Through this detailed article we have sought to prove the legitimacy of Mut’ah, from the Qur’an, Sunnah and practises of the Sahaba. We have also sought to cite its need in present say society. We appeal to those with open minds: if Mut’ah was indeed prohibited during the life of Rasulullah (s) then why did the advocates of the Sahaba state Umar was the 1st person to outlaw Mut’ah? Clearly this proves Mut’ah was halaal during the life of Rasulullah (s) and Umar for some reason banned it. Wahabis are fond of claiming that the Shi’a believe that the Imams (as) are superior to the Holy Prophet (s), yet here we see ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab openly placing himself in opposition to the Prophet (s). It is perhaps only to be expected from somebody who once attempted to kill the Prophet (s) (Tarikh’ul Khulafa page 111, Dhikr Umar); but as Shi’a of the Ahl al-Bayt (as), we do not believe that anybody has the right to abrogate the hukm of the Holy Prophet (s). Sunnis place ‘Umar above the Prophet (s), by deciding to follow his fatwa on Mut’ah and to reject the hukm of Allah (swt). We would appeal to all those endowed with intelligence: Does this not constitute open shirk, as well as kufr in the mission of the Prophet (s)?
The basis for the permissibility of Mut`ah is its mention as a permitted thing in the Qur’an, leaving us with the possibility of its prohibition ONLY if it were prohibited by an ayah in the Qur’an that was revealed after the ayah in which its permissibility was indicated. Such as that does not exist. Rather, we have ahadith that contradict each other as well as well-known historical chronology. Furthermore, we have other ahadith in which it is stated that Umar prohibited two (sometimes three) types of Mut`ah. Both types were permissible. One prohibition was forced to be repealed, and the other was spoken against by Sahaba and tabi`in.
Based on the facts that there is an ayah in the Qur’an indicating the permissibility of Mut`ah, that there is no ayah following it chronologically that abrogated its permissibility, that hadith cannot abrogate it, that those ahadith indicating its supposed prohibition are contradictory, and that people spoke out against the move by a caliph to prohibit it and other “Mut`ahs” (hajj at-tamattu`) that were also permissible all indicate that Mut`ah is a permissible thing that cannot be made impermissible by the word of any man, no matter what his position is in the eyes of the Ahl’ul Sunnah.
We have seen that many prominent Sahabah, Tabaeen and Sunni Ulema believed in the legitimacy of Nikah al Mutah and some of them personally performed it as well. They include Ibn Abbas [ra], Ali [as], Jabir bin Abdullah, Imran bin Hussain, Saleem bin Umayya, Abdullah ibn Umar, Muawiyah, Asma Bint Abu Bakar, Ata, Tawus, Saeed bin Jubayr, Ibn Jurayj.
One of the important sources of guidance in any Sect is Hadeeth and this source is obtained from the principle books of a school and these books contain reliable narrators (sahabah and Tabaeen) who narrate the hadeeth the hadeeth forms the basis on which a Sects position on matter is formulated. The belief of a sect depends wholly on those narrators that are deemed pious and authentic.
The aforesaid notable names are not only revered in Sunni Islam they are also key narrators of the six canonical Sunni works (the Saha Sittah). If we remove these names from the Saha Satta then what will be left of the Sunni Sect?
Let us elaborate on this by asking hardcore Nawasib like Sipah e Sahabah and Ansar.org etc who define Mutah as adultery, what will they choose from the following options that they have been left with.
Option One: the above cited personalities were Shiah that’s believed in Nikah al Mutah?
Nawasib will never going accept this option since:
a. it will make their whole school dependent on Shia people.
b. Believing in Mikah al Mutah does not make one a Shia theer are many other things connected to it.
Option Two: They were adulterers, or the supporters of adultery (naudobillah)?
This will mean that school of Nawasib like that of Sipah e Sahabah and Ansar.org etc has been shaped by adulterers. If this is indeed the case why do they demand respect for the likes of Muawyah who contracted mutah during his reign?
Option Three: Mutah is Halal and it was Umar that forbade it during his reign according to his own testimony. Hadith that refer to the prohibition of Mutah were fabricated by his adherents in order to save him from the sin of making that which was Halal, haram.
When so many minor and major differences exist between the different Islamic schools of thought we should strive for unity, the best option would be for Nawasib would be to accept that:
“The legality of Nikah al Mutah is an issue of Fiqh. Those that deem it Haram should refrain from it. No objections should be raised against those that deem it halal since doing incurs the difficulties associated with options 1 & 2″