Critics describe mut'ah - temporary marriage - as licensed prostitution, and add a sharper claim: that it was a divine permission ended not by revelation but by the Caliph Umar, with Ali reportedly saying that but for Umar's ban, no one would commit fornication. From the Sunni perspective, the central premise is historically incorrect: the final prohibition is attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) himself, and it is confirmed by the transmission of the Companions and the later consensus of the jurists.
Mut'ah was not invented by Islam
An important piece of historical context is often left out: temporary unions were already known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Islam did not invent the concept of a time-limited union. Historical scholarship describes mut'ah as developing from a pre-Islamic Arabian practice of temporary alliance between a man and a woman - the Encyclopaedia Iranica, for example, describes its earlier form as an Arab custom that could also establish social and tribal ties, and the Encyclopaedia of Islam likewise treats it as deriving from a pre-Islamic Arabian tradition. (One need not claim that every detail of the later legal form was identical to the older custom - only that time-limited unions were already familiar.)
This background matters, because the sequence was not "Islam invented temporary marriage, Muslims practiced it, and then Umar decided to ban it." The more accurate picture is: a temporary-union practice already existed in Arabia; Islam initially permitted a regulated form of it under particular circumstances; and the Prophet (PBUH) eventually prohibited it permanently. As with several other pre-Islamic institutions, Islam did not abolish every existing practice at once - some were forbidden outright, others regulated or reformed, and some permitted for a period before their final ruling settled.
So the authentic Sunni reports describe a gradual legal development during the Prophet's own lifetime, not Umar independently overturning a permanent divine permission. This also explains why the Companions' practicing mut'ah at an earlier stage is not evidence that Sunni Islam considers it permanently lawful: the sources preserve both facts - that it was once permitted, and that the Prophet (PBUH) later prohibited it.
It was permitted, then prohibited by the Prophet himself
Yes, temporary marriage was permitted for a period during the Prophet's (PBUH) lifetime. Sunni scholarship does not deny this. But according to authentic Sunni hadith, the Prophet (PBUH) himself subsequently prohibited it.
O people, I had permitted you the temporary marriage of women, but Allah has forbidden that now until the Day of Resurrection.
Sahih Muslim 1406 (Sabra al-Juhani)
Even more importantly for the claim involving Ali, Ali himself is recorded as narrating the prohibition:
Ali said to Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) forbade the temporary marriage of women, and the eating of the meat of domestic donkeys, at the time of Khaybar.
Sahih al-Bukhari 5115 (the same attribution from Ali is preserved in Sahih Muslim)
The chronology is more layered than a single ban
Honesty requires noting that the reports do not describe one tidy prohibition event. Imam al-Nawawi's preferred reconciliation of the narrations is that mut'ah was permitted before Khaybar, prohibited at Khaybar, permitted again briefly at the Conquest of Mecca, and then permanently prohibited shortly afterward - the final ban standing "until the Day of Resurrection." Ibn Hajar discusses the disagreement over the reported dates and holds that the clearest, least problematic report for the final prohibition is the one at the Conquest of Mecca; he also notes the scholarly discussion over whether "at Khaybar" in Ali's report attaches to both mut'ah and donkey meat, or particularly to the latter.
None of this weakens the Sunni case. Whatever disagreement exists over the precise sequence, the authentic reports explicitly attribute the final prohibition to the Prophet (PBUH), with the clearest reports placing the permanent ban around the Conquest of Mecca. Umar later enforced and publicized that existing prohibition.
"But Companions still practiced it under Abu Bakr"
A critic will point to the report of Jabir ibn Abd Allah:
We contracted temporary marriage... during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and during the time of Abu Bakr, until Umar forbade it in the case of Amr ibn Hurayth.
Sahih Muslim 1405
and ask: if the Prophet (PBUH) already prohibited it, why were some Companions still practicing it afterward? The classical Sunni answer is that knowledge of the final abrogation did not reach every Companion at once. Al-Nawawi explains a Companion's continued permissive view precisely on the grounds that the abrogation had not reached him; Ibn Hajar likewise notes that a later ruling may not reach particular individuals immediately, and that repeated public proclamations served to make the settled ruling widely known. So the reconciliation is: a Prophetic prohibition existed, some Companions had not learned or firmly established the final ruling, and Umar publicly enforced it when the issue arose - not that Umar invented a new law.
The statement attributed to Ali - and to Ibn Abbas
What about the saying "had Umar not prohibited mut'ah, none but a wretch would commit fornication"? Two things must be separated:
- The attribution to Ali is weak. A version appears in the Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq, but its chain runs through Ibn Jurayj reporting from "someone I trust" whom he does not name. An unnamed transmitter cannot be used to overturn the sound (sahih) reports in which Ali himself narrates the prohibition. An argument that leans on Ali while contradicting Ali's own authenticated narration cannot stand.
- A similar statement is better attested from Ibn Abbas, through Ata, recorded in al-Tahawi's Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar. Ibn Abbas is independently known to have held a permissive view of mut'ah for a period (later reports indicate he restricted or retracted it). So the honest picture is not "Ali believed Umar invented the ban," but that a permissive opinion is genuinely traced to Ibn Abbas - and that the mainstream Companions and the sound narrations, including Ali's, uphold the prohibition.
What about Quran 4:24?
This verse is central to the dispute:
فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً
So for whatever you enjoy (istamta'tum) from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation.
Quran 4:24
Sunni tafsir records more than one approach. Ibn Kathir reads the operative sense of the verse as ordinary marriage and the payment of the dower, while also discussing the historical mut'ah controversy and its prohibition; al-Tabari preserves reports interpreting istamta'tum in relation to marriage in general, alongside early reports connecting it to temporary marriage. The Sunni response does not need to win every exegetical point here: even if one grants that some early authorities read 4:24 as including the original permission of mut'ah, that does not establish its continuing legality, because the Sunni hadith sources explicitly record a subsequent Prophetic prohibition. And on the other reading, 4:24 simply refers to ordinary marriage and its mahr. Either way, the verse does not keep mut'ah lawful against the later prohibition.
"Licensed prostitution" is not a neutral description
Calling its permitted form "licensed prostitution" is polemical, not descriptive. During the phase in which it was allowed, it was treated as a recognized form of nikah (marriage): the parties agreed to the union and its term, a dower (mahr) was given, and the jurists discussed its specific legal incidents. Qadi Iyad, as quoted by al-Nawawi, describes the early form as a marriage for a fixed term, with no inheritance between the parties, ending automatically when the agreed period expired rather than through divorce; the Sabra narration itself shows negotiation and an agreed dower. It was therefore not classified by the Prophet (PBUH) as zina during the period in which he permitted it. Sunni Islam then holds that this permission was permanently revoked.
The later Sunni consensus
This is not merely one reading of Bukhari and Muslim. After the early dispute associated with Ibn Abbas, the four Sunni schools of law agree that mut'ah is prohibited and the contract invalid. Scholars including Ibn al-Mundhir, Qadi Iyad and al-Nawawi report consensus, or near-consensus, among the Sunni jurists on this. So the Sunni position rests on three legs together: the hadith evidence, the transmission of the Companions, and the later juristic consensus - not simply "Umar said so."
Conclusion
The fuller and more accurate picture is this: an early permission; one or more prohibitions and permissions during the Prophetic period; a final, permanent prohibition by the Prophet (PBUH), with the clearest reports placing it around the Conquest of Mecca; some Companions who remained briefly unaware of or disputed the final abrogation; Umar's public enforcement of the settled ruling; and the subsequent agreement of the Sunni jurists that mut'ah is invalid. The decisive point stands: Sunni Islam does not grant Umar the authority to turn something halal into haram against Allah and His Messenger. The final prohibition is the Prophet's own - and Ali was among those who narrated it.
For related discussion of marriage, consent, and the rules governing intimacy in Islam, see the related topics below.