These two traditions contain more than one source of proof that it was Umar who prohibited the mut a:

١. The testimony of a Companion and of Ali b. Abi Talib prove that the prohibition of the mut i:z was not in force during the lifetime of the Prophet, nor following his death, until Umar declared it unlawful in accordance with his personal opinion.
٢. The witnessing of themuti:z contract in the first tradition by the responsible persons
and their failure to admonish against it suggest that they regarded it as permissible.
٣. The silence ofUmar occurred in the face of the Syrians claim that the Prophet had not forbidden it.
٤. Umars statement to the Syrian, "If I had already declared its prohibition, then I would have [certainly] stoned you," is a clear statement that Umar had not already declared its prohibition before this story. In other words, Umar admitted that the muta was not forbidden before that time.
٥. Umars statement, "Make this [prohibition] known so that marriage (nika/:١) will be distinguished from fornication (sifli/:١)," confirms that themuti:z was widespread among Muslims. Thus, Umar wanted his prohibition of it to be made known to them so that they would thereafter be dissuaded from it. Perhaps the [Syrians] incident in this tradi‌ tion had directly or indirectly played a role in Umars prohibition of the muta. For
•his disapproval of the Syrians action, in spite of the testimony of the tradition that
the muta was widespread among Muslims, added to the fact that the news about it had reached him, although news about such things did not usually reach those who were in power-all these things suggest that there was a factor in the incident that the repori• ;rs ignored or neglected, with the consequence that the report did not reach us. AdditiOnally, the report by Salma b. ai-Akwa does not explicitly state that the prohi‌ bition was made by the Prophet. It is possible to read the word nahl (prohibition) in the tradition in the passive voice,٧٢ and [to determine] that, as such, it is intended to show that the prohibition came from Umar after the death of the Prophet.

Therefore, the traditions do not provide acceptable evidence that establishes that the Prophet prohibited the muta. That which establishes that the Prophet had not banned the mut a is the fact that Umar attributed the prohibition to himself when he said, "[The Prophet and the Quran] permitted two types ofmuta during the Prophets time, and I prohibit both of them and I shall punish anyone practicing thern."٧٣ Had the prohibition come from the Prophet, then he would have said, "The Prophet for‌ bade both of them."
Fourth, the permissibility of the mut a, which is established in the Quran and the
Sunna, was abrogated by a consensus making it unlawful.
The response to this line of argument is that a consensus has no evidentiary value if it does not reveal the opinion of the infallible Prophet or the Imams. It is well known that the prohibition of the mut a did not occur during the time of the Prophet, nor did it occur after him until well into the caliphate ofUmar. Is it rationally permissible to reject [a ruling of] the Book of God and the Sunna of His Prophet by means of a fatwa (legal opinion) of a group of persons who were not divinely protected from error? If this were to be admissible, it would then be possible to abrogate all the rul‌ ings stated in the Quran or established in the absolutely reliable Sunna. In other words, this entails the permissibility of abrogating the obligatoriness of the daily worship or the fasting or the annual pilgrimage, in accordance with the opinions of the scholars (mujtahida.n). Such a thing cannot be accepted by any Muslim.