It is only the rare Wahabi, such as Dr. Salamah, who attempts to argue that verse 4:24 of the Qur’an does not deal with Mut’ah. The traditional Sunni argument has been to accept that it does, but then claim that the verse was abrogated. A number of arguments are presented in this vein:
The first argument is that the verse of Mut’ah came down, but this was abrogated when the verses dealing with marriage came down, such as the opening verses of Surat al-Mu’minun:
Successful are the believers, who are filled with awe in their salat, who turn away from vein talk, who give in charity, and who protect their chastity, except with their wives or those whom their right hands possess.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 23, Ayah 1-6
In his article ‘the illegitimacy of temporary marriage in Islam’ Abu Ruqqaya stated:
‘A’isha said: “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 posses, then they would have no blame.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 23, Ayah 5
Similar thinking has been advanced in ‘the Shi’ah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah)’ by Dr. Ahmad ‘Abdullah Salamah:
The Muslim Ummah unanimously upholds that Mut’ah is abrogated by all of the Qur’anic verses that speak about marriage, divorce, inheritance, dower, the guardian’s permission, the ‘iddah of divorced and widowed women, etc. And the following verse leaves no doubt that Mut’ah is completely forbidden and unlawful:
“…And those who abstain from sexual intercourse except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess.” 22 Explaining this verse, Ibn Abbas said, “All other ways of sexual contact except these two are forbidden.” 23
And not to be hard done by Mufti Muhammad Shafi also asserted confidently:
There is yet another point worthy of our attention. The Qur’anic statement:”And those who guard their private parts, save from their wives or from their bondwomen, they are not blameworthy.”Is so explicit that it admits of no other interpretation. It shows the unlawfulness of Mut’ah very clearly. Seeking flimsy support from some rare and unauthentic readings is absolutely incorrect.[3]
This is a very weak argument for several reasons. The first and most glaring mistake is chronological. It is indeed very sad that individuals such as Dr. Salamah, in their efforts to protect Umar haven’t bothered contemplating their claim before publishing it in an open forum. The verse of Mut’ah ‘Istamatum’ that has allegedly been attributed to Ayesha and Ibn Abbas is in Sura al-Nisa and this is verse was revealed while the Prophet (s) was in Madinah. Surah Momineen and Surah Maarij, the verses quoted above, both descended in Makka. The great scholars of Understanding-Islam demonstrate their stupidity by admitting they were early verses:
The Qur’an does not support this view. According to the very initial Surah’s (chapters) of the Qur’an, like Surah Al-Mominun and Surah Al-Ma`arij the Qur’an specifically disallows all sexual relationships, besides that which are based on Nikah or that which were between a master and his slave girl1. The Qur’an says:
And those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and their slave girls – for they are not to be blamed. But those who trespass beyond this are the ones who are transgressors. (70: 29 – 31)
As anybody with even the most basic knowledge of Islam knows that the Prophet (s) migrated from Makka to Madinah, meaning he was in Makkah first. Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani in ‘Fatah al Mulhim Sharh Muslim’ Volume 3 page 221 in his discussion of the verse, ‘And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses’ – states:
“The verse being referred to descended in Makka”
Whilst these verses descended in Makka, Sunni traditions confirm that Mut’ah was practised much later, during the battle of Khayber. This means that, according to Dr. Salamah, the abrogating verse (nasikh) was revealed before the abrogated verse (mansukh). This is, of course, a logical impossibility: how can the verse of Mut’ah be abrogated by the verses from Surat al-Mu’minun when the verse of Mut’ah was revealed after those verses? It is like trying to defend the legitimacy of Mu’awiya by acknowledging that he was conceived first and his parents married after.
Allamah Mahmood Baghdadi Alusi in his discussion of the verse ‘And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses’ also acknowledges this fact in his Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani Volume 9 page 10:
“This verse is Makkan and descended before the Hijrah [migration], since Mut’ah was halaal after the Hijrah, it is difficult to advance this as evidence of the illegality of Mut’ah”.
Renowned Salafi/Ahl-Hadeeth scholar Allamah Waheed uz Zaman Khan Hyderabadi in Lughaat ul Hadeeth, Volume 5 page 9 said:
“Mutah was permissible in the initial days of Islam, but when this verse ‘And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses’ was revealed, it became impermissible, (because a mutah women isn’t a wife, nor shareholder in inheritance, she is just a paid woman. But here the objection is made that this verse is Makki and Mutah was termed permissible many times even after this.)“
Lughaat ul Hadeeth, Alphabet: Meem, page 9 (Published in Karachi)
Also in Lughaat ul Hadeeth Volume 3 page 105, Waheed uz Zaman, in his discussion of the word ‘Shaqee’ states:
“The verse ‘except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess’ appears in two Surah’s and both are without a doubt Makkan. The practise of Mut’ah existed after the descent of these verses”.
In his ‘Tayseer al Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari’ Volume 6 page 116 Allamah Waheed uz Zaman Khan said:
“Those who rely on ‘except with their wives or those [women] whom their right hands possess’ are in error as this is a Makkan verse and there is agreement that Mut’ah was halaal after this”.
Tayseer al Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 page 111
Maulana Sayyid Abu’l Maudoodi in his discussion of the verse of Surah Mu’minun in Tafheem ul Qur’an Volume 8 page 12 footnote 4 states:
“Some commentators have proved the prohibition of Mut’ah (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’, whoso 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’ah. The fact is that the Holy Prophet enjoined the final and absolute prohibition if Mut’ah in the year of the Conquest of Makkah, but before it Mut’ah was allowed according to several authentic traditions. If Mut’ah 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?”
Tafheem ul Qur’an, Volume 8 page 12
Allamah Uthmani in his commentary of the Mut’ah narrations in Fath al Mulhim, Sharh Muslim Volume 3 page 440 states:
“Nikah Mut’ah 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’ah 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’ah unlawful / batil, Mut’ah women can also come within the definition of wife in some respects, as we’ve proven Mut’ah 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’ah, the verse is Makkan and according to our knowledge no scholar has claimed that Mut’ah was prohibited before Khayber, although different views have been aired amongst scholars over the prohibition after Khayber”.
These comments are sufficient in refuting the argument of Dr. Salamah that the verse of Mut’ah was abrogated by Surat al-Mu’minun, and furthermore demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge and awareness about the Holy Qur’an: one only has to look in the table of contents of the modern Saudi Arabian edition of the Qur’an (the ubiquitous “green” Qur’an found in all mosques) to discover what sequence these verses came down in. As such, we are left with two possibilities as to how to interpret Dr. Salamah’s work: either he is entirely ignorant about the Holy Qur’an (something his comment about the verse of Mut’ah demonstrates), or he is simply lying. Either way he has already disqualified himself as an Islamic scholar.
Besides this obvious blunder with regards to the Qur’anic text, it should also be noted that Dr. Salamah has once again contradicted well-known Sunni ‘ulama. Qadhi Badrudeen Al-A’ini and the world-famous Allamah Maudoodi declared that no verse has abrogated Mut’ah. We read in Umdah’ tul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 17 page 246 Bab Ghazwa Khayber:
“Should one that practices sexual intercourse through Nikah al-Mut’ah be punished? Malik’s companions said that no Hadd should be applied because the (Mut’ah) contract is doubtful and since there is disagreement over it (being Halal or Haram) and also due to the fact it wasn’t made haram by the Qur’an”.
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?cat=22&book=619
In addition to this, we have the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, Maulana Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maudoodi stating in his Tafheem ul Qur’an [English translation] Volume 8 page 12 footnote 4:
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).
Does Dr. Salamah, then, hold himself above this scholar? Of the many weaknesses in Dr. Salamah’s article, one is most certainly his crude emotionalism. He does not seek to prove that Mut’ah is haram according to the Shari’ah as a matter of mere law, but rather spends most of his time arguing that Mut’ah is a fundamentally immoral and evil practice. Yet here we see one of the most famous scholars in modern Sunni Islam arguing that:
As such, the Qur’an upholds Mut’ah. Dr. Salamah’s belief that Mut’ah is a moral vice and sin, something no pious person could countenance, therefore becomes a direct insult against the Qur’an and its Creator, Allah (swt). But in any case, it is possible that somebody such as Dr. Salamah may reject the words of these ‘ulama. But it would be difficult for any Sunni Muslim to wholly reject the belief of the Prophet (s)’s Companions and Successor (Taabi’een). From this group of people, we find narration’s that state that at least eight of the companions and three of the Taabi’een continued to believe that Mut’ah was halaal, and therefore did not hold to Dr. Salamah and others belief in Mut’ah’s abrogation. We read in Ahlul Sunnah’s authority Neel al Autar Volume 6 page 53 Nikah Mut’ah:
Ibn Hazm narrated in Al-Muhalla from a group of companions other than Ibn Abbass and said: ‘It was fixed that it is halal by a group of the Al-Salaf, that included the companions:
Asma’ bint abi Bakar, Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn Abbass, Mu’awiyah, Umrro bin Al Hurayth, Abu Sai’d and Salma the sons of Umayyah bin Khalaf …
Amongst the Taabi’een who deemed Mut’ah to be Halal were al Taus, Ata and Saeed bin Jabayr’.
Hence we read in E’alam al-Mu’aqeen, Volume 3 page 44 by Ibn Qayim:
أَنَّ الْمُتْعَةَ أُبِيحَتْ فِي أَوَّلِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَفَعَلَهَا الصَّحَابَةُ، وَأَفْتَى بِهَا بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْدَ مَوْتِ النَّبِيِّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
“Mut’ah was lawful in the early period of Islam and the Sahaba practiced it and some of them deemed it lawful even after the death of the prophet (s)”
Yet Dr. Salamah has written:
The Muslim Ummah unanimously upholds that Mut’ah is abrogated…
To those advocates of Umar who claim the verse of Mut’ah was abrogated and that whoever believes it, in fact advocates Zina, we suggest that you look carefully at the above names, Ayesha’s sister Asma and the great Taabi’een believed it was halaal after the demise of Rasulullah(s). Dr. Salamah claims that the Ummah was unanimous on this issue, yet here we read that a number of extremely prominent Companions did not agree on this. Does Dr. Salamah, then, not consider Asma binte Abi Bakr or Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas to be part of the Ummah? Have these people all turned their backs on the “methodology of the pious ancestors”, and betrayed the Salaf?
Having proved that the verses of marriage, relied upon by our opponents, could not actually have abrogated Mut’ah as Mut’ah was practiced much after the revelation of the said verses, we now move up towards another aspect which is that the said verses about Nikah could not have abrogated Mut’ah as Mut’ah is itself a form of Nikah a fact which Nawasib have blatantly tried to deny, take for example the great comments of Former Leader of Sipah-e-Sahaba namely Haq Nawaz Jhangvi:
MUTA IS NEITHER NIKAH (REGULAR MARRIAGE) NOR IS IT APPLICABLE TO THE CAPTIVE WOMEN
Jhangvi’s assertion does not concur with the comments of high ranking Sunni ‘ulama have argued exactly the opposite, namely that temporary wives are, indeed, wives. We read in Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 3 p. 76, commentary of Surah Mu’minun:
If you ask: ‘Is there any proof here (in this verse) that Mutah had been forbidden?’
I will answer: ‘No, because a woman in Nikah al Mutah is considered as a wife’.
Online Tafsir Kashaf, Surah Mumiun
This reference makes it clear that the cited verse of Surah Mominun does not abrogate Nikah al Mut’ah. Moreover we read Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 5 page 3, Surah Nisa:
“The majority said that it refers to the Nikah al-Mut’ah which existed during the beginning of Islam”
We also read:
“Abu Umer said: ‘All the early and recent scholars have no dispute that Mut’ah is Nikah.’”
Tafsir Qurtubi, Vol 5 page 115, Surah Nisa verse 24
We read in Tafseer Baydhawi Volume 2 page 9:
“Mut’ah is Nikah for a specefied time.”
Zamakshari deemed Mut’ah women to be wives, and Qurtubi and Baydhawi both confirmed that Mut’ah was a form of Nikah.
Dr Salmah states:
The Muslim Ummah unanimously upholds that Mut’ah is abrogated by all of the Qur’anic verses that speak about marriage…
Though the above cited Sunni texts shall suffice to prove that all the Quranic verses that speak about marriage (nikah) cannot obrogate Nikah al-Mut’a since Mut’a is itself a form of Nikah and the woman is considered as wife but still let us cite the views held by the prominent Imams and the authors of Sahih books who also believed Mut’ah being a form of Nikah as they created chapters in their respective esteemed works with the name “Nikah al-Mut’ah…” and that includes:
Imam Muslim who in Sahih Muslim created a chapter about Mut’a and given it the name: “Nikah al Mut’ah… ”
Sahih Muslim [Arabic], Index of Kitab al-Nikah
Imam Bukhari in Sahih Bukhari: “The Prophet (s) prohibited Nikah al Mut’ah”
Sahih Bukhari [Arabic], Index of Kitab al-Nikah
Imam Tirmidhi in Sunan Tirmidhi: “Regarding Prohibition of Nikah-ul-Mut’ah”
Sunan Tirmidhi [Arabic], Index of Kitab al-Nikah
Imam Abu Dawood in Sunan Abu Dawud: “Fee Nikah al Mut’ah”
Sunan Abu Dawood [Arabic], Index of Kitab al-Nikah
Imam Ibn Majah in Sunan ibn Majah: “Prohibition of the Nikah al Mut’ah”
Sunan Ibn Majah [Arabic], Index of Kitab al-Nikah
Imam Malik in Muwatta: “chapter on Nikah al-Mut’ah”
Muwatta Imam Malik [Arabic], Index of Kitab al-Nikah
Note: Though the chapter names are according to the Sunni view i.e. in the prohibition of Mut’ah but here our motive is just to make it known to the ignorant Sunni masses that the Imams of Ahle Sunnah believed Mut’ah to be a form of Nikah and hence those who say that all the Quranic verses that talk about Nikah having abrogated Mut’ah as Nikah and Mut’ah are two separate entities, are clearly mistaken.
Another lie was advanced on the Sunni Website ‘Understanding Islam’:
It must be remembered here that a Mut`ah relationship makes a woman neither a wife nor a slave girl of a person, whereas the Qur’an specifically restricts sexual relationships of a person with these two. It should be noticed that the particular word used by the Qur’an in the referred verse translated as “wives” is “azwaj” plural of “zaujah”. In the classical Arabic language, a woman with whom a person had entered into a contract of Mut`ah was called the “Mamtu`ah” of the person, she was not referred to as the “zaujah” (wife) of the person. The verse, therefore is a clear evidence to the fact that no other relationship besides the one based on Nikah was allowed by Islam.
This assertion is refuted by the fact that the scholars of hadith have referred to women in Mut’ah as Zowja. Proofs are in the following Sunni sources:
We are quoting directly from the tradition in Sahih Muslim narrated on the authority of Sabra in which the term “Zawajtuha” (i.e. I married her) is used as a reference to Mut’ah marriage. Tradition No. 3253 in Sahih Muslim says: -
“Rabi bin Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger (S) during the victory of Mecca, and we stayed there for fifteen days (that is for thirteen full days and a day and night), and Allah’s Messenger (S) permitted us to contract temporary marriage with women. So I and another person of my tribe went out, and I was more handsome than he, whereas the cloak of my cousin was quite new. As we reached the lower or the upper side of Mecca, we came across a young woman like a young smart long-necked she-camel. We said: Is it possible for one of us to contract temporary marriage with you? She said: What will you give me as a dower? Each one of us spread his cloak. She began to cast a glance at both the persons. My companion also looked at her when she was casting a glance at her side and he said: “This cloak of his is worn out, whereas my cloak is quite new “. She however, said twice or thrice: ‘There is no harm in (accepting) this cloak (the old one)”. So I contracted temporary marriage (zawajtuha) with her, and I did not come out (of this) until Allah’s Messenger (S) declared it forbidden”.
We appeal for justice: Temporary marriage for a fixed period with women was halaal at the outset of Islam. Such women were halaal. As such, our question to the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) is simple: what was the status of women at that time? If they were not wives then why were they halaal? If they were wives then this proves that the Shari’ah deems women in Mut’ah to be wives, and to exclude them from this status is to in effect deem the Companions fornicators. High ranking Sunni ‘ulama have deemed women in Nikah and Nikah e Mut’ah to be wives.
In spite of these facts, on page 36 of Hurmut Mut’ah, the Deobandi author Suharwardi states
“Whenever the Quran uses the words Zawaaj it is in the context of Nikah. E.g. the story of Adam refers to ‘Zawaaj al Janath. It doesn’t refer to women in Mut’ah as wives which is why they are not”.
The fact that the Qur’an uses the word zawaj in the context of Nikah does not mean it cannot be used in any other context. The Prophet (s) referred to the spiritual struggle against oneself as a jihad. Yet the Qur’an uses this word in many places in the context of a physical, military war. Does this mean that the Prophet (s) was wrong to refer to one’s spiritual struggle as the jihad an-nafs?
Suhrawardi then goes on to say that, whilst the Sahih Sittah have traditions referring to women in Mut’ah as wives, this is only ‘figurative’ and does not mean that they are wives in the real sense. He says teacher calls his student his son, but this is only figurative; the student would not, for example, inherit from his teacher. We can only ask Mr. Suhrawardi: If we therefore read from the Sahih Sittah that Sahaba performed with “figurative wives,” does that mean they were fornicating?
This argument is utter non-sense. The argument is that, when Allah (swt) speaks of the wife inheriting, that this somehow, by extension, abrogates the verses of Mut’ah, since the temporary wife does not inherit. However, this is entirely misunderstanding the nature of the Qur’anic revelation, and the relationship between the verses under question. Allamah Tabataba’i writes
As far as the opinion that many ayats such as the verses of inheritance or the verses of divorce or the verses specifying the number of wives one can have, then one must understand that the relationship between these verses and the verse of Mut’ah is not one of abrogater and abrogated. Rather, it is a relationship of general and specific, or absolute and limiting. For example, the verses of inheritance are general, and cover all wives, whether they are permanent or temporary. However, the Sunnah delimits these verses by excluding some of the individuals who would fall under the category of wifes, such as the temporary wives.
Al-Mizan, p. 281
Reference at Mutah.com
The point is that there are many verses which are general in nature, and which are explained, commented upon, and limited by other verses, or by the Sunnah. For example, we have verses which say that the wives inherit. These verses are absolute, meaning that all wives inherit under all circumstances. However, we have many hadeeths that say a murderer cannot inherit from the one they murdered. Based on these hadeeths, then, a wife who murders her husband would not inherit, even though the verses of Qur’an are absolute and imply that all wives inherit. However, if we are to follow the logic that these verses of divorce and inheritance and so forth are abrogating of Mut’ah because Mut’ah does not have divorce or inheritance, than we must also say that these verses abrogate those hadeeths that say a murderer does not inherit from the one they murdered. As such, Sunni ‘ulama should give the fatwa that a wife who kills her husband also gets his inheritance. They should also then be very careful about turning their backs on their wives.
In any case, even if we are to accept that these other verses somehow abrogated the verse of Mut’ah, then we are left with the same perennial problem: the fact that verses the Sunnis claim abrogate the verse of Mut’ah were revealed before the verse of Mut’ah. How can a verse be abrogated before it is even revealed? Allamah Tabataba’i writes:
Some of the scholars of Usul al-fiqh have argued that if a verse or hadeeth dealing with a specific subject comes, and then it is followed by a general verse or hadeeth that contradicts it in terms of confirmation and denial, that the general verse would have abrogated the specific verse. But alongside of the fact that this is a weak argument, it has nothing to do with the present discussion. This is because the verses of divorce (which are general) in Surat al-baqara, they are the first of a Madinan Surah which was revealed before the verses of Surat an-Nisa’ that encompass the verse of Mut’ah. Similar is the case with the verses about the number of wives, which appear in Surat an-Nisa before the verse of Mut’ah, and similar the verses of inheritance, which occur before the verse of Mut’ah in the same context and in the same surah. As such, the specific verse (by which I mean the verse of Mut’ah) came down after the general verse.
Nawasib have always been desperate identify Qur’anic verses with which to prove that they abrogated the verse legitimizing Mut’ah but in this endeavor, they always forget that they have one very severe obstacle to cross which is to find a verse that should have been revealed in a chapter after Surah Maidah that is obviously impossible for the simple reason that Surah Maidah was itself the last chapter to have been revealed. If there is any confusion in this regard, then allow us to quote al-Mustadarak al-Hakim, Volume 2 page 311:
Abdullah bin Amr said: ‘The last Surah to have revealed is al-Maidah’
Hakim said:
‘This hadith is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheikhs’
Why are at a loss to understand why these Nawasib deep it necessary to base their claim (i.e. certain verse of Quran abrogated Mut’ah) on a verse purportedly revealed after Maidah, allow us to cite the following words of Prophet (s) from Sahih Bukhari Volume 7 tradition 13a:
Narrated ‘Abdullah Ibn Masud: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us (to castrate ourselves) and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (Mut’ah) and recited to us: ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things, which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87)
This tradition has also been recorded on the authority of Ibn Abbas in Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 7 page 93.
Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 7, Page 93
Let us also quote al-Hakim:
Jubair bin Nufair said: ‘When I was performing the Hajj, I met Ayesha (r) who said to me: ‘O Jubair do you recite al-Maida?’ I replied: ‘Yes’. She said: ‘It’s the last surah to have revealed so whatever you find in it to be Halal you have to deem it as Halal and whatever you find in it to be Haram you have to deem it as Haram’’
Hakim stated:
This hadith is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheikhs’.
So we learn the following points from the above cited words of Prophet (s) and Ayesha:
We read in the following Sunni sources that Sahaba and Sunni scholars believed that Mut’ah is permissible and there verse of Mut’ah was Muhakam i.e. intact without any abrogation.
We have already cited the Maliki notion that there is no verse that abrogated the verse of Mu’tah, let us once again cite it:
“Should one that practices sexual intercourse through Mut’ah be punished? Malik’s students said that no penalty should be applied because the (Mut’ah) contract is doubtful and since there is disagreement over it (being Halal or Haram) and also due to the fact it wasn’t made haram by the Qur’an”.
We read the following statement about Ibn Abbas in Tafseer Khazan:
فروي عنه أن الآية محكمة وكان يرخص في المتعة
“It has been narrated from him that the verse is Muhkam and he used to permit Mut’ah”
For those who are unaware of word Muhkam, we should elaborate that Muhkam is the type of verse that has not been abrogated whatsoever. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Munawi records in Faiz al-Qadeer, Volume 4 page 508:
آية محكمة أي لم تنسخ
“Muhkam verse is the one which has not been abrogated”
Since the abrogation of Nikah al Mutah isn’t proven from the Holy Quran, therefore it is obviously not comparible to adultery that carries Islam penalties (Hadd) unlike Nikah al Mutah, that according to the Sunni Ulema carries to Islamic penalty.
In his commentary of Muwatta Imam Malik page 390, Maulana Wahee az Zaman Khan:
There is absolute agreement that one that performs Mut’ah does not incur the same penalty as is the case for Zinah, Umar only said this to frighten the people.
Allamah Abdur Rahman al Jazzari in ‘al fiqh al’a Madhaib al Arbah’ Volume 4 pages 170-171 states:
Anyone that performs (Nikah Mut’ah) should be punished but the Hadd should not apply as you will know in the coming details about such doctrines, because it has been narrated from ibn Abbas that it is permitted, and that such doubt leads to one dropping such a “hadd”.
And as we quoted earlier in this chapter, the scholars belonging to Maliki school of thought also adhered to the same belief. As cited by Allamah Badruddin al-Aini in his authority work Umdah’ thul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari Volume 17 page 246 Bab Ghazwa Khayber:
“Should one that practices sexual intercourse through Nikah al-Mut’ah be punished? Malik’s companions said that no Hadd should be applied because the (Mut’ah) contract is doubtful and since there is disagreement over it (being Halal or Haram) and also due to the fact it wasn’t made haram by the Qur’an”.
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Zafar bin al-Hazeel al-Basri al-Hanafi also believed that such type of Nikah is correcct and doesn’t fall under the category of Zinah. In the authority Hanafi work ‘Al-Hidayah’ Volume 1 page 186 we read the views of this famed Hanafi scholar about a marriage of prescribed time.
“Temporary marriage is Batil, this is where a man and woman get married by the testimony of two witnesses until ten days, Zafar has commented that this type of Nikah is Sahih, because Nikah does not become batil with the false conditions.”
Imam Nawawi stated in Rawdat al-Talbeen, Volume 5 page 388:
وإذا وطئ في نكاح المتعة جاهلاً بفساده فلا حد ، وإن علم فلا حد أيضاً على المذهب
“If he performed Nikah al-Mutah and he did now know that it was illegal then there is no Hadd and even if he knew still there is no Hadd according to our sect”.