 | | Introduction | | What is Mut'ah? | | The necessity of Mut'ah | | Quranic Evidences for the Legitimacy of Mut'ah | | The Argument that Mut'ah is Immoral- I | | The Argument that Mut'ah is Immoral- II | | Examples of Sunni morality | | Was Mut'ah Abrogated by the Quran? | | Was Mut'ah Abrogated by the Sunnah? | | The Truth: That Umar banned Mut'ah | | The misuse of Shi'a Hadeeths to demonstrate the prohibition of Mutah | | The status of slave-girl in Shia madhab | | Conclusion: An appeal to justice | | Appendix |
| |  | | | | You can email the details of this article to a friend. | |  |
| Qur'anic Evidences for the Legitimacy of Mut'ah
The first set of evidences for the permissibility of Mut'ah lie in the Holy Qur'an itself. It is commonplace that, when arguing with the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as), any and all Sunni narrations that support the stance of the Prophet (s) and his family are dismissed as being "weak" (da'eef), even when the book is found in one of the allegedly sahih collections (such as that of Bukhari or Muslim). No reason is ever given for why the hadeeth is weak; rather, the claim serves as a failsafe when the Ahl al-Bayt (as)'s enemies are backed into a corner by their own hadeeth literature. As such, we will first deal with the text of the Holy Qur'an itself, and discover how the Qur'an legitimises Mut'ah, and how the vast majority of Sunni scholars have accepted this.
Authentic Sunni Ahadith prove that the verse of temporary marriage revealed in the Quran was never abrogated
It is indeend surprising to see that some of the Nawasib even try to turn their eyes from historical proofs and go on to claim that there never exist a verse regarding temporary marriage. Let us bring the testimony of the Sahaba they adore about the verse of temporary marriage in Quran.
The testimony of Imam Ali [as]
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records:
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 Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrongdoer)."
 Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 140
Also see
Online Tafseer Tabari
All the narrators of this tradition are authentic. Muhammad bin al-Muthna: Imam Dhahabi called him Thiqa.
Muhammad bin Jafar: Dhahabi says that he was one of the most accurate narrators.
Shu'ba bin al-Hajaj: According to Imam Dhahabi he is Ameer ul Mumineen in hadith.
Al-Hakam bin Utebah al-Kindi: According to Imam Dhahabi he is thiqah and 'sahib sunnah'.
Testimony of Imran bin Hussain
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Book of "Tafseer of Prophet":
Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:
"The Verse of Mut'a was revealed in Allah's Book, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Quran to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."
Sahih Bukhari [Arabic], Kitab al Tafseer, Tradition 4559
Note: The Saudi paid English translator of Sahih Bukhari namely Mohsin Khan made Tehrif in this tradition and added word "Hajj" with word Muttah (i.e. Mutah-ul-Haj), while in Arabic only the word "Mutah" has been mentioned.
Now the Nasibi excuse is that Imam Bukhari put this tradition under the chapter of Hajj, and therefore this refers to Mutah-ul-Haj and not Mutah-ul-Nisa.
Our answer is, that Bukhari has shown dishonesty by putting this hadith under chapter of Hajj, whilst it is absolutely clear that companion Imran bin Hussain was referring to temporary marriage (Mutah-ul-Nisa). All Sunni Muffassireen (commentators of the Quran) are unanimous that this hadith refers to Mutah-ul-Nisa and not Mutah-ul-Haj.
1. Al Kashaf al Bayan fi Tafsir al Quran by Imam Abu Ishaq Thalabi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran
2. Tafsir al-Kabir, by Imam Fakhr al-Razi, v3, pp 200,202, under the verse 4:24
3. Tafsir Ibn Hayyan, v3, p218, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran
4. Tafsir Nisaboori (Gharaib al Quran), by Nizamuddin al-Nisaboori
Any how, our opponents have to answer the following in every case:
- Show us that particular verse of Mutah (Hajj/Nisa) in Quran, which companion Imran bin Hussain was talking about.
- According to Sahabi Imran bin Hussain, the verse has not been abrogated.
- Who was Imran bin Hussain referring to 'a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested.'
Our opponents always run away from these questions, and never answer them, while whenever they start answering these questions, the real situation automatically becomes clear.
It is quite evidence that among a number of Qur'anic, there is one that specifically refers to temporary marriage (Mutah al Nisa or Nikah al Mutah). So which is that verse? That verse is the 24th verse of Surah Nisa.
The Verse of Mut'ah (4:24)
The most important verse of the Holy Qur'an which establishes the legitimacy of Mut'ah is verse 24 of Surat an-Nisa, known to all hadeeth commentators (Sunni and Shi'a) as "the verse of Mut'ah." This verse provides a clear and unshakeable permission for the practice of temporary marriage. In the same way that Islam has established principles to protect human beings, via rules and regulations, it has at the same time provided for legitimate means by which man can enjoy himself, and Mut'ah is one of these ways. The Shari'ah prohibits fornication, but at the same time allows the practise of Mut'ah. If anyone is unaware of this blessing from Allah (swt), then let us set out the evidences from the Holy Qur'an:
[Forbidden to you] are married woman, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So when you have contracted temporary marriage [istimt'atum] with them, then give them their words. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Wise.
Al-Qur'an, Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 24
Allah (swt) has used the word istimta'tum, which is the verbal form of the word Mut'ah. While the word has many other numerous meanings (as will be discussed below), we see that in the same way that the terms Zakat, Saum, and hajj carry a specific Islamic definition, so does the word istimta'. The specific, Islamic meaning which the word refers to is the performance of a temporary marriage, and nobody has denied this.
Four main evidences that prove that verse 4:24 refers to Mutah
We initially submitted Sunni materials that prove that amongst the numerous Qur'anic verses, there exists a specific one regarding Mutah, namely the 24th verse of Surah Nisa. In that verse Allah (swt) has used the Arabic word istimta'tum, which is the verbal form of the word Mut'ah. Many Nawasib try their best to prove that istimta'tum does not in any way refer to Nikah al-Mutah, but all such Nasibi attempts fall flat since there are three key pieces of evidence that negate the Nasibi notion.
First evidence- The fact that authentic Sunni books are replete with traditions informing us of episodes wherein the Sahabah performed temporary marriage (Mutah) and many of these traditions contain the same Arabic word istimta. Let us cite two of such examples, first from Sahih Muslim, the second most authentic Sunni Hadith book.
حدثني الربيع بن سبرة الجهني، أن أباه، حدثه أنه، كان مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال " يا أيها الناس إني قد كنت أذنت لكم في الاستمتاع من النساء
"Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father that while he was with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon hm) he said: 0 people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women…"
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3255
We read the following episode in Muwatta by Imam Malik:
۔۔۔ عمر بن الخطاب فقالت ان ربيعة بن امية استمتع بامراة فحملت منه ۔۔۔
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, ''Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she…"
Muwatta Imam Malik, Book 28, Number 28.18.42
Second evidence - The the fact that all Sunni commentators have recorded arguments regarding the permissibility or impermissibilty of Mutah and have recorded the practices and views of Sahaba, Tabaeen and Ulema regarding Mutah under the commentary of the no other verse but 4:24. For those Nawasib who advance the notion that this verse does not deal with Mutah, we would like to ask them:
"Did the Sunni commentators of the Quran including the Nasibi's favourite Ibn Kathir, Imam Tabari, Qurtubi etc have no understanding as to what they were doing when advancing their arguments about Mutah under the commentary of 4:24?"
Third evidence - The fact that many of the prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen that present day Nawasib adhere to would read the cited verse with some extra words, making it crystal clear that the verse referred to temporary marriage. They would recite the verse in this manner:
"And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them) for a specified period…"
The recitation of the words 'for a specefied period' by Sahaba and Taba'een proves this to be the verse dealing with Mutah in which the period of marriage is specefied.
Fourth evidence - The fact that the leading Sahaba, Tabayeen and scholars clearly stated that the verse 4:24 refers to 'temporary marriage' leaves no ground for our opponents to bring absurd excuses. We read the testimony of great jurist, Mujahid who stated:
"This (verse) revealed for mutah marriage"
Tafseer Ibn Katheer
Famed Sunni commentator of Holy Quran namely Maqatil bin Sulaiman himself would read the verse in this manner: 'Then as to those whom you profit by for a specified period" making it clear that this verse refers to temporary marriage according to him.
We will inshallah expand on second and third evidences later in this chapter.
The Nasibi arguments about the verse 4:24; the verse of Mutah
Nonetheless, the Wahabi Dr Salamah has published a critique of the Islamic belief that this verse deals with Mut'ah. This article has been trumpeted as being one of the best critiques of the Shi'a belief in Mut'ah, though what it only demonstrates is the author's utter disbelief in the Islamic revelation. The article revolves around a crass critique of Mut'ah, arguing that it is a form of fornication which violates Islamic norms of chastity. Rather than reading like the reasoned work of an Islamic scholar, it reads more like the tired moralism of Orientalists who attack Islam for having a positive attitude towards sexuality. The question of whether or not Mut'ah constitutes any type of moral outrage, or whether or not it will lead to the sexual corruption of society, will be dealt with in a later chapter. Here, however, we will deal with his argument that Mut'ah is a type of fornication (zina).
To claim that Mut'ah is fornication is to claim that it is a haram sexual act. This is all the word fornication means: sexual relations that are not permitted by Allah (swt), the Lawgiver. If Allah (swt) permits a type of sexual practice, then it by definition ceases to be fornication. If one accepts that Allah (swt) has permitted a certain type of sexual practice, and yet continues to argue that such a practice is immoral and evil, then such a person has ascribed a direct insult against his Creator, Allah (swt). Before anybody can begin to say that Mut'ah is evil or an act of impiety, one must first ask if Allah (swt) has forbidden it. To do otherwise would be to merely be following one's whims and desires and introducing an impermissible innovation (bid'a) into Islamic law.
The Wahabi author Dr. Salamah makes a critique of the above quoted verses where the verbal form of the word Mut'ah is used, in which he makes several key errors:
| Dr. Salamah states: | Two terms in the verse under discussion are used by Shi'ah commentators to allow Mut'ah. The first word is "ujur" (pi. of ajr), which means "compensation"; the second is "istamta'tum" which can be translated as "what you have enjoyed." So the end of the verse could be translated: "But give them their compensation for what you have enjoyed of them [in keeping with your promise]." Shi'ah commentators claim that "ajr" refers to the price of Mut'ah agreed upon by the two parties. On the contrary, Sunnis state that it refers to the mahr (bridal money given by the husband to the wife). Similarly, Shi'as explain the term "istamta'tum" as the physical act of consummation.
www.islamicweb.com
|
The author is clearly ignorant of Shi'ism and the Shi'ite Tafsir. He writes that the word ujur, which the author translates as "compensation," is understood as the "price" which a man pays to a temporary wife. He then argues that Sunnis say it refers to the mahr, the dowry. It is difficult to see what the author is intending to say here: in fact, there is absolutely no disagreement between Sunnis and Shi'as on this issue. The "compensation" paid by a husband to his temporary wife is the mahr for the temporary marriage. It is absolutely no different than the "compensation" paid by a husband to his permanent wife. The word is general and covers the dowry of a permanent or temporary wife. It would seem that the author is attempting to imply that the Shi'as are reading something into the verse that is not there; however, what exactly we are reading into it that Sunnis say is not there remains unknown. In refuting Dr. Salamah's argument, we are burdened by the fact that he is a very bad writer, with a bad grasp of both English and Arabic, and so it is often difficult to understand what he is talking about. In any case, it seems that he means to imply that Shi'as say that this ayat does not refer to a mahr but refers to something different, and that this somehow proves that the ayat is about Mut'ah, and not about permanent marriage.
If this is what Dr. Salamah means (and his poor grasp of English and bad writing style makes it hard to tell), then the author is entirely wrong: not only is the dowry of Mut'ah also referred to as a mahr, but the tendency amongst many 'ulama has been to refer more to the dowry of Mut'ah with the word mahr and to refer to the dowry of a Nikah with the word sidaq. The common fatwa about how to recite the seegah (marriage vows) of a temporary marriage uses the word mahr: "Zawajtuka nafsi fi al-mida al-ma'lumah wa 'ala al-mahr al-ma'lum" which means "I marry myself to you in the known time limit and on the known dowry (using the word mahr)" whereas the seegah for a permanent marriage is commonly ruled to be "Zawajtuka nafsi 'ala al-sidaq al-ma'lum" which means "I marry myself to you on the known dowry (this time using the word sidaq to refer to the mahr)."
Cf. Ayatullah Kho'i, Al-Masa'il al-Muntakhibah, p. 327
What we see from this is that Shi'as have never denied the obligation of mahr in Mut'ah; and in fact, the use of the word mahr is more emphasised with Mut'ah than with Nikah. In any case, it is difficult to see what was the point of the Wahabi author's argument about the word ajr. There is no disagreement between Sunnis and Shi'as about this ayat referring to the marriage dowry; the difference between Shi'as and some contemporary Wahabis is whether or not this verse refers to permanent marriage, or temporary marriage.
The author then moves on to the part where he demonstrates not only his contempt for the Holy Qur'an, but also his contempt for the great commentators of Qur'an amongst the Sunni 'ulama. He says that we explain the term "istimta'tum" as meaning the physical act of consummation. He writes:
| Dr. Salamah states: | | Similarly, Shi'as explain the term "istamta'tum" as the physical act of consummation. However, this is contradicted by the following Qur'anic verses: "There is no blame upon you if you have divorced women whom you have not touched [i.e., the marriage has not been consummated] or specified for them a mahr. But give them [a gift of] compensation [matti'uhunna]. The wealthy has his capability and the poor has his capability - a provision [mata'an] according to what is acceptable, an obligation upon the righteous."15 |
It is difficult to tell, but it seems that Dr. Salamah has got something reversed here: the Shi'a argue that it refers to Mut'ah, temporary marriage, and not the physical act of consummation. Those Wahabis who attempt to deny Mut'ah are the ones saying it refers to the act of consummation, in their attempt to deny the verse's indication (dalalat) upon the permissibility of temporary marriage. An example of some Wahabi writings on this issue comes from the author of 'The Illegitimacy of Temporary Marriage in Islam':
| Nida ul Islam magazine: | Allah Most High says: "So whatever you enjoy from them, give them their recompense, this is an obligation." [4:24]. This is the verse relied on by those who support temporary marriage. They rely on it either in ignorance or in order to fool others, giving a superficial meaning to the verse without referring to the interpretation of it, and without availing the correct interpretation to the general public. The following is the interpretation of it: Imam Qurtuby says in his commentary on this verse, the payment in the context is the dowry, it has been called recompense because it is a fee for the enjoyment. This is a support for dowry being a recompense. Alhasan, Mujahid, and others said: The meaning relates to what you have 'enjoyed' through your union with women in proper marriage, so "give them their recompense" that is, their dowries. Ibn Khuwayz Mindad said: There is no support and it is not permissible to use the verse as a permission for temporary marriage as the Messenger of Allah (swt) has warned against and has forbidden temporary marriage as Allah Most High said: "So marry them with the permission of their families." It is natural for the marriage to take place with the permission of the parents, this is a proper marriage which has a trustee and two witnesses, temporary marriage is not like that. 'A'isha said: "It has been forbidden in the Qur'an in the words of the Most High: "And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses, then they would have no blame." [23:5]. Temporary marriage is not regarded as a proper marriage, and the spouse does not fall into the category of what the right hand possesses.
www.islam.org.au
|
Here, we see several Sunni authors being quoted by "Nida ul Islam magazine" as saying that the verse has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, rather that it has to do with sexual act itself, viz.:
| Nida ul Islam magazine states: | | Alhasan, Mujahid, and others said: The meaning relates to what you have 'enjoyed' through your union with women in proper marriage, so "give them their recompense" that is, their dowries. |
The same argument has also been put forward by former Head of Sipah-e-Sahaba in his wonderfully titled 'Muta (Temporary marriage Or Legalised Prostitution)':
| Jhangvi states: | | THE CORRECT POSITION IS THAT THE SAID VERSE HAS COME TO SPECIFY THE AJR OR RECOMPENSE WHICH BECOMES PAYABLE IN FULL WHEN THE WIFE IN A REGULAR MARRIAGE IS GONE IN. "BUT GIVE THEM THEIR RECOMPENSE I.E. DOWER FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ENJOYED OF THEM" ARE THE ACTUAL WORDS AND BY ENOYMENT IS MENT THE SEXUAL INTERCORSE AFTER MARRIAGE THAT MAKES THE RECOMPENSE OR DOWER PAYABLE IN FULL WHILE ONLY THE HALF OF IT IS TO BE PAID, IF THE MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVED BEFORE SUCH INTERCOURSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS VERSE IN THEREFORE, TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATION OF THE HUSBAND IN CASE THE MARRIAGE IS EONSUMATED BY SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. |
Dr. Salamah, then, seems to be very confused. He has all of his arguments backward: the entire point of the debate about the verse of Mut'ah is that some Wahabis claim that it does not refer to Mut'ah at all, but rather that it refers to the sexual act itself and therefore does not establish the permissibility of Mut'ah. The Prophet (s), the Holy Imams (as) and the community of the Shi'a have always argued that the use of the term "istimta'tum" refers to the permissibility of temporary marriage, of Mut'ah, while their enemies have argued that the verse refers only to the sexual act of a Nikah. This Wahabi clearly has everything backwards! It is shocking, but the author attributes the Wahabi argument to the Shi'a, and then under the confused belief that it is a "Shi'a" argument goes on to refute his own belief system!
| Dr. Salamah states: | | Similarly, Shi'as explain the term "istamta'tum" as the physical act of consummation. However, this is contradicted by the following Qur'anic verses: "There is no blame upon you if you have divorced women whom you have not touched [i.e., the marriage has not been consummated] or specified for them a mahr. But give them [a gift of] compensation [matti'uhunna]. The wealthy has his capability and the poor has his capability - a provision [mata'an] according to what is acceptable, an obligation upon the righteous."15 |
We could not have said it better ourselves. The author deserves great congratulation for refuting those Wahabi 'ulama who have argued that this verse refers to the sexual act as opposed to temporary marriage. What he did not realize in his argument is that Allah (swt) has, in this verse that he quotes ("There is no blame…") already specified the obligation of dowry, which is made obligatory by the marriage contract, not by the consummation of the marriage. It does not make sense for Allah (swt) to say if you do not have sex with your wife, you must pay her the dowry, and then to later on say: "If you have sex with them, you must pay them their dowry."
In the same vein, Allamah Tabataba'i writes:
If the meaning of the verse is tamt'atum [meaning physical enjoyment in this case], then this does not fit with the part of this verse which follows, i.e. "Give them their compensation." This is because the dowry (mahr!) is obligatory (wajib) by the simple establishment of the marital contract (aqd), and it does not rely upon the actual act of physical enjoyment...Rather, one half is made wajib by the contract, and the other half is made wajib by sexual penetration (dukhul). Furthermore, the ayat which was revealed before is sufficient in making clear the dowry has to be paid under all circumstance, and so there is no point in repeating. This is the verse [4:4] that says: "And give the women their dowries as a gift," as well as the verse "There is no sin upon you if you divorce your wives before you have touched them or specified a dowry. But give them a gift of compensation, the wealthy what he can, and the poor what he can" until He says: "And if you divorce them before you have touched them, and you have decided upon a dowry, then give them half of what you have agreed upon."
Tabataba'i, Al-Mizan, vol. 4, p. 280
The fact is that Allah (swt) has already explained all of the ahkam of dowry before this in quite a detailed fashion. There is no point in then repeating it, in a much more general fashion, later on.
In any case, the fact of the matter is that the word istimta' has many different meanings. In order to understand it, we must turn to the context of the verse, which is marriage. It is pointless to say that the word istimt'a only refers to "taking benefit" in the sense of taking sexual pleasure, for this would imply that dowry is only obligatory when the sexual act is consummated. This argument is contradicted by verse 4:4, as Allamah Tabataba'i has pointed out, and is also contradicted by the verse 2:236 which Dr. Salamah cited. Dowry is not made obligatory by the sexual act; it is already made obligatory by the marriage contract, albeit only in part.
Misunderstanding this, the Sunni author at Islamic Voice Magazine also criticizes the proper interpretation of this verse when he writes:
| Islamic Voice Magazine states: | Below are the verses of Qur'an which in some companions' opinion and in the opinion of Shi'as, legitimize the Muta'.
"...All women other than these (described in 5:22,23) are lawful to you, provided you seek them with your wealth (Mehar) in modest conduct, not in fornication. Give them their Mehar as a duty for the 'ISTAMTA' (benefit) you have had with them."(5:24)
The relevant Arabic word in the above verse is 'Famastamta'tum' which means, 'when you have had benefited with them'. Those favouring the Muta' translate it as 'when you had made Muta' with them'. There is one clear proof in Qur'an that they are mistaken. This particular word has been used as it is in two other verses of Qur'an viz 9:69 and 46:20. I am presenting the translation of one of these. You can check the other verse yourself. First, see the translation of the verse preceding 9:69 so that the context could be known that the description is of hypocrites.
"Allah has promised the hypocrites, both men and women, and the unbelievers, the fire of Hell. They shall abide in it. It is sufficient for them; theirs shall be a lasting torment". (9:68)
And now, the next verse with the actual translation of the relevant word in question:
"As in the case of those before you, they were mightier than you and had greater riches and more children. They had BENEFITED from their portion and you have BENEFITED from yours as did those before you. You indulge in idle talk as they did. They! Their works are fruitless in this world and in the Hereafter, and they are the losers". (9:69)
I am again reproducing the same verse below but this time I am putting the word Muta' in the translation of the word FAMASTAMTA'TUM, which Shias claim to mean Muta', the same word, which occurred in (5:24
"As in the case of those before you, they were mightier than you and had greater riches and more children. They had their portion of Muta' and you have had your portion of Muta' as did those before you. You indulge in idle talk as they did. They! Their works are fruitless in this world and in the Hereafter, and they are the losers". (9:69)
I have no hesitation in saying that those companions who against the opinion of other companions thought that the verse (5:24) of Qur'an authenticated Muta', erred in its interpretation. |
Salamah, then, has (in the midst of his confusion) accidentally made the same point that the Shi'as do: that this verse does not merely refer to the physical act of sexual enjoyment. However, Salamah does not seem to go on and ever say what it does mean. The root m-t-' has a great number of meanings, some of which are listed by Ayatullah Maghniyah in his Fiqh al-Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq:
Mut'ah has many meanings. In some cases it may mean to take benefit, such as when Allah (swt) refers to "They take the benefits of the worldly life." It may refer to increase, or it may refer to remaining, such as when He says: "He let them remain for a while." It may also refer to a gift, such as when He, Blessed be His Names, says: "They are gifted of knowledge." As far as the legal scholars, they talk about Mut'ah in the meaning of a gift, in the sense of what they make obligatory on a man who has married a woman without specifying a dowry, and then divorces her before having sexual relations. They would necessitate that the divorced woman be a gift that is appropriate for his economic status. This is based upon the ayat 236 of Surah al-Baqara: "There is no sin on you that you divorce women whom who you have not touched, and that you give them a gift (Mut'ah), the rich man based on his ability, and the poor based on his ability, a righteous gift which is a right over the pure ones." They also talk about Mut'ah in terms of hajj, which we have discussed elsewhere. Alongside of these uses, the scholars of law talk about Mut'ah in terms of a fixed-time marriage. There is universal consensus amongst Sunni and Shi'a scholars that Islam has legislated this, and that the Prophet (s) made this permissible. This is based upon ayat 24 of Surat an-Nisa': "When you have done Mut'ah with them, so give them the agreed upon dowry."
Reference at Mutah.com
The Hans-Wehr dictionary gives the following meanings for the root m-t-':
"Verbal form: to carry away, take away; to be strong, firm, sold…To make enjoy; to furnish, equip supply; to give as a compensation…to gratify the eye; to make enjoy, to have the usufruct; to be blessed and to enjoy, savour, relish"
Noun form: enjoyment, pleasure, delight, gratification; recreation; compensation paid to a divorced woman; Muta'h, temporary marriage, usufruct marriage contracted for a specified time".
Hans Wehr dictionary, p. 1045
Now, given that this verse comes in the context of marriage, it can only mean one of three things:
- Enjoyment, in the sense that it is used to refer to the sexual act itself
- Giving a woman her dowry or other compensation after divorce
- Temporary Marriage
The Wahabi author has already refuted those who argue that the use of the word istamta' means the first, because it is either contradictory or repetitive (depending on how one wants to look at it), and we have seen that it does not fit with the context of the overall Surah. As far as the second meaning, it is entirely prohibited by the verse, for otherwise we would have to translate it as:
"As for those women who you compensate, then compensate them."
Such a translation is obviously meaningless. As such, we can only predicate the meaning of the verb on the third meaning, i.e., temporary marriage.
The author makes another critical mistake as well:
| Dr Salamah states: | | It should be noted that the Qur'an continues with this statement: "So marry them with the permission of their families and give them their dowers according to what is reasonable." Such a case is only possible in a regular marriage since these conditions are not necessary in Mut'ah. |
Firstly, a large number of Shi'a Fuquha have argued that it is obligatory to seek the permission of parents for a temporary marriage with a virgin girl, so the author has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge with regards to Shi'a fiqh. Ayatullah Kho'i, for example, writes:
It is an obligatory precaution that an adult, mature, virgin girl seeks the permission of her father or paternal grandfather in her marriage.
Cf. Kho'i, Ibid. pp. 329-330
In any case, there is dispute on this issue amongst the Fuquha of the Shi'a, just as there is dispute about it amongst the Sunnis. But this verse has nothing to do with that, for the author has quoted the verse out of context. There is a gap between the verse of Mut'ah and this verse, where Allah (swt) says:
If any of you do not have the means to marry a chaste, believing woman, then take those handmaidens from whom your right hand possesses. Allah has full knowledge of your Faith. You are from one or another, so marry them with the permission of their people, and give them their compensation.
Al-Qur'an, Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 24
Allah (swt) uses the word Ahl, which means people or family. Now, since it is clear that this verse is referring to slave-women, it is clear that the word Ahl is referring to the owners of the slave-girls, and to this end Yusuf 'Ali has correctly translated it as:
Wed them with the leave of their owners.
As such, this verse has nothing to do with marriage between free parties. The beginning of the verse makes this clear:
If any of you do not have the means to marry a chaste, believing woman…
Clearly, then, this verse deals with people who cannot marry, and so has nothing to do with either Mut'ah or Nikah. Once again, it remains unclear what the point of the author's argument was: he seems to be implying that, since all the Shi'a supposedly believe that the permission of the guardian is not necessary in a temporary marriage (which, as we have seen, is not the case), than since this second verse mentions the condition of seeking the guardian's permission, it somehow proves that the first verse has nothing to do with temporary marriage. However, we have seen that a clear reading of the entire verse shows that it is entirely unrelated to marriage at all; the Qur'an has, in fact, moved on to a separate discussion at this point. If the Wahabi author chooses to disagree, then let him reference the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:
Allah said, those who do not have, (the means), financial capability (Wherewith to wed free believing women) meaning, free faithful, chaste women. (They may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess,) meaning, they are allowed to wed believing slave girls owned by the believers. (And Allah has full knowledge about your faith; you are one from another.) Allah knows the true reality and secrets of all things, but you people know only the apparent things. Allah then said, (Wed them with the permission of their own folk) indicating that the owner is responsible for the slave girl, and consequently, she cannot marry without his permission. The owner is also responsible for his male slave and they cannot wed without his permission. A hadith states, (Any male slave who marries without permission from his master, is a fornicator.)
Reference at Tafsir.com
It is then established, without a doubt, that Allah (swt) is referring to temporary marriage in the ayat al-Mut'ah. This is agreed upon by the Sunni Tafsir writers. If it does not refer to temporary marriage, the only thing it could refer to is the sexual act itself, something that the Wahabi author refutes! As such, this leaves only one possibility, namely that the Imams (as) as well as the Sunni Tafsir commentators were all correct in understanding this verse as referring to Mut'ah.
Sunni commentaries of the verse 4:24 prove that it refers to Mutah
The Wahabi author not only demonstrates his contempt for the Qur'an, but also his disregard for the Sunni Tafsir writers who have all agreed that this verse deals explicitly with Mut'ah and nothing else. We shall now cite 16 books of Ahl'ul Sunnah who testify from Companions it referred to Mut'ah. Sunni Ulama undoubtedly confirm that this verse refers to Mut'ah. As proof we have relied on the following Sunni texts:
- Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 1 page 20- commentary of Nisa
- Tafseer ibn Katheer, Volume 1 page 84
- Tafseer Tabari, Page 9 part 5
- Tafseer Fathul Qadeer, page 14
- Tafseer Gharib Qur'an, page 2 part 5
- Tafseer Qurtabi, Volume 5 page 60
- Tafseer Mu'alim al Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 63
- Tafseer Khazan, Volume 1 page 63 Ayat Mut'ah
- Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 95
- Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 2 page 140
- Tafseer Akham of Quran, Volume 2 page 45
- Tafseer Baydhawi, Volume 2 page 9
- Tafseer Haqqani, Volume 2 page 3
- Tafseer Ahmadi, Volume 1 page 10
- Tafseer Jama al Bayan, Volume 1 page 22
 Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3 page 18
We may quote some of these authors and their views on Mut'ah. Qadhi Thanaullah Paani Patti records in Tafseer Mazhari (Volume 3 page 18):
"According to a group, this verse refers to Mut'ah marriage, which means a marriage in which the both dowry and the time are specefied and when the specefied time expires, the woman gets free and there is no need of divorce and in order to be sure of the womb, waiting for one menstrual cycle is necessary"
On the next page we read:
Abdur Razak in Musnaf has narrated the statement of Atta through Ibn Juraij that Ibn Abbas still believed that Mutah is Halal and in his proof he used to cite this verse"
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3 page 19
We read in Tafseer Qurtubi:
وقال الجمهور : المراد نكاح المتعة الذي كان في صدر الإسلام
"The majority said that it refers to Nikah al-Mut'ah which existed during the beginning of Islam"
Tafseer Qurtubi, commentary of the verse 4:24
Fathul Qadeer:
وقال الجمهور: إن المراد بهذه الآية: نكاح المتعة الذي كان في صدر الإسلام
"The majority said that this verse refers to Nikah al-Mut'ah which existed during the beginning of Islam"
Tafseer Khazan:
قوم المراد من حكم الآية وهو نكاح المتعة
"A group said that the meaning of the verse is Nikah al-Mut'ah"
We read in Allamah Baghwi's authortiy wotk 'Tafseer Mu'alim al Tanzeel' popularly known as Tafseer Baghwi:
هو نكاح المتعة وهو أن ينكح امرأة إلى مدة
"This verse refers to Mut'ah Nikah, that is to perform Nikah for a specific period".
We read in Tafseer Beydhawi:
نزلت الآية في المتعة
"This verse was revealed regarding Mut'ah"
Imam of Deobandies Allamah Abu Muhamad Abdul Haq Haqqani states in 'Tafseer Haqqani':
This verse refers to Nikah al Mut'ah, which was permissible in the beginning of Islam then Sharyah deemed it Haram. And in the recitations of Abi bin Ka'ab, Ibn Abbas and Saeed bin Jubayr i.e۔ ila ajal al Musama (for a prescribed period) confirm this.
Tafseer Haqqani, Vol 2 page 3 (published in 1956, Deoband UP. India)
Ibn Katheer recorded the belief of famed Tabayee namely Mujahid:
وقال مجاهد : نزلت في نكاح المتعة
"Mujahid said that this (verse) revealed for mutah marriage"
Tafseer Ibn Katheer
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records the views of a great Tabaiyee, Ismaeel bin Abdulrahman al-Sedi (d. 127 H):
Narrated ibn Jarir from al-Sedi about the verse: ‘This is the Mutah, the man marries a woman on a condition of a specified period, if the period ends, neither he will be related to her nor she will be related to him, she has to perform istebra for what is in her womb, there is no inheriting between them, one of them inherit the other’
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 140
We have cited 16 books confirming that a verse regarding Mut'ah with women appears in the Qur'an. The Qur'anic evidence destroys Nasibi claims that there is no base for Mut'ah in the Quran, and the verdicts of these 16 Sunni 'ulama shall suffice to destroy the claims of these Nasibis. A further analysis of these texts also shows that the companions acknowledged that Mut'ah was originally permissible:
- Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 95
- Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Volume 1 page 84
- Tafseer Ruh al Maani, Volume 1 page 5
- Tafseer Gharab al Qur'an, p. 2 Part 5
- Tafseer Mu'alim al Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 20
- Tafseer Maarif al Qur'an, Volume 1 page 28
- Tafseer Muraghee. Volume 5 page 10 by A. Mustafa Muraghee
- Fatawa Abdul Hai, page 20
Tafseer Kabeer:
إنا لا ننكر أن المتعة كانت مباحة
"We don't deny that Mut'ah was Mubah".
Tafseer Ibn Katheer:
ولا شك أنه كان مشروعا في ابتداء الإسلام
"There is no doubt that in the start Mut'ah was Halal".
Tafseer Muraghee:
"In the beginning of Islam Mut'ah was allowed".
All of these texts point to a single, irrefutable fact: that Mut'ah was originally allowed in Islam. This has always been the common ruling of the Sunni 'ulama and it was not until the coming of the Wahabi movement that some began to doubt this issue. Furthermore, many Sunni 'ulama have argued that Mut'ah is a legitimate type of Nikah (marriage). For example:
- Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 5 page 36
- Tafseer Baydhawi, Volume 2 page 9
- Tafseer Jama al Bayan, Volume 1 page 66
- Tafseer Muraghee, page 1
For example, we read on the above-cited page of Tafseer Qurtubi:
"The majority said that it refers to the Nikah al-Mut'ah which existed during the beginning of Islam"
Tafseer Qurtubi, commentary of the verse 4:24
And we read in Tafseer Baydhawi:
وهي النكاح المؤقت بوقت معلوم
"Mut'ah is Nikah for a specefied time."
There can be no doubt that the Qur'an bears witness that Mut'ah was originally halaal. Supporting this are the actions of the Companions themselves Nasibi of course know this, but as is their habit prefer to deny this fact so as to keep their subjects living in ignorance. Here is Ansar.Org's response to this vicious Rafidi claim that appeared on the 'frequently asked questions' section:
| Ansar.Org states: | Question:
Salamon Alaykom,
I have heard that Zubayr Al-Sabilbi married Asma Bint Abu Bakr by Mut'ah Marriage and from this union were born, Abdalliih Ibin Zubayr and Urwah Ibin Zubayr
Is this correct?
So does this mean that Temporary marriage was being practiced even in the time of Aboobakr?
Please note that this is the daughter of Aboobakr that is engaged, so it does not make sense to say maybe Aboobakr was not aware of this marriage.
Will appreciate a sufficient reply
Answer:
Wa alikum assalam wa rahmatullah wa baraktuh
First of all brother , Abdullah & Urwah are the sons of Alzubair ibn Al-Awwam not Zubayr Al-Sabilbi.
And there were not temporary marriage between Asma Bint Abu Bakr and anyone.
And for your information brother , Abdullah ibn Alzubair was very strict in the topic of Mutaa, he believe that it is haram and was very strict with the people who said it is halaal in his time.
So how comes he was born from A Mutaa ( Temporary marrige )?!
As I said brother before , Shia used to lie sometimes to prove that they are correct! |
One wonders 'why' these Nasibi make such confident assertions, when ample material exists confirming that Asma did indeed contract Mut'ah with Zubayr and her two sons Urwa and Abdullah were indeed the products of this union. This Nasibi should know that the 'lie to prove that we are correct' for Asma's Mut'ah is discussed in the following Sunni sources:
- Talkhees al Habeer fi Takhreej ahadeeth al Rafa al Kabeer, Volume 3 page 159 Topic 1506 (printed Cairo)
- Musnad Abu Dawood al Tayaalsi, Volume 7 Page 227 (printed in Hyderabad)
- Sunan Kabeera by Imam Nasai Volume 3 page 326 Tradition 5540
- Muajam al-Kabir by Imam Tabarani, Vol 24 page 103 Tradition 277
- Muntaha al M'abood al Tarteeb Musnad Abu Dawood, Volume 1, Page 309 (Printed Beirut)
- Neel al Autar by Imam Showkani, Volume 6 page 194
- Aqd al Fareed, Volume 3, Page 157
- Tuhfatul Ashraaf by Imam Jamaluddin Mizi, Vol 13 page 152 Tradition 15734
- Sharh Muwatta by Imam Zarqani, Volume 3 page 153
- Tafseer al-Mazhari, Surah an-Nisa, Page 74
- Sharh Ibn al Hadeed, Volume 4 page 75
- Al-Muhazraat, Volume 3 page 14
- Murujh al Dhahab, Volume 3 page 90 Dhikr Mu'awiya bin Yazeed
Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani in 'Talkhees al Habeer fi Takhreej al Hadeeth al Rafa al Kabeer' Volume 3 page 159 (printed Cairo) narrates as follows:
"After the death of Holy Prophet [s], a group of Salaf deemed it Halal. Amongst the Sahaba they were Asma bint Abi Bakr, Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibn Masood, Ibn Abbas, Mu'awiya, Amro bin Huraith, Abo Saeed, Salama and Mu'abed-the sons of Umaya bin Khalaf. He said that Jabir reported from the companions that (it was valid) during the reign of the Prophet, Abubakr and some part of Umar's reign. He said that it is reported from Umar that he forbade it only if there were not two just witnesses. Some of Tab'een deemed (it halal) such as Tawous, Atta, Saeed bin Jubair and the majority of the jurists of Makka."
Moreover we read:
"What has been reported from Asma, al-Nesa'i narrates it from Muslim Quri: 'We went before Asma bint Abu Bakr and we asked her about Mut'ah al-Nisa, she replied: 'I performed this Mut'ah during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s)''
http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=101&DocID=51&ParagraphID=1206&Diacratic=1
Download book from www.almeshkat.net (Volume 3 No. 1506)
Imam Shokani in his book 'Neel al-Autar' has also relied on the list of Sahabah and Tabayeen provided by Imam Ibn Hazam who deemed Mutah to be permissible which includes Asma bint Abu Bakar (as quoted by Ibn Hajar Asqalani). Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Baqi bin Yusuf al-Zarqani in his commentary of Muwatta of Imam Malik, also provided the names of Sahabah who believed in the legitimacy of Mutah:
ثبت الجواز عن جمع من الصحابة كجابر وابن مسعود وأبي سعيد ومعاوية وأسماء بنت أبي بكر وابن عباس وعمرو بن الحويرث وسلمة، وعن جماعة من التابعين
"Its permissibility is proved from a group of companions such as Jabir, Ibn Masoud, Abi Saeed, Mu'awiya, Asma bint Abi Bakr, Ibn Abbas, Amro bin Huraith, Salamah and also from a group of Tabyeen."
Download Sharah Zarqani from almeshkat.com (Volume 3 page 153)
In the version of Musnad Abu Dawood available on the internet, the tradition can be read in Volume 5 page 48 Tradition 1731:
حدثنا يونس قال : حدثنا أبو داود قال : حدثنا شعبة ، عن مسلم القري ، قال : دخلنا على أسماء بنت أبي بكر ، فسألناها عن متعة النساء ، فقالت : « فعلناها على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
"We came to Asma Bint Abu Bakr and asked her about Mut'ah with women. She said: 'We performed this during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s)'".
Musnad Abu Dawood al-Tayaalsi, Volume 5 page 48 Tradition 1731
All the narrators in this chain are authentic. Yunus bin Habib: Imam Dahabi said: 'Hujjah' (Siar alam alnubala, v12 p596), Imam Abu Hatim Razi said: 'Thiqa' (Al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel, v9 p237). Abu Dawood al-Teyaalsi: Dahabi said: 'One of the celebrites of Hufaz' (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p351), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: 'Thiqa' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p384).Shu'aba bin al-Hajaj: Dahabi said: 'Thabt Hujjah' (Al-Kashef, v1 p485), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: 'Thiqa' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p418). Muslim bin Makhraq al-Abdi al-Quri: Dahabi said: 'authenticated' (Al-Kashef, v2 p260), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: 'Thiqa' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p180).
We read in Tafseer Mazhari:
Amongst the Sahaba exist a group that believed in the legitimacy of Mut'ah. Nasai and Tahawi have stated that Asma [ra] Bint Sidiq Akbar [ra] said: "We practised it during the life of Rasulullah(s)."
Tafseer al-Mazhari, Surah an-Nisa, Page 74
If anyone is a pioneer/groundbreaker in a field we have to admire them, no matter who they are. Some Muslims at that time would have no doubt had concerns that their women would become rendered useless through this practise. Fortunately a woman from an upstanding household of Abu Bakr ventured out and offered herself to the Muslim males. Ansar.Org had posed this amazing rhetorical question:
| Ansar.org | | And for your information brother, Abdullah ibn Alzubair was very strict in the topic of Mutaa, he believe that it is haram and was very strict with the people who said it is halaal in his time. So how comes he was born from A Mutaa ( Temporary marrige )?! |
What great logic! Does the Nasibi author want to suggest that Ibn Zubayr prior to his conception appeared in his mothers dream and asked that she steer clear of Nikah al Mutah as he would deem it impermissible in the future?
Mu'awiya and Amr ibn al Aas were the products of a union between their mothers and several men. All because they were born in such a manner does not automatically mean they liked this type of conception, or that they believed in its legitimacy! The 'honest' scholar is correct. Ibn Zubayr was indeed opposed to Mut'ah, and he voiced his opposition to it when debating with Ibn Abbas. What this man of truth has forgotten to tell his adherent is the fact that the same Ibn Abbas managed to silence Ibn Zubayr by informing him that he was the product of Mut'ah, as can be evidenced in your esteemed Sunni works. Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah al-Raghib al-Isfahani reported in Muhazraat, Volume 2 page 96:
"Ibn Zubair denounced Ibn Abbas for his opinion on Mut'ah. Thus Ibn Abbas told him: "Go and ask your mother what she did with your father." When Ibn Zubair asked her, she said: "By God, I did not conceive you except through Mut'ah".
Indeed, both of Abu Bakr's daughters believed that Mut'ah was halaal. We read in Ahl as-Sunnah's authority work Sahih Muslim, Sharh Nawawi, Volume 4 page 189 on Nikah Mut'ah:
طائفة يسيرة من السلف فقد روى عن بن عباس وعائشة وبعض السلف اباحته
"With the exception of a few groups of the Salaf, it has been narrated from Ibn Abbas, Ayesha and other of Salaf that it is lawful"
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=3222
So we come to know that one daughter of Abu Bakar issued a fatwa in connection with the lawfulness of Nikah al Mutah while the other one personally performed it. Despite such clear evidence some modern day adherents of Mu'awiya have decided to rewrite history all together, by denying that Mut'ah was ever allowed in Islam! Take the Fatwa on Mut'ah by the Deobandi Madrassa 'Darul-Iftah Jamia Ashrafia', based in Lahore, Pakistan. In response to a query on Mut'ah this is the Fatwa they give
| Darul Iftah states: | Assalaam o Alaikum
MUTTA has been declared HARAAM from the very outset of Islam. The usual MUTA, in force amongst AHL-E-TASHEE, was never permitted in Islam. This wicked thing was in vogue before Islam in the dark ages. (Ahsan ul Fatawa page 42 Vol. 5) Hazrat Shah Abdul Aziz has refuted the permission of MUTA from the very beginning of Islam. (Ahsan ul Fatawa page 52 Vol. 5)
|
The falsity of such a fatwa is clear when we have testimony of the Sahaba that Mut'ah was allowed and they practised it accordingly, claims that exists in works such as Sahih al Bukhari! Clearly this revision has history has been created with the sole of objective of defaming the Shi'a, we are in doubt that this Nasibi Mullah is fully aware that the vast number of Sunni 'ulama (the clear majority) have all argued that Mut'ah was originally halaal. It is unfortunate to see that this Deobandi mullah is not even aware of the comments of his late Imam Allamah Abu Muhamad Abdul Haq Haqqani. Regarding verse 4 of Surah Nisa Haqqani recorded:
"This verse refers to Nikah al Mut'ah, which was permissible in the beginning of Islam then Sharyah deemed it Haram. And in the recitation of Abi bin Ka`ab, Ibn Abbas and Saeed bin Jubayr i.e۔ ila ajal al Musama (for a prescribed period) confirms this. Mutah is a type of Nikah in which man keeps a woman for a prescribed period with a prescribed amount and its acceptance from both sides is also a condition therefore it is useless to call it prostitution… Some Ulema have said that Mutah is still valid just like among Sahabah Ibn Abbas and Imran bin Hussain, they say that this woman is also a wife"
Tafseer Haqqani, Vol 2 pages 3-4 (published in 1956, Deoband UP. India)
If according to the above quoted website Mutah was Haram from the very beginning then what views will such people maintain about Sahabah like Ibn Abbas and Imran bin Hussain and Ulema of their sect as Allamah Haqqani pointed who deemed Mutah to be Halal?
For further evidence we shall rely on the following Sunni sources:
- Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 4 page 41
- Tafseer Gharab al Qur'an, Volume 5 page 5
- Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 5 page 132
- Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Volume 1 page 474
- Tafseer Murghanee, Volume 5 page 8
- Tafseer Waheedi, page 107
- Tafseer Tarjamun 'ul Qur'an, Volume 1 page 624 part 5
- Tafseer Baydhawi, Volume 2 page 79
- Tafseer Fathul Qadeer, Volume 1 page 414
- Tafseer Zia ul Qur'an, Volume 1 page 134
- Tafseer Haqqani, Volume 2 page 6
- Fathul Bari fi Sharh Bukhari, Volume 9 page 173
- Sharh Muslim, by Nawawi Volume 1 page 150
- Au Jaza al Masalik fi Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik, Volume 9 page 404
- al Muhalla, Volume 9 page 519 by Ibn Hazm
- Ma'alim al Sunan ma Mukhthasar Sunan Abi Daud, Volume 3 page 18
- Neel al Autar, Volume 6 page 153
- Sharh Zurqani, Volume 3 page 152, Dhikr Mut'ah
- Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 6 page 220
- Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 205
We read in Tafseer Kabeer:
واتفقوا على أنها كانت مباحة في ابتداء الاسلام
There is no doubt that at the beginning of Islam, Mut'ah was permissible.
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 4 page 41
We read in Tafseer Murghanee:
At the beginning of Islam, Mut'ah was permissible.
We read in Tafseer Gharab al Qur'an:
The scholars are in agreement that in the beginning of Islam, Mut'ah was Mubah.
We read in Tafseer Fathul Qadeer:
وقال الجمهور: إن المراد بهذه الآية: نكاح المتعة الذي كان في صدر الإسلام
"The majority said that this verse refers to Nikah al-Mut'ah which existed during the beginning of Islam"
Tafseer Qurtubi:
"The majority said that it refers to the mutah marriage which existed during the beginning of Islam"
Tafseer Waheedi:
Many 'ulama have said that when Islam started Mut'ah was allowed.
Great anti Shi'a scholar Peer Karam Shah in Zi'a ul Qur'an stated:
Mut'ah was declared haram at the time of the farewell pilgrimage.
We read in Fath ul Bari:
The permissibility to practise Mut'ah was endorsed by the early scholars and this is proven.
In Sharh Muslim:
The permissibility to practice Mut'ah at the beginning of Islam is proven.
In al Muhalla:
Nikah Mut'ah was halaal during the lifetime of the Prophet.
In Ma'alim al Sunan:
At the start of Islam Mut'ah was Mubah.
Unfortunately, some 'scholars' have dispensed with centuries of Sunni scholarship and begun to argue against all of these 'ulama. Hanafi author, Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi, gives another strange and hitherto unheard of Tafsir of this ayat:
| Muhammad Shafi states: | The root of the Arabic word, istimta' is ? - ? - ? (meem, taa, 'ain) which means to derive benefit. Any benefit derived from a person or from wealth, property, assets, etc. is called istimta'. According to Arabic grammar, the addition of the letters ? (seen) and ? (taa) to the root of any word gives the meaning of seeking. Based on this lexical explanation, the simple and straight sense of the Qur'anic expression, Istamta'tum (you have benefited), as understood by the entire Muslim Ummah from the revered early elders to their successors and followers, is just what we have stated a little earlier. But, a sect [1] says that it means the conventional Mut'ah and, according to its adherents, this Ayat proves that Mut'ah is halaal (lawful). Therefore, it is pertinent here to give a brief account of Mut'ah and its unlawfulness.
Mut'ah, which was in vogue before the advent of Islam, was a temporary contract between a man and a woman for having sexual relationship between them for a specified period in exchange of money or a specified kind offered by the man to the woman. This type of contract, which was never meant to create permanent rights and obligations of marriage, was clearly prohibited by the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah; however, this particular sect claims that it is still halaal. They sometimes seek support to this claim from the present Ayat just on the ground that the word Mut'ah has been derived from the same root wherefrom the word Istamta'tum used in this Ayat has been derived. Obviously, this argument is too far-fetched, and the present Ayat itself is sufficient to refute it, because before the word, Istamta'tum, Allah uses the words "binding yourself in marriage and not only for lust," which clearly prove that the sexual relationship approved by Allah (in the Holy Qur'an) is the only one which aims at chastity through the permanent bond of marriage, and not a relationship based on satisfying lust for a temporary period which has been termed by the Holy Qur'an as flowing water.
Now, it is obvious that the contract of Mut'ah has nothing to do with this concept. It neither creates permanent rights and obligations, nor does it bring about a family set-up, nor does it aim at having children and maintain chastity. It is nothing but to satisfy the sexual desire for a short period of time
|
This Mufti's arguments are so badly written it is difficult to understand what he means in some places (the "flowing water" reference, for example). In any case, if the meanings of his arguments are vague, the flaws in his argument are obvious. As far as his translation of the verse, he says that the words istimta'tum means "to take benefit," and this is how it has always been understood. We have already seen that the great Sunni Tafsir writers did not understand the verse this way, and so "Maulana" Shafi's comments that this verse has "always" been understood by all generations as referring to the "taking of benefit" is entirely invalid.
In any case, if this is the meaning of the verse under discussion, than the Wahabi must provide an answer as to what benefit is being taken. It is not enough to merely say that this verse means "to take benefit." The verse is giving several different hukms (ruling) on Islamic Law, and in order for us to be able to know and understand what those rulings are, we would have to understand what benefit is being referred to here, i.e. what benefit the husband must compensate his wife for. However, this is not made clear in the verse: and so if we deny that the words istimta'tum refers to Mut'ah and say that it refers to a general taking of benefit, then we really have no idea what Allah (swt) is telling us here. As such, if we accept Shafi's translation, then we must say that this verse has no meaning and that we cannot possibly decipher what it refers to.
This is because of the way the verse has been written: Fama istimta'tum bi minhun fatuhunna ujurahunn. This line of the verse begins with the words Fa and Ma, meaning "So" and "What." As such, if we were to accept Muhammad Shafi's translation, the verse would mean "And so from what you have taken benefit from them, give them their rewards." If istimta'tum means to take benefit, then we would have to understand the verse as being an order to compensate your wives for the benefit that one takes from them. However, we would have to then ask: Which benefit? Since the ayat is unconditional (mutlaq), we would therefore have to assume any benefit. Does a husband, therefore, have to pay his wife for sex? Does he have to pay her for having children? What does he have to pay her for, and what does he not have to pay her for? If we accept Shafi's idea that the word istimta'tum means taking any benefit, than this would mean that a husband would be obligated to pay his wife for every task that she does. It would, therefore, be obligatory for a man to pay his wife for sex, since this would fall under the classification of "taking benefit." As such, we see that after this Wahabi condemns Mut'ah for being a type of prostitution, he then gives a Tafsir of the Qur'an that makes prostitution (the paying of money for sex) obligatory in marriage. What hypocrisy!
However, if we understand the words as referring to Mut'ah (as have all the Shi'a and Sunni 'ulama through history), then we do not have this problem: the verse refers to the obligation of paying the ajr, or the dowry, to the temporary wife.
Furthermore, his argument that the verses "binding yourself in marriage and not only for lust" indicate that the verse does not have anything to do with Mut'ah is entirely invalid, for the simple reason that no such verse exists. Rather, this translation is an example of Wahabi distortion (tahreef) in the Holy Qur'an. The word lust does not occur in this verse. Rather, the word used is musafiheen, and the Qur'an tells the believers that they should seek marriage as muhsineen and not as musafiheen. The word muhsineen in this context refers to those who keep themselves chaste, who protect themselves from fornication through marriage. The word musafiheen refers to prostitution or fornication. The word "lust" does not occur anywhere here, and so the believers are not being told to avoid their lust, but rather that they should satisfy their sexual desires through halaal ways. Since Mut'ah is one of these halaal ways, it does not qualify as fornication.
However, if the Wahabi author believes that this verse is telling believers not to satisfy their sexual desires, then this would obviously mean that all marriage is haram, as well as concubinage. Does the Maulana really believe that it is haram for a husband and wife to engage in sexual relations solely for the sake of sexual desire? If Maulana Shafi really believes that this ayat is a prohibition on satisfying one's sexual desires, than he should probably contemplate a change of religion from Islam to Christianity. The idea that it is wrong to engage in marriage for the sake of sexual desire has nothing to do with Islam, and the tired moralism of anti-Mut'ah Wahabis is something truly foreign to Islam. Maulana Shafi seems to believe that the only purpose for marriage is to establish a family. According to his logic, then, it is not permissible to marry a barren woman who cannot have children, since sexual relations with her would only be for the sake of sexual desire and not for the sake of having children.
The Sunni concept of 'marriage with the intention of divorce'
Furthermore, if this ayat is a prohibition on marrying for the sake of sexual relations, then what does Maulana Shafi have to say about this fatwa of the late Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabi, Shaykh Bin Baz:
Someone asked him: In one of your tapes, you have a fatwa that it is permissible for someone in a Western country to get married with the intention of getting divorced after a specific period…What is the difference between this and between Mut'ah?
Response: Yes, this fatwa has come from Permanent Council (of Muftis), and I am its leader, and we have ruled that it is permissible to marry with the intention of getting divorced [i.e. Deceiving the girl by not telling her about your Intention of divorcing her later[, if this intention [of Deceiving] is between the servant and his Lord. If someone marries in a Western country, and his intention is that when he finishes his studies or finds a job or something like this that he will get divorced, then there is absolutely no problem with this in the opinion of all 'ulama. This intention is something between the servant and Allah, and is not a condition. The difference between this and Mut'ah is that Mut'ah has the condition of a definite time period, such as a month or two months or a year or two years and so forth. If the time period fends, then the Nikah is abrogated. This is the invalid form Mut'ah. However, if somebody marries according to the Sunnah of Allah and the Prophet, but he nonetheless holds the intention [of deception] in his heart that when he leaves the (Western) country he will divorce, then there is no harm it. This intention might change, and so it is not something definite. This intention is not a condition, and it is something between the servant and his Lord. There is no harm in it, and it is one of the ways that a person may remain chaste and avoid fornication and debauchery. This is the statement of all people of knowledge.
Reference at BinBaz.com
Note:Brackets used within are from ourside in order to make our point clear to the readers.
If someone suggests that it was only the esteemed Salafi Shaykh Bin Baz that came up with this thought then allow us to present the edicts from the great Hanafi work 'Fatawa Alamgiri':
ولو تزوجها مطلقا وفي نيته أن يقعد معها مدة نواها فالنكاح صحيح
"If he performed mutlaq marriage with her but his intention is to stay with her for a prescribed period, the marriage is correct"
Online Fatwa Alamgiri
Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 2 page 155
We also read:
ولو تزوجها على أن يطلق بعد شهر فإنه جائز
"Though he married her on a condition to divorce her after one month, the marriage is valid"
Online Fatwa Alamgiri
Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 2 page 155
In another authority Hanafi work 'Al-Hidayah' Volume 1 page 186 we read the views of famed Hanafi scholar Zafar bin al-Hazeel al-Basri (d. 158 H) about a marriage of prescribed time:
"Temporary marriage is Batil, this is where a man and woman get married by the testimony of two witnesses until ten days, Zafar has commented that this type of Nikah is correct (sahih), because Nikah does not become batil with the incorrect conditions."
Note: So we see that whether or not the condition of a prescribed time for Nikah is considered correct or not in the Hanafi fiqh such a Nikah remain valid and will not be deemed fornication as our opponents suggest.
Comments
Why is it our opponents who bark at the concept of Nikah-Mutah deeming it adultery because the man and woman seperate (divorce) after a prescribed time remain silent at their schools' belief about "The marriage with the intention of divorce"? Can they explain how this differs from Nikah al-Mutah? The only difference we find is that Nikah al-Mutah is done with mutual agreement and it has a basis in Islam which is why the Sahabah and Tabaeen accordingly performed it, while the Sunni belief of "The marriage with the intention of divorce" is nothing but an innovated deception which has no Islamic basis!
If a man lies to a woman and promises her a permanent marriage, has sex with her and then divorces her one-hour later, this is fine. But if a man and woman actually agree together that the marriage is only to last for a certain time, then the Nikah is invalid and is adultery. What logic!
Is there any other objective behind marriage with the intent of divorce other than seeking to satisfy one's sexual desire? According to Maulana Shafi, such an intention is entirely haram, so if we accept his logic, than Shaykh Bin Baz and their Hanafi brethren must have been the great advocates of fornication.
If this discussion makes anything clear, it is that the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) clearly need to find somebody with more experience and knowledge in Tafsir to comment on these verses.
Nasibi's attempt to prove Mutah is Haram by incorrectly translating/interpretating verse 4:24
A very interesting situation occurs when Nasibies try to prove that this verse 4:24 does not legitimise Mutah Marriage, they wrongly translate/interpretate it the conclude that the verse in fact proves that Mutah Marriage is Haram. Let us first give their translation and then their interpretation:
[Yusufali 4:24]
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust(Ghair Musafihin).
The literal meaning of word "Musafihin" is "Spilling of Semen". See, spilling of semen is involved in in all kind of sexual relations irrespective of own wife, or slave woman or prostitute. When this spilling of semen is done according to rules and regulations prescribed by Sharia, then it is Halal. And when it is done against these rules and regulations, then it is Haram and is tantamount to Zina.
Therefore, here the word "Musafihin" means "Spilling of semen in Haram ways" [i.e. Zina aka fornication]. We don't know on what basis Nasibies deem it to be "LUST" and their further claim that while Mutah is done in order to satisfy sexual lust, this verse prohibits Mutah marriage.
Such efforts demonstrate the worst type of deception by Nasibies in order to prove Mutah to be Haram, they are playing with the verses of the Quran in order to achieve their evil wishes. We shall advance further arguments which will prove these enemies of Allah have played with the verses of the Quran.
Mutah was practiced long after the revelation of this verse
Surah Nisa was revealed in first years of Madinian period (see any Tafsir of Quran for time of revelation of this Surah. This was the time when the Islamic society was initially established in Madina and Sharia laws were revealed for nascent society.
As compared to this Surah, the whole Ummah is unanimous that Mutah was practised at least until 7th Hijri i.e. long after the revelation of this verse. It is therefore impossible to conclude that this verse made Mutah Haram. (We shall later on cite the names of various reound Sunni Uleme, who declared that this verse could not abrogate Mutah, as Mutah was practiced till long after it's revelation). Hence, this verse was recited by Rasul Allah (saw) too, and he never took the literal meaning of "Musafihin" here and allowed/ordered the Sahaba and Sahabiat to contract Mutah marriage. Do the Ahle Sunnah understand the Quranic verses better than Rasul Allah (saw)?
Sexual relationship with Slave-women are 'only for lust' in Sunni Fiqh
If the Ahle Sunnah still insist that word "Musafihin" is used in literal meaning of lust, then they have to explain this tradition from Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (may Allah be pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them (by selling them). So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
This tradition of 'Azl could be found at many places in authentic Sunni Ahadith books. Moreover, this tradition also contradicts another Sunni claim that sexual relationship in Islam are only done in order to bear children. Ahle Sunnah also use this excuse in order to prove that Mutah Marriage is Haram since the objective is not to bear children. Actually they are entirely wrong as Mutah marriage can also be performed with the intention to bear children, and Nikah can be performed with the intention of having no children. That is why Sunni Fiqh allows impotent men to perform a Nikah even though they cannot procreate.
Why is the Lust of Misyar Marriage not Haram in Sunni Fiqh?
Misyar Marriage is allowed by Salafi Ulama in order to curtail sexual lust (even if your objective is to deceive the woman and you actually intend on divorcing her later). It is indeed strange logic that Mutah is Haram because it involves Lust, but Salafies can fulfil their lust through Misyar Marriage even if it is accompanied by deception!
We hope and pray that our readers are able to see the contradictions in relation to the Sunni interpretation of this verse. We end this topic by quoting Imam Fakhar-ud-Din Razi, who wrote under the explanation of this verse:
"... Mutah marriage does not fall under Safah (root form of word Musafihin), while Mutah marriage is done right from beginning under the rules and regulations which are revealed by Allah".
Sunni Doubts as to the Correct Recitation of this Verse
Beyond these facts, we see that not only do the majority of Sunni 'ulama accept that this verse was revealed about Mut'ah, but a large majority also believe that there has been tahreef (change, distortion) in this verse in order to create confusion as to its real meaning. A number of Sunni hadeeth claim that this verse was read in a different way than it is today, in a way that makes it clear that it refers to Mut'ah. Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Abu Hayyan Andalusi in his book 'al Bahar al Maheet' Volume 3 page 218 states:
"Ubay ibn Ka'b, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Jubayr would read the verse with the words 'for a prescribed period'.
A number of Sunni Tafsir claim that the words "for a prescribed period" were read by the Sahaba when they recited this verse:
- Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 2 pages 140-141
- Tafseer Tabari, Volume 5 pages 14-15
- Fathul Qadeer, Volume 1 page 14
- Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Volume 1 page 84
- Tafseer Ruh al Maani, Volume 5 page 5
- Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 1 page 20
- Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3 page 19
- Tafseer Ahkam al Quran, Volume 2 page 47
- Tafseer Mu'alim al Tanzeel, page 414
- Mustadrak Al Hakim, volume 2 page 47
- Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani, page 3
- Tafseer Mawahib al Rahman, page 4 part 5
- Tafseer Haqqani, Vol 2 page 3 (published in 1956, Deoband UP. India)
- Tafseer Jama Al Bayan, Volume 1 page 66
- Neel al Autar, Volume 6 page 53 Chapter: The abrogation of Nikah al-Mutah
- Tafseer Qurtabi, Volume 5 page 30
- Zarqani Sharh Muwatta, Volume 1 page 54
- Kitab al Musahaf, page 342
- Al Bahar al Maheet, Volume 3 page 218
- Maini al-Quran, Volume 2 page 61
In later chapters when pages of sources are not mentioned then we are referring to references from above pages.
Specifically, the companion Abdullah ibn Masu'd is cited as reading the verse on Mut'ah with the additional words 'for a prescribed period' confirming its legitimacy, as well as testifying to tahreef in Uthman's compiled Quran. This is cited in the following sources:
- Tafseer Manar, Volume 5 page 5
- Tafseer Jama al Bayan, Volume 6 page 9
- Tafseer Ruh al-Ma'ani, Volume 5 page 5
- Sharh Sahih Muslim of al-Nawawi, Volume 9 page 179
- Umdat al-Qari Shrah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 18 page 208
All of these sources agree that Ibn Masud would read the verse of "Istimatum" followed by the words 'for a prescribed period'. Can we conclude that these Sahaba were liars or were they suggesting that words were missing in the Quran collected by Uthman? The companion Ubay Ibn Ka'b is also said to have stated that the verse of Mut'ah included the words "for a prescribed period" and that the Companions remained silent when he recited the verse in this way.
Further evidences in this regard as are follows. Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Sulayman bin Ashash Sijistani the son of the author of Sunan Abu Daud in his renowned Sunni work 'al Musahaf' page 286 records as follows:
"Ubay bin Ka'b and Saeed bin Jabayr would read this verse with the words 'for a prescribed period'"
Allamah Baghwi records:
Ibn Abbas [ra] used to believe that the verse is muhkam (i.e. did not abrogate) and used to permit Mutah.
And it has been narrated from Abi Nadhra that he said: 'I asked Ibn Abbas [ra] about Mutah, he replied: 'Dont you read in Surah Nisa that 'ye derive benefit from them till specific period'?' I replied: 'I don’t recite it like that'. Ibn Abbas replied: 'Allah revealed it like this'. He repeated it thrice.
Tafseer Al Baghawi, Al Musami Mu'alim al Tanzeel, page 414
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records:
Narrated Abed bin Hamid, ibn Jarir, al-Anbari in his book al-Musahif and al-Hakem and he declared the chain as Sahih from Abi Nadhra who said: ‘I recited before Ibn Abbas ‘ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers’. Ibn Abbas said: ‘ye derive benefit from them for specific period’. I said: ‘We don’t recite it like this’. Ibn Abbas said: ‘By Allah it was revealed like that.’
Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 2 pages 140-141
This recital was also recorded in Tafseer Tabari, on the authority of Ibn Ka'ab:
Tafseer al-Tabari, pages 14 & 15
Qadhi Thanaullah Paani Patti (d. 1225) records:
Abdur Razak in Musnaf has narrated the statement of Atta through Ibn Juraij that Ibn Abbas still believed that Mutah is Halal and in his proof he used to cite this verse and Ibn Abbas also stated that according to Ubai bin Kaab's recitation of this verse, it also contain 'for the prescribed time'"
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3 page 19
Beside Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, Ibn Jubayr and Ubai bin Ka'ab, many other prominent figures likewise used to recite the verse with the words "to an appointed time" and that includes Al-Sedi (Tafseer Tabari v5 p18, Tafseer Ibn Kathir v1 p486), Talha bin Musraf (Tafsir Thalabi v3 p286) and Muqatel (Tafsir Samarqandi v1 p320, Al-Ujab fi bayan al-asbab by Ibn Hajar v2 p858).
We have seen that many narrations claim that Ibn Abbas recited the verse in a fashion that clearly refers to Mut'ah. The famous hadeeth narrator and scholar Al-Hakim Nisaburi in ‘Mustadrak’ Volume 2 page 334 recorded the recitation of Ibn Abbas i.e. with the words 'for a prescribed period' and graded the tradition to be a Sahih as per the grading conditions set by Imams Bukhari and Imam Muslim while Imam Dhahabi in his margin of ‘Mustadrak’ deemed it Sahih on the condition of Muslim. No Sunni can deny the status of Hakim within their sect; the famous scholar Shah Waliyullah graded Hakim as the mujadid (reviver of the faith, perhaps the highest praise that can be given to a Sunni 'alim by his community) in the fourth century. In Izalathul Khifa p. 77 part 7, al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah stated:
A Mujadid appears at the end of every century: The Mujtahid of the 1st century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah, Umar bin Abdul Aziz. The Mujadid of the 2nd century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Muhammad Idrees Shaari the Mujadid of the 3rd century was Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Abu Hasan Ashari the Mujadid of the 4rth century was Abu Abdullah Hakim Nishapuri.
The scholar Shah Abdul Aziz relied heavily upon those narrations, which Hakim considered Sahih. An example would be his argument, based upon a sahih narration of Hakim, that Abu Bakr was stung by a scorpion while in the cave with the Holy Prophet (s), and that this demonstrates his loyalty to the Prophet (s). Abdul Aziz uses this argument against the Shi'a. We read in Taufa Ithna Ashari p. 82, Part 15 Muthaeen Abu Bakr
"A scorpion stung Abu Bakr hard twice, Hakim narrated this and graded this as Sahih"
Now, if Abu Bakr's rank can be exalted by a Sahih narration in Mustadrak al Hakim as proof and can be advanced against the Shi'a, then by the same token we have narrated a tradition confirming the legitimacy of Mut'ah from the Quran narrated by Ibn Abbas with a Sahih chain recorded by the same Hakim. Is it not the height of intellectual dishonesty to rely upon one narration, and reject the other?
We have seen that many narration's claim that Ibn Abbas recited the verse in a fashion that clearly refers to Mut'ah. The famous hadeeth narrator and scholar Al-Hakim Nisaburi in 'Mustadrak' Volume 2 page 334 recorded the words of Ibn Abbas claiming that the verse of Mut'ah included the words 'for a prescribed period' and graded the tradition to be a Sahih as per the grading conditions set by Imams Bukhari and Imam Muslim while Imam Dhahabi in his margin of 'Mustadrak' deemed it Sahih on the condition of Muslim. No Sunni can deny the status of Hakim within their sect; the famous scholar Shah Waliyullah graded Hakim as the mujadid (reviver of the faith, perhaps the highest praise that can be given to a Sunni 'alim by his community) in the fourth century. In Izalathul Khifa p. 77 part 7, al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah stated:
"There are differences concerning the reciting of additional words [outside the Qur'anic verse], Qadhi Abu Tayib, and many other 'ulama held such recitals to be permissible, Imam Abu Hanifa also adhered to this school of thought".
Does Dr. Salamah claim that he is more knowledgeable than these companions are? We have seen that Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Ubai ibn Ka'b are listed as some of those companions that use to recite this verse in a way that made it clear that it referred to Mut'ah, and we read in Bukhari from one of the companions:
"I heard the Holy Prophet saying, 'Take (Learn) the Qur'an from four: Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh, and Ubai bin Ka'b'."
Sahih Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 6 hadith number 521
Now when these two great Sahaba both understood and recited the verse as referring to Mut'ah then what right does this Enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) have to claim it has nothing to do with Mut'ah? We have cited 16 Sunni texts confirming the verse "istimatum" referred to Mut'ah as well as 8 Sunni sources confirming that Mut'ah was halaal at the beginning of Islam. Despite this we read comments from the likes of Founding father of Sipah-e-Sahaba Haq Nawaz Jhangvi claiming:
| Jhangvi states: | | THE MUSLIMS MAINTAIN THAT THERE CAN BE NO REFERENCE TO SUCH A TEMPORARY MARRIAGE OF PLEASURE IN THE QUR'AN WHICH STANDS FOR MORAL EXCELLENCE AND DEALS ONLY WITH NIKAH OR REGULAR MARRIAGE, THE SHITTES CONTEND THAT THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THIS FORM OF MARRIAGE I.E. MUTA IN THE VERSE 24 OF SURAH AL-NISA. |
If to quote Jhangvi, Muslims do not ascribe to the view that no verse on Mut'ah exists in the Qur'an then what can we say of these 16 Sunni scholars who in their Tafseer's stated the verse referred to Mut'ah, were they kaffirs? And worse still what can we say of the great Sahaba such as Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b who believed that verse 24 of Surah Nisa referred to Mut'ah, were they Rafidi Kaffirs? Jhangvi has openly defamed three companions of Rasulullah (s) famed for their knowledge of the Qur'an. Since Sipah-e-Sahaba advocate that those that defame the companions of Rasulullah (s) are apostates, their modern day Ulema clearly need to pass an appropriate fatwa on their founder whose comments in effect suggest that three of the esteemed Sahaba were kaffirs as they believed that there was a verse on Mut'ah in the Qur'an!
We ask these Nasibi if Mut'ah is shameless fornication and is it in fact prostitution - did Rasulullah(s) allow his Companions to engage in shameless activity? Did the Sunni Ulama testify to fornication being halaal? Clearly not. There is, therefore, no doubt that the Holy Qur'an has acknowledged the permissibility of Mut'ah. Only a tiny handful of Sunni 'ulama have claimed that verse 4:24 does not deal with Mut'ah, and we (as well as the Dr Salamah!) have firmly established that the verse does deal with the subject of Mut'ah.
Quality of Sunni 'Ulama Ruling on the Impermissibility of Mut'ah
We may also take a brief look at the quality of the Sunni 'ulama writing on this issue:
| Nida ul Islam magazine: | After the opinions of the four Mazahib, we report the opinions of scholars from other Mazahib below.
Ibn Hazm said, "temporary marriage is not permitted; this is a fixed marriage which was permitted at the time of the Messenger (saww.), then Allah superseded it through His Messenger (saww.) until the day of resurrection."
Imam Shawkany: "We worship in accordance with what we learnt from the Messenger (saww.), and we have ascertained the authenticity of his eternal prohibition of temporary marriage. The fact that some companions were not aware of this does not negate the large number of companions who were aware and who have acted upon the prohibition and proclaimed it."
Qady 'Ayyad said: "The scholars reached consensus that temporary marriage was a marriage for a term with no inheritance, its separation at the expiry of the term without dispute, the consensus after this was that it was prohibited according to all the scholars with the exception of the rejecters. Ibn 'Abbas allowed it until he became aware of the prohibition and then forbade it and said: "If temporary marriage takes place now, it is void regardless of whether it had been consummated or not."
Imam Nawawy said: "The truth of the matter is that it was permitted and prohibited on two occasions. It was permitted before Khayber, then prohibited, then permitted on the day of liberation, the day of Awtas, then prohibited forever after three days of the event." |
Notice how the discussion begins: "We report the opinions of scholars from other Mazahib," i.e., from other than the four official schools of thought in Sunni Islam (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali). Yet according to the standard Sunni view, anybody who is outside the four madhabs is a disbeliever. This is one of the main accusations made against the Shi'a, i.e., that they have split off from the Jamaa'ah (the majority) and are therefore outside of Islam. Yet in spite of that, this Wahabi has no problem quoting the opinion of these 'ulama who, according to him, are outside of the four schools of thought. Is this justice, or is this the work of somebody who is taking an entirely bigoted approach to Shi'ism and the issue of Mut'ah?
Conclusion
When our detractors amongst Ahl as-Sunnah want to attack the Shi'a, they seek to describe Mut'ah as prostitution. Such insults are a sickening practice that is insulting to the Prophet (s), for we have proven that Mut'ah was both permitted in the Qur'an and practised widely by the Muslims during his (s) time. In Sharh Nawawi, Volume 1 p. 102 on Nikah Mut'ah we also learn that Ayesha gave the same fatwa as the Shi'a on Mut'ah. Hence, the train of insult and abuse which is thrown at the Shi'a of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) should also fall onto Ayesha and her sister Asma. If Mut'ah is prostitution then Ahl as-Sunnah need to apply an appropriate fatwa to the daughters of Abu Bakr, both of whom believed in Mut'ah, and especially on 'Asma who practised it. This is not reasonable, but such unintentional slanders against the wife and sister-in-law of the Prophet (s) are the results of bigoted attacks on Mut'ah, attacks which have no basis in Qur'an, Sunnah, or reason.
|
Mut'ah, a comprehensive guide
Original articles against Mut'ah
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3 page 18
Tafseer Haqqani, Vol 2 page 3 (published in 1956, Deoband UP. India) 
Musnad Abu Dawood al Tayaalsi, Volume 7 Page 227 (printed in Hyderabad)
Muntaha al M'abood al Tarteeb Musnad Abu Dawood, Volume 1, Page 309 (Printed Beirut)
Aqd al Fareed, Volume 3, Page 157
Tafseer al-Mazhari, Surah an-Nisa, Page 74
Tafseer Haqqani, Vol 2 pages 3-4 (published in 1956, Deoband UP. India)
Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 2 page 155
Fatwa Alamgiri, Volume 2 page 155
Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 2 pages 140-141
Tafseer Tabari, Volume 5 pages 14-15
Tafseer Mu'alim al Tanzeel, page 414