of judgment, would not legal punishments be extenuated in cases of mistakes? In addition, this is merely a hypothetical situation. We have already noted that there is no proof to support the claim of abrogation.
How far is this opinion from the doctrine of AbU I:Ianifa, who is of the opinion that the legal punishment should be suspended in the case of a man marrying a woman by means of an invalid contract, or marrying a woman who is not lawful for him [because of the degree of consanguinity], and engaging with her in sexual intercourse, though aware of the prohibition and the invalidity of the contract?٧٩ Moreover, the same doctrine holds that if he hires a woman and then fornicates with her, the pen‌ alty is suspended, for God has called the brides dowry a wage (ajr). Traditions to this effect have been related on the authority of Umar b. al-Khanab also.٨٠

Assertions Regarding the Mut a

The author of al-Manar, [Rashid Rida], asserted that muta contradicts chastity. Rather, [he said], its primary goal is to fornicate, and it is not chaste for a woman to hire herself every time to a different man, for then she would be like the ball in the following line of a poem:

She is like a ball that is hit with a polo mallet, Being grabbed from foot to foot.

Moreover, he maintains that it contradicts what God, the Exalted, says in the follow‌
ing passage:

And [those] who guard their modesty-save from their wives or the [slaves] that their right hands possess-they are not blameworthy. But whosoever craves beyond that, such are transgressors (Q. ٢٣:٥-٧).

Then he goes on to state that Umars prohibition did not come from himself. Even if it is true that he attributed it to himself, this would mean only that he elucidated its prohibition or that he carried it out. Having said that, the author expresses his regret that he wrote in al-Manar that Umar forbade muta on the basis of his ijtihad [per‌ sonal judgment] and that the other Companions agreed.٨١
In response to these assertions, we say:
His contention that the muta is incompatible with chastity is based on his claim thatthe woman would not be a real wife. We already explained the error of this view, and this exposes the further error that muta is incompatible with guarding ones modesty except against a spouse.
As for his interpretation of the muta as being equivalent to a womans hiring herself
out, and his comparison of a woman with a ball that is grabbed by different hands, if this is true, it disputes the legality of this kind of marriage, which was prevalent during the lifetime of the Prophet. The reason is that such a comparison and a disapproba‌ tion do not apply to one period to the exclusion of another. In addition, no Muslim doubts that muta was permissible during the time of the Prophet, and, as established earlier, it is known that the permission continued until well into the time of Umar.
It is strange that the author [of al-Manar] at this point states that he does not wish to express anything except the truth and that he is not influenced by sectarian preju-