返回总目录
Temporary Marriage: Revisiting Muhammad’s Permitting a Form of Prostitution known As Muta
Osama Abdallah And Temporary Marriage:
Revisiting Muhammad’s Permitting a Form of Prostitution known As Muta
Sam Shamoun
Osama Abdallah has produced two audio files where he tries to refute my charge against
Nadir Ahmad (bottom of this page) that Muta in Islam is
nothing more than a form of prostitution:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/muta_forbidden_in_islam.wav
http://www.answering-christianity.com/muta_in_bible.wav
In this rebuttal we will examine Osama’s defense and see how well he does in
addressing my claims.
Does the Bible Really Teach Muta?
As a sheer act of desperation and an obvious attempt of trying to justify
Muhammad’s perversions, Osama distorts the following text in order to prove that
the Bible condones Muta:
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and lies with her,
he shall give THE BRIDE-PRICE for her and make her HIS WIFE. If her father utterly
refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to THE BRIDE-PRICE for virgins."
Exodus 22:16-17
Anyone reading this passage can obviously see that this has absolutely nothing to
do with Muta. Rather, this is dealing with a situation in which two parties engage in
premarital sex. The verses demand that the person must marry the maiden whom he has seduced
into having sex and pay her the bride price. Now in situations where the father of the
young maiden refuses to give his daughter to the man then the father is to still receive
the bride price, and the reason for doing so should be clear to the readers. By accepting
the bride price the persons would be classified as husband and wife, with the sexual act
being that which consummated their marital union. The father’s refusal to give his
daughter to her seducer would function as a notice that the couple ended up getting a
divorce in order to protect his daughter from being shunned by the community which would
prevent her from ever remarrying.
In light of the foregoing, how in the world can anyone claim that this is analogous
to Muta? As we will discuss in more detail shortly, the main purpose for Muta was to
permit men to satisfy their lustful, perverted desires by temporarily marrying a woman
for a sum of money or fee. The text in Exodus, on the other hand, is dealing with
the unfortunate situation of persons who engage in premarital sex and has nothing to do
with a man pretending to marry a maiden for a sum of money with the intention of leaving
her as soon as the specified time period for this sexual perversion has terminated.
In other words, Muta is a contract where the man pays a certain price beforehand
for the temporary marriage (sexual service) that the woman will then deliver for
a certain period of time. That is what makes it legalized prostitution.
The above passage, on the other hand, specifies the punishment for the man
who did something forbidden. He has to pay a hefty sum for doing what was not
allowed. In Muta the man pays for sexual service that is then legally his.
In the Bible passage the man has to pay a penalty for doing what was forbidden.
With the same logic, one could claim that buying a car is equivalent to stealing
it and then paying a fine when getting caught.
Osama’s gross reading of this text reminds us of the following passage:
"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing
is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled." Titus 1:15
It is only those whose hearts and minds are perverted who can distort God’s Word
in the manner in which Osama distorts it.
Osama complained that the Holy Bible prescribes no physical discipline such as flogging
for fornicators, or for those who engage in premarital sex, like that found in the Quran.
The answer is rather simple, why should there be a specific punishment for this sin? Is
God required to prescribe physical punishments for every specific sin a person commits?
Isn’t God’s command that the person must marry the young maiden who he has slept
with punishment enough in that it shows that one cannot simply sleep with someone without
being bound to that individual for life?
What is even more amazing about Osama’s objection is his selectivity. Osama has
no problem with the fact that the Quran nowhere prescribes specific physical punishments
for acts of homosexuality, lesbianism or bestiality like the Holy Bible. It is grossly
inconsistent for him to complain about the lack of physical correction regarding a
specific sin but have absolutely no problem with the Quran’s utter failure to
explicitly address perverted acts such as homosexuality, lesbianism or Muhammad’s
permitting prostitution, let alone prescribe any specific punishments for such acts.
Osama’s Challenge for Me
Apart from his gross lies and distortions of what the Holy Bible says about marriage
and divorce, Osama presented the following challenge to me:
Where in the Bible are non-virgin girls forbidden from
having sex with their boyfriends?
I was expecting that Osama would have given me a rather hard challenge, but I am not
surprised that this is the best he could do. Here is the answer from God’s true Word,
the Holy Bible:
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not
to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But because of the temptation to sexual
immorality, EACH MAN SHOULD HAVE HIS OWN WIFE AND EACH WOMAN HER OWN HUSBAND. The husband
should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the
wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband
does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another,
except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer;
but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of
self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single
as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, THEY SHOULD MARRY. For it is
better to marry than to be aflame with passion." 1 Corinthians 7:8-9
"Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my
judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the
present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do
not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry,
you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned."
1 Corinthians 7:25-28
"If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his
passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no
sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having
his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his
betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who
refrains from marriage will do even better. A wife is bound to her husband as long
as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free TO BE MARRIED to whom she
wishes, only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:36-39
"Or do you not know, brothers—FOR I AM SPEAKING TO THOSE WHO KNOW THE
LAW--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman
is bound BY LAW to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released
from THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. Accordingly, SHE WILL BE CALLED AN ADULTERESS if she lives
with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free
from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress." Romans 7:1-3
Paul plainly states that a person who burns with desire MUST GET MARRIED, not engage in
premarital sex. Paul even says that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives
and that she would be an adulteress if she were to live with another man while her husband
is still alive. Paul then says that widows can be married if they want, but doesn’t
say that they are free to find a boyfriend to sleep with.
Here is what we find regarding divorce and remarriage:
"When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his
eyes because he has found some INDECENCY in her, and he writes
her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his
house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes
another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a
certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his
house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her
former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife,
after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And
you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you
for an inheritance. When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with
the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home
one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken." Deuteronomy 24:1-5
"It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate
of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on
the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 5:31-32
"And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to
them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’ Mark 10:10-12
"To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not
separate from her husband (but if she does, she should REMAIN UNMARRIED or else be
reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11
The above citations assume that if specific individuals have legitimate grounds for
divorce then they are to remarry if they desire intimacy. In fact, Jesus goes so far as to
condemn individuals that have divorced for reasons other than sexual immorality, and
classifies any of their subsequent marriages as adultery. If God condemns such marriages
then how much more would he condemn and despise divorcees from engaging in premarital sex?
In order to summarize the preceding points, here is what we gather from the foregoing:
- A person who burns with sexual desire must get married, which means that no one is
allowed to engage in premarital sex, whether that person has been married or not.
- A married woman is bound to her husband till death.
- A married couple cannot divorce each other for any legitimate reason with the exception
of sexual immorality.
- A widow must either remain single or get married.
- The command in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 presupposes that a divorcee is to remarry if he/she
wishes to engage in sexual intimacy, provided that their divorce was based on legitimate
grounds. Otherwise, they must remain single or return to their spouse according to
1 Corinthians 7:10-11.
Basically, what all these passages are teaching is that a person has the option to
either marry or remain single. There is no other option that allows for a person, whether
single or divorced, whether male or female, to engage in pre-marital sex. That is why
Exodus 22:16-17 demands that a person who has engaged in premarital sex marry that person.
For a more in depth look on what both the Holy Bible and Islam say about these specific
issues please read the following:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/remarriage1.htm
Now that Osama’s challenge has been addressed we turn our attention to Muhammad
permitting Muslims to engage gross immorality.
The Meaning of Muta
Osama failed to prove his case from the Quran that Muta has been abrogated. Out of
sheer desperation he tried to appeal to the Sunni narrations in order to convince his
listeners that Muhammad canceled out Muta. Before we proceed to refute his arguments we
need to first provide an explanation of what Muta actually is:
WHAT IS TEMPORARY MARRIAGE?
It is a temporary marriage upon agreement of the two parties. This temporary marriage
was a custom amongst eastern countries, as it was also practised by some men at the dawn
of Islam on their missions / trips.
Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.a.) said: "Temporary marriage was at the beginning of
Islam. A man comes by a town where he has no acquaintances, so he marries for a fixed time
depending on his stay in the town, the woman looks after his provisions and prepares his
food, until the verse was revealed: "Except to your wives or what your right hands
possess." Ibn 'Abbas explained that any relationship beyond this is forbidden.
[narrated by Tirmidhee]
As temporary marriage was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not
have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing
pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.
It is well established that temporary marriage does not agree with the interests of
people because it causes loss to the offspring, uses women for fulfilment of the lusts of
men, and belittles the value of a woman whom Allah has honoured. So temporary marriage was
forbidden.
(Source)
Is Muta Really Prostitution?
Osama objects to my classifying Muta as prostitution in the guise of marriage. Instead
of refuting him personally, I will allow his own Muslim brothers and sisters do that for
me. After specifying what real marriage is according to the Quran, this next Salafi
website comes to the following conclusion regarding Muta:
On these grounds, Mut’ah marriage IS CONSIDERED TO BE ZINAA (ADULTERY OR
FORNICATION), even if both parties consent to it, and even if it lasts for a long time,
and even if the man pays the woman a mahr. There is nothing that has been reported in
sharee’ah that shows that it may be permitted, APART FROM THE BRIEF PERIOD when it
was allowed during the year of the conquest of Makkah. That was because at that time there
were so many people who has newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might
become apostates, BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN USED TO COMMITTING ZINAA the Jaahiliyyah. So this
kind of marriage WAS PERMTITED for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the
Day of Resurrection, as was narrated by Muslim, 1406.
(Source;
capital emphasis ours)
And:
Mut’ah or
temporary marriage refers to when a man marries a woman for a specific length of time in
return for a particular amount of money.
The basic principle concerning marriage is THAT
IT SHOULD BE ONGOING AND PERMANENT. Temporary marriage – i.e., mut’ah marriage
– was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became haraam
until the Day of Judgement…
Allaah has made marriage one of His signs which
calls us to think and ponder. He has created love and compassion between the spouses, and
has made the wife a source of tranquility for the husband. He encouraged us to have
children and decreed that a woman should wait out the ‘iddah period and may inherit.
None of that exists in this haraam form of marriage.
(Source)
See also their following responses:
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=2377&ln=eng
http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=6595&ln=eng
The following story is found on these websites (*,
*) and recounts the experience
of a young Sunni girl who was duped into having sex under the guise of Muta. Here are some of
her comments which are relevant to the issue being raised here regarding Muta being nothing
more than legalized prostitution:
It all changed when I met him. It was fascinating to know that a college student would
care so much about me. He was the most wonderful person. He treated me like a queen, and
soon we became the best of friends. I felt I could tell him anything. As our friendship
progressed, we talked about different topics including religion. He had different beliefs
than me; he was Shia while I was Sunni. We always argued upon the differences. He had a
way with making things sound better than what they were. Soon I became very confused.
One day he mentioned the idea of Mut'a. He told me that it was a type of temporary
marriage, which was halal even in Sunni books. At first I didn’t believe him, but he
used sources such as Bukhari and Muslim. I took his word for it, and before I realized, I
was into a lot of trouble. I was in Mut'a for four years. As time went by, I learnt that I
had lost my honor and dignity to someone who had done this to several other girls. Allah
helped me open my eyes and realize what I had gotten myself into. By now, I was on the
verge of switching beliefs to be a Shia. At this point, I decided to really search for the
truth. Since I cannot present the whole research, I have tried to give a very brief idea
about Mut'a…
Mut'a is a form of temporary marriage where a man can marry a woman for an agreed
amount of time and money (mahr). In Mut'a, the husband is not financially responsible for
the wife. There are no set limits in this kind of marriage by the Shias. According Shia
beliefs, no witnesses nor a permission of the guardian is needed (the Sunni father does
not believe in Mut'a), and there is no limit on the number of Mut'a one can do.
Also, the time period can be AS LITTLE AS ONE HOUR to as long as sixty years. In addition,
a man who is permanently married can do as many Mut'a as he feels like, even with married
women. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO PROSTITUTION …
Ninety-nine percent of the companions followed this opinion, but there was one percent
who believed Mut'a can be performed in extreme case of necessity in the land of war. This
one percent is divided into two groups. One says, it is allowed with the Caliph's
permission, and the other says there is no need for the permission. Those who do not
believe in Caliph's permission say that it was Umar who made it haram. Their proof is
based upon an opinion by a companion namely Ibn Abbas. People misused this opinion of Ibn
Abbas until he clarified himself and said, Wallahi I did not mean what they did! I meant
similarly to what Allah meant when he allowed the meat of dead animals and pork to be
eaten in extreme necessity. This is referring to the time when people abused the rule of
necessity at time of Umar, following the understanding of the one percent. Finally, Umar
declared and taught it to be haram when a lady came to Umar complaining about how her
husband in Mut'a, who was married, would not take responsibility of the child. He realized
how the society was becoming corrupt with similar conditions to adultery. Thus, he had to
teach people and make Mut'a haram even in the case of the one percent opinion…
IF MUT'A IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR SATISFYING LUST, THEN WHAT IS IT! IT SEEMS TO BE THE
EASIEST SOLUTION FOR ADULTERY. If Mut'a really was to be done in case of need THEN WHY IS
IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MARRIED PERSON TO DO MUT'A? Also, if one cannot marry due to
financial insecurity then how can one be responsible for supporting the child and not be
able to support the wife? And how is he going to know if the child is actually his, not
someone else's? …
In Mut'a, THERE IS NO DIVORCE; once you pay the set amount of money and the assigned
time ends there is no rights, no duty, no inheritance laws, or divorce process. The only
law is that the woman waits for a period of 45 days before she enters into another Mut'a,
while the man can have immediate one, even while he is married or in another Mut'a. This
goes against what Allah assigned for marriage in the Qura'n. In Surah 2 Ayah 228 Allah
says, Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods and it is
not lawful for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs. If they have faith in
Allah and the last day." In Mut'a she can be pregnant with the child of her first
Mut'a husband and be married to her second Mut'a husband or the permanent. In the book of
Mustadrak-Alwasa il (Shia authentic hadith book) vol. 7 book 3 pg. 506 rewayah 8762, it
states that the prophet said that who ever cannot find the ability to get married let him
fast, my ummah s protection is fasting. Also in Beharul-Alanwaar (Shia hadith book in
vol.14 pg. 327 rewayah 50:21) it states that Imam Ali said and seek protection from women
desire by fasting. What is the need for fasting if Mut'a is OK? It is obvious that this
contradict this idea. I hope and pray that we will take this matter seriously. (Capital,
bold and underline emphasis ours)
This Muslim woman mentioned that Muta could last as short as an hour, a position
supported by the following Shiite source:
Q1: Can Someone Contract Mut'a Marriage for 1 hour?
I would say theoretically yes! Much in the same way that it is possible for some one to
marry a woman permanently and then divorce her in one hour or even less. Logically, since
the possibility of this action does not invalidate the regular marriage, therefore, it
should not be applied in the case of Mut'a either!
(Source)
Notice the candid admission of these Muslims. These sources have no hesitation
classifying Muta as fornication, adultery and prostitution! They also warn Muslims from
engaging in this sick, filthy, and perverted act. Yet at the same time these sources are
aware that Muhammad permitted Muta for a time, which is an indirect admission that
Muhammad permitted fornication, adultery, and prostitution.
The reader should easily see that their reasoning and justification for Muhammad’s
permitting this perverted practice is utterly weak, with Osama’s logic being even
worse. In order to expose the utter shallowness of their defense let us apply their
reasoning to other sick, filthy practices:
Islam allowed the raping of young girls and boys at the beginning, because at that time
there were so many people who had newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they
might become apostates, because they had been used to committing sexual acts with children
during the Jaahiliyyah (Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance). So this kind of sex was
permitted for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection.
As child molestation was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would
not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing
pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.
The only shortcoming with the above analogy is that the Quran does allow for the raping
and divorcing of young, prepubescent girls. It even has the audacity to call this
marriage:
O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period.
Count the period, and fear God your Lord. Do not expel them from their houses, nor let
them go forth, except when they commit a flagrant indecency. Those are God's bounds;
whosoever trespasses the bounds of God has done wrong to himself. Thou knowest not,
perchance after that God will bring something new to pass… As for your women who have
despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three
months; and those who have not menstruated as yet. And those who are with
child, their term is when they bring forth their burden. Whoso fears God, God will appoint
for him, of His command, easiness. S. 65:1, 4 Arberry
The waiting period for the divorcing of women who haven’t even menstruated is
three months, showing that these aren’t even women but are young girls who
haven’t even attained puberty! Now a woman can only be divorced if she was first
married, so it is clear that this injunction assumes that young girls can be married and
divorced and remarry before they reach puberty. Even more, the purpose of this waiting
period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant, or if she
is to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current
husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this verse
presupposes that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls have sexual
intercourse with them.
The renowned Muslim commentator Abu-Ala’ Maududi, in his six volume commentary on
the Quran, confirmed this when he wrote:
"Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet
menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this
age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now,
obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as
permissible." (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)
Let us therefore use another example:
Islam allowed incest at the beginning, because at that time there were so many people
who had newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates,
because they had been used to sleeping with their family members during the Jaahiliyyah
(Pre-Islamic period of Ignorance). So this kind of practice was permitted for them for
three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection. As incest was
a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it
except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were
contrary to the interests of people.
Would anyone buy this logic? Can there really be any justification for such perverted
and heinous acts to be permitted, even if it is for a short while? Doesn’t this prove
that Muslims will say just about anything to exonerate Muhammad from all the gross
perversions he permitted in the name of God?
Sunni Narrations That Claim Muta is not Abrogated
The following verse is believed to have permitted Muta:
O ye who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you,
and transgress not, Lo! Allah loveth not transgressors. S. 5:87 Pickthall
The hadith states:
Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing
(no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade
us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract AND RECITED TO US:
-- ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful
for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,
Number 13o)
Another passage which Muslims claim allowed for Muta is Sura 4:24:
And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands
possess. This has ALLAH enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond
that, that you may seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly
and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them
their dowries, as fixed, and there is no blame on you what you do by mutual agreement
after the fixing of the dowry. Surely ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise. Sher Ali
Noted Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir commented on the above text and claimed that:
"... <And how could you take it back and you have gone in unto each other.>
(4:21): the general meaning of which was given as evidence for Mut'a Marriage
(Marriage for an intended short time) which was, undoubtedly, PREVALENT at the onset of
Islam, but was abrogated thereafter. Ash-Shafi'i and a group of scholars were
of the opinion that Mut'a Marriage had once been permitted but was
later invalidated on two occasions. Some were more assertive than that, while others
have made it lawful only if necessary. The majority of scholars, however, have
opposed this view. The correct statement is mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih
Muslim, on the authority of Ali Ibn Abu Talib: ‘The Prophet forbade Mut'a
Marriage and the meat of local skylarks (a type of bird) on the Day of Khaibar.’
"It is narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Ar-Rabi' Ibn Sabrah Ibn
Ma'bad Al-Juhani, who had quoted from his father, who had participated in the Conquest of
Makkah with the Prophet who said: 'O, People! I have permitted you to do Mut'a
Marriage and Allah has forbidden it until the Day of Judgment. Therefore,
whosoever is married to a woman through this type of marriage, should release them and
should not take anything back from Mahr you have given them.' According to Muslim, it was
said during Hujjatal Wadaa' (Farewell Pilgrimage). This Hadith has other meanings in the
Book of Al-Ahkaam." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad
Nasib Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London; First edition 2000], part 5, pp. 29-30
underline and capital emphasis ours)
The following Shiite site quotes a slew of Sunni references admitting that this passage
initially included an additional clause not found today which justified Muta:
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 commentary of Sharh Afhaq 'al Bahar al Maheet' Volume
3 page 218 states:
"Ubay ibn Ka'b, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Jabeer 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 Volume2 P. 40 -
- Tafseer Tabari Volume 5 p.
- Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 p. 94
- Fathul Qadeer Volume 1 p. 14
- Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 1 p. 84
- Tafseer Ruh al Maani Volume 5 p.
- Tafseer Kashaf p. 20
- Tafseer Mazhari Volume2 p. 4
- Tafseer Ahkam al Quran Volume2 p. 47
- Tafseer Mu'alim al Tanzeel p. 63
- Mustadrak Al Hakim volume 2 p. 47
- Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani p. 3
- Tafseer Mawahib al Rahman page 4 part 5
- Tafseer Haqqani volume5 p.
- Tafseer Jama Al Bayan Volume1 p. 66
- Neel al Authar Volume2 p. 53 Kitab Nikah
- Tafseer Qurtabi Volume5 p. 30
- Dhurqani Sharh Muwatta Volume1 p. 54
- Kitab al Musahaf page 342
- Al Bahar al Maheet Volume 3 page 218
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 Maar Volume5 p. 5
- Tafseer Jama al Bayan Volume6 p. 9
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. We read in Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 p. 94:
Its proven that this verse came down about Mut'ah, first reason for this is Ibn Kaab
would read the verse on Mut'ah with the "Ajol Masomee", Ibn Abbas would also
read it in the same way and the Ummah did not order them to stop reading verses in this
way.
The implication of the hadeeth is this: that the Ummah accepted the addition of the words
"for a prescribed period". According to Sunni aqa'id, ijma' (consensus of the
Ummah) is a source of Islamic law. We see that the Ummah consented to these additional
words in the recitation of these important companions. In a later discussion, we will see
how ijma' is used by the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) to justify 'Umar's prohibition of
Mut'ah, arguing that the Companions were silent about 'Umar's innovation and that,
therefore, they were pleased with it. However, we see the Sunni hadeeth literature
claiming ijma' for something which contradicts the version of the Qur'an constituted by
'Uthman, which clearly supports the position that Mut'ah was halaal and that verse 4:24
was revealed in order to legitimise the practice of temporary marriage.
Further evidences in this regard:
- 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 Jabeer would read this verse with the words 'for a prescribed
period'"
- Ibn Abbas would read the verse of Mut'ah with the words "for a prescribed period'
and openly declared this to be halaal.
Tafseer Al Baghawi, Al Musami Mu’alim al Tanzeel, p. 414
(http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_albaghawi_p414.jpg)
- 'Abu Nadhra asked Ibn Abbas about Mut'ah and he replied "haven't you read the verse
in Surah Nisa:- "those women… for prescribed period"' Abu Nadhra said
"I did not read the verse in this way". Ibn Abbas replied that "Allah has
revealed the verse in this manner". Ibn Abbas swore that this verse was about Mut'ah.
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume2 P. 40
This recital was also recorded in Tafseer Tabari, on the authority of Ibn Ka'b:
Tafseer al-Tabari, p. 14 & 15
(http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_altabari_p14_15.jpg)
- Allamah Sijistani in al Musahaf page 342 records that: Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas (RA)
recited the verse 4:24 with the addition of "to an appointed time". I
said to him: "I did not read it this way." Ibn Abbas replied: "I swear by
Allah, this is how Allah revealed it," and Ibn Abbas repeated this statement three
times."
This tradition has been similarly recorded in Tafseer Durre Manthur
- Ibn Abbas claimed that the other Sahaba also read the verse on Mut'ah with the words
'for a prescribed period'
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur Volume 2, P. 140 & 141
(http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafseer_dur_almanthur_v2_p140_141.jpg)
- We also read in Durre Manthur that Ibn Abbas said: "Mut'ah was practised from the
outset of Islam and the Companions would read the verse of Mut'ah with the words 'for a
prescribed period'.