Identifying the Legal-Religious Systems of Mecca in the Second Half of the First Century A.H through an Anthropological Analysis; The Issue of Motʿatan in the Dispute between Abdollah ibn e-Zobair and Abdollah ibn e-Abbas

Islamic jurisprudence, beyond regulating ritual and devotional practices, also structures the social relations and legal frameworks within Muslim societies. As a normative system, law ascribes value to human actions, and the norms of a legal system are rooted in underlying value systems. Conversely, the imperatives embedded in legal norms reinforce these values across the social fabric. Within Islamic jurisprudence, legal evaluation
of human behavior is conducted through five categories of verdicts: obligatory, recommended, disliked, prohibited, and permissible which guide the actions of adherents. This evaluative framework influences the conduct of those who follow Islamic law. In the first Islamic century, the legal-religious order had a deeply cultural and lived character, interwoven with daily life. Jurisprudential schools had yet to take shape as formal institutions during the early decades. With the gradual emergence of professional classes of muftis and judges, Islamic legal thought began to develop into distinct schools. The formation of Islamic law was accompanied by sociopolitical contests and rivalries among various social groups, eventually resulting in a spectrum of legal traditions with differing structures. Although the emergence of juristic schools is officially documented from the early second century A.H, the roots of these schools can be traced to the diverse religious-living experiences of the Companions during the first century. The religious life of different Muslim groups in early Islam was diverse, influenced by pre-Islamic culture, the initial motivation to join the call of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH), and the diversity of their religious meanings. Therefore, in order to understand the differences between the jurisprudential schools of the second century, this study has conducted an anthropological analysis of the jurisprudential-legal life of the Companions in the first decades of Islamic society. This study takes an anthropological approach to analyze the legal-religious life of the early Muslim community, particularly focusing on Mecca in the seventh decade AH, in order to uncover the early divergences that later informed the development of legal schools in the second century. The article identifies two distinct legal-religious agencies in Mecca at that time, each grounded in different worldviews, value systems, and conceptions of prophetic authority. The first, which we term the "Prophetic Agency" (ʿāmilīyat-i nabawī), viewed the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) as sacred and divinely inspired, in continuity with previous prophetic traditions. This agency considered the foundations of Islamic law to lie exclusively in divine revelation—namely, the Qur’an and Prophetic Sunnah—and accepted the legal decisions of the caliphs only when they conformed to these sources. Ibn e-Abbās is identified as a key representative of this legal paradigm. The second, termed the "Tribal Agency" (ʿāmilīyat-i badawī), interpreted the Prophet’s role through the lens of pre-Islamic tribal culture, viewing him as a tribal chief with social and political authority rather than as a divinely inspired lawgiver. For this group, the "Islamic community" functioned as an extended tribe, and the Prophet’s legislative authority stemmed from his chieftaincy. In this framework, successors to the Prophet—such as the caliphs—could rationally reinterpret or establish new legal rulings. This agency was represented by figures such as ʿAbdollāh ibn e-Zobair and ʿUrwah ibn e-Zobair, whose legal thinking blended Islamic values with tribal priorities. Employing a legal-anthropological lens, the authors examine the dual practices of mutʿat al-hajj and mutʿat al-nikāḥ (temporary marriage), as viewed by these two agencies. Ibn ʿAbbas’ defense of both practices underscored his belief in the sacred and revelatory authority of the Prophet, affirming that only legal rulings grounded in divine attribution were valid. In contrast, the tribal legal paradigm construed the Prophet’s rulings as socially constructed and rooted in tribal governance, allowing for legal modification by subsequent leaders. The core divergence between the Prophetic and Tribal legal paradigms lies in their respective constructions of Prophetic identity—either as a transcendent, divinely guided messenger or as a worldly tribal leader. Both legal agencies played foundational roles in shaping the structure of early Islamic jurisprudential schools at the dawn of the second century A.H.