#622: Ruling on Temporary Marriage (Mut`ah)

QUESTION

“Assalāmu Alaykum Admin, please is this Hadīth authentic? Especially the part on Temporary marriage. Is such thing accepted in Islam?”

ANSWER

Wa alaykum Salām Warahmatullāh Wabarakātuh.

Alhamdulillāh

The Hadīth to which you refer is the Hadīth of Ibn Mas’ūd that is recorded by both Al-Bukhāri and Muslim that he said:

كنا نغزو مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وليس لنا نساء، فقلنا: ألا نختصي؟ فنهانا، ثم رخص لنا أن ننكح المرأة بالثوب إلى أجل

“We were with the Messenger of Allāh – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – in battles wherein we had no women. So we said: should we castrate ourselves? Then he forbade us from that, and then gave is a Rukhsah (alleviation) to marry a woman for a stipulated period using a garment (as Sadaq)…”

We say, and success comes from Allāh Alone, that there is no evidence in this Hadīth, despite its agreed upon Authenticity, to prove the permissibility of Temporary Contract Marriage that some ignoramuses are propagating.

Rather, the People of Ilm and Intellect among our great Imams and Polymaths, use this Hadīth as proof that masturbation is not permissible in Islām.

Based on the fact that the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – did not alleviate for his Companions to engage in such act despite their immense urges in such difficult situations and strangeness.

They did not, themselves think of that. Rather, they thought of castrating themselves.

The Ulamā have formed a consensus that the Rasūl – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – allowed Mut’ah (Temporary Contract Marriage) at the early days of Islām and then forbade it permanently till the Day of Qiyāmah.

This consensus is an Ijmā that has no disagreement among the Ulamā of Sunnah.

Rather the disagreement on this matter is only found in the Shī’a traditions and in their schools.

This is due to what was recorded by Imām Muslim in his Sahih from Salamah Ibn al-Akwa’ – radiyallāhu ‘anhu – that he said:

رَخَّصَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَامَ أَوْطَاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ ثَلَاثًا ثُمَّ نَهَى عَنْهَا

“Indeed the Messenger of Allāh – salallāhu alayhi wasallam – alleviated for us in the Year of Awtās the Mut’ah thrice, and then forbade us from it”

What is meant by thrice is that revelation for it came three times.

Imām An-Nawawī – rahimahullāh – said in the Sharh on Sahih Muslim:

والصواب المختار أن التحريم والإباحة كانا مرتين، وكانت حلالا قبل خيبر ثم أبيحت يوم فتح مكة، وهو يوم أوطاس لاتصالهما، ثم حرمت يومئذ بعد ثلاثة أيام تحريماً مؤبداً إلى يوم القيامة واستمر التحريم

“The right and chosen verdict is that the forbiddance and permissibility happened twice. It was permissible before the Day of Khaybar (when it was made impermissible) and then again was made permissible on the day of Fat’hu Makkah, and that is the Day of ‘Awtās, due to their consecutivity, then it was made Harām on that day just three days after (it was made permissible), a forbiddance that is forever until the Day of Qiyāmah, and this Forbiddance continues.”

Qādī ‘Iyyād Ibn Mūsā Ibn ‘Iyādh Al-Yahsubī Al-Mālikī – rahimahullāh – said:

“And then a general consensus has been agreed upon by all of the ‘Ulamā upon its forbiddance except for the Rawāfid”

This is a matter agreed upon, as mentioned by all of the Ulamā in the books of Fiqh and were we to aim at quoting all of their statements on this matter, we will exhaust volumes of books.

But, the reference made to this Hadīth is made by some ignorant ones who have no knowledge of the Sharī’ah.

They try to imply that in this Hadīth, ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd – radiyallāhu ‘anhu – permitted it in his time.

We say, true, and that is based upon the earlier permissibility that was in effect before the Day of the Liberation of Makkah as we have preceded.

For on that Day, it was made Harām and its forbiddance remains in effect till the Day of Qiyāmah.

If it is said: did Ibn Mas’ūd make it permissible after then?

We say: there is nothing affirmative of that in that Hadīth quoted.

And if we were to stretch reason toward that point, and say that Ibn Mas’ūd did, then we will say: it only means that he wasn’t aware of this Ruling that forbade it.

And the Fuqahā are agreed upon the Usūlī Precept that says:

“Whenever a Text that is Harām on a matter is conflicting with that which seems to make same Halāl, preponderance is to that which makes it Harām”

Except that, most of these ignoramus on Social Media are ignorant of the basic things upon which the Sciences of the Sharī’a are based and have no knowledge on the reconciliation of Textual Evidences and how rulings and injunctions are derived from them.

Please, when you meet any of such people, tell them to seek ‘Ilm for with it is Salāh (rectitude) for the People who seek it.

Bārakallāhu fīkum
Jazākumullāhu Khayran.

📚IslamNode