Nikah Al-Mut’ah, Zina or Sunnah?

8. Sunni Athar Misused About Mut’ah ===================================

There are a few reports in the Sunni books, which some from the Ahl al-Sunnah quote to “prove” that certain Sahabah and Tabi’in later abandoned their positive views of mut’ah. Generally, the views of the Sahabah and others are of zero value in determining the morality and permissibility of anything in Islam.

What matters to a Muslim is only what his Lord says. Of course, Allah has revealed the Verse of al-Mut’ah in His Book, and that ayah is still unabrogated till this very moment. With this fact, nothing else matters to us. Yet, we will look at the reports about the alleged reversal of certain Sahabah and Tabi’in on mut’ah. This is primarily to ensure that history is not distorted.

Athar One

Imam Abu ‘Awanah (d. 316 H) records:

Yusuf – Ibn Shihab:

I heard al-Rabi’ b. Sabrah narrating to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz [while I was sitting]. He said: “Ibn ‘Abbas did not die until he had withdrawn from this fatwa.”[^1]

This report is munqati’ (disconnected), and therefore ḍa’if. Al-Rabi’ did not hear from Ibn ‘Abbas, even though they were contemporaries; and he did not give the source of his information either.

No wonder, ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) declares:

The summary is: three opinions are narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allaah be pleased with him, about mut’ah:

The one: he permitted it unconditionally.

The second: he permitted it in cases of necessity.

The last: he forbade it unconditionally, but this is from what is NOT authentically transmitted from him, unlike the first two opinions which are authentically transmitted from him.[^2]

Al-Hafiẓ too is not left out:

As for Ibn ‘Abbas, it is narrated concerning him that he permitted it, and it is also narrated concerning him that he withdrew from that. Ibn Baṭṭal said: The people of Makkah and Yemen narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas permitted mut’ah, and it is (also) narrated concerning him with ḍa’if chains that he withdrew. That he permitted mut’ah (till death) is more authentically transmitted, and it is the madhhab of the Shi’ah.[^3]

Ibn ‘Abbas apparently permitted mut’ah till his last breath on the earth.

Athar Two

Imam al-Jasas (d. 370 H) submits:

From what proves his withdrawal from its permissibility is what ‘Abd Allah b. Wahb narrated: ‘Amr b. al-Harith – Bukayr b. al-Ashja – Abu Ishaq, freed slave of Banu Hashim:

A man asked Ibn ‘Abbas, and said, “I am on a journey, and there is with me a slave-girl belonging to me, and I have companions. So, do I make my slave-girl available to my companions so that they do mut’ah with her?” He said, “That is fornication.”

And this too proves his withdrawal.[^4]

Al-Jasas’ conclusion from this athar reveals his deep ignorance about mut’ah. Temporary marriage can be done only with a single man at a time; and after its conclusion, if there was intercourse, the woman observes her obligatory ‘iddah period. What Abu Ishaq was asking about was more like sex slavery or an orgy: the slave girl would be available to his companions generally, and whichever of them wanted sex would just go to her anytime he wanted. What then about the compulsion of ‘iddah which the woman must fulfil after each mut’ah?

Anyway, the riwayah is ḍa’if. This is what al-Hafiẓ (d. 852 H) states about its main narrator:

Abu Ishaq al-Dawsi, freed slave of Banu Hashim: Maqbul.[^5]

Uncorroborated reports of maqbul narrators are ḍa’if; as al-Hafiẓ confirms:

Maqbul (accepted) where he is seconded (i.e. from the same Shaykh). Otherwise, he is weak in hadith.[^6]

Of course, this one by Abu Ishaq has no corroboration. As such, it is ḍa’if.

Athar Three

Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211 H) documents:

‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn ‘Uyaynah – Isma’il – Qays – [‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud]:

We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and our celibacy had been prolonged. So, we said, “Should we castrate ourselves?” But, he forbade us. Then, he permitted that we should do nikah (marriage) with the woman for a specified period with something. Then, he forbade us from it on the Day of Khaybar and from the flesh of domestic asses.[^7]

However, this same hadith has been recorded by al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) with significant differences:

Qutaybah b. Sa’id – Jarir – Isma’il – Qays – ‘Abd Allah (b. Mas’ud):

We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and we had nothing with us. So, we said, “Should we castrate ourselves?” But, he forbade us to do that. Then, he permitted us to do nikah (marriage) with the woman, giving her a garment (as the dowry). Then, he recited to us {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you; and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits}.[^8]

This version which Jarir transmitted from the same Isma’il mentions no prohibition of mut’ah at Khaybar. Moreover, in it, Ibn Mas’ud quoted Qur’an 5:87 to Qays to defend its permissibility. This apparently took place after the death of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi.

This is also what yet another narrator transmitted from Isma’il. Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) records:

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Waki’ – (Isma’il) Ibn Abi Khalid – Qays – ‘Abd Allah:

“We were with the Prophet, peace be upon him, and we were youths. So, we said to the Messenger of Allah, “Should we castrate ourselves?” But, he forbade us (to do that). Then, he permitted us to do nikah (marriage) with the woman for a stipulated period, giving her a garment (as the dowry).” Then, ‘Abd Allah recited, {Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you} [5:87].[^9]

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ comments:

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs^10

Ahmad reports again:

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Muhammad b. ‘Ubayd – Isma’il – Qays – ‘Abd Allah:

“We were with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and we had no women. So, we said to the Messenger of Allah, “Should we castrate ourselves?” But, he forbade us to do it. Then, he permitted us later to do nikah (marriage) with the woman for a stipulated period, giving her a garment (as the dowry).” Then, ‘Abd Allah recited, {Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you; and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits } [5:87].[^11]

Al-Arnauṭ says:

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs.^12

We see here that Ibn ‘Uyaynah has fundamentally contradicted three thiqah narrator in his transmission from Isma’il b. Abi Khalid. This makes his report shadh and ḍa’if.

Well, al-Hafiẓ is not going to give up that easily:

Apparently, Ibn Mas’ud’s use of this verse here as evidence shows that he considered mut’ah to be permissible. Thus, al-Qurṭubi said, “Maybe news of the abrogation had not reached him at that time. Then, it reached him, and he withdrew.” I (al-Hafiẓ) say: He is supported by what al-Isma’ili (d. 371 H) mentioned that it occurred in the report of Abu Mu’awiyah from Isma’il b. Abi Khalid: “So, he did it. Then, he abandoned that.” He said: And in a report of Ibn ‘Uyaynah from Isma’il: “Then, its prohibition came later.” And in the report of Ma’mar from Isma’il: “Then, it was abrogated.”[^13]

Even al-Bayhaqi too makes some last-minute efforts:

Abu ‘Amr al-Adib informed us: Abu Bakr al-Isma’ili (d. 371 H) informed us and he mentioned the hadith with his chain from ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud concerning mut’ah. He said at its end: and Abu Mu’awiyah narrated this hadith from Isma’il b. Abi Khalid from Qays from ‘Abd Allah and he said at its end, “Then he abandoned that.” He said, “And in the hadith of al-Musaffa from Ibn ‘Uyaynah from Isma’il. At its end: “Then, its prohibition came later.” And in the hadith of ‘Abd al-Razzaq from Ma’mar from Isma’il from Qays, there is the abrogation of that, that is mut’ah.[^14]

The first general problem with these new entries is their lack of clearly defined chains of transmission. With that, it is impossible to investigate their authenticity or make pronouncements on it. Meanwhile, unless their authenticity is known, they remain invalid evidences. Secondly, we see this phrase “So, he did it. Then, he abandoned that” which, obviously, is an interpolation in the unverifiable riwayah of Ibn Mas’ud. He could not have narrated about himself in such a manner. Lastly, the other reports only mention that mut’ah was prohibited or abrogated later, after Ibn Mas’ud had practised it.

But, we know from the more authentic ahadith that he continued to defend the legitimacy, morality and permissibility of mut’ah after the departure of the Messenger. If he had truly narrated about its prohibition or abrogation, why would he do that?! The contradiction of these unverifiable reports against the more authentic athar makes them (i.e. the unverifiable reports) munkar and ḍa’if by default.

Meanwhile, Imam Abu Yusuf al-Ansari (d. 182 H) tables this new hadith as well:

Yusuf – his father – Abu Hanifah – Hammad – Ibrahim – ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him:

We complained of celibacy. So, mut’ah was made halal for us for three days only. Then, the Verse of al-Nikah, and al-‘Iddah and Inheritance abrogated it.[^15]

Concerning Abu Hanifah, Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H), despite his notorious leniency, has this to say:

He narrated 130 full-chained ahadith. He had no other hadith in this world except them. He made mistakes in 120 of them. He either changed its chain or altered its text, inadvertently. So, since his mistakes were more than his correct transmissions, it is appropriate to forsake taking his reports as hujjah.[^16]

As such, he was matruk; and that makes this athar severely weak.

Secondly, Ibrahim in the chain – and he was Ibrahim al-Nakh’ai – was born in 46 H while Ibn Mas’ud died in 32 H. So, the already terribly ḍa’if chain is also munqati’ (disconnected)!

Apart from its general worthlessness, this hadith falsely attributes deep ignorance of mut’ah to Ibn Mas’ud. Whoever forged the riwayah apparently did not know that temporary marriage was a nikah in Islam, and that there was ‘iddah in it, and that there was inheritance in it where both parties agreed on it! Worse still, it is possible to have a valid marriage without inheritance between the two parties – such as one between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. Did the forger know that? Clearly, he did not. In fact, even Ibn Mas’ud himself used to refer to mut’ah as a nikah! Yet, the forger obviously was not aware of that too!

Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 H) then gives us further reports about Ibn Mas’ud:

Sufyan – one of our companions – al-Hakam b. ‘Utaybah – ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud: “It was abrogated by ‘iddah, divorce and inheritance.” Al-‘Adani said: “He meant mut’ah.”

Al-Hajjaj b. Arṭat – al-Hakam – companions of ‘Abd Allah – ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud: “Mut’ah was abrogated, and its abrogation was by divorce, dowry, ‘iddah, and inheritance.”[^17]

The first one is ḍa’if by default. “One of our companions” in its sanad is unknown. Moreover, al-Hakam b. ‘Utaybah was born in 47 H, while Ibn Mas’ud died in 32 H! So, the chain is equally munqati’.

The second athar is ḍa’if by default, as well.. “Companions of ‘Abd Allah” in its chain are unknown! In addition, this is what al-Hafiẓ submits about al-Hajjaj:

Hajjaj b. Arṭat, the Kufan jurist, well-known. Muslim narrated from him while attaching others with him, and al-Nasai and others qualified him with doing tadlis from ḍa’if narrators. Among those who also described him with tadlis were Ibn al-Mubarak, Yahya b. al-Qaṭṭan, Yahya b. Ma’in and Ahmad. Abu Hatim said, “If he said, ‘he narrated to us’ then he is good. And he is not strong.”[^18]

Al-Hafiẓ has placed him in the fourth category of mudalisun. Explaining what that means, he states:

The fourth (category): those about whom there is consensus that they cannot be relied upon as hujjah in anything of their ahadith except what they explicitly declare to have heard, due to the frequency of their tadlis from ḍa’if and majhul narrators, like Baqiyyah b. al-Walid.[^19]

With al-Hajjaj being like that, it is very obvious that his riwayah about Ibn Mas’ud above is ḍa’if, as he has narrated it in an ‘an-‘an manner.

Then, ‘Abd al-Razzaq closes this section with this final report on Ibn Mas’ud:

‘Abd al-Razzaq – al-Thawri – a friend of his – al-Hakam – Ibn Mas’ud:

It was abrogated by divorce, ‘iddah and inheritance.[^20]

This one is indeed very easy. The friend of al-Thawri is unknown and al-Hakam did not hear from Ibn Mas’ud. So, it is terribly ḍa’if.

Those who quote these ḍa’if reports seek to establish that Ibn Mas’ud later changed his view about the legitimacy of mut’ah. However, they have no reliable proof. As such, their effort is “dead on arrival”. Meanwhile, according to the tafsir of the Messenger of Allah, as narrated by Ibn Mas’ud (which he also personally adopted), mut’ah is one of the good things mentioned in Qur’an 5:87. So, naturally, to “prove” that mut’ah is abrogated, our opponents must prove that the ayah has been abrogated. Well, no creature can do that, till the Hour!

Athar Four

Imam al-Bayhaqi records:

Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Hafiẓ – Abu Muhammad al-Hasan b. Sulayman al-Kufi – Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Haḍrami – Isma’il b. Ibrahim – al-Ashja’i – Bassam al-Sayrafi:

I asked Ja’far b. Muhammad concerning mut’ah, and I described it. So, he said to me, “That is zina.”[^21]

This athar does not give the details of what Bassam al-Sayrafi described as mut’ah, which Imam al-Sadiq, alaihi al-salam, allegedly called “zina”. Perhaps, he had (given) a very wrong concept of temporary marriage. Who knows? Anyway, Abu Muhammad al-Hasan b. Sulayman al-Kufi in the sanad is majhul. So, the report is ḍa’if.

Athar Five

Imam Abu ‘Awanah documents:

Muhammad b. Ishaq al-Saghani and Yahya b. Abi Ṭalib – ‘Abd al-Wahhab b. ‘Aṭa – ‘Abd al-Malik b. Jurayj – ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. ‘Umar – al-Rabi’ b. Sabrah – his father: ....

On the Day of al-Tarwiyah, the Prophet, peace be upon him, stood between al-Hijr and al-Rukn and said, “I used to ORDER you to perform this mut’ah. However, Allah has (now) made it haram till the Day of al-Qiyamah. Therefore, whosoever is doing mut’ah with any woman, he should not return to her. And even if his period still remains something, he must not take back from her whatever he has given her.”

Ibn Jurayj said on that day, “Testify that I have (now) withdrawn from it after eighteen ahadith that I narrated concerning it that there is no problem with it.”[^22]

This athar is often vaunted by our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah as evidence that Ibn Jurayj later abandoned mut’ah. However, the most relevant part of it is actually ḍa’if ! Ibn Jurayj had “informed” Wahhab b. ‘Aṭa of the hadith of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. ‘Umar. However, the last part of the entire riwayah is different from the main report, and is not part of what Ibn Jurayj “informed” ‘Abd al-Wahhab from ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. Rather, it was ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself who was personally telling his student of what Ibn Jurayj allegedly declared. It is this part that our Sunni brothers present to us; and it is this part that is ḍa’if in its sanad.

Al-Hafiẓ states about ‘Abd al-Wahhab:

‘Abd al-Wahhab b. ‘Aṭa al-Khaffaf al-Basri: Saduq (very truthful), well-known, from the ṭabaqah of Abu Usamah. Al-Bukhari said, “He used to do tadlis in ahadith of manakir (repugnancies) from Thawr al-Himsi and several people.”[^23]

Interestingly, al-Hafiẓ has put him in the third category of mudalisun. In the Introduction to his book, he has explained what this means:

The third (category): those who did tadlis A LOT. As a result, the Imams did not take their ahadith as hujjah except that which they explicitly stated to have heard. Among them (i.e. the Imams) were those who rejected their ahadith unconditionally, and among them were those who accepted them, like Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki.[^24]

Basically, the above athar is ḍa’if, because ‘Abd al-Wahhab did NOT explicitly state that he “heard” that declaration from Ibn Jurayj. Instead, he only stated: “Ibn Jurayj said”. Of course, both of these statements are different:

(a) I heard Ibn Jurayj saying such-and-such; and

(b) Ibn Jurayj said such-and-such.

In the first one, there is no doubt that the speaker heard Ibn Jurayj. However, in the second, there is no evidence of that. The speaker could simply have heard a third person who claimed that Ibn Jurayj said such-and-such. In these days of ours, we often see Muslim scholars who proclaim on pulpits “the Prophet said such-and-such” and we know that they never heard directly from him. In fact, on several occasions, such ahadith turn out to be outright fabrications!

Another wonderous aspect of the declaration which ‘Abd al-Wahhab attributed to Ibn Jurayj is his alleged confession that he knew eighteen different ahadith on the permissibility of mut’ah, and yet would disregard them all and turn against them! ‘Abd al-Wahhab would have us believe that Ibn Jurayj was abandoning these eighteen ahadith in favour of this single one he narrated from ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. ‘Umar?! What do these really people take us for?

[^1]: Abu ‘Awanah Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Asfarani, Musnad Abi Awanah (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah; 1st edition, 1419 H) [annotator: Ayman b. ‘Arif al-Dimashqi], vol. 3, p. 23

[^2]: Muhammad Naṣir al-Din al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami; 2nd edition, 1405 H), vol. 6, p. 319, # 1903

[^3]: Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Ṣahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Ṭaba’ah wa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 9, p. 150

[^4]: Abu Bakr Ahmad b. ‘Ali al-Razi al-Jasas, Ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1415 H) [annotator: ‘Abd al-Salam Muhammad ‘Ali Shahin], vol. 2, p. 186

[^5]: Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Muṣtafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 2, p. 355, # 7965

[^6]: Ibid, vol. 1, p. 24

[^7]: Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 506, # 14048

[^8]: Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Ṣahih al-Mukhtaṣar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Muṣṭafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 5, p. 1953, # 4787

[^9]: Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 1, p. 432, # 4113

[^11]: Ibid, vol. 1, p. 420, # 3986

[^13]: Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Ṣahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Ṭaba’ah wa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 9, p. 102

[^14]: Abu Bakr Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. ‘Ali b. Musa al-Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra (Makkah al-Mukarramah: Maktabah Dar al-Baz; 1414 H) [annotator: Muhammad ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 7, p. 207, # 13958

[^15]: Abu Yusuf Ya’qub b. Ibrahim al-Anṣari, al-Athar (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah), p. 151, # 698

[^16]: Abu Hatim Muhammad b. Hibban b. Ahmad al-Tamimi al-Busti, Kitab al-Majruhin [annotator: Mahmud Ibrahim Zayad], vol. 3, p. 63

[^17]: Abu Bakr Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. ‘Ali b. Musa al-Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra (Makkah al-Mukarramah: Maktabah Dar al-Baz; 1414 H) [annotator: Muhammad ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 7, p. 207, # 13957

[^18]: Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Muhammad, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Ta’rif Ahl al-Taqdis bi Maratib al-Mawṣifin bi al-Tadlis (Jordan: Maktabah al-Manar; 1st edition) [annotator: Dr. Aṣim b. ‘Abd Allah al-Qaryuni], p. 49, # 118

[^19]: Ibid, p. 14

[^20]: Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 505, # 14044

[^21]: Abu Bakr Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. ‘Ali b. Musa al-Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra (Makkah al-Mukarramah: Maktabah Dar al-Baz; 1414 H) [annotator: Muhammad ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 7, p. 207, # 13960

[^22]: Abu ‘Awanah Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Asfarani, Musnad Abi Awanah (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah; 1st edition, 1419 H) [annotator: Ayman b. ‘Arif al-Dimashqi], vol. 3, p. 31, # 4087

[^23]: Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Muhammad, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Ta’rif Ahl al-Taqdis bi Maratib al-Mawṣifin bi al-Tadlis (Jordan: Maktabah al-Manar; 1st edition) [annotator: Dr. Aṣim b. ‘Abd Allah al-Qaryuni], p. 41, # 85

[^24]: Ibid, p. 13