We arrive at the final part of the Shia rebuttal to the Sunni belief that Muhammad put an end to Islamic prostitution https://answeringallah.com/umar-and-islamic-prostitution-pt-2/
Many ‘ulama of Ahl as-Sunnah deemed Mut’ah to be Halaal
We shall cite the following Sunni sources
Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran, part 5, page 4, Surah al Nisa
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 95, Surah Nisa verse 24
Tafseer Haqqani, Volume 2 page 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”
The Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Ibn Jurrayj contracted Mut’ah with 90 women
The following sources deal with this issue:
Fatah ul Bari, Volume 9 page 73
Al-Mughni by Ibn Qadamah, Volume 7 page 71
Mizan al-Itidal, Volume 2 page 59
Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 6 page 359
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 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:
Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 1 page 151
Al Hidayah, Volume 1 page 186
Kanz al-Daqaiq, Volume 5 page 289
Anaya Sharh al-Hidayah, Volume 4 page 390
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”.
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 allow such acts on certain occasions?. Clearly the Sahaba did not see Mut’ah in this way, the clearly understood words of Rasulullah, 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”.
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 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.
Egyptian Sunni scholar Ahmed al Baqoori deemed Mut’ah to be Halal
Modern day Egyptian Sunni scholar Ahmad al-Baqoori who died in 1985, was the minister for the ministry of endowments in Egypt and before that he was the principal of Al-Azhar University and also of the Islamic Studies Institute. In his book Ma’a al-Quran, page179, he stated:
وبهذا النظر تخيرنا القول بإباحة هذا النوع من الزواج، وارتأينا ما يراه فقهاء أهل البيت من مشروعيته الدائمة غير المنسوخة فإنهم في هذا رضي الله عنهم كانوا من سعة الأفق، وبعد النظر، بحيث لا يملك المسلم المنصف إلا أن يسلك طريقهم، ويأخذ برأيهم إيثارا للحق،
According to that we decided to permit this type of marriage and our opinion is parallel to that of the jurists of the Ahlulbayt regarding its permanent legality and that it is not abrogated, they (the Ahlulbayt) may Allah be pleased with them in this matter had a great deal of information and farsightedness in a manner that an impartial Muslim would follow them and adopt their opinion for the sake of correctness.
Sunni scholar Ismail bin Abdullah al-Ru’aini deemed Mut’ah to be Halal
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hazam in his book al-Fasl fi al-Melal, Volume 1 page 252 made reference to a Sunni scholar of his era, namely Abdullah al-Ru’aini and then wrote about him:
وصح عندنا عنه أنه كان يقول بنكاح المتعة وهذا لا يقدح إيمانه ولا في عدالته
“It has been proven to us that he believed in Nikah al-Mut’ah, but this neither harmed his faith nor his fairness”
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, 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:
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?
The orthodox Sunni view is that Ibn Abbas 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?
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’?
Ansar.org desperately sought to prove that Muawiyah was a ‘Hadi’ according to the (supposed) words of Prophet and tradition inform us that he did Muta long after the death of Holy Prophet, 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)?
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?
Last but certainly not least, those Sunnies who say that Prophet 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 and it was he who was ‘then’ banning them..
Traditions attributed to Umar by his defenders
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.’’
For those who would like to rely on the above cited tradition to prove that according to Umar, Mut’ah was prohibited by Prophet, we would like to state that:
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 and he did not attribute the prohibition of Mut’ah to him.
In the another version of his sermon, Umar admitted that it was he who banned Mut’ah.
The other version of his sermon has been substantiated by the companions like Jabir bin Abdullah who also testified that it was Umar who banned both types of Mut’ah.
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 four witnesses who would testify that Mut’ah was not prohibited, he himself admitted that he may be incorrect in his opinion regarding prohibition of Mutah.
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?
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’.’
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).