliminator of tradition’. Saeed Ibne Mansur has recorded from Hasan (Basri) in a correct way without any addition. The proof of the conquest of Mecca is found in Sahih Muslim as said by Sohaili.

Even Autaas is proved in Sahih Muslim through the tradition of Salmah bin Akoo. The farewell Hajj is also proved by Abu Dawood from the narration of Rabi. When this is made clear, (keep it in mind) that except the conquest of Mecca, no other narration is correct without a cause even if the channel of the tradition of the battle of Khyber is correct but the descriptions of scholars have already been discussed. The news of Umratul Qaza is not correct because it is among those narrations of Hasan in which a link in chain of narrators is missing and it becomes weak. Since he used to narrate traditions from everyone. Even if we consider it correct, it is possible that he meant the day of Khyber by Umratul Qaza because both occurred in the same year itself just as the conquest of Mecca and Autaas are same. However, the incident of Tabuk does not explain it in the tradition of Abu Huraira that Muslims did Mutah with women in that condition only. It seems that Mutah might have occurred long before and releasing might have been done to those women. Or prohibition was done long before but some Muslims were unaware and they continued to act on the former permission and hence, the prohibition was related to anger as the ban was imposed earlier. Also the tradition of Abu Huraira is in the situation of the statement. Since it is a narration of Mumil bin Ismail from Akramah bin Ammar Yasir and there is scope for discussion regarding both. However, the tradition of Jabir from the channel of Ibad bin Kathir is incorrect and forsaken. This difference of opinion about the Farewell Hajj is due to Rabi bin Sabrah while his narration of the conquest of Mecca is correct and famous…Among all those events the most correct one is conquest of Mecca.”[1]

[1] Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Pg. 133, Egypt, 1325 A.H.

The conclusion of the discussion so far is that if the Ahle Sunnat say that the verse of Mutah was abrogated by traditions, a question arises naturally, ‘Can a verse be abrogated by a tradition?’ We have discussed the saying of Imam Shafei, that “a tradition cannot abrogate Quran.” The arguments of Imam Nawawi, commentator of Sahih Muslim and Hafiz Ibne Hajar Asqalani, commentator of Sahih Bukhari are presented for people who believe in the abrogation of Quran by traditions. It is proved from them that seven different occasions of prohibition are present in the traditions. They are: battle of Khyber, Umratul Qaza, conquest of Mecca, battle of Autaas, battle of Tabuk, the Farewell Hajj and battle of Hunain.

Fifth and seventh Question

Now I am going to discuss about the questions that: Did the abrogating tradition arrive before or after the revelation of the verse? And if that tradition is contradicting, does it have enough credibility to abrogate the command of Quran?

The weight of those traditions can be understood by their being a practical exegesis of:

“Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.”[1]

There is such a severe difference of opinion in them that poor the Ahle Sunnat scholars are not able to decide at all whether Mutah was really prohibited and when was it prohibited?

It is not surprising that every sycophant expert wrote each tradition according to his or her keen intelligence. This problem befell on scholars who came later on to darn those mistakes and prove them right. Thus, Imam Muslim and Imam Shafei had to say that Mutah was legalized and banned twice. Imam Shafei had the feeling while saying so that the Islamic law is not a child’s game that it is made and broken again and again, but to prove the prohibition of Mutah it was necessary to accept all these traditions and he accepted them after saying:

“I do not know any act in Islam which was legalized and then prohibited, again it was permitted and again prohibited, except Mutah.”

[1] Surah Nisa 4:82

However, all seven traditions can be true due to the saying of permission and prohibition twice. Hence, some people believe that it was permitted and prohibited thrice. Some have said even more than that. The meaning of accepting the sayings of the Ahle Sunnat is as if their God is very weak in taking decisions. At times, He makes Mutah lawful and then becomes aware of its defects and prohibits it. Then again He finds good qualities in Mutah and he makes it lawful. Once more He comes to know such faults, which were hidden from Him till now, and He bans it. This cycle goes on for as many as seven times.

By the way, the ideology adopted by Imam Nawawi after cross-examination of all these narrations is discussed above. He believes that all other narrations are wrong and only the narrations of prohibition at the time of Khyber and conquest of Mecca are correct. As he says, “The correct view is that Mutah was prohibited and legalized twice, viz. it was permissible before the battle of Khyber and banned in the battle and it was legalized on the day of the conquest of Mecca and the narration of the day of Autaas also implies conquest of Mecca because both the events are closely related. It was prohibited three days after that.”

Thus according to the saying of Imam Nawawi, Mutah was absolutely prohibited at the time of the conquest of Mecca.

Allamah Hafiz Ibne Hajar Asqalani writes in Fathul Bari Sahih Bukhari after analyzing all the narrations: “(Among the occasions of prohibition of Mutah) the most explicit one, as said by me, is conquest of Mecca.”

That is, even Allamah says that Mutah was prohibited forever on the occasion of the conquest of Mecca and all other narrations are wrong and doubtful.

After the final decision of both these Imams and Allamahs, recollect the time of the revelation of the verse of Mutah from past discussions. Consider this saying of Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti:

“All four writers of Sihah books, i.e. Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and Nasai have narrated from Abu Saeed Khudri that the verse of Mutah was revealed after the battle of Hunain. Allamah Tibrani has also narrated from Ibne Abbas that this verse was revealed after the battle of Hunain.”[1]

All know that the battle of Hunain was fought after the conquest of Mecca. Where have those narrations gone that Mutah was banned at the time of the conquest of Mecca forever? Here, the verse of Quran says that Mutah was legalized in the battle of Hunain after the conquest of Mecca. While Imam Nawawi and Allamah Asqalani, according to their correct narrations, give a verdict of prohibition of Mutah till the Day of Judgment on the occasion of conquest of Mecca.

Even if we disregard the numerous differences of opinions and accept the saying of Ahle Sunnat that Mutah was prohibited through a tradition of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) on the day of the conquest of Mecca then also we would have to believe that this tradition was abrogated by a verse of Quran during the battle of Hunain through its revelation and now Mutah will remain lawful till the Day of Judgment.

So, these two points also prove to be against the Ahle Sunnat.

Sixth Question

Are the abrogating traditions really against the command of this verse or not?

[1] Lubaabun Nuqool fi Asbaabun Nuzul, on the margin of Tanwirul Qiyas, Pg. 77, Egypt

There is no need for writing much in this matter because even if all those narrations really prove the prohibition of Mutah then also their weakness and occurrence before the verse of Mutah are discussed above. But there is a condition after the acceptance of which, the stain of lie and treachery to the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) is removed from the skirts of those narrators and those narrations do not remain contrary to the Divine verses. The command of the verse also remains in its place.

 It is proved from these compilers of narrations and Quran that even if all these narrations would be true then also each one could have been applied to this condition. None of them could have clearly opposed the order of the lawfulness of the verse of Mutah. Hence, even this Question is against the ideology of Ahle Sunnat.

In brief, none of the points presented by the Ahle Sunnat for the abrogation of the verse of Mutah are correct nor they have such a capacity to confront a Quranic verse. Thus, praise be to Allah, it is found through intense explanation that the verse of Mutah was never abrogated.

After that, recollect the saying of Umar, “Two Mutahs were in vogue during the time of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.).”

Once again read this confession of Imam Razi:

“We do not deny that Mutah was lawful. We only say that it was abrogated.”

The state of abrogation is clear (that it was not abrogated); its lawfulness is stable in its place.

Like Mutah, the literal meaning of Nikah is physical relationship between a man and woman. If there would have been Nikah’ in place of ‘Mutah’ then also its literal translation would have been the same. It is possible that the people start labeling Nikah also as voluptuousness.