Umar understood what Prophet (s.a.w.a) wanted to write!!

Conversation between Ayatullah Baqir al Sadr and Mohammad al-Tijani

I still remember the answer which al-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr gave me when I asked him, “How did our master Umar understand, among all the Companions what the Messenger wanted to write, namely the appointment of Ali as his successor- as you claim - which shows that he was a clever man?”

Al-Sayyid al-Sadr said: Umar was not the only one who anticipated what the Messenger was going to write. In fact most of the people who were present then understood the situation the same way as Umar did, because the Messenger of Allah had previously indicated the issue when he said, “I shall leave you with two weighty things: the Book of Allah and the members of my Family (Ahl al-Bayt) and their descendants, if you follow them, you will never go astray after me.” And during his illness he said to them, “Let me write you a document, if you follow its contents, you will never go astray.” Those who were present, including Umar, understood that the Messenger of Allah wanted to reiterate, in writing, what he had already said in Ghadir Khum, and that was to follow the Book of Allah and Ahl al-Bayt and that Ali was the head of it. It was as if the holy Prophet (saw) was saying, “Follow the Qur’an and Ali.” He said similar things on many occasions, as has been stated by many historians.

The majority of Quraysh did not like Ali because he was young and because he smashed their arrogance and had killed their heroes; but they did not dare oppose the Messenger of Allah, as they had done at the “Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah’, and when the Messenger prayed for Abdullah ibn Abi al- Munafiq, and on many other incidents recorded by history. This incident was one of them, and you see that the opposition against writing that document during the Prophets illness encouraged some of those who were present to be insolent and make so much noise in his presence.

That answer came in accordance with what the saying meant. But Umar’s statement, “You have the Qur’an, and it is sufficient, being the Book of Allah” was not in accordance with the saying which ordered them to follow the Book of Allah and the Household [Ahl al-Bayt] together. It looks as if he meant to say, “We have the Book of Allah, and that is sufficient for us, therefore there is no need for Ahl al-Bayt.” I could not see any other reasonable explanation to the incident other than this one, unless it was meant to say, ‘Obey Allah but not His Messenger.” And this argument is invalid and not sensible. If I put my prejudices and my emotions aside and base my judgement on a clean and free mind, I would tend towards the first analysis, which stops short of accusing Umar of being the first one to reject the Prophet’s Tradition (al-Sunnah) when he said, “It is sufficient for us, being the Book of Allah”.

Then if there were some rulers who rejected the Prophet’s Traditions claiming that it was “contradictory”, they only followed an earlier example in the history of Islam. However, I do not want to burden Umar alone with the responsibility for that incident and the subsequent deprivation of the nation of the guidance. To be fair to him, I suggest that the responsibility should be borne by him and those Companions who were with him and who supported him in his opposition to the command of the Messenger of Allah.

I am astonished by those who read this incident and feel as if nothing happened, despite that it was one of the “great misfortunes” as Ibn Abbas called it. My astonishment is even greater regarding those who try hard to preserve the honour of a Companion and to correct his mistake, even if at the cost of the Prophet’s dignity and honour and at the cost of Islam and its foundations.

Why do we escape from the truth and try to obliterate it when it is not in accordance with our whims . . . why do not we accept that the Companions were human like us, and had their own whims, prejudices and interests, and could commit mistakes or could be right?

But my astonishment fades when I read the Book of Allah in which He tells us the stories of the prophets- may Allah bless them and grant them peace - and the disobedience they faced from their people despite all the miracles they produced .. Our God! Make not our hearts to deviate after thou hast guided us aright, and grant us from Your Mercy; surely You are the Most Liberal Giver.

I began to understand the background to the Shia’s attitude towards the second Caliph, whom they charge with the responsibility for many tragic events in the history of Islam, starting from “Raziyat Yawm al-Khamis” when the Islamic nation was deprived of the written guidance which the Messenger wanted to write for them. The inescapable fact is that the sensible man who knew the truth before he encountered the men seeks an excuse for the Shias in this matter, but there is nothing we can say to convince those who only judge truth through men.
 

References: 

Sahih, Bukhari, Chapter: About the saying of the sick, vol 2

Sahih, Muslim, End of the book of al Wasiyyah, vol 5 p 75

Musnad, Ahmed, vol 1 p 335, vol 5 p 116

Tarikh, Tabari, vol 3 p 193

Tarikh, Ibn al Athir, vol 2 p 320

Debate on Fidak ( Part 1) -Video

Umar’s own testimony that Mutah is permissible and he himself performed it

Uptil now we have read of Umar’s prohibition of Mutah, at no point did he deem Mutah Haram (according to the edicts of the Prophet). In Sahih Muslim we read the words of the companion Jabir bin Abdullah who referred to the practising of Mutah during the time of the Prophet (s), then during the era of Abu Bakar and also during Umar’s reign until he forbade it in the case of Amr bin Harith. Interestingly in Tareekh al-Madina by Ibn Shabah, we read the following version of that incident wherein Umar admitted that Mutah was Halal:

حدثنا أيوب الرقي قال : حدثنا عثمان بن عبدالرحمن الحراني عن زمعة بن صالح عن عمرو بن دينار عن جابر بن عبدالله قال : استمتعت من النساء على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وزمن أبوبكر ثم زمن عمر حتى كان من شأن عمرو بن حريث الذي كان ، فقال عمر رضي الله عنه : إنا كنا نستمتع ونفي ، وإني أراكم تستمتعون ولا تفون ، فانكحوا ولا تستمتعوا

Jabir said: “We performed Mut’ah during the life times of the messenger of Allah, Abubakr and then Umars’, till what was done by Amr bin Huraith, then Umar said: ‘We used to perform Mut’ah and fulfil it, but I see you performing Mut’ah but not fulfilling it, so perform Nikah, don’t perform Mut’ah”
Tareekh al-Madina by Ibn Shabah, Volume 2 page 717

Umar admitted that Mutah was Halal and the but he prohibited it on account of his observing some people (Sahabah) taking Mutah too casually and not fullfilling the legal responsibilites of a husband. Umar therefore deemed it better to perform permanent Nikah to place psychological pressure on men to fulfil their responsibilities; crucially what is clear from the tradion is that at no point did Umar rule that Mutah was haram.

An excuse that the ‘revered’ and ‘knowledgeable’ Sahabah were ignorant of the prohibition of Mut’ah

The testimonies of great Sahaba, Tabayeen and Sunni scholars regarding the permissibility of Nikah al-Mutah has acted as a thorn in the throat of Nasibism, which they can neither swallow nor spit. That was the reason that their clergy concocted an excuse to save their sinking ship, they came up wit the notion that all those Sahaba who deemed Mutah Halal and kept practicing it, were actually ignorant of its (supposed) prohibition. The excuse was so problematic that the thorn simply wedged further down their throats, as it created a series of logical replies, jaw breaking questions and objections. Let us ponder over the comments made by the founder of Sipah-e-Sahaba Haq Nawaz Jhangvi who 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.

To all those, who adhere to this view, we would like to ask them:

1. What proof do you have that those Sahaba that deemed Mutah Halal were unware of its supposed prohibition? Or iis this just the result of wild guess aka Qiyas?
2. The orthodox Sunni view is that Ibn Abbas (ra) was ranked amongst the most learned and knowledgeable Sahaba, who possessed an indepth knowledge of Islamic injunctions, if your notion is that he was ignorant of Halal and Haram and was advocating adultery, what credibility should be given to his statements on different issues?
3. The same rationale applies to the remainder Sahaba who deemed Muta Halal, what credibility remains of their view points and statements on various issues? Couldn’t such statements too be the result of ‘ignorance of actual law’?
4. Ansar.org desperately sought to prove that Muawiyah was a ‘Hadi’ according to the (supposed) words of Prophet (s) and tradition inform us that he did Muta long after the death of Holy Prophet (s), so does that mean ithat in your sect a Hadi can commit adultery? Muawiyah had many opponents, why didn’t any of his opponents criticize him for committing adultery (Muta, an act which according to present Day sunnis is Haram)?
5. Those were the Sahaba, what about the Tabayeen whom Sunnies deem the second best generation in terms of believers. Was that second generation too ignorant of the actual law pertaining to Mut’ah and they were unable to correct their stance? Then what credibility remains regarding their countless statements pertaining to jusriprudence found in Sunni books?
6. Last but certainly not least, those Sunnies who say that Prophet (s) had prohibited Muta and Umar merely reaffirmed its prohibition, for them we would like to remind that we have the statements of Umar wherein he testified that two types of Mut’ah existed during the time of Holy Prophet (s) and it was he who was ‘then’ banning them..

Traditions attributed to Umar by his defenders

Tradition One

Umar’s action of interfering in Allah’s religion and declaring Halal acts as Haram posed serious problems to his lovers which made them fabricate an array of traditions on the prohibition of Mut’ah they threw that into the mix so as to further confuse their naïve followers. One such tradition is the following, that can be read in Sunan Ibn Majah, Volume 1 page 631 Tradition 1963:

Ibn Umar said: ‘When Umar bin al-Khatab became the ruler he addressed the people and said: ‘Verily Allah’s Messenger allowed us to perform Mut’ah on three occasions, then he prohibited it, by Allah if I know that there is a married person performing Mut’ah then surely I will stone him, unless if he could bring me four witnesses who could testify that Allah’s Messenger made it lawful after being prohibited.’’

Reply

For those who would like to rely on the above cited tradition to prove that according to Umar, Mut’ah was prohibited by Prophet (s), we would like to state that:

1. this particular version of Umar’s sermon is contrary to those versions discussed earlier wherein he admitted that both types of Mut’ah existed during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s) and that he did not attribute the prohibition of Mut’ah to him (s).
2. In the other version of his sermon, Umar admitteed that it was he who banned Mut’ah.
3. The other version of his sermon has been substantiated by the companions like Jabir bin Abdullah who also testified that it was Umar who was banned both types of Mut’ah.
4. Even if the above cited version of his sermon is to be taken into consideration, this places a serious question mark over the knowledge of Umar with respect to Islam since by seeking witnesses who would testify that Mut’ah was not prohibited, he admitted he himself admitted that he may be incorrect in his opinion that Mutah has been banned
5. Last but certainly not least, when we read that so many companions believed that both types of Mut’ah were permissible in Islam and were never abrogated or made Haram, then could the lovers of Umar kindly tell us one good reason as to why they didn’t bother to correct Umar when he himself was seeking witnesses?

Tradition Two

Behaqqi records in his Sunan, Volume 7 page 206 Tradition 13949 a tradition that is similarly recorded with a slightly different chain by Al-Bazar in his Musnad, Volume 1 page 256 Tradition 135:

Abdullah bin Umar said: ‘Umar bin al-Khatab climbed on the pulpit and praised Allah and then said: ‘What is wrong with some men who perform Mut’ah when Allah’s Messenger has prohibited it, surely if I catch anyone performing it I will stone him’.’

Reply

We shall point out to the Nawasib that both the chains of contain two common people one of whom is Mansur bin Dinar about whom Imam Nisai said: ‘Not reliable’. Bukhari said: ‘His narration has been criticized’. Ibn Moin said: ‘Weak’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v4 p184). The other person who is commoin in both the chains is Abdulaziz bin Aban Abu Khalid al-Amawy about whom Dahabi said: ‘Matruk’. Ibn Moin said: ‘Liar’. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: ‘His narration should not be recorded’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v2 p622). Ibn Hajar said: ‘Matruk’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p602).

 

Many ‘ulama of Ahl as-Sunnah deemed Mut’ah to be Halaal

We shall cite the following Sunni sources

1. Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran, part 5, page 4, Surah al Nisa
2. Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 95, Surah Nisa verse 24
3. Tafseer Haqqani, Volume 2 page 4
4. Nuzul al Ibrar fi fiqh Mukhtasar Nabi al Muktar, page 3

We read in Tafseer Kabeer:

“Amongst the Ummah are many great scholars who deem Mut’ah to have been abrogated, whilst others say that Mut’ah still remains.”

Imam of the Deobandies Allamah Abu Muhamad Abdul Haq Haqqani states 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)

Maulana Waheed uz Zaman states:

One of the topic of Mut’ah, differences have arisen amongst the Sahaba, and Ahl’ul Hadith (people of Hadith), and they deemed Mut’ah to be permissible, since Mut’ah under the Shari’ah was practised and this is proven, and as evidence of permissibility they cite verse 24 of Surah Nisa as proof. The practise of Mut’ah is definite and there is ijma (consensus) on this and you can’t refute definite proof by using logic.

We read in Gharaib al Quran:

“They (scholars) have agreed that it was permissible during the early era of Islam, then the vast majority of the nation agreed that it become 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”

Former Leader of Jamaat-e-Islam, Sayyid Abul’ala Maudoodi deemed Mut’ah to be permissible

Maudoodi in his periodical Turjuman al Qur’an in his commentary of Surah Mu’minun, [1955 edition]

“Whether Mut’ah is haram or halaal is a dispute that creates dissension between Shi’as and Sunnis, and has resulted in heated discussion, it is not difficult to ascertain the truth. A man comes across such situations when Nikah becomes impossible and he is forced to make a distinction between Zina and Mut’ah. In such scenarios practising Mut’ah is a better option to Zina”

Maulana Waheed uz Zaman deemed Mut’ah to be permissible

We have already cited the tradition from Sahih al Bukhari (English translation) Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13, wherein Ibn Masud stated that Rasulullah (s) allowed the Sahaba to contract Mut’ah. The Salafi scholar Maulana uz Zaman translated the words of Ibn Masud, in his Sharh of Sahih al Bukhari, Tayseer al Bari Volume 6 page 111 (printed in Karachi) as follows:

He gave us the permission to use cloth and contract Nikah, i.e. Mut’ah with women.

The reference is absolutely clear that the Prophet gave the order to contract Mut’ah, and curiously in his commentary of this tradition Zaman says as follows:

“From this hadith it can be seen that the usage of Mut’ah arises in ‘needed’ circumstances such as travel but not in situations where no need arises”.
Tayseer al Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 page 111

Let us for example accept that comment that Nikah Mut’ah is restricted to travel, this Sunni scholar has still acknowledged the validity of Mut’ah, and that is exactly what we the Shi’a are saying, that it can be exercised at a time when ‘need’ arises. Need is an entirely subjective thing, based on one’s own self control, if a man can remain pure without having sex that is fine, but is he fears falling into haraam activities due to sexual frustration, such as fornication, then the Shari’ah has also provided a legal means with which he can control his sexual urge.

The Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Ibn Jurrayj contracted Mut’ah with 90 women

The following sources deal with this issue:

1. Fatah ul Bari, Volume 9 page 73
2. Al-Mughni by Ibn Qadamah, Volume 7 page 71
3. Mizan al-Itidal, Volume 2 page 59
4. Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 6 page 359
5. Siyar alam al Nubla, Vol 6 page 325, 331 & 333

Imam Dhahabi in Siyar alam al Nubla, Volume 6 page 325, 331 and 333 states:

ابن جريج ع عبد الملك بن عبد العزيز بن جريج الإمام العلامة الحافظ شيخ الحرم أبو خالد وأبو الوليد القرشي الأموي المكي صاحب التصانيف

“Abdul Malik bin Abdulaziz bin Juraij was Imam, Allamah, Hafiz, Sheikh al-Haram (Haram Mekka), Abu Khalid and Abul Walid Al-Qarshi Al-Amawi, Al-Makki; the author of books”. (page 325)

جريرا الضبي يقول: كان ابن جريج يرى المتعة، تزوج بستين امرأة.وقيل: إنه عهد إلى أولاده في أسمائهن لئلا يغلط أحد منهم ويتزوج واحدة مما نكح أبوه بالمتعة.

Jarir al-Dabi said: ‘Ibn Juraij believed in Mut’ah, he married with 60 women’. It is been said that he gave his children the names of his wives to avoid marrying any woman his father had previously married. (page 331)

سمعت الشافعي يقول استمتع ابن جريج بتسعين امرأة حتى إنه كان يحتقن في الليل بأوقية شيرج طلبا للجماع

“al-Shafiyee said that Ibn Juraij did Mut’ah with 90 women, he used every night one ounce of sesame oil in order to have sexual intercourse”. (page 333)

We read in Tahdeeb:

وقال الشافعي استمتع بن جريج بسبعين امرأة

Shafiyee said: ‘Ibn Juraij performed Mut’ah with seventy women’.

If Mut’ah was abrogated by Rasulullah (s) and thus became Zina, then did this great Sunni Imam, who was incidentally from amongst the Tabieen, commit fornication with seventy women? How can a Sunni scholar that fornicates with seventy women be graded as a very reliable authority? If it was obligatory to accept ‘Umar’s ruling, than was this Faqih committing a sin? Or is the truth much more obvious: that this Faqih recognised ‘Umar’s ruling was bid’a, and disregarded it.

Imam Malik issued a Fatwa that Mut’ah is halaal

We shall cite the following Sunni sources:

1. Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 1 page 151
2. Al Hidayah, Volume 1 page 186
3. Kanz al-Daqaiq, Volume 5 page 289
4. Anaya Sharh al-Hidayah, Volume 4 page 390
5. al-Mabsoot, Volume 5 page 152

We read in Al-Hidayah:

وقال مالك : هو جائز لأنه كان مباحا فيبقى إلى أن يظهر ناسخة

Malik said: ‘It is lawful because it was Mubah so it will remain (lawful) till the abrogation appears”

Although the name of the book Al-Hidayah requires no introduction on its authenticity in the eyes of Ahle-Sunnah for the benefit of our readers and most importantly, to nullify any attempt by Nawasib to cast doubts on the authenticity of the reference cited, let us mention that this book is compared with Quran among Ahle Sunnah, as we read:

“The book Al-Hidayah is a guide to guidance and it removes the blindness from those who preserve it. Oh you, the rational ones, you must preserve it and be with it, because who ever reached to it in fact he reached to the maximum goals. That is what Allamah al-Hadad said in his margin on the book al-Hidayah. Other one said: ‘al-Hidayah is like Quran, it has abrogated the previous books which were written about laws.’”
Hidayah, page 4

In one of the esteemed commentary on Al-Hidayah namely Anaya Sharh al-Hidayah, we read:

۔ (ونكاح المتعة باطل) وهو أن يقول لامرأة أتمتع بك كذا مدة بكذا من المال وقال مالك رحمه الله: هو جائز لأنه كان مباحا فيبقى إلى أن يظهر ناسخه

Nikah al-Mut’ah is void, its method is to say ‘I enjoy you in reward of such and such for period such and such period’. Malik said: ‘It is lawful because it was Mubah so it will remain (lawful) until the abrogation appears’

As for the excuse that Imam Malik in his book Muwatta recorded a Hadith regarding the prohibition of Mut’ah, we read the following reply in Anaya Sharh al-Hidayah:

وليس كل من يروي حديثا يكون واجب العمل لجواز أن يكون عنده ما يعارضه أو يرجح عليه

“It is not Wajib on the one who is recording the Hadith to also consider it Wajib to pratice the Hadith because he might have another contradictory Hadith which he prefers”.

Imam Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan records in ‘Fatawa Qadhi Khan’:

“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)

Hanafi Imam Sarkhasi records in al-Mabsoot:

وتفسير المتعة أن يقول لامرأته : أتمتع بك كذا من المدة بكذا من البدل ، وهذا باطل عندنا جائز عند مالك بن أنس وهو الظاهر من قول ابن عباس رضي الله عنه

“The meaning of Mut’ah is to say to his woman: ‘I enjoy you for such-and-such time period in reward of such-and-such of dower.’ And this is void according to us whereas it is permissible according to Malik bin Anas, and apparently the same opinion is shared by Ibn Abbas may Allah be pleased with him”.

Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal deemed Mut’ah to be Halal

According to Imma Ahmed bin Hanbal, Mut’ah is Makrooh and can be done when it is extremely necessary but it is not Haram. Imam Ibn Qadamah records in Al-Mughni, Volume 7 page 571:

وقال أبو بكر فيها رواية أخرى : أنها مكروهة غير حرام ، لأن ابن منصور سأل أحمد عنها ؟ فقال : يجتنبها أحب إلي ، قال : فظاهر هذا الكراهة دون التحريم

Abu Bakr said that there is another narration which deems it [Mut’ah] Makrooh and not Haram because Ibn Mansur asked Ahmad about it? and he (Ahmad) replied: ‘According to me it is better to avoid it’. He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘Apparently this text refers to that which is disliked[Makrooh] and not prohibited [Tahreem].

Ibn Katheer in his Tafseer, Surah an-Nisa, Page 3 under the verse 4:24 said:

وقد رُويَ عن ابن عباس وطائفة من الصحابة القولُ بإباحتها للضرورة، وهو رواية عن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل، رحمهم الله تعالى.

“It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas and a group of the companions that it is permissible when it is absolutely necessary, and so has been narrated from Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal may Allah’s mercy be upon them”
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Surah an-Nisa, Page 3

Imam Hanbal like Malik is a Sunni Scholar of fiqh, like Ibn Abbas and other Sahaba. If Mut’ah is a shameless act of Zina then did the Allah and Rasulullah(s) allow such acts on certain occasions?. Clearly the Sahaba did not see Mut’ah in this way, the clearly understood words of Rasulullah(s), so for Sunnis experts to deem Mut’ah haram today is a major injustice on their part.

Maliki scholar Muḥammad al-Ṭahir Ibn Ashur deemed Mut’ah to be Halal

Muḥammad al-Ṭahir Ibn Ashur (d. 1972) was a Sunni Maliki from Tunisia and was the Sheikh of Zaytona, a position that is somwhat similar to Sheikh of Al-Azhar and that makes him the highest Maliki scholar of his era. In his authority work  Tafsir al-Taḥrir wa-al-Tanwir, Volume 1 page 298 we read:

وقد ثبت أن الناس استمتعوا في زمن أبي بكر وعمر ثم نهى عنها عمر في آخر خلافته

 ”It has been proven that the people practised Mut’ah during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, then Umar prohibited it in the last part of his reign”.

On the same page we read:

والذي يستخلص من مختلف الأخبار أن المتعة أذن فيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم مرتين ونهى عنها مرتين والذي يفهم من ذلك أن ليس ذلك بنسخ مكرر ولكنه إناطة إباحتها بحال الاضطرار فاشتبه على الرواة تحقيق عذر الرخصة بأنه نسخ

 The conclusion of all different traditions is that the Allah’s Apostle allowed Mut’ah twice and prohibited it twice, and what we understand of these is that is not for abrogating it repeatedly but it is to clarify that Mut’ah is permissible only for emergencies but the narrators got confused and thought that was meant abrogation (Naskh).

Similarly the author stated:

والذي استخلصناه في حكم نكاح المتعة أنه جائز عند الضرورة

“The result which I end up is that Mut’ah is lawful in emergencies”.

Ali (a.s.) also opposed Umar prohibition on Mut’ah

Muḥammad al-Ṭahir Ibn Ashur (d. 1972) was a Sunni Maliki from Tunisia and was the Sheikh of Zaytona, a position that is somwhat similar to Sheikh of Al-Azhar and that makes him the highest Maliki scholar of his era. In his authority work  Tafsir al-Taḥrir wa-al-Tanwir, Volume 5 page 10, we read:

وعن علي بن أبي طالب ، وعمران بن حصين ، وابن عباس ، وجماعة من التابعين والصحابة أنهم قالوا بجوازه

“And quoting Ali bin Abi Talib, Imran bin Husain, Ibn Abbas and a some of the Tabayeen and Sahaba said that it is allowed”
Tafsīr al-Taḥrir wa-al-Tanwir, Volume 5 page 10

In Tafsir Dur al-Manthur and other books we read the words of Maula Ali (as) that we cited previously as well:

Narrated Abdulrazaq and Abu Dawoud in (book) Nasikh and narrated ibn Jareer from al-Hakam that he was asked whether the verse on Mut’ah has been abrogated, he said: “No, Ali (ra) said that if it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrongdoer).”
1. Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 2 page 486
2. Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Volume 3 page 6 pt 5
3. Tafseer Tabari, Volume 4 page 10
4. Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 95
5. Tafseer al-Bahr al-Muheet by Abu Hayan al-Andulusi, Volume 3 page 226
6. Kanz ul Umaal, Hadith
7. Musanaf Abdul Razaq, Volume 7 page 500 Hadith 14029
8. Al-Muharar al-Wajiz by Ibn Atya al-Andulusi, Volume 2 page 36

Suyuti is a renowned Sunni Scholar and his virtues are expounded in detail in the book of Rijjal. In his Tafseer he states that he compiled this Tafseer with good chains he found. Suyuti’s recording of Maula Ali’s testimony is proof that Umar banned Mut’ah not Rasulullah. Maula Ali deemed this to be clear deviation and deemed Umar to have perpetuated a major sin, and was in effect responsible for people fornicating.

Let us now analyse the words carefully:

‘If it were not for Umar forbidding it’ – The word ‘If’ shows that this statement is a conditional statement. That means whatever is said; the results are based on the condition(s) specified.
‘were not for Umar forbidding it’ -is a condition.
‘no one would commit (the sin of) fornication’ – This is a statement.
‘except a wretched person’ – This statement now carries an exception to the rule, of those who ignore and disobey Allah (swt) no matter what.

The POINT here was, it is apparently clear and commonly known by every knowing and wise person that sexual needs are natural. No one has denied it and no one can deny it. To put it simply, people who were unable to find a life long commitment (Perm. Marriage) and yet it could not curb their sexual needs, had a blessing from Allah [swt] to perform Nikah Mutah (there may be other reasons also) and avoid fornication. Having that blessing no one would have committed fornication except people who flagrantly disobey Allah [swt] anyway.

In the above statement, the condition specifies that it was only because of Umar that people will commit fornication since Umar had made ‘a Lawful-Islamic-Act a-blessing from Allah [swt] unlawful. It is like you make unlawful to work, people will EAT whether they are working or not, meaning either they will work to earn their bread or they will steal. You can not put natural requirements in a box and not provide a lawful way to fulfil those requirements. That is not how nature works, and this applies to every single NATURAL URGE of Human Being.

You can not make sleeping HARAM and make Human nature to require sleep; similarly you can not make Breathing HARAM and make human Nature to require to breath, so on and so forth.

In ‘Lughaat ul Hadeeth’ Volume 4 page 9 Chapter “Meem”, Maulana Waheed uz Zaman further expands on the words of Maula ‘Ali (as):

Ali (r) said ‘Had Umar not banned Mut’ah then the only person to fornicate would have been a disgraceful person, since Mut’ah is easy, and one can attain the objective, there would have then been no need to indulge in haraam acts’.
Lughaat ul Hadeeth, alphabet ‘Meem’ page 9 (Published in Karachi)

Some Nasibi have raised the objection: ‘why didn’t Imam ‘Ali (as) mention Mut’ah in Nahj ul Balagha?’ It is indeed amusing to read the absurd claim of Dr Salamah:

“Oddly enough, ‘Ali left behind a voluminous book, Nahjul-Balaghah, wherein he presented various aspects of Islam and the Muslim state. However, not a single word in favour of Mut’ah is mentioned in it. Had ‘Umar been wrong, nothing would have prevented ‘All from condemning it in his writings.

The author clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Imam ‘Ali (as) did not “leave behind” Nahj al-Balagha. The book was compiled centuries later by Sayyid Ar-Razi. We have seen that the book does not deal with fiqh issues; nor is it a “voluminous” work. Compared to other hadeeth collections, it is one of the shortest. Salamah does not even deal with the many narration’s, found in Sunni books, where Imam ‘Ali (as) condemns ‘Umar’s ban on Mut’ah. Indeed, this hadeeth is an authentic narration. Moreover, how can the author put wordsi n Umar’s mouth while he himself has been quoted to have admitted the fact that Mutah was Halal during the time of Prophet (s)?

The increasingly favourite Nasibi author of www.ahlelbayt.com as usual did some copy paste work and pasted the same paragraph without using his own brain and hence he also came under the humiliation that Dr. Salamah had to gone through by raising the stupid objection cited above.
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text

Further Arguments of Dr. Salamah

Dr Salamah states:

As previously mentioned, Furthermore, since ‘Umar was later succeeded by ‘Uthman and then ‘Ali, had ‘Umar’s statements been contrary to the ruling of the Prophet (PBUH), at least one of them would have re-established the sanctity of Mut’ah. Again, there are no records of such abrogation.

Once again, the later coming Nasibi author on the internet namely Ibn al-Hashimi copy pasted the same pathetic arguments of Dr. Salamah without using his own brain.
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text

It is common sense that the false fatwa of Umar had been buried with the Khalifa, and with Umar’s death people were free to practise Mut’ah as they had done in the past. If Uthman toed the same line as Umar, then this does not mean that Umar was right – since Umar had bound himself to adhering to Umar’s decisions when offered the Khilafath – a condition that Uthman accepted, which Imam ‘Ali (as) did not. As we have already proven Imam ‘Ali (as) had openly expressed his disgust at Umar’s prohibition and his words serve as clear proof that this was a legitimate act. There are scores of Shi’a traditions wherein our Imams (starting from Imam ‘Ali (as) endorsed the practise of Mut’ah, so the people during the era of Imam ‘Ali (as) were in no doubt that this was halaal.

Umar’s son Abdullah deemed Mut’ah halaal and condemned the order of his father

We read the following authentic tradition in Sunni works wherein Abdullah Ibn Umar openly pointed out the fact that his father had the audacitiy to change the Islamic rulings thus going against the Holy Prophet (s) with respect to Mutah al-Hajj:

Abd bin Hamid – Yaqoob bin Ibrahim bin Saad – his father – Saleh bin Kaysan – Ibn Shehab – Salem bin Abdullah said: ‘I heard a man from Shaam questioning Abdullah bin Umar about Mut’ah of Umra until Hajj, thus Abdullah bin Umar replied: ‘It is permissible’. The Shaami man said: ‘But your father has forbidden it’. Abdullah bin Umar replied: ‘When my father forbids something practiced by Allah’s Messenger, shall I follow my father’s order or that of Allah’s Messenger’s?’ The Shaami man replied: ‘Surely the order of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh)’. He (Abdullah bin Umar) replied: ‘Allah’s messenger has practiced it’’. 
 
Sunan Tirmidi, Hadith 823

Online Reference : http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/9 
 

Abd bin Hamid: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Syar alam alnubala, v12 p235). Yaqoob bin Ibrahim bin Saad: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v4 p448). Ibrahim bin Saad: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v1 p33). Saleh bin Kaysan: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v2 p299). Ibn Shehab al-Zuhari: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ Mizan al-Etidal, v4 p40). Salem bin Abdullah: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p88).Imam Tirmidhi stated about the tradition: ‘Hasan Sahih’.

Beloved Imam of Salafies Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah also recorded this in his esteemed work Zaad al-Maad:

وقال عبد الله بن عمر لمن سأله عنها وقال له : إن أباك نهى عنها : أأمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم أحق أن يتبع أو أمر أبي ؟

Someone asked Abdullah bin Umar (about Mut’ah) saying: ‘Your father prohibited it.’
(Ibn Umar replied): ‘Is the order of the Messenger of Allah more deserving to be followed, or the order of my father?’
 
Zaad al-Maad, Volume 2 page 176

Mu’awiya also practised Mut’ah al-Nisa

We shall cite the following authentic Sunni sources as proof:

1. Fatah ul Bari, Volume 9 page 174
2. Talkhees al Habeer, Volume 3 page 159
3. Sharh Zarqani (commentary of Muwatta) Volume 3 page 53
4. Aujza al Masalik, Sharh Muwatta, Volume 9 page 403
5. Nail al-Autar Volume 6 page 153
6. Musanaf Abdul Razaq, Volume 7 page 499

Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani in ‘Talkhees al Habeer fi Takhreej al Hadeeth al Rafa al Kabeer’ Volume 3 page 159 (printed Cairo) quotes Ibn Hazam 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.”

The above individuals, all highly esteemed in the Sunni faith, deemed Mut’ah to be halaal after the death of Rasulullah(s).

If it was haram and is Zina, then why did the site in law of Rasulullah (s) practise it? And then we have the beloved Imam of Enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as), fifth Imam of Ahlul Sunnah, Mu’awiya, believed it, practised it and paid this woman regular stipends? We read in Fatah ul Bari Volume 9 pages 174:

Abdulrazaq recorded from Safwan bin Yala bin Umaya that he said: ‘Yala told me that Muawiya perfrormed mutah with a woman in Taaif’. The chain is Sahih, but in Abi al-Zubair’s narration from Jabir as Abdulrazaq recorded was from past and text is: “When Muawiya arrived in Taaif, he performed mutah with a slave woman whose name was Mu’ana and she belonged to Bani al-Hadhrami” Then Jabir said: ‘Mu’ana lived till Mu’awiya’s riegn, he used to send her stipends every year’.
Fatah ul Bari Volume 9 pages 17

This has been similarly recorded in Musanaf Abdul Razaq, Volume 7 page 499.

Before parting, we deem it apt to cite the following account of the one of the most close Nasibi companion of Muawiya namely Samra bin Jundab:

“The father of Sulayman, perhaps he is Samra bin Jundab, he narrated from Manda from Mubsher bin Ismail from Huraiz bin Uthman from Sulayman bin Samir from his father that he said: ‘We used to perform Mut’ah during the time of Allah’s Messenger.”
Al-Isaba, Volume 3 page 185 Biography No. 3494

Comment:

If Mut’ah is adultery in the eyes of Nawasib like that of ‘Sipah e Sahaba’ (kr-hcy.com) then will they issue an edict against Mu’awiya for committing adultery? And why are they not ashamed of the adultery committed by their caliph and beloved sahabi? Nawasib such as Ansar.org are very proud to call Mu’awiya a ‘Hadi’ (guide) according to a (supposed) hadeeth, if the ‘Hadi’ of Nawasib is an adulterer then what can we expect from his followers!

Umar’s debate with a Sahabi on Mut’ah

We read in Kanz al-Ummal, Volume 7 page 94 Dhikr Mut’ah:

Um Abdullah bint Abi Khuthaima stated that a man came from Syria and said: ‘Celibacy has become difficult for me, arrange a woman for me with whom I can perform mutah’. She replied by directing him to a woman, with whom he eneted into an agreement, and brought forward just witnesses. He stayed with the woman for as long as Allah (swt) wanted him to stay and then left.
Umar received information and summoned me and asked: ‘Is what happened true? I replied: ‘Yes’. He (Umar) said: ‘If he returns let me know’. Upon his return, I informed Umar. He (Umar) summoned him, when he (the man) went to him, Umar asked him: ‘Why you did that?’
The man replied: ‘I performed it during the lifetime of Rasulullah(s), and he never prohibited it until the time of his death. Then I practised it during the time of Abu Bakr and he never prohibited it until the time of his death, I also practised Mut’ah during your reign and you didn’t narrate any evidence of its prohibition.’
Umar replied: ‘By whom my soul in his hand! If I had forbade this before today, I would have stoned you, declare it (to the public) so that they can distinguish nikah from adultery’
Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 7 Hadith 45726

So here we have another example of a companion admitting that there was no such prohibition of Nikah al Mutah right during the era of Holy Prophet (s) and the early days of Umar’s reign.

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 (ra) 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 (rahmatullahi ‘alaihi), devoting a chapter to Mut’ah, has reported two Ahadith. The first one is as follows:.
Hadrath Ali ibn Abi Talib (radiyallahu ‘anhu) 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 (radiyallahu ‘anhu) 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 (ra) lived many years after death of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as). Had Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) really forbidden Mutah to Ibn Abbas, then is it believable that Ibn Abbas (ra) continued issuing Fatwa in favour of Mutah when the truth had been made manifest to him? If the alleged counsel of Imam ‘Ali (as) 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 (radiyallahu ‘anhu) 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 (ra) 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 (ra) stated that Mutah was Halal until the aforesaid verse revealed. If these were indeed the words of Ibn Abbas (ra) then can any sane person answer the question as to why Ibn Abbas (ra) 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:

ومع هذا ما رجع ابن عباس عما كان يذهب إليه من إباحة

“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:

أن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه روي عنه في المتعة ثلاثة أقوال : الأول : الاباحة مطلقا . الثاني : الاباحة عند الضرورة . والآخر : التحريم مطلقا وهذا مما لم يثبت عنه صراحة بخلاف القولين الأولين فهما ثابتان عنه . والله أعلم

“Three statements have been narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra) 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:

ولا تردد في أن ابن عباس هو الرجل المعرض به وكان قد كف بصره فلذا قال ابن الزبير كما أعمى أبصارهم وهذا إنما كان في حال خلافة عبد الله بن الزبير وذلك بعد وفاة على كرم الله وجهه فقد ثبت أنه مستمر القول على جوازها ولم يرجع

“Three statements have been narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra) 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:

فروي عنه أن الآية محكمة وكان يرخص في المتعة

“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:

آية محكمة أي لم تنسخ

“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:

آية محكمة أي غير منسوخة

“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:

قال ابن عبد البر‏:‏ أصحاب ابن عباس من أهل مكة واليمن على إباحتها

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

Similarly we read in Kanz al-Daqaiq:

وَاشْتَهَرَ عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ تَحْلِيلُهَا وَتَبِعَهُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ أَكْثَرُ أَصْحَابِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْيَمَنِ وَمَكَّةَ

“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 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 (as) – 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 (as), 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:

وقال عبد الرازق : حدثنا معمر عن أيوب قال : قال عروة لابن عباس : ألا تتقي الله ترخص في المتعة ؟ فقال ابن عباس : سل أمك يا عرية

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:

عير عبد الله بن الزبير عبد الله بن عباس بتحليله المتعة فقال له: سل أمك كيف سطعت المجامر بينها وبين أبيك؟فسألها فقالت: ما ولدتك إلا في المتعة.

“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:

وَهَذَا عِنْدَنَا بَاطِلٌ ( وَقَالَ مَالِكٌ هُوَ جَائِزٌ ) وَهُوَ الظَّاهِرُ مِنْ قَوْلِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ( لِأَنَّهُ كَانَ مُبَاحًا ) بِالِاتِّفَاقِ ( فَيَبْقَى إلَى أَنْ يَظْهَرَ نَاسِخُهُ

“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:

وقال ابن عباس لمن كان يعارضه فيها بأبي بكر وعمر : يوشك أن تنزل عليكم حجارة من السماء أقول : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وتقولون : قال أبو بكر وعمر

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:

قال ابن بطال‏:‏ روى أهل مكة واليمن عن ابن عباس إباحة المتعة، وروي عنه الرجوع بأسانيد ضعيفة وإجازة المتعة عنه أصح، وهو مذهب الشيعة‏.

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.