-
In that order to release the women no divorce formula or annulment was mentioned, which shows that this is not a true marriage contract that would require divorce or annulment; rather, the woman is more like a hired worker whose term ends, whereupon she is allowed to go back to her family.
-
He forbade the husband to reclaim any part of the wage he had given her, because it was the compensation for enjoying her company during the period she stayed with him.
-
Ḥadīth no. 861 and Ḥadīth no. 862 indicate that mutʿa was permitted before the battle of Khaybar and was then prohibited there. Imām al-Nawawī said: “The sound, preferred view is that both the prohibition and the permission of mutʿa occurred twice. It was lawful before Khaybar, then it was forbidden on the day of Khaybar; later it was allowed on the day of the Conquest of Mecca, which coincided with the day of Awṭās, and three days afterward it was banned permanently until the Day of Resurrection. One may not claim that the concession applied only before Khaybar, that the ban at Khaybar was final, and that the incident on the day of the Conquest was merely a reinforcement of the earlier prohibition without a new grant of permission. The reports cited by Muslim that speak of its permissibility on the day of the Conquest are explicit and cannot be discarded, and nothing prevents the concession from being renewed.”
-
Shaykh Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān writes in al-Rawḍa al-Nadiyya: “In Sharḥ al-Sunnah it is stated that the scholars unanimously agree on the prohibition of mutʿa, and the hadiths on this matter are mass-transmitted. The report declaring its prohibition until the Day of Resurrection is the decisive proof in this chapter, and it is not countered by what is narrated from some Companions who continued to practice mutʿa during his ﷺ lifetime and after his death until the last days of ʿUmar, for those who know of the perpetual abrogation are proof against those who do not. The persistence of those who practiced it was due only to their ignorance of the abrogating ruling.
“As for the claim advanced by a group of later writers that the permissibility of mutʿa is definitive while the hadith banning it for all time is conjectural—and that conjecture cannot abrogate certainty—the answer is…”