Nikah Al-Mut’ah, Zina or Sunnah?

Preface

Mut’ah was unknown on the earth before Allah sent Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi. An average Sunni Muslim would be surprised to know this. Our brothers and sisters from the Ahl al-Sunnah have been repeatedly bombarded with severe anti-mut’ah propaganda for several years (or perhaps even decades or centuries), which claims that it was a pagan custom of the pre-Islamic Arabs that was temporarily tolerated by the Prophet – like alcohol – and was then banned eternally by him. However, ask the Sunni ‘alim to produce reliable Sunni evidence that mut’ah was ever practised during the Jahiliyyah period.

That is when things get really messy. He will never be able to give the proof – no matter the spread of his knowledge, and no matter his scholarly standing. Demand also, if possible, the same evidence from one billion Sunni ‘ulama, and you will never get it till the Day of al-Qiyamah. Of course, it does not exist! Mut’ah was introduced to this planet, to this cosmos, for the very first time by none other than the Messenger of Allah, on the Order of his Lord. It was part of His Mercy, made especially for this Ummah, as Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211 H) records:

‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Aṭa:

The person from whom I first heard about mut’ah was Safwan b. Ya’la. He narrated to me from Ya’la that Mu’awiyah did mut’ah with a woman at Ṭaif. So, I denied that upon him. Then, we entered upon Ibn ‘Abbas, and one of us mentioned (mut’ah) to him, and he said, “Yes”. But, it did not settle well in me, until when Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah arrived. So, we went to him at his house, and the people asked him about various things. Then, they mentioned mut’ah, and he said, “Yes. We did mut’ah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar UNTIL at the last part of the ‘Umar’s caliphate....”

‘Aṭa said:

I heard Ibn ‘Abbas saying: “May Allah show mercy to ‘Umar. Mut’ah was nothing except a PERMISSION from Allah the Almighty. He showed MERCY through it to the Ummah of Muhammad, peace be upon him. If he (‘Umar) had not forbidden it, none would have needed to commit zina except a wretched person.”

He – ‘Aṭa – said: By Allah, it is like I am still hearing his statement “except a wretched person”.

‘Aṭa said: It is that which is in Surah al-Nisa {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah**}** till such-and-such period, for such-and-such.[^1]

Commenting on this hadith, al-Hafiẓ (d. 852 H) states:

‘Abd al-Razzaq recorded it with the chain of Safwan b. Ya’la b. Umayyah: Ya’la narrated to me that Mu’awiyah did mut’ah with a woman at Ṭaif. And its chain is sahih.[^2]

However, we have seen certain Sunni elements who argue against the authenticity of this riwayah on the basis of Ibn Jurayj’s tadlis. The keen observer notices though that Ibn Jurayj has narrated from ‘Aṭa using the phrases (قال) [he said] and (قال عطاء) [‘Aṭa said] in addition to his ‘an-‘an manner of transmission. ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) explains what both phrases indicate:

Abu Bakr b. Abi Khaythamah recorded with a sahih chain that Ibn Jurayj said: Whenever I say: “ ‘Aṭa said”, then I HEARD it from him, even if I do not say “I heard”.[^3]

This basically rules out tadlis completely in the above hadith of ‘Abd al-Razzaq. As such, the objection of tadlis is baseless and erroneous. But, there is more! Al-Albani further submits:

Abu Bakr b. Abi Khaythamah has narrated with a sahih chain from Ibn Jurayj that he said: Whenever I say: “ ‘Ata said”, then I HEARD it from him, even if I do not say “I heard”.

This is an explicit statement from him that his omission to say “I heard” from ‘Aṭa does not mean that he has done tadlis from him. However, is this restricted to his statement “ ‘Aṭa said” or is there no difference between it and if he said “from ‘Aṭa” as in this hadith and others? What is apparent to me is the second. Thus, based upon this, all reports of Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭa are considered as what he heard explicitly, except that whose tadlis is clear. And Allah knows best.[^4]

Therefore, there is no tadlis in the report of ‘Abd al-Razzaq, and it has a perfectly sahih chain – from Safwan b. Yala from Ya’la; from Ibn ‘Abbas; and from Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah. Al-Hafiẓ has explicitly declared the ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Aṭa – Safwan b. Ya’la – Ya’la sanad to be sahih. Of course, both Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir were Sahabis. Therefore, the ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Aṭa – Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Aṭa – Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah chains are sahih as well.

That riwayah establishes that:

i. Mut’ah was a “permission” from Allah. This means that the Muslims were forbidden from practising it until He permitted them. This apparently defeats the theory that it was initially allowed and then disallowed. Rather, it was originally haram, and then was permitted by our Lord out of His Mercy to us.

ii. Allah revealed a verse in Surah al-Nisa to authorize the practice of mut’ah. ‘Aṭa recited that ayah, and we will have more to say about it later in this book.

iii. Mu’awiyah practised mut’ah during his caliphate, long after the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam. His action was supported by both Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ansari, raḍiyallahu ‘anhuma.

iv. Both Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir said “yes” to mut’ah, thereby allowing it and declaring it halal.

v. Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah asserted that mut’ah was allowed by the Prophet till his death, and was also allowed by Abu Bakr till his death. He further claimed that even ‘Umar too allowed it for most of his caliphate, but later banned it at the tail end of his rule.

vi. Ibn ‘Abbas proclaimed that mut’ah was a “mercy” from Allah specially for the Ummah of Muhammad. Whosoever knows how mut’ah truly works can easily confirm this.

vii. Ibn ‘Abbas also declared that if ‘Umar had not banned mut’ah, none would have needed to commit zina except the wretched ones. He is right about this too.

viii. Ibn ‘Abbas was very explicit that it was ‘Umar who banned mut’ah – NOT Allah, and NOT His Messenger.

‘Abd al-Razzaq has another hadith which confirms the last point above:

‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – Abu al-Zubayr – Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

“We, the Sahabah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, did mut’ah UNTIL the prohibition of ‘Amr b. Hurayth (from it).”[^5]

The only new name here is Abu al-Zubayr. Al-Hafiẓ says about him:

Muhammad b. Muslim b. Tadrus al-Asadi, their freed slave, Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki: Saduq (very truthful), except that he used to do tadlis.[^6]

There is no ‘an-‘an transmission in the above sanad. Therefore, it is hasan. The report is explicit that the Sahabah generally practised mut’ah without interference, from the lifetime of the Prophet, till when ‘Amr b. Hurayth was prohibited from it. ‘Abd al-Razzaq has another riwayah which sheds more light:

‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – Abu al-Zubayr – Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

‘Amr b. Hurayth arrived from Kufah and did mut’ah with a slave woman. Then, she was brought to ‘Umar when she became pregnant, and he interrogated her. So, she said, “ ‘Amr b. Hurayth did mut’ah with me.” Then, he interrogated him, and he informed him through that of an apparent matter.” He said, “So, why not other than her?” That was the moment when he forbade it.[^7]

The chain is hasan, as our reader can see. It seems that ‘Umar became very angry that ‘Amr b. Hurayth – a Sahabi – did mut’ah with a slave woman. For that reason, he banned it altogether – whether with free women, or with slaves. As Jabir testified in the other athar, this incident took place towards the end of ‘Umar’s caliphate.

Jabir made a clear point, that the Sahabah continued to practise mut’ah until ‘Umar made it haram in the case of ‘Amr b. Hurayth. Then, they stopped. However, it was not all of them that obeyed ‘Umar’s decree. The vast majority did; but, a few – along with their disciples - continued to uphold the Verse of Mut’ah and the Sunnah. Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456 H) gives us some of their names:

A group of the Salaf**, may Allah be pleased with them, were FIRM in declaring it** halal AFTER the Messenger of Allah. Those of them from the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, were Asma bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq, Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, ‘Amr b. Hurayth, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, and Salamah and Ma’bad – sons of Umayyah b. Khalaf.

Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah also reported it (i.e. declaration of mut’ah as halal ) from all the Sahabah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar until near the end of the caliphate of ‘Umar. Ibn al-Zubayr had contradictory opinions on its permissibility, while ‘Ali expressed no opinion concerning it. It is narrated that ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭab only denied it if two just people did not act as its witnesses, and he considered it permissible if two just people acted as witnesses to it.

And among the Tabi’in were: Ṭawus, ‘Aṭa, Sa’id b. Jubayr, and the rest of the jurists of Makkah, may Allah honour it.[^8]

So, all the Sahabah – including Abu Bakr and ‘Umar - considered mut’ah to be halal throughout the lifetime of the Prophet, and throughout the rule of Abu Bakr. For most of the era of ‘Umar, all the Sahabah generally affirmed the permissibility of mut’ah. However, at the end of his caliphate, he made it haram; and that changed everything. The generality of the Sahabah obeyed him; and only a handful remained steadfast in affirming the permissibility of temporary marriage. Some of the Tabi’in also proclaimed it halal. However, the number of the pro-mut’ah elements continued to dwindle among the Ahl al-Sunnah, until none – or almost none - accepted it anymore. The Shi’is, on their part, have remained unshakable and unyielding on the permissibility of temporary marriage – from the time of the Messenger till this very day of ours.

But, is it not strange? According to the theory of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the Prophet declared mut’ah to be haram before his death. Yet, the Sahabah as a whole paid no heed to his words. They continued to regard mut’ah as halal, and also continued to practise it. When Abu Bakr became caliph, he too made zero efforts to enforce the alleged decree of the Messenger. Instead, he allowed the Ummah to freely engage in mut’ah. ‘Umar also did not give a damn: he let the Sahabah marry people temporarily for most of his rule.

However, he became upset when ‘Amr b. Hurayth took it too far by contracting mut’ah with a slave woman. He asked ‘Amr: “So, why not other than her?” At that point, he declared it haram. Then, the same Sahabah who refused to respect the decree of their Prophet followed ‘Umar. Most of them abandoned mut’ah, and started to oppose it. A few of them, however, remained adamantly in defence of it, and used to practise it, till death.

Is this really a credible theory? Do the Ahl al-Sunnah truly want us to view the Sahabah as people who disregarded the words of their Messenger? Is that it? Do Sunnis seriously want us to believe that the words of ‘Umar carried more weight in the sight of the Sahabah than those of Allah and His Prophet? Do they want us to consider the Sahabah as those who indulged in illegal sex during the lifetime of Muhammad, and he did not stop them?! What about Abu Bakr? The Sunni theory assumes that he too condoned the fornication and adultery of the Sahabah during his caliphate.

Is that it? What of caliph ‘Umar? Yeah, he permitted zina among the people until ‘Amr b. Hurayth irritated him by doing it with a slave woman. If ‘Amr had not extended the pleasure to the lowest rung of the caste system, he possibly could have tolerated mut’ah till his death! Interestingly. The great caliph made no attempt to lash or stone ‘Amr for either fornication or adultery. Why was that?!

Or, was it that the generality of the Sahabah only happened to have missed the declaration of the Prophet on mut’ah, as many Sunnis claim? Can a kid believe that? The Messenger supposedly announced its prohibition multiple times in public among his Sahabah. Yet, somehow, that information never reached them until when ‘Umar re-banned it! Was that really it? What about Abu Bakr? He allowed mut’ah throughout his regime. He too never got wind of its prohibition by the Prophet? Where was he when the alleged decree of the prohibition of mut’ah was being publicly announced by the Messenger himself, on different occasions? Was he then on Mars? What of ‘Umar? Our Sunni brothers argue that he knew of the prohibition and had only enforced it.

Good! But then, why did he initially permit it? He forgot the hadith? Why did he not narrate it to Abu Bakr? Moreover, did that hadith reach Ibn ‘Abbas, Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, Mu’awiyah and other Sahabah from him? Or did those Sahabah happen to miss the public narration of the riwayah once more? If yes, why were they constantly missing the hadith? Then, why did none of the majority of the other Sahabah who followed ‘Umar make any attempt to narrate it to them? Or, did they hear it? If yes, why then did they continue to defend the permissibility of mut’ah? Why did they continue to practise it? Were they deliberately defending and committing zina? But, to what ends was that?

From whatever angle one looks at it, mut’ah is always an impossible situation for our Sunni brothers. If they accept its permissibility, ‘Umar takes a very devastating hit. Yet, if they proclaim its prohibition, a lot of the other Sahabah lose a lot of things within the Ummah! From our judgment, many Sunnis attack mut’ah in order to defend the honour of ‘Umar. However, little do they realize that they are only destroying that of other Sahabah, including Abu Bakr!

But, what is the truth about mut’ah? Did Allah truly reveal an ayah about it? If yes, was it ever abrogated? Can a hadith abrogate a verse of the Qur’an? What is the status of any riwayah that attempts to do that? How exactly is mut’ah practised? What are its conditions, restrictions and formalities? Is it really how most of the Ahl al-Sunnah picture it in their minds? Is it zina in truth? Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is it a shame or an honour? Can it be contracted with a depraved man, woman or girl? Is it truly a “mercy” from Allah as Ibn ‘Abbas claimed? Or, is it a curse for the Ummah? Is it a legitimate marriage? Or, is it only a perversion? In this book, we will be investigating these and other questions, in order to find what really happened in the early history of Islam, about mut’ah?

We must find out how we got where we are today, so that we could correct any wrong steps in the past and move to our Lord on a smoother path. This, we will be doing in this exploratory research of ours. We seek Allah’s Help in this effort, and we implore Him to forgive us all our mistakes in it, and to accept it as a worthy act of ‘ibadah. And may Allah send His salawat and barakat upon our master, Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah, and upon his purified offspring.

We will leave this preface with a beautiful athar recorded by ‘Abd al-Razzaq about Sa’id b. Jubayr – one of the greatest Imams of the Ahl al-Sunnah throughout history. This is part of what al-Hafiẓ has documented about him:

Ya’qub al-Qummi narrated that Ja’far b. Abi al-Mughirah said: “Whenever the people of Kufah came to Ibn ‘Abbas to seek his fatwa, he used to say, ‘Is there not among you Ibn Umm al-Dahma?’ referring to Sa’id b. Jubayr’” ‘Amr b. Maymun also reported that his father said: “Sa’id b. Jubayr died while there was no one on the face of the earth who did not need his knowledge” ... Abu Qasim al-Ṭabari said: “He was thiqah (trustworthy), an Imam, a hujjah upon the Muslims. He was murdered in Sha’ban 95 H while he was 49 years old” ... Sufyan used to consider Sa’id superior to Ibrahim in knowledge, and he was more knowledgeable than Mujahid and Ṭawus. [^9]

This same Ibn Jubayr examined the Sunni arguments and “proofs” against mut’ah. Then, he drew his conclusion about it. ‘Abd al-Razzaq records:

‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. Khaytham:

There was a pious, beautiful Iraqi woman in Makkah. She had a son called Abu Umayyah; and Sa’d b. Jubayr[^10] used to enter upon her a lot. I said, “O Abu ‘Abd Allah! Why do you frequently enter upon this woman?” He said, “We have married her in that marriage”, referring to mut’ah.

He (Ibn Jurayj) said: He (‘Abd Allah) informed me that Sa’id said to him: “IT IS MORE HALAL THAN THE DRINKING OF WATER,” referring to mut’ah.[^11]

Only ‘Abd Allah needs an introduction here. Al-Hafiẓ says about him:

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. Khaytham al-Qari al-Makki, Abu ‘Uthman: Saduq (very truthful).[^12]

Therefore, the report is hasan.

[^1]: Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, pp. 496-497, # 14021

[^2]: 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. 151

[^3]: 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. 4, p. 244, # 1050

[^4]: 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. 3, p. 97, # 629. We do not agree with the conjecture of al-Albani here, that the clearly ‘an-‘an reportage of Ibn Jurayj also means that he had “heard” the riwayah.

[^5]: Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 499, # 14025

[^6]: 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. 132, # 6310

[^7]: Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 500, # 14029

[^8]: Abu Muhammad ‘Ali b. Ahmad b. Sa’id b. Hazm al-Andalusi al-Qurṭubi al-Ẓahiri, al-Muhalla (Dar al-Fikr li al-Ṭaba’ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’), vol. 9, pp. 519-520

[^9]: Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1404 H), vol. 4, pp. 11-13, # 14

[^10]: The correct spelling is Sa’id b. Jubayr. A letter has been omitted in “Sa’id”. This is most probably a scribal error. Meanwhile, later in the same athar, the name has been spelt correctly.

[^11]: Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 496, # 14020

[^12]: 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. 1, p. 513, # 3477