Hadith regarding a prohibition by Muhammad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Part of a series on the |
|
| Topics | |
| Hadith regarding its legality | |
- This is a sub-article of Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah
There are several recorded oral traditions (Arabic: Hadith) from the Islamic prophet Muhammad used either to prove or to disprove the legality of Nikah Mut'ah, an Islamic marriage form. This article lists those hadith that are used to disprove its legality and provides the classical and modern Shi'a and Sunni interpretation provided by Islamic scholars using the Science of hadith on each of those hadith.
For a more general disscusion regarding the present day legality of Nikah Mut'ah, see Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah.
Contents |
[edit] List
Here is a list of the hadiths used to disprove mut'ah. Each title begins with the time of the supposed event.
| Date | Hadith | Comments | ||||
| 0 | Before Hijra: Sura Al-Muminun |
One hadith attributed to A'isha and Ibn Abbas states that it was forbiden when a verse that is present in both the Quranic chapters of Al-Maarij (verse 29-31) and Al-Muminun (verse 6) revealed. |
this verse was revealed before the Migration to Medina, and thus have both Shi'a and Sunni scholars questioned the validity of the hadith since both Shi'as and Sunnis agree that Nikah Mut'ah was legal years after the migration to Medina. | |||
| 1 | 7 AH, 629 CE: The first pilgrimage | Hasan al-Basri said that Mut'ah was never Halaal, save at The first pilgrimage, this was also narrated by Sabrah ibn Ma'bad. | Shi'a also view this as a fabricated Hadith per the same arguement as the Sura Muminun hadith | |||
| 2 | 7 AH: the day of Khaybar |
In a hadith included in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, Ali is supposed to have stated that Mut'ah Nikah was prohibited at the Battle of Khaybar. Sahih Muslim recorded the full hadith, were Ali is suposed to have been said this while correcting Ibn Abbas endorsment of the legality of Nikah Mut'ah. |
Shi'a offer a variety of reasons to reject the narration as fabricated, including issues with isnad, matn and it being an ahaad hadith that contradics several mutawatir hadith. | |||
| 3 | 8 AH: Battle of Hunayn | |||||
| 4 | 9 AH: the year of Autas | From Sahih Muslim
|
Autas refers to the Battle of Hunayn after the Conquest of Mecca in 9th Hijri. Some have claimed that this hadith is mutawattir however, that is unfounded. It is a lone narration (ahad) (ref).
Sunnis view this hadith as authentic, evidently, since its in Sahi Muslim. Furthermore, Sunni argue that this hadith unambiguously proves the prohibition of Mut'ah. |
|||
| 5 | 9 AH: Battle of Tabuk | Abu Hurrayra claimed it was banned in 9th Hijri at the expedition of Tabuk. | Shi'a do not regard Abu Hurairah as reliable. | |||
| 6 & 7 | 8 AH: Conquest of Mecca & 10 AH: Last Pilgrimage |
|
[edit] Sunni view
Most Sunni view that Mut'ah was made permisible in the Qur'an, and no Qur'anic verse abrogated it.
Badr al-Din al-Ayni, a 14th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes [1]:
| If it is said that one who practises Mut'ah should be punished, it should be noted that most of Imam Malik's students asserted that no penalty should be applied, as there is no evidence that Mut'ah was made haram by the Qur'an. |
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, a 20th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes [2]:
| The correct position therefore is that the prohibition of Mut'ah is not based on any express law of the Qur'an, but is based on the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s). |
13th century scholars al-Qurtubi [3] and al-Nawawi [4] counted the number of hadith which stated that Muhammad abrogated Nikah Mut'ah, and they both came to the conclusion that there are seven such narrations, all of them being Ahaad and none of them agreeing with the other regarding timing.
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:
[edit] Allamah Nawawi and Qadhi Iyad
Imam Nawawi in Sharh Muslim Volume 1 page 450 [Printed Delhi] quotes the comments of Qadhi Iyad:
After this lengthy quote of Qadi Iyad, Nawawi seeks to set out his own view:
|
- The battle of Hunayn (9) - this occurred after the victory of Makka (8). Narrations referring to Autas (9) should be understood as referring to the victory of Makka (8) to eliminate contradictions.
- Traditions pointing to the practice of Mut'ah at Tabuk (9) are unreliable, as the narrator's confused Tabuk (9) with Khayber (7).
- Traditions exist stipulating that Mut'ah was halaal at the Farewell Pilgrimage (10) and then made haraam, but this is unacceptable as the same narrator also said that Mut'ah had been practiced at the time of the victory of Makka (8).
- The narration that Mut'ah was prohibited at Umrah Dhu'l-Qada (6) was on the authority of Hasan al Basra.
- Sabra Juhani referred to the prohibition at the Farewell Pilgrimage (10) and the Victory of Makka (8), but these narrations are unacceptable.
- Qadi Iyad stated that Mut'ah was abrogated at Khayber (7) and all that happened afterwards was a mere verification.
- Nawawi opposed the view of Qadi Iyad, pointing out that if Mut'ah was made haraam forever at Khayber (7), what is left of the victory of Makka (8) tradition? He concludes that Mut'ah was Mubah at the victory of Makka (8), and then made haraam forever. Nawawi's view is in line with that of Imam Muslim who in his Sahih sets out the traditions in this way, namely that it was Mubah then haraam forever.
[edit] Qurtubi
Al-Qurtubi, a 13th century Sunni Maliki Islamic scholar states [5]:
| 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 |
[edit] Qadi Thanaullah Panipati
Qadi Thanaullah Panipati viewed that it was Halal 4-5 times, haram 4-5 times [6]:
| 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. |
[edit] Imam Sha'afi
Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i, a 9th century Sunni Islamic scholar, the founder of the Shafi'i madhhab states that it was halal 2 times, and haram 2 times:
| The prohibition of the contractual marriage took place in the day of the Khayber (7 AH) 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 (8 AH). Then he prohibited it. Shafi'i said: 'I do not know any other thing which was made lawful, then prohibited, then made lawful again, then unlawful except the contractual marriage, which was prohibited in the year in which Mecca was conquered, then after that it became lawful"'[7] |
He also said:
| I don't know anything that Allah permitted, then forbid, then permitted, then forbid again except Mut'ah" [8] |
[edit] Ibn Katheer
Ibn Kathir, a 14th century Sunni Shafi'i Islamic scholar whom is also considered a Salafi progenitor states:
| 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" [9] |
[edit] Imam As-Suhaili
Imam As-Suhaili, a 12th century Sunni Islamic scholar is quoted as stating it was made haraam six times:
Of the traditions on Nikah Mut'ah that are contradictory, the most unusual narration is that it was haraam at Tabuk (9 AH), others say the prohibition was at Umrah Dhu'l-Qada (7 AH), the famous view that it was banned at the time of the victory of Makka (8 AH) is on the authority Sabra Juhani. There are also narrations from Sabra Juhani that it was made haraam at the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage (10 AH). We are then left with the prohibition at Autas (9 AH) that conflicts with the tradition of the victory of Makka (8 AH). From these traditions it is evident that Mut'ah was abrogated on six occasions,
|
Suhaili made no mention of the Hunayn tradition (8 AH), this either did not come to his notice, or he omitted as the narrators made a mistake, or he deemed Autas (9 AH) and Hunayn (8 AH) to be the same occasion.
[edit] Ibn Hajr Asqalani
Ibn Hajr Asqalani, a 15th century Sunni Islamic scholar elaborates after having quoted Imam As-Suhaili that it was made halaal and haraam on two occasions:
| 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 (9) narration from Salma b. al-Akwa. 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 (8) and Khayber (7) that carry Sahih chains. This is an issue for Hasan al Basri, his narration is da'eef [weak] as he would take traditions from anyone. If the tradition is accepted we could interpret Umrah Dhu'l-Qada (6) as Khayber (7) as both events occurred in the same year. We are left with the Tabuk (9) narration, Abu Hurayra 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 (8)". [10] |
He also writes:
| We have numerous ahadith which are explicit in prohibiting Mut'ah after permission was given for it." [11] |
[edit] Ibn Qayyim
Ibn Qayyim was of the opinion that Muhammad did not prohibit it, but ordered people to follow the ways of the rashidun. After that, it was practiced during the era of Abu Bakr unti Umar finaly made it illegal:
Difference over whether Mut'ah is haraam take place at four points.
|
| If we accept that Mut'ah was cancelled on the Day of Khayber (7 AH) then what we are saying is that cancellation occurred twice and this has never happened in religion for sure and will not happen". [12] |
| If the hadith of Jabir was sahih then how did ibn Masud remain ignorant of this? If it was Sahih then why would Umar say that Mut'ah was practised during the lifetime of the Rasulullah(s), and say: "Now I stop it and shall stone the one who practises Mut'ah?" If the Abrogation hadith was Sahih then why did people practise Mut'ah during Abu Bakr's reign, when it is claimed his was like the Khilafath of Prophethood? [13] |
| The tradition in Muslims on the authority of Jabir we would do Mut'ah via mud, flour and clay and also practised Mut'ah during the reign of Abu Bakr until the episode of Umar bin Hareeth when Umar outlawed it and its proven that Umar declared that w Mut'ah's were halaal during the lifetime of the Rasulullah(s) and I prohibit them, if those that deem Mut'ah haram were presented with this reply then how will they reply? People have two views, one is that Umar himself declared it haram, and that Rasulullah(s) issued an order to follow our khalifa. To rely on the claim that Mut'ah was deemed haram following the victory Makka is not correct since this was narrated by Abdul Malik bin Rabi bin Sabra who heard is from his forefathers, and on this authority Ibn Moeen made his comment that Imam Bukhari did not reply on him and did not place is in his Sahih even though such a hadith was needed if this narration was Sahih he would have definitely recorded it. If the prohibition on Mut'ah is correct then why were Companions practising this during the khilafath of Abu Bakr when this was the era of the Khalifa of Rasulullah(s)[14] |
[edit] Fakhr al-Din al-Razi
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi stated viewed that it had not been prohibited at several occasions:
| 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. [15] |
[edit] 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 [Constantinople edition]:
| Nikah Mut'ah between Khayber (7) and Fath Makka (8) was Mubah, but was subsequently cancelled via the ijm'aa of the Sahaba to the point that it is unacceptable for a Qadhi [Judge] to deem it permissible, if someone deems it Mubah he is a kaffir |
- Halal between Khayber (7) and the victory of Makka (8), Haram now
[edit] Mohammad Abul Hassan
Imam of the Deobandis, Maulana Mohammad Abul Hassan in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari, Faizul Bari, Parah 21, Page 125, tows the traditional Sunni line that Umar reinforced the prohibition on Mut'ah made by Muhammad. Interestingly in the same section he asserts that Ibn Abbas deemed Mut'ah to be halaal. [3]
[edit] Shia view
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:
- Rabi ibn Sabra (who narrates it from his father Sabra Juhani)
- Ali ibn Abu Talib
- Salma ibn al-Akwa
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:
- The hadith of Ali claims Mut'ah was made haram in 7th Hijri (at Khayber)
- The hadith of Ibn Sabra claims that Mut'ah was made haram 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)
- The hadith of Salma b. al-Akwa claims that Mut'ah was made haram in 9th Hijri (i.e. in year of Autas, which was after battle of Hunayn)
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 Salaf who verdicted Nikah Mut'ah to be legal after Muhammad.
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 verse 4:24.
[edit] References
- ^ Umdat al-Qari Volume 8 page 311 Bab Ghazwa Khayber
- ^ Tafheem ul Qur'an [English translation] Volume 8 page 12 footnote 4
- ^ Tafsir al-Qurtubi
- ^ Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim
- ^ Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Volume 5 p. 30
- ^ Tafsir al-Mazhari page 572
- ^ Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya (Ibn Kathir) Volume 3 pages 365 - 366
- ^ the sixth volume of Kitab al-Maghni of Ibn Qadamah, page 645, third edition [1]
- ^ Tafsir ibn Kathir ref
- ^ a b Ibn Hajr Asqalani in his Fathul Bari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9 page 133 wrote
- ^ Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 11, p. 70 of the 1989 edition [2]
- ^ a b Zad al-Ma'ad Volume 1 page 442
- ^ Zad al-Ma'ad Volume2 page 206 Dhikr Fath Makka
- ^ Zad al-Ma'ad Volume 2 p. 205-206
- ^ Tafsir al-Kabir (al-Razi) Volume 3 page 194
![[3]](http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/faizul_bari_parah21_p125.jpg){kind=link}
