dice. Yet his prejudice leads him to denounce what has been established in the Is‌ lamic law through a specific text in the Quran, as well as in the Sunna and by the consensus of Muslims, which holds true even if they disagree over its abrogation or continuation. Moreover, if the transfer of a woman from man to man is abominable, it should then deter divorce in a permanent marriage, since that would transfer the woman to the protection of another man, as well as transfer a woman through own‌ ership. No Muslim has voiced objection to this, but the author of al-Manar is free to make this objection because he is of the opinion that slavery should be prohibited and that, in its permissibility, there are many causes of corruption. He asserts that prominent jurists had neglected to mention that. Moreover, he maintains that a per‌ manent marriage was invalid if the husband, from the beginning, intended divorce following the marriage. In that, he has diverged from the legal opinion of other Muslim jurists.
Equally strange is the way he explains Umars admission that the prohibition of
muta was his own decision, for it does not support what he, the author of al-Manar, asserts. Certainly, Umars proclamation of the prohibition must have been either a personal judgment of his own contradiction of the Prophets opinion, or a personal judgment ascribing the prohibition to the Prophet, or a report on his authority related from the Prophet regarding the prohibition.
As for the possibility that Umars view was a tradition reported from the Prophet
about the prohibition, this is not supported by the numerous traditions in which Umar ascribes the prohibition solely to himself. In addition, if it were indeed a prophetic tradition, then it would contradict all the traditions, reported earlier, that prove that the muta remained permissible during a considerable period of Umars caliphate. And where was Umar during the caliphate of his predecessor, AbU Bakr? Did he reveal, to AbU Bakr and other Muslims, his report regarding the Prophets prohibi‌ tion of mut a? Moreover, Umars report is a single narrative that does not establish the abrogation.
As for the possibility that Umars view was his own personal judgment that the
Prophet had prohibited the mut a, this also has no meaning after the testimony of a group of the Companions regarding its permissibility during the time of the Prophet until his death. However, his personal judgment is not binding on those, other than himself, who have not been required to follow his judicial decision and his opinion. More pertinently, these two possibilities run contrary to Umars statement in his speech: "As for the two forms of mut a that were [permissible] during the Prophets time, I am forbidding them both and I shall punish those who practice them."
Consequently, the matter is reduced to the conclusion that the prohibition was
Umars personal judgment against the Prophets declaration regarding its permissi‌ bility.lt was for this reason that the community did not follow him in his prohibition of mut a [indulgence] during the hajj and in establishing the maximum legal penalty for the muta. It is incumbent on the community to follow the Prophets statement and reject all personal judgments that go against it, as God says: "And it is not a believing man or a believing woman, when God and His Messenger have decided an affair [for them], that they should [after that] claim any say in their affair" (Q. ٣٣:٣٦).
In this connection, the Messenger of God said, "I do not make anything unlawful
except if God had made it unlawful."٨٢ In another place he said, "I solemnly declare,