History of mutah and the final prohibition
Mut’ah was lawful at the beginning, then was finally prohibited and made forbidden until the Day of Resurrection.
Ibn al Qayyim reports that the correct view is that it was not prohibited on the day of Khaybar, but that its prohibition came in the year of the Conquest, based on the hadith of Rabi ibn Sabrah from his father, in which the Prophet ﷺ said in Makkah: “O people, I had permitted you to benefit from women temporarily, but Allah has now prohibited that until the Day of Resurrection.” (Zaad al Maad 3/304 to 305; Muslim 1406)
Ibn Hajar gathers all the reports that link mut’ah to different campaigns and occasions. He mentions opinions that place the prohibition at Khaybar, the Umrah of al Qada, the Conquest, Awtas, Tabuk and the Farewell Hajj, and notes that Hunayn must also be counted because of another narration.
After reviewing the chains and wording, he concludes that the only sound and clear report which is free of problem is the one which makes its prohibition during the expedition of the Conquest, where permission and prohibition are both explicitly mentioned in a single continuous story. (Fath al Bari 15/335 to 340; Muslim 1405 to 1407)
Examination of the different campaign reports
The narrations that mention Khaybar join together the prohibition of mut’ah and the prohibition of eating domesticated donkeys. Ibn al Qayyim explains that Ali only combined them in his reply to Ibn Abbas because Ibn Abbas was giving concession in both, so Ali narrated from the Prophet ﷺ that both were forbidden.
The explicit time expression “on the day of Khaybar” is attached without doubt to the donkeys, and some narrators then mistakenly attached the same time to mut’ah as well, although the story of Khaybar contains no mention of the companions practising mut’ah with Jewish women, nor of any request for it, nor any narrative detail about practice and prohibition. (Zaad al Maad 3/304 to 305)
For the Umrah of al Qada, Ibn Hajar shows that the report of al Hasan al Basri is mursal and that its extra wording, “It did not occur before it nor after it,” comes through Amr ibn Ubayd who is discarded in hadith.
For Tabuk, he cites the reports of Abu Hurayrah and Jabir and explains that their chains are very weak, and even in Abu Hurayrah’s hadith there is no explicit statement that contracting mut’ah happened at that time, only that prohibition occurred when some remained upon an earlier concession.
For the Farewell Hajj, he notes that if the report is sound then what occurred there was prohibition only, since they performed Hajj with their wives and were no longer in hardship. (Fath al Bari 15/335 to 340)
Regarding Awtas, Ibn Hajar records the wording in Muslim that “the Messenger of Allah ﷺ granted us a concession regarding temporary marriage in the year of Awtas for three days, then he forbade it.”
He reconciles this with the report of the Conquest by explaining that “the year of Awtas” can be used for “the year of the Conquest” due to their closeness, and he considers it far fetched that a clear prohibition “until the Day of Resurrection” would be followed by a fresh permission a short time later. On this basis he gives preference to the route that places the last permission and final prohibition in the expedition of the Conquest. (Fath al Bari 15/337 to 339; Muslim 1405 to 1406)
Matters concerning repeated permission and prohibition
Some people of knowledge said that mut’ah was prohibited, then permitted, then prohibited again. Al Shafii said that he did not know of anything in Sharia which was prohibited, then permitted, then prohibited again except mut’ah, and al Nawawi adopted the view that permission and prohibition each occurred twice: permitted before Khaybar, prohibited at Khaybar, permitted again in the year of the Conquest (the year of Awtas), then prohibited with a firm and lasting prohibition. (Zaad al Maad 3/304 to 305; Fath al Bari 15/339 to 340)
Al Mawardi, as quoted by Ibn Hajar, reports two explanations. One is that the prohibition was repeated in order to make it more manifest and widely known in different gatherings so that it would reach those absent from earlier occasions.
The other, which he and Ibn Hajar prefer, is that permission itself was renewed on more than one occasion due to need, and that this is why on the last occasion the Prophet ﷺ said, “It is forbidden from this day of yours until the Day of Resurrection,” as a sign that this final prohibition would never again be followed by permission. (Fath al Bari 15/339 to 340)
Why mutah was permitted at certain times
The reason for allowing mut’ah is made explicit in the hadith of Ibn Masud رضي الله عنه that the companions used to go out on campaigns and they had women with them, so celibacy was hard for them, and the Prophet ﷺ permitted them to marry a woman for a garment.
Ibn Hajar explains that Ibn Masʿud made it clear this permission was only due to need and limited resources. (Fath al Bari 15/339; Muslim 1405; earlier hadith of Ibn Masud)
He also quotes the hadith of Sahl ibn Sad رضي الله عنه, reported by Ibn Abd al Barr, that “the Prophet ﷺ only permitted temporary marriage because there was hardship upon the people, then he forbade it. When Khaybar was conquered Allah expanded their provision in wealth and captives, so it was fitting that temporary marriage be forbidden due to the cause of permissibility having been removed.
That was part of the completion of gratitude to Allah for ease after hardship.” This shows that mutah was a restricted concession tied to severe hardship and lack of means before Allah opened for them spoils and captives. (Al Tamheed 10/109 to 110; Fath al Bari 15/339 to 340)
Ibn Hajar then says that mut’ah was allowed in those campaigns whose travel was distant and difficult and where celibacy weighed heavily on the companions, such as the expedition of the Conquest, and that when the period of need ended the Prophet ﷺ forbade it.
The hadith of Tabuk, even with its weakness, supports the understanding that the final prohibition applied even in situations of hardship and travel, which shows that after the final statement “until the Day of Resurrection” no further concession remained. (Fath al Bari 15/339 to 340)
Imam Ibn Al Qayyim said: Temporary marriage was not prohibited on the day of Khaybar, rather its prohibition was in the year of the Conquest. (This is as reported his Sahih Muslim 1406, from the narration of Rabi ibn Sabra, that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and he said: O people, I had permitted you to benefit from women temporarily, but Allah has now prohibited that until the Day of Resurrection.)
This is what is correct. A group of people of knowledge thought that he prohibited it on the day of Khaybar, and they used as evidence what is in the two Sahih collections from the narration of Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade temporary marriage with women on the day of Khaybar and forbade eating the meat of domesticated donkeys. (It was recorded by Muslim hadith number 1407f in the section on marriage in the chapter on the recommendation for the one who sees a woman and something occurs in himself, and by Al Tirmidhi hadith number 1121, and in Al Muwatta of Malik volume 2 page 542, and by Al Nasa’i in volume 6 pages 125 and 126, and by Ibn Majah hadith number 1991, and by Al Darimi volume 2 page 140, and by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in volume 1 page 79.)
In the two Sahih collections there is also that Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, heard Ibn Abbas being lenient about temporary marriage with women, so he said: Take it easy, O Ibn Abbas, for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade it on the day of Khaybar and forbade the meat of domesticated donkeys. In another wording in Al Bukhari from him, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade temporary marriage with women on the day of Khaybar and forbade eating the meat of domesticated donkeys.
When these people saw that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had permitted it in the year of the Conquest and then prohibited it, they said: It was prohibited, then it was permitted, then it was prohibited.
Imam Al Shafii said: I do not know of anything that was prohibited, then permitted, then prohibited again, except mutah. They said: It was abrogated twice. Others disagreed with them in this and said: It was not prohibited except in the year of the Conquest, and before that it was permitted.
They said: Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, only combined mentioning its prohibition and the prohibition of domesticated donkeys because Ibn Abbas was permitting both of them, so Ali narrated to him their prohibition from the Prophet ﷺ in order to refute him. The prohibition of donkeys was on the day of Khaybar without any doubt, and he mentioned the day of Khaybar as the time connected to the prohibition of the donkeys and expressed the prohibition of mutah in absolute terms without tying it to a specific time.
This is as it appears in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad with a sound chain, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prohibited the meat of domesticated donkeys on the day of Khaybar and prohibited temporary marriage with women. In another wording: He prohibited temporary marriage with women and he prohibited the meat of domesticated donkeys on the day of Khaybar.
This is how Imam Sufyan ibn Uyaynah (d.198 AH) narrated it, clearly distinguishing between them, so some narrators thought that the day of Khaybar was the time for both prohibitions and they tied both of them to it. Then others came and mentioned only one of the two prohibitions, which was the prohibition of donkeys, and they linked that to the time expression. From here the confusion arose.
The account of Khaybar did not include the Companions practising mutah with Jewish women, nor did they seek permission from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ for that, nor has anyone ever transmitted anything of this kind in connection with that campaign.
There was no mention of mutah there at all, neither as an action nor as a prohibition. This is different from the campaign of the Conquest, for the story of mutah in it, both as practice and as prohibition, is well known. This approach is the sounder of the two approaches.
There is also a third approach. It is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ never imposed a complete and general prohibition of it at all. Rather, he prohibited it when there was no further need for it and permitted it when there was a need for it.
This was the method of Ibn Abbas, to the extent that he used to give fatwa in accordance with it and would say: It is like carrion, blood and the meat of swine, it is permitted at times of necessity and fear of falling into hardship.
Most people did not understand this from him and thought that he had permitted it in an unrestricted way, and they spread that about him in poetry. When Ibn Abbas saw that, he returned to the position that it is prohibited.
Zaad Al Ma’ad (3/304-305)
Ibn Hajar said: Al Suhayli (d. 581 AH) said: There is a difference of opinion about the time when temporary marriage was prohibited. The strangest report on this is the narration of the one who said that it was in the expedition of Tabuk, then the narration of al Hasan al Basri (d. 110 AH) that this was in the Umrah of al Qada.
The well known view regarding its prohibition is that it took place in the expedition of the Conquest, as Muslim (d. 261 AH) narrated in his Sahih (no. 1406) from the narration of al Rabi ibn Sabrah from his father. In another narration from al Rabi, which Abu Dawud (d. 275 AH) brought out in his Sunan (no. 2072), it is stated that this was during the Farewell Hajj. He said: And whoever among the narrators said that it was in the expedition of Awtas, is in agreement with the one who said it was in the year of the Conquest. End of his words.
From what he alluded to, six occasions are obtained: Khaybar, then the Umrah of al Qada, then the Conquest, then Awtas, then Tabuk, then the Farewell Hajj. Hunayn must also be added to these, because it appears in a narration which I have previously drawn attention to.
So either he was heedless of it or he deliberately left it out because of an error on the part of its narrator, or because the expedition of Awtas and Hunayn are one and the same.
As for the version that places this in Tabuk, Ishaq ibn Rahuyah (d. 238 AH) and Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH) brought it out, the latter in his Sahih (no. 4149), through his route, from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, that when the Prophet ﷺ descended at Thaniyyat al Wada he saw lights and heard women weeping. He said: “What is this” They said: Messenger of Allah, women that some men had contracted temporary marriage with. So he said: “Marriage, divorce and inheritance have demolished temporary marriage.”
Al Hazimi (d. 584 AH) also brought it out from the hadith of Jabir who said: We went out with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to the expedition of Tabuk. When we were at the pass that leads towards al Sham, a group of women with whom we had previously engaged in temporary marriage came to us, circling around our encampment.
We mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and he became angry and stood to address the people, praised Allah and extolled Him, and forbade temporary marriage. So we took leave of one another that day, and the pass was named Thaniyyat al Wada. (In the book al Iʿtibar, p. 178, its chain is very weak, and in the chain of Ibn Hibban there is Muammal, who had poor retention.)
As for the narration of al Hasan, which places it in the Umrah of al Qada, Abd al Razzaq al Sanani (d. 211 AH) brought it out in his Musannaf (no. 14042) through [Maʿmar, from Amr ibn Ubayd (d. 144 AH), from al Hasan, and this chain is repeated in several places in the Musannaf of Abd al Razzaq], and he added: “It never occurred before it nor after it.”
This additional wording is objectionable and rejected on account of its narrator, Amr ibn Ubayd, who is discarded in hadith. Said ibn Mansur (d. 227 AH) brought it out (no. 844) through a sound route from al Hasan, without this addition. (Said then mentioned it immediately afterwards, under no. 845, through the same route, and he mentioned this additional wording.)
As for the expedition of the Conquest, it is established in Sahih Muslim (no. 1406) as he said.
As for Awtas, it is also established in Muslim (18 / 1405) from the hadith of Salamah ibn al Akwaʿ رضي الله عنه.
As for the Farewell Hajj, it appears with Abu Dawud (no. 2072) from the hadith of al Rabi ibn Sabrah, from his father. His statement that there is no contradiction between Awtas and the Conquest is open to question, because the Conquest was in Ramadan, then they went out to Awtas in Shawwal. In the wording of Muslim (20 / 1406) it states that they did not leave Makkah until it had been prohibited. His wording is: that he went on campaign with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the expedition of the Conquest, and he gave us permission for temporary marriage with women.
So I went out with a man from my tribe and he mentioned the story of the woman, until he said: Then I enjoyed her company in temporary marriage and I did not depart until he had forbidden it.
In another wording from him: I saw the Messenger of Allah ﷺ standing between the corner and the door, saying the like of the hadith of Ibn Numayr, which has already preceded in the hadith of Ibn Numayr, namely that he said: “O people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women. Indeed Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection.” In another narration from him: “He commanded us regarding temporary marriage in the year of the Conquest when we entered Makkah, then we did not depart until he had forbidden it.”
And in yet another wording: “He ordered his companions to contract temporary marriage with women,” and he mentioned the story, then said: “They remained with us for three days, then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded us to part from them.” In another wording: He said: “It is forbidden from this day of yours until the Day of Resurrection.”
As for Awtas, the wording in Muslim (18 / 1405) is: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ granted us a concession regarding temporary marriage in the year of Awtas for three days, then he forbade it.” The apparent sense of the two hadiths suggests that the two occasions are different.
However, it is possible that the expression “the year of Awtas” was used for “the year of the Conquest” because of their closeness in time. If it had occurred explicitly in his wording that they contracted temporary marriage with women in the expedition of Awtas, this reconciliation would not be sound.
Moreover, it is far fetched that permission for it would be given in the expedition of Awtas after a clear statement had already been given before that in the expedition of the Conquest that it was forbidden until the Day of Resurrection. If this is established, then no narration among these is sound and free of problem, except that which places it in the expedition of the Conquest.
As for the expedition of Khaybar, even though the routes of the hadith concerning it are sound, there is regarding it the discussion of the people of knowledge that has already passed.
As for the Umrah of al Qada, the report concerning it is not sound, because it is from the mursal narrations of al Hasan, and his mursal narrations are weak, because he would take from anyone. On the supposition that it were established, perhaps what he meant by it was the days of Khaybar, because both events took place in the same year, just as was the case with the Conquest and Awtas.
As for the story of Tabuk, there is no explicit mention in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that they had contracted temporary marriage with those women at that time. It is possible that this had taken place earlier, and that the taking leave of them and the prohibition occurred at that point, or that the prohibition had already taken place earlier, but did not reach some of them, so they remained upon the earlier concession.
For this reason the prohibition was coupled with anger, due to the prohibition having preceded in this issue. Moreover, there is some discussion regarding the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, for it is from the narration of Muammal ibn Ismail and Ikrimah ibn Ammar, and each of them is subject to criticism.
As for the hadith of Jabir, it is not sound, for it comes through the route of Abbad ibn Kathir, who is discarded.
As for the Farewell Hajj, what appears is that what took place in it, if the report about that is established, is prohibition only, without mention of any preceding permission, because in that year the companions performed Hajj with their wives after Allah had enriched them, so they were neither in hardship nor in prolonged celibacy.
As for the source of the hadith of Sabrah, its narrator is his son al Rabi from him, and there is disagreement regarding him as to identifying the occasion. The hadith itself is one hadith, one story, so giving preference is necessary. The route that Muslim brought (no. 1406), clearly stating that it was in the time of the Conquest, is stronger, so it is necessary to follow it. And Allah knows best.
The wisdom in Ali’s رضي الله عنه combining between mention of the prohibition of wine and of temporary marriage is that Ibn Abbas used to grant a concession in both matters together. The report from him granting concession regarding domestic donkeys will come, in the beginning of the Book of Foods (no. 5529).
So Ali replied to him in both matters together, and that this was at the time of Khaybar. Thus either this is taken upon its apparent sense, that the prohibition of both of them occurred at the same time, or the permission that occurred in the year of the Conquest did not reach Ali because the period of that permission was short, being three days only, as has already preceded.
The cause for permission, which was severe need, had ended after the conquest of Khaybar and what came after it. And Allah knows best.
The answer to the words of al Suhayli, that there were no women in Khaybar with whom temporary marriage could be contracted, is apparent from what I have set out in reply to the words of Ibn al Qayyim (d. 751 AH), that the companions did not contract temporary marriage with the Jewish women. It may also be said, as has already preceded, that there is no explicit statement in the hadith that they engaged in temporary marriage in Khaybar, rather it only contains the prohibition itself.
From that it is taken that contracting temporary marriage with women was lawful, and the reason for its being made lawful is what has already preceded in the hadith of Ibn Masʿud رضي الله عنه (no. 5075), where he said: We used to go out on campaign and we had nothing with us, then he said: So he gave us permission that a woman be married for a garment.
He thus pointed to the cause of that, which was need together with scarcity of resources. Likewise in the hadith of Sahl ibn Saʿd رضي الله عنه, which Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463 AH) brought out, in the wording: “The Prophet ﷺ only granted permission for temporary marriage because there was hardship upon the people, then he forbade it. When Khaybar was conquered Allah expanded their provision in wealth and captives, so it was fitting that temporary marriage be forbidden due to the cause of permissibility having been removed.
That was part of the completion of gratitude to Allah for the ease after hardship.” Or, it may be that permission was only given for it in those expeditions whose journey to them involved distance and hardship, while Khaybar was not like that, because it was close to Madinah. So the prohibition of temporary marriage occurred there as a sign of this, without any prior explicit permission in that specific expedition.
Then when they set out again for a distant expedition with a long duration, namely the expedition of the Conquest, and celibacy weighed heavily on them, he granted them permission for temporary marriage, but restricted to three days only, in order to remove hardship.
Then, when that period ended, he forbade them from it, as will come in the narration of Salamah. In the same way, every expedition in which a prohibition is established after an earlier permission is to be understood. (The hadith of Ka b’s repentance has already appeared in al Bukhari in the Book of Maghazi, no. 4418. The hadith of Sahl ibn Saʿd is in al Tamheed of Ibn Abd al Barr, 10 / 109 110.)
As for the Farewell Hajj, what becomes apparent is that what occurred in it was prohibition only, if the report in that regard is established, because the companions performed Hajj in it with their wives, after Allah had expanded their provision, so they were not in hardship or prolonged celibacy. Otherwise, the source of the hadith of Sabrah, its narrator, is through his son al Rabi from him, and there is disagreement about him in specifying the occasion.
Yet the hadith is one hadith and a single story, so it is necessary to give preference, and the route that Muslim brought (no. 1406), making it explicit that it was in the time of the Conquest, is stronger, so one must follow it. And Allah knows best.
Mawardi (d. 450 AH), in al Hawi, said regarding specifying the point at which temporary marriage was prohibited, that there are two views. The first is that the prohibition was repeated, so that it would be more manifest and more widespread, until it became known to those who had not known it, because there may be people present in some locations who are not present in others.
The second is that it was permitted on several occasions, and for this reason he said on the last occasion: “Until the Day of Resurrection,” as an indication that the previous prohibition was such as to be followed by a fresh permission, unlike this one, for it is a permanent prohibition after which there will never again be any permission at all.
This second view is the one relied on. What refutes the first is the explicit wording granting permission in the later occasion, after explicit wording regarding its prohibition in the earlier one, as was the case in the expedition of Khaybar and then the Conquest.
Al Nawawi said: The correct position is that its prohibition and its permission each occurred twice. It was permitted before Khaybar, then prohibited in Khaybar, then permitted in the year of the Conquest, which is the year of Awtas, then it was prohibited with a prohibition that was confirmed and stressed. He said: There is no objection to the permission being repeated.
Others have transmitted from al Shafii (d. 204 AH) that temporary marriage was abrogated twice. The hadith of Ibn Masʿud رضي الله عنه mentioned earlier at the beginning of the Book of Marriage (nos. 5071 and 5075) regarding the cause for permitting temporary marriage, that when they went out on campaign celibacy was hard for them, so he permitted them to enjoy temporary marriage, supports this.
Perhaps the prohibition would then be renewed on every occasion after permission, and when, on the last occasion, it was stated that it had been forbidden until the Day of Resurrection, no further permission occurred after that. And Allah knows best.
Fath Al Bari By Ibn Hajar (15/335-340)
