| Hadiths Related To Mut'ah |
Website Links For Related |
Information AboutHadiths Related To Mut'ah |
|
There are several Hadith s used either to prove or to disprove the legality of Mut'ah Marriage . Here is a list of them: AGAINST MUT'AH Here is a list of the hadiths used to disprove mut'ah. Each title begins with the time of the supposed event. Mecca/Early Medina: Except to your wives From Tirmidhi : :'' was there only in the early period of Islam until the verse "Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable" was revealed. Then, he said: All private parts other that these are unlawful. This verse is in both Sura Nisa (4th Sura) and Sura Muminoon (23rd Sura). By Ijma of Sunni scholars, Sura Muminoon was revealed in Mecca and Sura Nisa was revealed in the very early part of Madinan Life. Sunni view (insert) Shia view Shia content it to be an obvious forgery, and a bad one. Obviously there is a consensus that these verses did come, however there is also a consensus that mutah was practised long after the revelation of these verses. Sunnis agree that Mut'ah was practiced till at least 7th Hijri, meaning that both verses came before the practise of mutah was supposedly forbidden. Mecca: verse 23:6 :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." {Link without Title} . Verse is from Sura Muminoon, which is by Ijma revealed in Mecca. It was revealed in Mecca, that is before the Hijra , Battle Of Khaiber and Victory Over Mecca . ([http://spaces.msn.com/members/islamvictory/Blog/cns!1pqszvf3q1jCM0invSf-VFMA!131.entry ref ) ( Further reference ) Sunni view One sunni's view: ( link ) Shia view Again a fabricated Hadith. See "Except to your wives" Mecca: Vers 70:29-31 One hadith claimed that it was made Haram when the following verse was revealed:
One of the earliest surahs to be revealed at Makkah. (ref [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau69.html#S69 ) Sunni view Shia view Again a fabricated Hadith. See "Except to your wives" 6 ah: Umrah Dhu'l-Qada Umrah Dhu'l-Qada referred to by Hasan Al Basri in 6th Hijri Sunni view Shia view Again a fabricated Hadith. See "Except to your wives" 7 ah: the day of Khaybar From Sahih Muslim link :'' according to Zuhri Ibn Shab according to Alhassan and Abdullah the sons of Mohammad Bin 'Ali according to their father according to Ali that he heard Ibn 'Abbas being lenient towards temporary marriage, so he said, "wait Ibn 'Abbas, the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it on the day of Khaybar when he also prohibited the meat of domestic asses (donkey)." " This hadith refers to an event in the 7th year Hijri (at Khayber). ( ref ) Sunni view Sunni s view this hadith as authentic, evidently, since its in Sahi Muslim . Furthermore, Sunni argue that this hadith unambiguously proves the prohibition of Mut'ah Shia view =Answer one Shia s reject hadith from Zuhri Ibn Shab referring to the Muslim agreed upon idea that hadith from people that hate Ali can not be accepted. Shia then present a text from Ibn Al Hadeed's Sharh Nahj Ul Balagha Volume 1 page 493: :''"Zuhri ibn Shab possessed a heart filled with enmity towards Hadhrath 'Ali". =Answer two Shia further argue that it is strange that Sunnis regard this hadith as authentic, since Ibn Hajr Al Asqalani in Tadheeb Al Tadheeb graded the two sons of Muhammad Ibn Al Hanafiyya to be weak, arguing that one was a Murijee , and the other to be a Shi'a . ( ref ) =Answer three Shia quote the following Sunni sources: Umdah Thul Qari Volume 8 page 311 ''Allamah ibn Barr said that the tradition on the prohibition of Mut'ah on the Day of Khayber is wrong. Zaad Al Maad Volume 2 page 204 Ghazwa Khayber ''The tradition prohibiting Mut'ah during the victory of Makka is more Sahih. Rowz Al Anf vol. 4 pg. 59 (printed 1391 AH) Seera Halabiyah vol.3 pg.45 ''it is said that Suhaili commented: ''This is something that no one involved in the Seerah and the history of Allah's Messenger (S) has ever acknowledged (that Mut'ah was prohibited on Khayber). Irshad Al Sari 's Fi Sharh Bukhari Sharh Al Mawaahib of Az Dhurqani vol.2 pg. 239 Sharh Al Muwatta vol.2 pg. 24, ''Abu Omar's opinion on the prohibition of Mut'ah at Khayber are cited: ''This is absolutely wrong. Temporary marriage never took place in Khayber. Fathul Bari Volume 9 page 168 / 145 Neel Al Authar vol.6 pg. 146 Sunan Baihaqi vol.7 pg.201 Zaad Al Maad Volume 1 pg. 443 ''Abu Awaanah is quoted as writing in his Sahih: ''"I have heard scholars saying that the tradition related of Ali only talked of the prohibition of the eating of the meat of domestic asses and there was no mention of Mut'ah, and the tradition is silent on that matter". =Answer four Shia's argue that in all the Hadith in Sahi Bukhari in chapter 155 of Maghazi concerning the events in Khayber, only one mentions the prohibition of domestic Donkey s, and there is no mention of Mut'ah : # Tradition No.668-669, from Anas Bin Malik ( only Domestic Ass es is mentioned). # Traditions No.684, 68e, 687, from Ibn Omar (the prohibition of the meat of domestic asses and '''garlic''' IS mentioned) # Tradition No.688, from Jabir Bin Abdullahi (only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned). # Traditions No.689 and 690, from Ibn Aufa (only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned). # Tradition No. 693, from Bara 'a Bin Azib ( only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned). # Tradition No. 694 from Ibn Abbas (only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned). # In Sahih Muslim - Tradition No. 4440, only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned. # Tradition No. 4765, from Abu Tha'laba (only the prohibition of the flesh of domestic asses is mentioned). # Traditions No. 4768 & 4769, from Abu Aufa (domestic asses is mentioned). # Traditions No. 4770, 4771, 4772, 4773, from Adi Ibn Thabit , from Bara' and Abdullah bin Aufa, (only domestic later asses is mentioned). # Traditions No. 4774, 4775, from Salma Bin Akwa and Ibn Abbas ( only domestic asses is mentioned). # Tradition No. 4776, from Yazid Bin Ubaid (only domestic asses is mentioned). # In Sunan Nisai - vol.7 pg. 205, there are nine traditions and all except one, say that on the Day of Khayber only the '''flesh of domestic asses''' was prohibited. Shia then argue that since according to both Sahi Muslim and Sahi Bukhari , numerous Sahaba reported that Muhammad declared Haram only the eating of ''domestic asses'', and one of them included Garlic , it can be deducted with some logic that Muhammad mentioned neither Donkey Flesh nor Mut'ah in that speech in Khayber . They further argue that even if they were to accept that Mut'ah was forbidden on the Day Of Khayber , there is still a question regarding why Ali and Abdullah Ibn Abbas are the only ones who are quoted as saying so, specially since those are in forefront in the Hadith that defended the legitimacy of Mut'ah . They then conclude that it is logical to assume that the rest of the companions heard right and someone later on fabricated the Kahybar and Mut'ah hadith, and attributed it to those two who where the strongest defenders of Mut'ah . Then they quote Ibn Qayyim in Zaad al Maad Volume 2 page 142: :''If we accept that Mut'ah was cancelled on the Day of Khayber then what we are saying is that cancellation occurred twice and this has never happened in religion for sure and will not happen. He further adds in the same book on page 183: :''In Khayber there were no Muslim women since it was a Jewish settlement and up till then, Muslims were not permitted to marry Ahl'ul Kitab (Jews & Christians). The permission came later on in Surah Mai'da? Muslims were not supposed to contract marriage with Ahl'ul Kitab during the battle of Khayber, and in any case they were not interested in marrying the women of their enemies before Khayber was captured. And after the victory, the ladies were captives or "Mamlookeen" and there was no need to marry them? Concerning the story of Khayber, the companions of the Prophet (S) did not contract temporary marriage with Jewish women neither did the Prophet (S) allow it, and no one mentioned Mut'ah during the battle of Khayber, on whether it was permissible or unlawful. Similarly all Muslim scholars unanimously say that Mut'ah was permissible after Khayber and they believe that it was cancelled on the Day of Fath Makka (victory). Therefore, it is clear that though this tradition is one of the two strongest amongst all traditions concerning the revocation of Mut'ah, it is nevertheless shaky, and cannot revoke a verdict contained in the Qur'an. ( ref ) 9 ah: the year of Autas From Sahih Muslim :''Narrated , Allah's Messenger permitted a Temporary Marriage for three nights, but he prohibited it afterwards." Autas refers to the Battle Of Hunayn after the Victory Over Mecca in 9th Hijri. Some have claimed that this hadith is Mutawattir however, that is unfounded. It is a lone narration (ahad). ( ref ) Sunni view Sunni s view this hadith as authentic, evidently, since its in Sahi Muslim . Furthermore, Sunni argue that this hadith unambiguously proves the prohibition of Mut'ah Shia view (Insert) 9 ah: Tabuk Abu Hurrayra claimed it was banned in 9th Hijri at the expedition of Tabuk. Sunni view Shia view Abu Hurairah ? 8 and 10 ah: until the day of resurrection From Sahih Muslim , Abu Dawood , Ibn Majah , Nasa`i , and Darimi :'' with woman, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until The Day Of Resurrection . So he who has any (woman with this type of marriage contract) he should let her off, and do not take back anything you have given to her (as dower). in another version : :''According to Sabra Bin Ma'had AlJuhany who said: I was with my cousin when we passed by a woman who liked my youth and a robe which my companion had. So she offered temporary marriage with the robe as the dowry. I married her and spent the night with her. In the next morning, I went to the mosque and heard the Messenger of Allah saying: 'O people, I had permitted you temporary marriage before, whoever of you has any part in it currently must part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them, as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of resurrection.' " ( ref ) Date of this event is the Victory Over Mecca . ( ref ) In one Hadith, Ibn Sabra claims that Mut'ah was prohibited in 8th Hijri (at victory of Mecca). While in other tradition, this same Ibn Sabra claims that Mut'ah was prohibited in 10th Hijri (at Last Pilgrimage Hujjatul Wida) ( ref ) Sunni view Sunni s view this hadith as authentic, evidently, since its in Sahi Muslim . Furthermore, Sunni argue that this hadith unambiguously proves the prohibition of Mut'ah Shia view Shia quote Ibn Al Qayyim in Zaad Al Ma'ad vo1.2 pg. 184 =Answer one :''On this matter people held two views, one group maintain that Omar prohibited Mut'ah and forbade it from being practiced and the Messenger of Allah (S) has ordered people to follow the Sunnah of the guided caliphs. This group has not considered the tradition of Sabra concerning the prohibition of Mut'ah in the year of victory as authentic. This Riwayat (tradition) is narrated by Abdul Malik bin Rabi bin Sabra from his father, from his grandfather, and Ibn Moe'en has spoken against him (that is he did not consider him fit and trustworthy narrator). Bukhari has equally not mentioned this tradition in his Sahih knowing well that it concerns an important matter and his hesitation in recording this tradition can only be understood to mean that he doubted its veracity. Ibn Qayyim continues further and says: :''Most argue that if this hadith were correct Ibn Masud would know about it. It is even narrated that they (himself and other companions) were practising it and that he proved the legitimacy of Mut'ah by quoting verse 24 of Surah Nisa .He further adds: "If the tradition was correct Omar would not say: 'It (Mut'ah) was permissible during the time of Allah's Messenger (S) but from now henceforth I declare it forbidden and will punish those who practice it', he (Omar) would rather have said "The Messenger of Allah (S) prohibited it and forbade it. According to Ibn Qayyim the tradition is incorrect because, as he says: :''If the tradition was correct, then why did he (Omar) not forbid it during the time of Abu Bakr. ( ref ) =Answer two The Shia site answering-ansar.org is quoted questioning: :''Was Sabra the only person to have heard the prohibition at Fath Makka? :''It is also strange that amongst all the multitude of companions only Sabra saw the Prophet (S) standing between the 'pillar and the gate' (Sahih Muslim Book of Nikah 008, Number 3256) declaring the prohibition of Mut'ah. Were all the others deaf? Had they ALL gone to the toilet at the same time? Or did they intentionally cover this hadith up as they enjoyed practising what today's Nasibi call prostitution? =Answer three Shia argue that neither Sabra , Rabi , Abdul Malik nor others included in the chain of narrators of this hadith are trustworthy. They further say that it is recorded in Tahdeeb Al Tahdeeb . =Answer four Shia claim that this hadith is very contradictory and count the following points: A) Kanz Al Ummal Volume 8 page 295 has three separate narration's from Sabra concerning the prohibition on Mut'ah , the first says Muhammad banned Mut'ah at Khayber , the second says it was banned at the time of the Victory Of Makka , the third says that it was banned at the Farewell Pilgrimage . Then they conclude it as self evident that a single narration from one Book ith one narrator can not have three different narration's about when Mut'ah was abrogated and still be reliable. B) In Sahi Muslim No. 3253, the quotation reads "the permission (to make Mut'ah) was for 15 days after entering Mecca". While in Muslim 3257, the quotation reads, ''as we entered Mecca". C) In Sunan Ibn Maja , chapter 44 tradition No. 1962 the tradition records that the prohibition occurred the "next day" after (Sabra) contracted Mut'ah. While in Muslim 3258 it says that it was made (Mut'ah) haram after three nights. D) In Sahi Muslim 3253, it is recorded that Sabra and His Cousin were the ones who went out to seek for a woman with a view to contract Mut'ah with her. Sabra belongs to the clan of Banu Jahina which belongs to Qatha'ah tribe. However, in Muslim tradition No. 3258 Sabra is reported to have said "So I and a friend of mine from Banu Salim went out...". E) In Sahi Muslim tradition No.3253, we understand that it is Sabra who made Mut'ah with the woman after giving out his cloak as a dower. However in Musnad Ahmad vol.3 pg. 405, we are told that Sabra was the ugly one with the new cloak and hence the woman made Mut'ah with his cousin despite his old cloak since he was handsome. Then Shia conclude that such a contradictory narration cannot be used to cancel a vers of the Quran. Sunni conclusion There are several Sunni conclusions. To make it simpler to follow the arguments, each hadith is marked with the hijra date of the event, as well as a summary is given in the end: Allamah Nawawi and Qadhi Iyad Allamah Nawawi in Sharh Muslim Volume 1 page 450 Delhi quotes the comments of Qadhi Iyad : " (Sahi) Muslim narrated from Iyas Ibn Salam that Mut'ah was Mubah at Autas (9). Sabra stated that it was Mubah at the time of The Victory Of Makka ( Now the question arises if Mut'ah was prohibited at Khayber (7) forever, why was it allowed at Umrah Dhu'l-Qada ( After this lengthy quote of Qadi Iyad, Nawawi seeks to set out his own view: "The correct approach in our view is that the prohibition and authority to practice Mut'ah was twice respectively. It was halaal before Khayber (7), and then abrogated on the Day of Khayber (7). At the time of the victory of Makka (
Qurtubi Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Al-Qurtubi commented in his Tafsir Al-Qurtubi , Volume 5 p. 30 :''"There are so many contradictions on the traditions of Mut'ah that they end up conflicting with one another. Mut'ah was made Halal on 7 occasions and Haram on 7 occasions". Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee in Tafseer Mazhari page 572 also echoes similar views: :''"If we are to accept all of these traditions then the conclusion is that Mut'ah was Mubah of 4 or 5 occasions and haraam on 4 or 5 occasions. Imam Sha'afi had said 'I don't know of anything in Islam that was halaal on one occasion, then made haraam, then made halaal and then haraam with the exception of Mut'ah'. Some 'ulama have said that lot was abrogated on three occasions others have said more".
Imam Sha'afi Imam Sha'afi in his book Seerath Ul Nabawiyya Volume 3 pages 365 - 366: "The prohibition of the contractual marriage took place in the day of the Khayber (7) campaign. Yet it had been established in Sahih of Muslim that Muhammad allowed them again to (sign) a contractual marriage in the Day of Mecca's conquest (
Ibn Katheer Ibn Katheer also made similar comments in his Tafseer of this verse: :''"The verse refers to Nikah Mut'ah that was allowed in the beginning of Islam, but was then abrogated. Shafi and a group amongst the Ulema said that it was Mubah twice and abrogated twice. Some say that it was mubah once and then abrogated, so say that it occurred on may occasions" ( ref )
Ibn Hajr Asqalani quotes Suhaili Ibn Hajr Asqalani in his Fathul Bari Fi Sharh Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 9 page 133 wrote: :''" Suhaili stated: Of the traditions on Nikah Mut'ah that are contradictory, the most unusual narration is that it was haraam at Tabuk (9), others say the prohibition was at Umrah Dhu'l-Qada (
(note: Suhaili made no mention of the Hunayn (8) tradition, this either did not come to his notice, or he omitted as the narrators made a mistake, or he deemed Autas ('''9''') and Hunayn (8) to be the same occasion. ) Ibn Hajr Asqalani Ibn Hajr Asqalani elaborates after having quoted: :''The Tabuk (9) tradition was narrated from Rahvia , Ibn Habban and Abu Hanifa . :''The chain that Hasan Al Basri relied on in effect suggested that Mut'ah was never halaal before or after that occasion (Umrah Dhu'l-Qada) (6), but the narrator in the chain Umro Bin Ubaydh made an objectionable mistake, he was an unreliable narrator. The conquest of Makka (8) narration is in Sahih Muslim as is the Autas ( As for the Final Pilgrimage (10) narration from Sabra Juhani , this contradicts narration's that have reached us without weaknesses; with regards to the prohibition at the time of the victory of Makka ( If the tradition is accepted we could interpret Umrah Dhu'l-Qada (6) as Khayber ( :''We are left with the Tabuk (9) narration, Abu Hurrayra stated that the Sahaba practised Mut'ah on that occasion, this may be another occasion as the separation from women and ban occurred at an earlier date, some Sahaba may have been ignorant of this fact, and continued to practise it, which is why the prohibition on that occasion was made in state of anger. :''The narration of Jabir is not Sahih as it was narrated by Abad, this narration is subject to open criticism.
We are left with just two Sahih traditions, Khayber (7) and the Victory of Makka (
Ibn Qayyim Ibn Qayyim Commenting in Zaad Al Maad Volume 1 page 442: :''"Difference over whether Mut'ah is haraam take place at four points.
Same page: :''"If we accept that Mut'ah was cancelled on the Day of Khayber (7) then what we are saying is that cancellation occurred twice and this has never happened in religion for sure and will not happen".
Imam Radhi Imam Radhi in his Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 page 194 was perfectly honest when he said: :''"To conclude that Mut'ah was made halaal on several occasions is da'eef, no one of authority has made such an assertion, this was only said by those that had sought to clarify the contradictions".
Shaykh Abdur Rahman Shaykh Abdur Rahman Bin Shaykh Bin Muhammad Bin Sulayman in Majma Ul An'haar Fi Sharh Munthakul Al Jhaar Volume 1 page 321 edition : "Nikah Mut'ah between Khayber (7) and Fath Makka (
Shia conclusion The Shia value one conclusion above all others: Every one of the events where Muhammad supposedly made Mut'ah Haram have a single first narrator each. To put it in perspective, it can be mentioned that the event of Ghadire Khumm have over 100 first hand narrators. Shia then conclude that the events most Sunni regard as authentic come from only four hadith. They all come from only three narrators:
Then they conclude that strangely, two the four events are basically the same events, by the same narrator, but in different years. This makes both being true as improbable. Ibn Qayyim attributed it to mistake, Shia view both as equally fabricated and say that such clear contradictions make these narrations worthless, and the Sunni scholars have themselves ruled out any prohibition at the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage. They further conclude that these three narrations contradict each other:
Shia then points out that even if all three events are deemed to be authentic, still all three can not be used simultaneously to prove prohibition of Mut'ah by Muhammad. They also argue that the occasions when these three prohibitions took place were major events with thousands of Sahaba present on each occasion and that it is improbable that only one narrator out of the multitudes present was able to recall the event. Shia further cite Sirat-un Nabi Volume 1 page 42, by Hanafi scholar Allamah Shibli Numani : :''"the following categories of reports are to be discredited without an enquiry into the characters of their narrators" :''Number 10 in the list: Any tradition concerning an incident so noteworthy that, if it had actually taken place, it ought to have been related by many, and yet there is but a single narrator to it". Shias then argue that if Mut'ah truly was prostitution, like many people averse to Mut'ah claim it to be, the it would have been Muhammad's obligation to make sure that not a single person remained unaware of the prohibition, to ensure that no future generation would indulge in fornication. However, there is only one single narrator from each of this alleged events, each one contradicting the other. From this, the Shia conclude that it is a clear proof that these narrations are fabricated and need "''to be discredited without an enquiry into the characters of their narrators''". It is stated in the above mentioned list of traditions that need to be need "''to be discredited '''without an enquiry'': :''Number 4 in the list: The traditions that contradict the Qur'an or a Mutawattir Hadith " Shia believes that to be applicable here as well, they quote vers 4:24 of the Quran, then claim it to be over 20 Sahaba and Taba'een that are unanimous witnesses to Umar forbidding Mut'ah. The Shia then make a list of Sahaba they believed to have deemed Mut'ah to be Halal after the death of Muhammad : #Ali #Abu Dhar #Jabir Ibn Abdillah #Abdullah Ibn Abbas #Abdullah Ibn Masud #Zubair Ibn al-Awwam #Imran Ibn Husain #Abdullah Ibn Umar #Ubay Ibn Ka'ab #Abu Sa'id al-Khudri #Salamah Ibn Umayyah #Awka' Ibn Abdillah #Salamah Ibn al-Awka #Khalid Ibn Muhajir #Amr Ibn Huraith #Rabi'a Ibn Umayya #Suhair #Sa'id Ibn Jubair Tawoos #Qotadah, Mujahid #Ataa al-Madani al-Suddy #and Imam al-Hasan and others. Shia also quote Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his Taufa Ithna Ashari page 231: :''"Evidence of an event being a lie can be proven if it has numerous contradictions" Shia point out that Ibn Hajr Asqalani said: :''We are left with just two Sahih traditions, Khayber (7) and the Victory of Makka (8)". And after reaching the same conclusion Ibn Hajr Asqalani , although with different reasoning, Ibn Qayyim said: :''"If we accept that Mut'ah was cancelled on the Day of Khayber (7) then what we are saying is that cancellation occurred twice and this has never happened in religion for sure and will not happen". And Shias finally conclude that since vers 4:24 was revealed at Hunayn (8) after the Victory of Makka (8), it renders all abrogation events void and that the only way Ibn Hajr Asqalani and Ibn Qayyim could deem Mut'ah as haram was by disregarding the time and events that led to the revelation of vers 4:24. IN FAVOUR OF MUT'AH a wretched person Sunni source: Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 2 page 140, Ayat Mut'ah Shia source: Tadheeb Al Ahkam Volume 2 page 186, Masala Mut'ah :'' is a blessing from Allah to his servants. If it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin of) fornication except a Shaqi (a wretched person)." Sunni view This hadith is false since it does not belong to the authorized hadith collection of Bukhari , Muslim or Abu Dawood . Shia view Shia argues that both sources quote that Ali held Umar personally liable for all future acts of Zina, hence any narration where Ali said that Mut'ah is haram is to be ignored. ( ref ) |
|
|