What is the authenticity of the claim that it was 'Umar ibn al-Khattab who prohibited mut'ah permanently?

Question:
May Allah reward you, Honorable Shaykh. This questioner asks: What is the authenticity of the claim that it was 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and not the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who prohibited mut'ah permanently?

Answer:
This is a lie, this is a lie. It was not 'Umar who prohibited it. Perhaps he assumed that 'Umar's statement referred to the mut'ah of Hajj, because 'Umar and Abu Bakr prohibited combining 'Umrah with Hajj (tamattu'). They said this was to increase the number of visitors to the Sacred Mosque throughout the year, because if people combined 'Umrah and Hajj in the season of Hajj, no one would come to visit the House during the rest of the year. This was their view, may Allah be pleased with them. But this is a mistaken statement, without a doubt.
The correct view is that 'Umrah is prescribed and that it remains in effect. It remains in effect and has not been abrogated. Perhaps this person read and assumed that the mut'ah mentioned by 'Umar was the mut'ah of women. Yes. And this is ignorance, as I told you. One who reads without a scholar falls into such errors. Matters become confused for him; he reads that 'Umar said to prohibit mut'ah, and he assumed it was the mut'ah regarding the permissibility or prohibition of mut'ah, and he thought it was the mut'ah of women.
The one who prohibited it was 'Umar, and the one who prohibited it was the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The Messenger prohibited the mut'ah of women. As for the mut'ah of Hajj, the Messenger commanded it. So there is a difference between them. But this person does not distinguish because of his ignorance. It is like the one who says he read in Sahih al-Bukhari that . He read "al-hayyah" (the snake). The black snake with two dots was a scribal error for him. He went and took a Saudi snake and ate it, so he died. The poison killed him because he did not ask anyone. He relied solely on his reading, and the copy had a scribal error with an extra dot. Yes. This is the result of presumptuousness and relying on books without scholars. Yes.