2- We read in some other cabbalas: Prophet of Allah (s.a.) permitted to perform Mut’a in the year of conquer (Aam Alfath) (the year of conquering Mecca, eight year after Hijrat) but after a while in the same year prohibited that.8
3- It has been mentioned in some others that in battle of Awtas (after the conquer of Mecca) in Hawazan region (near Mecca), Prophet (s.a.) permitted Mut’a for three days and afterward forbade that.9
But if we have patience to study several cites in this issue, it goes far more than this, because famous Sonni Faqih “Nawawi” cite six quote in “explanation of Sahih of Muslim” in the issue which any of them relates to a cabbala:
1- Mut’a had been accepted (were Halaal) in battle of Khaybar and then (after some days) prohibited.
2- It had been accepted in Umra Alghaza, (and then prohibited).
3- In the day of conquer of Mecca it had been accepted and then prohibited.
4- Prophet of Allah (s.a.) forbade that in battle of Tabook.
5- It had been accepted in battle of Hawazan (in Awtas region).
6- In Hajj Alvida’ in the last year of life of Prophet (s.a.) it had been accepted Halaal.1
And the most amazing of all is expression of Shafeie who says: “I know nothing that Allah made Halaal some day, and then Haraam, again Halaal and then Haraam except Mut’a!!”2
Any scholar believes that these antithetical cabbalas are counterfeit and knows that it is the result of a political act.
1- This Hadith has not been quoted in Sahih of Tirmizi, which is available today, in this way, and it is mentioned there Mut’a of Hajj instead of Mut’a of women, but Zainuddin who is also known as “second martyr”, one of scholars of tenth century in the book “Sharh Allema’at Damishqia” and Sayyed ibn Tawoos one of scholars of “seventh century” in the book “Altara’if” have quoted this Hadith by mentioning “Mut’a of women” and it seems that in older copies of Sahih of Tirmizi it had been the same way and some persons changed it in later copies for known reasons! (And many others are like this!)
2- Sahih of Muslim, vol. 2, page 131.
3- Sahih of Muslim, vol. 2, page 131.
4- Sahih of Muslim, vol. 4, page 59, Hadith 3307, printed in Dar Alfikr.
5- Mohazerat, vol. 2, page 214 and Explanation of Nahjul Balagha by Ibn Abi Hadid, vol. 20, page 130.
6- Musnad of Ahmad, vol. 4, page 436.
7- Dorr Almanthoor, vol. 2, page 486.
8- Sahih of Muslim, vol. 4, page 133.
9- The same evidence, page 131.
10- Explanation of Sahih of Muslim by Nawawi, vol. 9, page 191.
Indeed, these different and opposite cites force anyone to study seriously about the matter, what happened that there are this much of antithetical cabbalas in this issue and why any Hadith teller or Faqih has chosen his own way?
How can conjunct and relate these opposite cabbalas?
Is this much oppositions and differences the reason for existence of a serious political issue in here which forced some of Hadith forgers to forge cabbalas and abuse the names of Sahaba and friends of Prophet (s.a.) and impute them that they had quoted from his holiness so and so?
That political issue was nothing other than an expression which second leader said which was: “Two things were Halaal in the age of prophet of Allah (s.a.) and I forbid them, which one of them is Mut’a of women.”
This expression had geat negative effect that if people of nation or leaders can transform orders of Islam explicitly, then here is no reason that it will remain especially for second leader; others also have the right to use Ijtihad against Nass. In this way a great chaos occurs in orders of Islam, obligations and prohibitions and by the time nothing will remain from Islam.
Inevitably, a group started working for removing its negative effects and said that forbidding these two had happened in the age of Prophet (s.a.). Anyone made a Hadith and imputed that to respected Sahaba of Prophet (s.a.), and because none of them was correct, they became antithetical!!
How it is possible that this much of antithetical cabbalas can be found and even some of Faqihs for conjunction of them say that Mut’a was permitted some time and after that prohibited and then accepted and then prohibited! Are divine orders playthings!
Moreover, surely acceptability of Mut’a in the age of Prophet (s.a.) has been due to a necessity and this necessity will be existed in other ages and times, especially it is more severe in our time for some youths or travelers in western countries in their long journeys, therefore why it should be Haraam?
In those days, there were not this much of excitants and stimulants, unveiled or semi veiled women, pornographic movies and programs, television and internet and satellites, and orgies and sexual magazines that conquer young persons, had no meaning at all.
Had Mut’a accepted in that age as a necessity and then prohibited forever? Is this expression acceptable?
If we accept all these and assume that most of Faqihs of Islam consider that as Haraam, but a group have accepted and allowed this issue and the matter has become in dissension, therefore it is not deserved that adherents of acceptably of Mut’a accuse their oppositions to inconstancy to religious orders or adherents of prohibition of Mut’a, absit omen, accuse adherents of acceptability of that to accepting fornication, how can they answer Allah in the Judgment day?! Therefore it is at most a dissension in Ijtihad.
Fakhr Raazi says in his interpretation with that especial passion of him in these issues: “Most of nation believe in prohibition of order, but a group say that this is still acceptable”1, it means that this is a matter of dissension.
Here we finish the issue of temporary matter and expect that all people study and judge this issue one more time, without any prejudices or improper accusations. Surely, they will be certain that Mut’a is a divine order and with its condition, is the solution for lots of problems.
1- Great interpretation of Fakhr Raazi, vol. 10, page 49.