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."
This verse is present in two chapters: Al-Maarij (verse 29-31) and Al-Muminun (verse 6). By consensus of Shi'i and Sunni scholars, both verses were revealed in Makka, before the Migration to Madina.
(See: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau23.html, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau70.html, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau69.html)
(See: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau23.html, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau70.html, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau69.html)
A narration attributed to Abdullah ibn Abbass 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 blamable", intercourse with anyone else became unlawful.
However, Shi'is reject this view by arguing that the verse mentioned as abrogating mut'a was revealed in Makka, while the verse establishing it was revealed after the Prophet Mohammad (S) had emigrated to Madina. But a verse which abrogates another verse must be revealed after it, not before it. (See: “Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law” Published in Al-Serat, Volume, 13, Issue 1, in 1979, available online at: http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/5.htm)
Sunnis argue that the above two tradition are basically pointing that the quoted verse restricts sexual intercourse to wives and captives, and thus became Nikah-e-Mut'a unlawfull, implying that a woman in a Nikah-e-Mut'a is not a wife. They point out that without question a woman enjoyed through muta is not a slave. Nor is she a wife, for several reasons: If she were a wife, she and her husband would inherit from each other, since God says: ' And for you a half of what your wives leave...' (4:12). But everyone agrees that mut'a does not involve inheritance. If she were a wife, the child would belong to the husband, since according to the Prophet: 'The child belongs to the bed.' But again this is not the case. And finally, if she were a wife, it would be necessary for her to maintain the waiting period, since this is commanded by God (2:234); but this also is not the case (as well).
(See “Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law”, by Schiko Murata, Published in Al-Serat, Volume, 13, Issue 1, in 1979, available online at: http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/5.htm)
Sunnis, however, agree that Mut'a was practiced till at least 7 AH, meaning that both verses came before the practise was forbidden by Allah.
As for the Sunni claim that a wife by mut'a is not a legitimate wife because she does not fulfill the shari requirements for being a 'wife', the Shi'is consider this claim also to be false. In the question of inheritance, they say, the Qur'anic verse is a general one, and there is no reason to suppose that it may not have certain exceptions. In fact, the specific requirements of mut'a as established by the hadith literature show that mut'a is an exception. They further say that mut'a is not the only exception, since an unbeliever cannot inherit from a Muslim, nor can a murderer inherit from his victim. In short, inheritance pertains to permanent marriage, but even in permanent marriage it has certain exceptions, so that the verse establishing it cannot be interpreted as nullifying mut'a's validity. (See “Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law” Published in Al-Serat, Volume, 13, Issue 1, in 1979, available online at: http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/5.htm)
In a similar manner numerous hadith exist to prove that a wife by mut'a must observe the waiting period. Some of these are even related in Sunni sources. For example, al-Razi himself quotes a relevant saying from Ibn 'Abbas:
Ibn 'Abbas was asked: 'Is mut'a fornication or marriage?' He answered: 'Neither the one nor the other.' The questioner then asked: 'Well then, what is it?' Ibn 'Abbas replied: 'It is mut'a', just as God has said.' The questioner continued: 'Is there a waiting period in mut'a?' He replied: 'Yes, a menstrual period.' 'Do the husband and wife inherit from each other?' He answered: 'NO.'
(See “Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law” Published in Al-Serat, Volume, 13, Issue 1, in 1979, available online at: http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/5.htm)
Further more the Shi'is view the traditions by the prophet Mohammad (S) as forbidding Nikah-e-Mut'a [which appear in portion on Prohibition by Mohammad (S) ] to be a forgery, arguing that there is a consensus that Nikah-e-Mut'a was practiced long after the revelation of these verses. Shi'i also argue that Hazrat Muhammad (S) would not verdict anything that would go against the Qur'an, hence he would not sanction Nikah-e-Mut'a if it has been previously forbidden by a Qur'anic verse. Thus, Shi'i conclude that the mentioned verses can not possibly imply that Nikah-e-Mut'a is forbidden, specially considering that the verse sanctioning it was revealed in 7 AH. In proving their point of view they often quote Sunni Scholars, for example, Mahmud al-Alusi, a 19th century Sunni scholar, writes in Ruh al-Ma'ani Volume 9, page 10, regarding this verse:
This verse is Makkan and descended before the Hijrah (migration), since Mut'a was halaal after the Hijrah, it is difficult to advance this as evidence of the illegality of Mut'a.
Waheed uz-Zaman, a 20th century Deobandi scholar, puts in Lughath al Hadeeth Volume 5, page 9:
Mut'a 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 because the verse is Makkan and the practise of Mut'a afterwards is an established fact. (Also see Tayseer al Bari Sharh Bukhari, by the same person).
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, a 20th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes in his discussion of the verse of Surah Mu'minun:
Some commentators have proved the prohibition of Mut'a (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'a. The fact is that the Holy Prophet (S) enjoined the final and absolute prohibition if Mut'a in the year of the Conquest of Makkah, but before it Mut'a was allowed according to several authentic traditions. If Mut'a 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.
(See: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/tafheem_ulquran_v8_p12.jpg)
However, the Shi'i believe that the above argument is also not strong. Firstly, note that his definition of Nikah-e-Mut'a does not match the Shi'i definition as according to the Shi'i definition the women are required to observe the iddah "waiting period" before she can marry anyone else. Furthermore, there are several other similarities between Mut'a and Nikah e Daaimi. And as the verse orders to preserve their private parts except with their wives or slaves, and Shi'i believe that the women with whom one does Mut'a are also his wives, but for a fixed period of time, hence they are included in the allowed women. Same belief is held by Al-Zamakhshari, a 12th century Hanafi scholar, who writes in Al-Kashaf Volume 3 p. 76, and commentary of Surah Mu'minun Volume 6:
If the Quran is raised that Surah Mu'minun verse 6 is proof that Mut'a is haram, then we will reply that this verse does not prove Mut'a is prohibited, since women in Nikah-e-Mut'a are also wives.
Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, a 20th century Sunni scholar, writes in Fath al-Mulhim Sharh Muslim Volume 3, page 440:
Nikah-e-Mut'a 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'a 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'a unlawful / batil, Mut'a women can also come within the definition of wife in some respects, as we've proven Mut'a 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'a, the verse is Makkan and according to our knowledge no scholar has claimed that Mut'a was prohibited before Khayber, although different views have been aired amongst scholars over the prohibition after Khayber.
In Tafseer Kabeer: "The verse of Mut'a appears in the Qur’an; no verse has come down to abrogate it."
Posts
