Hadith of Mut'ah and Sura Muminun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on the Nikah Mut'ah – a discipline of Islamic marital jurisprudence
Topics
Nikah Mut'ah Muslim controversies Salaf verdicting against Salaf verdicting in favor Scholars verdicting against Scholars verdicting in favor An-Nisa, 24
Hadith regarding its legality
Initial practice Prohibition by Muhammad Sura Muminun Khaybar Hadith of Sabra Prohibition by Umar Four advices Speech of forbidding Wretched persons Imran ibn Husain Use after Muhammad Ibn al-Zubayr This box: view • talk • edit

The Hadith of Mut'ah and Sura Muminun is famous recorded oral tradition among Muslims (Arabic: Hadith) is about the legality of temporary marriage (Arabic: Nikah Mut'ah) and a certain verse in the Qur'an.

Although the narration is prominently quoted and referred to, it is not given any formal name, in contrast to other hadith such as the Hadith of the pond of Khumm or the Hadith of Qur'an and Sunnah

1 Narration
2 Views
- 2.1 Shi'a view
- 2.2 Sunni view
3 References
4 See also

[edit] Narration

A narration attributed to Abdullah ibn Abbas reports:

The temporary marriage applied only in the early days of Islam. A man would come to a settlement where he had no acquaintance and marry a woman for the period it was thought he would stay there, and she would look after his belongings and cook for him. But Ibn Abbas said that when the verse came down, "Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable", intercourse with anyone else became unlawful.

A narration attributed to A'isha reports:

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 possess , then they would have no blame."

Timing: This verse is present in two chapters: Al-Maarij (verse 29-31) and Al-Muminun (verse 6). By consensus of Shi'a ^{[citation needed]} and Sunni scholars, both verses were revealed in Mecca, before the Migration to Medina ^[1].

[edit] Views

This hadith is primarily of notable since it is very prominently referred to when discussing Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah. The version reported by Ibn Abbas is included in Sunan al-Tirmidhi^[2].

The hadith is basically arguing that the quoted verse restricts sexual intercourse to wives and captives, and thus became Nikah Mut'ah unlawfull, implying that a woman in a Nikah Mut'ah is not a wife.

[edit] Shi'a view

Shi'a view this hadith to be an forgery, arguing that there is a consensus that Nikah Mut'ah was practised long after the revelation of these verses. Shi'a also argue that Muhammad would not verdict anything that would go against the Qur'an, hence he would not sanction Nikah Mut'ah if it has been previously forbidden by a Qur'anic verse. Thus, Shi'a conclude that the mentioned verses can not possibly imply that Nikah Mut'ah is forbidden, specially considering that the verse sanctioning it was revealed in 7 AH.

[edit] Sunni view

Sunnis agree that Mut'ah was practiced till at least 7 AH, meaning that both verses came before the practise was supposedly forbidden by Muhammad.

Mahmud al-Alusi, a 19th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes regarding this verse^[3]:

This verse is Makkan and descended before the Hijrah [migration], since Mut'ah was halaal after the Hijrah, it is difficult to advance this as evidence of the illegality of Mut'ah.

Waheed uz-Zaman, a 20th century Deobandi Islamic scholar writes regarding this verse^[4]:

Mut'ah existed at the outset of Islam and this is a proven fact, when this verse descended 'And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands possess ' it became haraam. This may lead to objections being raised due to the fact that the verse is Makkan and the practise of Mut'ah afterwards is an established fact

He also stated ^[5]:

Those who rely on 'except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess' are in error as this is a Makkan verse and there is agreement that Mut'ah was halaal after this

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, a 20th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes in his discussion of the verse of Surah Mu'minun ^[6]:

Some commentators have proved the prohibition of Mut'ah (temporary marriage) from this verse. They argue that the woman with whom one has entered into wedlock temporarily, can neither be regarded as a wife nor a slave girl. A slave girl obviously she is not, and she is also not a wife, because the legal injunctions normally applicable to a wife are not applicable to her. She neither inherits the man, nor the man her; she is neither governed by the law pertaining to 'iddah (waiting period after divorce or death of husband), divorce, sustenance nor by that pertaining to the vow by man that he will not have conjugal relations with her. She is also from the prescribed limit of four wives. Thus when she is neither a 'wife' not a 'slave girl' in any sense, she will naturally be included among those 'beyond this', whose seeker has been declared a 'transgressor' by the Qur'an.

This is a strong argument but due to a weakness in it, is difficult to say that this verse is decisive with regard to the prohibition of Mut'ah. The fact is that the Holy Prophet enjoined the final and absolute prohibition if Mut'ah in the year of the Conquest of Makkah, but before it Mut'ah was allowed according to several authentic traditions. If Mut'ah had been prohibited in this case, which was admittedly revealed at Makkah several years before the migration, how can it be imagined that the Holy Prophet kept the prohibition in abeyance till the conquest of Makkah?

Note that his definition of Nikah Mut'ah does not match the Shi'a twelver definition. Some Sunnis scholars view that Nikah Mut'ah was forbidden at repeated occasions, being legal between those periods (More on this below).

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, a 20th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes in his commentary of the Mut'ah narrations ^[7]:

Nikah Mut'ah was a lesser type of marriage that was Mubah and then made haraam in general terms, when this type of Nikah brought no benefits - Talaq, inheritance or other rights were not proven as was the case with (standard) Nikah. Although from one angle this is also a type of Nikah, women in Mut'ah were 'Zawaaj Naqsa' which is why their rights were not established, as was the case until Allah revealed the verse 'except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess'. This verse does not make Mut'ah unlawful / batil, Mut'ah women can also come within the definition of wife in some respects, as we've proven Mut'ah is applicable in such circumstances as a means of separating oneself from Zina. How can it be advanced that this verse proves the illegality of Mut'ah, the verse is Makkan and according to our knowledge no scholar has claimed that Mut'ah was prohibited before Khayber, although different views have been aired amongst scholars over the prohibition after Khayber

Al-Zamakhshari, a 12th century Hanafi Islamic scholar writes in his commentary on Sura Muminun ^[8]:

If the Quran is raised that Surah Mu'minun verse 6 is proof that Mut'ah is haram, then we will reply that this verse does not prove Mut'ah is prohibited, since women in Nikah Mut'ah are also wives

In a comment not directly related to this verse, Al-Qurtubi, a 13th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes ^[9]:

All the early scholars have no disputes that Mut'ah is Nikah for a set period of time, this Nikah has no inheritance and man and woman separate when the time expires.