Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Debate on the Legitimacy of Mut’a

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

The following piece is adopted from the book "Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law,” by Abul Qasim Gourji, and is presented with some modifications.

Introduction

The word Mut’a was more commonly used than other terms for temporary marriage both during the lifetime of the Prophet and afterwards. Both its proponents and opponents preferred this word and its derivatives. In books on jurisprudence the terms Mut’a, al-Nikah al-Munqati’ (discontinued marriage), and al-Nikah al-Muwaqqat (temporary marriage), Istimta’ (having pleasure), and the related word of tamattu’ (pleasure) are all employed.

The scholars both Sunni and Shi’a, agree that Mut’a was permitted at the beginning of Islam. However, they disagree as to the reasons it was permitted.

The Shi’a View

In the chapter titled "Women", after listing those women to whom marriage is forbidden, the Qur’an states as follows:

"Lawful for you is what is beyond all that, that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in license. So those of them whom you enjoy, give them their appointed wages; it is no fault in you in mutually agreeing after fulfillment (of the wage). God is All-Knowing, All-Wise”(4:24).

All Shi’a scholars and many Sunni scholars hold that this verse - especially the words: "Such woman as you enjoy (Istamta’tum)”- refers to the permissibility of Mut’a. The Shi’a present several arguments to prove this point. (See Sharh al-Lum’a, v5, p248-253; Jawahir, v5, p163).

This verse was revealed towards the beginning of the Prophet’s stay in Medina. By the revelation of this verse, the temporary marriage became a legal custom in Medina and was looked upon as one kind of marriage and was referred to by the term Istimta’a, the same word employed in the Qur’anic verse - even though the literal meaning of the word is "to seek benefit”or "to take enjoyment".

Hence the meaning of the Qur’anic verse must be understood in terms of the conventional usage of the time, for as is well-known in the science of Qur’anic commentary and Islamic jurisprudence, the Qur’an follows the conventional usage of the people in all edicts and legal prescriptions. If someone wants to understand a word in the Qur’an in other than the conventional meaning of the time, he must supply a strong reason for doing so.

Moreover if one looks up the traditions of the chapter of temporary marriage in the authentic Sunni collections such as Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, one can see that the messenger of Allah and his companions exactly used the word Istimta’a when referring to this contract, which is exactly the same word as what Qur’an employed.

The context of the verse also indicates that it is referring to the temporary marriage. In the previous verse, i.e. 4:23, the Qur’an enumerates the women who are forbidden to men. These are divided into seven kinds stemming from blood relationship and seven more stemming from other causes: "Forbidden to you are your mothers and daughters...".

The next verse adds a fifteenth category of women forbidden to men: "And married women, save what your right hands own.”It continues with the words quoted above: "Lawful for you is what is beyond all that.”In other words, any woman not belonging to one of the fifteen categories is permitted, whether by marriage or ownership.

Next the verse states: "that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in license.”Grammatically, this clause is in apposition to "what is beyond all that.”It explains the legitimate mode of seeking sexual relationships with women, whether as the result of marriage or the purchase of slaves.

The next part of this same verse states as follows: "So those of them whom you enjoy, give them their appointed wages.”The word "so”(fa) shows that this part of the verse is either part of the previous subject matter, or an example of it; in other words, its relation to the previous section is either that of the part which is completing the whole, or the particular example to the universal principle.

And since the previous section deals with the different kinds of legitimate sexual relationships, either by marriage or the purchase of slaves, we can conclude that this section of the verse is the exposition of a further kinds of marriage, not mentioned previously; a kind which also requires that the man pay the wages of his wife.

Many sayings have been related from the Companions of the Prophet and those who followed them (al-Tabi’een) confirming the Shi’a view that verse 24 of this chapter concerns Mut’a. Several of the companions, including Ibn-Abbas, one of the highly respected companions of the Prophet, Ibn Masud, one of the first to accept Islam, and Ubayy Ibn Ka’ab, one of the scribes of the revelation, and many others used to read the verse with three more words resulting in the sentence of the form: "So those of them whom you enjoy to an appointed time (Ila Ajal Musamma).”This clearly indicates that the verse refers to Mut’a.

In Majma’ al-Bayan, Abu ‘Ali al-Fadl Ibn al-Hasan al-Tabarsi (d. 548/1153), one of the Shi’a commentator of the Qur’an summarizes the Shi’a arguments:

the word ‘enjoy’ in this verse refers to the marriage of Mut’a, i.e., a marriage for a specified dower and a determined time period. This opinion has been related from Ibn Abbas and many of the ‘followers’ of the Companions such as Isma’il Ibn Abdurrahman al-Suddy (d. 127/744-45) and Sa’id Ibn Jubair al-Asadi (95/713-14).

In fact, this clearly must be the case, for although the words Istimta’a and Mut’a have the literal meaning of ‘enjoyment’, in Shari’ah (divine law) they refer to the contract of temporary marriage, especially when they are followed by the word ‘women’. Hence the meaning of the verse is: ‘Whenever you draw up a contract of Mut’a with a woman, you must pay her wages.’

Reference: Majma’ al-Bayan, by Abu ‘Ali al-Tabarsi, v3, p32

The Sunni View

As was indicated above, the Sunnis agree that at the beginning of Islam Mut’a was permitted. For example, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606/1209), the famous Sunni theologian, writes in his Commentary on the Qur’an that Mut’a was at first permitted. The Prophet made a lesser pilgrimage (Umrah) to Mecca, and the women of Mecca made themselves up especially for the occasion. Some of the Companions complained about the long separation from their wives, and the Prophet replied: "Then go and enjoy (Istamta’a) these women.”(Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p286)

Those Sunnis who hold that the Qur’anic verse mentioned above (4:23) does indeed refer to the permissibility of Mut’a also maintain that the verse was subsequently abrogated (Naskh) by other Qur’anic verses. They offer three arguments to prove their point: other Qur’anic verses, the sermon of Umar banning Mut’a, and the Hadith transmitted by some Companions. The Shi’a, in turn, reject each of the arguments:

Debate On The Qur’anic Verse Of Mut’a

Some Sunnis argue that sexual intercourse is forbidden except with one’s wife or a slave by reason of the verse:

"Prosperous are the believers who guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own.”(Qur’an 23:14).

According to the Prophet’s wife Aisha and others: ‘Mut’a is forbidden and abrogated in the Qur’an where God says: "who guard their private parts..."

(al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, by al-Qurtubi, v5, p130).

The Sunni argument continues by pointing out that without question a woman enjoyed through Mut’a is not a slave. Nor is she a wife, for several reasons: if she were a wife, she and her husband would inherit from each other, since God says:

"And for you a half of what your wives leave...”(Qur’an 4:12).

But everyone agrees that Mut’a does not involve inheritance. If she were a wife, the child would belong to the husband, since according to the Prophet: "The child belongs to the bed.”But again this is not the case. And finally, if she were a wife, it would be necessary for her to maintain the waiting period, since this is commanded by God (2:234); but this also is not the case.

We have already seen that some of these arguments, taken from Fakhr al-Razi’s Commentary, do not in fact apply to Mut’a as the Shi’a understand it. It is the Ijma’ of the Shi’a scholars that the child born of Mut’a belongs to the husband and that the woman is obliged to observe the waiting period after the expiration date of the marriage. However, it will be useful to see how the Shi’a answer each of the above Sunni claims:

As for the ‘abrogation’ of the verse concerning Mut’a, historical considerations show that this can not be the case. The verse mentioned as abrogating Mut’a was revealed in Mecca before the migration, while the verse establishing Mut’a was revealed after the Prophet had emigrated to Medina. But a verse which abrogates another verse must have been revealed after it, not before it.

It is also well-known that the Prophet allowed the companions to practice Mut’a in Medina, and if Mut’a had already been illegalized in Mecca (before Hijra) by Qur’an, then the Prophet would not have allowed his companions to practice it after the migration. (Tafsir al-Mizan, by al-Tabatabai, v3, p132).

As for the Sunni claim that a wife by Mut’a is not a legitimate wife because she does not fulfill the religious requirements for being a ‘wife’, this also is false. In the question of inheritance, the Qur’anic verse is a general one, and there is no reason to suppose that it may not have certain exceptions. In fact, the specific requirements of Mut’a as established by the Hadith literature show that Mut’a is an exception. Nor is it the only exception, since a non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim, nor can a murderer inherit from his victim.

Also if a man is sick and marries a woman, but dies due to that sickness before consummating the marriage, the woman will not inherit from his husband. Thus being husband and wife (even in the permanent marriage) does not always necessitate the inheritance. Qur’an usually provides the general rules and he was the Messenger of Allah who clarified the exceptions as well as the conditions for applying the rule.

In short, inheritance pertains to permanent marriage, but even in permanent marriage it has certain exceptions, so that the verse establishing it cannot be interpreted as nullifying the validity of Mut’a. Also inheritance is possible in the temporary marriage as long as it is made condition at the time of contract. (See Asl al-Shi’a wa Usuliha, by Kashif al-Ghita’, p116; al-Bayan Fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, by al-Khoei, p219)

In the question of the child, there is no reason to claim that it is illegitimate. In Mut’a the "bed”is legitimate, so is the offspring. (Sharh al-Lum’a, v5, p277)

The Imam Ja’far was asked: "If the wife becomes pregnant as a result of Mut’a, to whom does the child belong?”He replied: "To the father,”i.e., the child is legitimate. (Wasa’il al-Shi’a, v14, p488)

In a similar manner numerous traditions exist to prove that a wife by Mut’a must observe the waiting period of two months. Some of such traditions are even documented in the Sunni sources. For example Fakhr al-Razi himself quotes a relevant saying from Ibn Abbas that:

Ibn Abbas was asked: "Is Mut’a fornication or marriage?”He answered: ‘Neither the one nor the other.’ The questioner then asked: "Well then, what is it?”Ibn Abbas replied: "It is Mut’a’, just as God has said.”The questioner continued: "Is there a waiting period in Mut’a?”He replied: "Yes, a menstrual period.”He was also asked: "Do the husband and wife inherit from each other?”He answered: "No."

Reference: Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p286

Certain Sunnis also argue that Mut’a cannot be considered a legitimate form of sexual union because it excludes such things as inheritance, divorce, sworn allegation, forswearing, and Bihar. Since these necessary concomitants of marriage do not apply to Mut’a, it cannot be considered marriage, so the woman cannot be considered a legitimate wife.

If she is neither a wife nor property, sexual intercourse with her is illegitimate: "Prosperous are the believers, who... guard their private parts, save from their wives and what their right hands own. .; but whosoever seeks after more than that, those are the transgressors”(23:1-7). Hence, people who engage in Mut’a transgress God’s law.

A typical Shi’a answer to this argument runs as follows: First, the Qur’anic verse is a general statement, and there is no reason why its specific applications may not be clarified by other verses and the traditions. Second, it is not true that the above things are concomitants of marriage: there is no inheritance in the case of a non-Muslim wife, a murderer, or a slave-girl.

A legitimate sexual relationship may be dissolved without divorce in the case of a wife who is the subject of a sworn allegation, a spouse who leaves Islam, or a slave-girl who is sold. Sworn allegation, forswearing, and Bihar are all concomitants of permanent marriage, not of legitimate sexual relationships in general (i.e., they do not apply to sexual relationships with a slave).

Even if we suppose that these things do in fact pertain to legitimate sexual relationships, then it will be necessary to specify that there are certain exceptions. This is the only way we will be able to combine the Qur’anic verses and the traditions which show that these pertain to legitimate sexual relationships with those traditions which demonstrate that they do not pertain to Mut’a. (Jawahir, v5, p163).

Debate Over The Sermon Of Umar

In a famous sermons the second caliph Umar banned Mut’a with the following words: "Two Mut’a were practiced during the time of the Prophet: Mut’a of women and Mut’a of Hajj, but I forbid both of them and will punish anyone who practices either."

References:

• Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, commentary of verse 4:24

• Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p52

Al-Razi summarizes the Sunni interpretation of Umar’s words by saying that they were pronounced in a gathering of Companions and no one protested. Therefore, the situation must have been as follows: either

1. everyone knew that Mut’a was forbidden, so they remained silent; or

2. they all knew that it was permitted, yet they remained silent out of negligence and in order to placate Umar; or

3. they did not know whether it was forbidden or permitted, so they remained silent since the matter had just then been clarified for them, so they had no reason to protest.

Reference: al-Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p287

Al-Razi continues by saying that the first possibility is what he is trying to prove. If we maintain the second possibility, then we must call Umar and the companions who were with him unbelievers. For they knew that the Qur’an and the Prophet had permitted Mut’a, yet Umar went ahead and banned it without the Qur’anic verse permitting it having been abrogated. This is unbelief (Kufr); and those who knew Umar was wrong without protesting shared in his unbelief. But such a supposition requires that we call Islam a religion of unbelief, which is absurd.

The third possibility that Umar’s listeners had not known whether Mut’a was permitted or forbidden is also absurd. For, if we suppose that Mut’a was permitted, then people would need to have knowledge of that fact in their everyday lives, just as they need to have knowledge about the permissibility of marriage. So the legal situation of Mut’a must have been known, just as everyone knew about marriage.

Al-Razi concludes that as soon as we see that the second and third possibilities are in absurd, then we know for certain that the companions remained silent only because they all knew that Mut’a had already been abrogated.

The Shi’a answer Fakhr al-Razi’s arguments as follows: Umar’s sermon demonstrates that during the lifetime of the Prophet Mut’a was permitted. The reason Umar attributed the banning to himself is that he wanted to show that he was expressing his own view. If the Prophet himself had prohibited Mut’a, or if its permissibility pertained only to a specific period in time, then Umar would have attributed its prohibition to the Prophet, not to himself. (Majma’ al-Bayan, v3, p32).

Another saying concerning Mut’a is also attributed to Umar: "God permitted for His Prophet what He willed, and the Qur’an has been revealed in its entirety. So complete the Hajj and the Umrah as God has commanded you. But avoid marrying these women, and do not bring before me any man who has married a woman for a specified period, or I will stone him.”(Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p885, Tradition #145. For English version see: v2, chapter 442, Tradition #2801)

As for the fact that no one protested against Umar’s pronouncement cannot be considered proof that the Prophet himself had forbidden Mut’a. For Umar threatened the people with stoning, and considering his fabled severity and harsh temper, no one would have dared to speak against him

. If ‘Ali had been able to protest against Umar, he would not have remained silent. But because of the circumstances he had no choice but to have patience and to bide his time. The case of Mut’a is similar. For it was ‘Ali himself who said: "If Umar had not prohibited Mut’a, no one would commit fornication except the wretched!”(Sunni commentaries of Qur’an by Tabari, Tha’labi, Qurtubi, Fakhr al-Razi, Suyuti, Ibn Hayyan, Nishaboori, and Jassas. As for Shi’a, see al-Mut’a, by al-Dizfuli, pp 68-69).

The Shi’a scholars also point out that without question stoning as a punishment for having performed Mut’a could not be permissible, even if we were to accept that Mut’a is forbidden. For stoning can only be a punishment when a married man has committed fornication with a woman. Hence Umar had no right for laying down this edict. (Jawahir, v5 p161, al-Bayan, p229).

Fakhr al-Razi answers this line of reasoning by saying that perhaps Umar only mentioned stoning to intimidate his listeners and make them think more seriously about the consequences of temporary marriage. (al-Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p287).

Concerning Umar’s two sayings banning Mut’a, the Shi’a argue as follows: If his prohibition was based on "independent judgment”(Ijtihad), then it is baseless, since all scholars agree that independent judgment can never gain or contradict the saying of the Qur’an or the traditions. (Sharh al-Lum’a, v5, p182-183; Jawahir, v5, p161; al-Bayan, p229).

As for the Qur’anic basis of Mut’a, we have already seen that as far as the Shi’a and certain individual Sunnis are concerned, the Qur’an permits it in the chapter of Women. As for its basis in the prophetic Hadith, many traditions have been related in the standard Sunni collections which proves the permissibility of Mut’a of women at the time of the Prophet.

Concerning Umar’s "independent judgment", one of the contemporary Shi’a scholars argues as follows: Umar may have made his judgment completely on his own initiative and in direct contradiction to the words of the Prophet; or he may have based his judgment on a prohibition issued by the Prophet himself. If the first case is true, then Umar’s judgment is groundless, as noted above. And the second case cannot be true, since a number of the companions have given witness to the fact that Mut’a was permitted during the lifetime of the Prophet and up until the time of his demise. (al-Bayan, p229).

In general the Shi’a argue that if Umar’s prohibition had been based upon the words of the Prophet, then other Companions would have known about it. How is it possible for the Prophet to have forbidden Mut’a, yet, during the rest of his life, the period of Abu Bakr’s caliphate and the beginning of Umar’s caliphate, for prohibition to have remained unknown to everyone but Umar? Moreover, if his prohibition were based upon the words of the Prophet, why did he not attribute it to the Prophet instead of to himself?

Fakhr al-Razi answers that it might be that beside Umar, some other Companions had heard the prohibition from the Prophet, but they forgot it later. But when Umar mentioned the prohibition in a large gathering, everyone knew he was speaking the truth, so they remained silent.

The Shi’a reply to the argument of Fakhr al-Razi as follows: It is impossible to imagine that all of the Companions other than Umar had forgotten that Mut’a had been forbidden, considering its everyday importance. People need legitimate sexual relationships almost as much as they need food and water. They could not have forgotten when they continued practicing Mut’a after the demise of the Prophet till the time of Umar’s rule.

The Shi’a authors also point out that Umar banned the two kinds of Mut’a together, whereas everyone, Sunnis and Shi’a agree that the Mut’a of al-Hajj is permissible. Hence the Mut’a pertaining to women should also be permissible. (Majma’ al-Bayan, v3, p33).

Debate On The Controversial Reports

In the Sunni sources few traditions have been attributed the Prophet showing that he banned Mut’a during his lifetime. In most of the Sunni "sound”collections (Sihah), it is related from ‘Ali that he said: "Verily the Prophet of God banned the Mut’a of temporary marriage and the eating of the meat of domesticated asses on the day of Khaibar."

Ibn Sabra relates from his father the following: I came upon the Prophet of God who was leaning against the Ka’ba. He said: "O People! I commanded you to seek enjoyment (Istimta’a) from these women, but now God has forbidden that to you until the Day of Resurrection. So if you have a temporary wife, let her go her way; and do not take back anything of what you have given her."

Another Hadith is related from Salama Ibn al-Akwa’. Through his father he reported that the Prophet of God permitted Mut’a in the year of Autas (8/629) for three days; but then he prohibited it.

Shi’a do not consider these three traditions of any authority. To illustrate how they reject them, we can summarize the arguments of al-Khoei. The Hadith attributed to ‘Ali cannot be authentic, since all Muslims agree that Mut’a was permitted in the year Mecca was conquered. So how could ‘Ali have claimed that Mut’a was banned on the Day of Khaibar (close to two years before Mecca’s conquest)?!

Because of this obvious discrepancy, some of the great Sunni authorities have maintained that the words "on the day of Khaibar”probably refer only to the meat of domestic asses. But this is absurd, for two reasons: First, it is counter to the rules of Arabic grammar: if the phrase referred only to asses, the verb would have to be repeated.

Thus, in Arabic one says: "I honored Zaid and Amr on Friday", or one says: "I honored Zaid and I honored Amr on Friday", thus making it clear that "on Friday”refers only to Amr. If the adverbial phrase referred only to the meat, the text of the Hadith would have to read: "Verily the Prophet of God banned Mut’a, and he banned the eating of the meat of domesticated asses on the Day of Khaibar.”In short, since everyone agrees that Mut’a was permitted when Mecca was conquered, the Prophet cannot have banned it three years before that. Hence the Hadith is not authentic. (al-Bayan, pp 222-224).

The second reason that the "Day of Khaibar”cannot refer only to the meat of domesticated asses is that this clearly conflicts with Hadith related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (three of the authoritative Sunni collections). For their versions of ‘Ali’s Hadith is as follows: "The Prophet banned the Mut’a of marriage on the Day of Khaibar, as well as the meat of domesticated asses."

As for the tradition related by Ibn Sabra from his father, al-Khoei points out that although his Hadith has been related by many chains of authority, they ALL go back to Ibn Sabra himself, and thus the Hadith is of the type known as Wahid, i.e., it derives from a single companion. And a Qur’anic verse cannot be abrogated even by the most authentic kind of Hadith, and thus by far, it can not be abrogated by a relatively weak one.

Moreover the very content of the Hadith shows that it is not correct. It is hardly conceivable that the Prophet could have stood before the Ka’ba in front of a large group of Muslims and ban something until the Day of Resurrection, and that then only one person Sabra should have heard him or related his words.

Where were those Companions who recorded even the gestures and the glances of the Prophet? Certainly they should have joined Sabra in reporting the prohibition of Mut’a until the Day of Resurrection. And where was Umar himself? He certainly should have known about the prohibition so that it would not have been necessary to attribute the banning of Mut’a to himself.

Finally, there are discrepancies in the various versions of the Hadith of Sabra. In some versions the prohibition is said to have occurred in the year of the victory of Mecca (8/630), in others in the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage (10/632). This discrepancy makes the Hadith even more untrustworthy.

Shahid al-Thani points out another problem concerning the Hadith of Ibn Sabra. He mentioned Ibn Sabra himself is the only source for his father’s words, but no one knows anything about him. He is not mentioned in any of the books on Hadith as a transmitter, nor has any other Hadith been related from him. For this reason al-Bukhari the most famous Sunni authority, and generally considered the most reliable for the Sunnis, left the Hadith of Ibn Sabra out of his collection. (Sharh al-Lum’a, v5, pp 264-282).

As for the Hadith of Salama Ibn al-Akwa, al-Khoei remarks that again it is a saying related from only one Companion (Wahid) and cannot abrogate a Qur’anic verse. In addition, if it is an authentic Hadith, it is strange that it remained unknown to such important Companions as Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, and Jabir Ibn Abdillah. How is it possible for the Hadith to be authentic, while Abu Bakr did not forbid Mut’a during the whole period of his caliphate and Umar only banned it towards the end of his own? (al-Bayan, pp 222-223).

There are many sayings of the Companions which indicate that Mut’a was permitted up until the time of Umar’s prohibition. Three of the most famous are those of ‘Ali, Ibn Abbas, and Imran Ibn al-Husayn. As we have already seen, ‘Ali said: ‘If Umar had not prohibited Mut’a, no one would commit fornication except the wretched.’ This is the most famous form of a saying reported in numerous sources and a number of different versions.

The above version is derived from Sunni works; a Shi’a version is related from the fifth Imam, al-Baqir: "If it were not for that (i.e., Mut’a) with which (Umar) Ibn al-Khattab preceded me, no one would commit fornication except the wretched."

The saying related from Ibn Abbas is reported by the tenth/sixteenth century Sunni scholar al-Suyuti in this form: "God have mercy on Umar! Mut’a was naught but a mercy from God, through which He showed mercy to Muhammad’s community. If Umar had not banned it, no one would need fornication except the wretched.”(al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v2, p141).

More Arguments On The Hadith

The Sunni argument for the prohibition of Mut’a based upon the Hadith can be summarized as follows: The reason that the scholars have differed concerning Mut’a is that it was permitted and then banned a number of times.

Ibn al-Arabi (d. 638/1240), the famous Sufi who wrote on the meaning of the Shari’ah, calls Mut’a one of the most remarkable edicts in Islamic law, since it was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then forbidden at the Battle of Khaibar, then permitted again at the war of Autas. Finally it was forbidden and remained forbidden. No other edict in Islam was changed a number of times with the exception of the Qibla (the direction of prayer), for that was abrogated twice before being finalized.

Al-Qurtubi reports that other authorities who have studied the traditions concerning Mut’a say that its edict was changed seven times. He refers to the traditions in six Sunni collections explaining how the situation of Mut’a was changed.

As for the Hadith of Sabra, which states that the Prophet permitted Mut’a at the Farewell Pilgrimage in the year 10/632, Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi acknowledges that this is not in keeping with the other Hadith. He explains that the Prophet permitted Mut’a at the conquest of Mecca, when the men complained of separation from their wives. They could not have complained of such separation during the Farewell Pilgrimage, since all of the wives were present, and the single men could have taken permanent wives in Mecca.

So the special situation that existed during the other journeys and battles was lacking. However, we can explain the situation as follows: Since the Prophet usually permitted Mut’a during journeys away from Medina, in this case also he permitted it; but then he banned it for the final time wanting all the Muslims to know about it, for all of them were present for the Farewell Pilgrimage. There is also the fact that the Meccans were in the habit of practicing Mut’a widely. Thus the Prophet banned Mut’a in Mecca so that they would understand that they could not continue in their former custom.

The Shi’a answer to the Sunni argument on the basis of Hadith can be summarized as follows: As has been mentioned already, if Mut’a was made forbidden in the last pilgrimage where according to al-Tahawi’s argument most of the Muslims were with the Prophet, then how can only Sabra have heard of the saying of the Prophet?! Moreover, the Hadith demonstrating that Mut’a is forbidden are in conflict with those that show it is permitted. They also conflict with Hadith that show that Mut’a continued to be permitted during the times of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, and Umar, up until the time that Umar banned it. The correct course of action is to prefer those Hadith which establish its permissibility, for a number of reasons:

• The Hadith indicating the permissibility of Mut’a outnumber those which show that it is banned.

• Everyone agrees that the, traditions indicating that Mut’a was permitted at certain times are authentic and have been transmitted in parallel, but this is not the case concerning those which indicate that it was banned. Hence one can speak of a consensus (Ijma’) in the sense that all Muslims at one time agreed that Mut’a was permitted, even though afterwards a disagreement arose. In order to choose the right course, we can not base ourselves upon opinion but must hold fast to that which we have certainty. Hence we must conclude that Mut’a is still permitted, as long as we do not have firm knowledge to the contrary.

• The traditions which point to the banning of Mut’a are themselves questionable. When we realize that one of the incontestable elements of Shi’a as established by the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt is the permissibility of Mut’a, then no Hadith related from ‘Ali stating that Mut’a is forbidden can be authentic. Someone who held without question that Mut’a is permissible would not relate a Hadith from the Prophet that it is forbidden. On many occasions ‘Ali censured Umar’s banning of Mut’a. His saying: ‘If Umar had not banned Mut’a, no one but the wretched would practice fornication’ is well-known, and no one has questioned its authenticity.

Reference: Jawahir, v5, pp 162-163.

Those who hold that Mut’a is forbidden have also claimed the consensus of the Community as one of their proofs. They say that after Umar banned Mut’a, all of the Prophet’s Companions went along with him with the exception of Ibn Abbas, and perhaps he might have changed his opinion towards the end of his life.

In answer to this claim, the Shi’a point out that ‘consensus’ was never established for the banning of Mut’a; and in any case, the very fact that the Shi’a Imams (the Household of the Prophet) who are the very pillars of Islam, have all agreed that Mut’a is permitted shows that there was in fact no consensus. Moreover, from the first the Shi’a have agreed on the permissibility of Mut’a, to such an extent that this view has always been singled out as one of the specific features of Shi’a. Given this fact, to claim consensus is meaningless.

In addition, as we have seen above, many of the Prophet’s outstanding Companions and their followers held that Mut’a was permitted. Finally, the claim that Ibn Abbas changed his view on Mut’a toward the end of his life has never been substantiated. Even if it were to be proven, one could only claim consensus if we were certain that no one was opposed to the view that Mut’a is forbidden; whereas we know that in fact the number of opponents was quite large. In short, the Shi’a conclude, there is no real evidence to show that Mut’a is not permitted; and when the Hadith are investigated, the conclusion is likely to be reached that not only is it permitted (Mubaah), it is even recommended (Mustahabb).

The Opinion Of The Four Sunni Schools Of Law

The four Sunni schools of law agree that temporary marriage is invalid. That which invalidates the contract is the stipulation of a time period. If such a marriage takes place, it must be annulled, and if it is consummated before the annulment takes place, the woman must be paid the "normal dowry".

The Shafi’i school adds that even if the time period stipulated by the contract is the life-time of the husband or the wife, the contract is still invalid, since the contract of marriage requires that its effects continue after death. That is why a spouse may give his or her spouse the ritual purification of the dead before burial (otherwise, the washer of the dead must be of the same sex as the corpse). A marriage contracted with a stipulation that it comes to an end when one of the spouses dies would mean that the effects of the marriage would end at death. So such a stipulation invalidates the contract.

The Hanafis add that if the time period stipulated is so long that as a rule the spouses could not remain alive until it comes to an end (e.g., if the man were to say: "I will marry you until the hour of Resurrection"), then we can no longer call the marriage "temporary". in effect this stipulation means forever.

Hence it is not considered as a stipulation of a time-period and the contract is sound. If the husband’s intention in contracting the marriage is to enjoy the woman’s company only for a period of time, but he does not make such a stipulation in the contract, the marriage is correct. In the same way, if a person should marry making it a condition of the contract that a divorce will take place after a certain period of time, the contract is correct but the condition is nullified, since such a condition can not limit the contract.

Reference: Fiqh Ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’a, v4, pp 90-94

In any case the four Sunni sects agree that the punishment for a person who enters into a temporary marriage is not the same as that of the fornication. In the latter case the punishment (Hadd) is 100 lashes for each party in the case of an unmarried woman, and stoning to death in the case of a married woman. But the punishment for Mut’a is defined as Ta’zeer, i.e., less than the full punishment for fornication, depending on circumstances and the opinion of the judge. The penalty for fornication is not specified by the Sunnis because certain doubts remain concerning the status of Mut’a as a result of the traditions of Ibn Abbas.

The Opinion Of The Shi’a School Of Law

The Shi’a have always considered Mut’a to be of special importance and have tried to keep it alive as an institution of Islamic society. The Shi’a law of Jurisprudence is often referred to as the "Ja’fari school of law", since in reality the sixth Imam, Ja’far al-Sadiq (as), had a golden opportunity of teaching during the clashes between the Umayad and the Abbasid.

During that short period when the tyrants of both sides were busy with each other, the Imam was teaching Jurisprudence and theology in classes with as much as 5000 students. Hence it is appropriate to quote a few of his many sayings concerning the Mut’a.

Imam Ja’far Sadiq (as) said: "Mut’a was approved by the text of the Qur’an and became part of the Sunnah of the Prophet.”(Wasa’il al-Shi’a, v14, p437).

Imam Ja’far considered the Qur’anic verse referred to above (4:24) the basis for Mut’a. He said: "The verse proves the permissibility of Mut’a.”(Wasa’il al-Shi’a, v14, p439).

Once Abu Hanifa, the founder of one of the four Sunni sects (who was a student of the Imam Ja’far before he starts his business), asked the Imam about Mut’a. He replied: "Which of the two Mut’a do you mean?”Abu Hanifa answered: "I have already asked you about the Mut’a of the Hajj. So tell me about the Mut’a of marriage.”The Imam said, "Glory be to God! Have you not read the Qur’an? ‘So those of them whom you enjoy, give to them their appointed wages’ (4:24).”(Wasa’il al-Shi’a, v14, p437).

Someone asked Imam Ja’far (as): "Why is it that four witnesses are necessary (for proof to be established) in cases of adultery, but two are sufficient in the case of murder?”He replied: "God made Mut’a permissible for you, but He knew that you would not approve of it. So He made the witnesses to number four as a protection for you. If it were not for that, it would be brought against you (that you are committing fornication, whereas you are in fact practicing Mut’a). But seldom do four witnesses come together on a single matter.”(Wasa’il al-Shi’a, v14, p439).

The Imam Ja’far (as) considered Mut’a a divine mercy by means of which people were saved from the sin of fornication and delivered from God’s retribution. Concerning the Qur’anic verse: "Whatsoever mercy God opens to men, none can withhold (35:2),”the Imam said: "Mut’a is part of that mercy.”(Wasa’il al-Shi’a, v14, p439).

The Imam Ja’far said: "I do not like a man to leave this world without having married temporarily, even if only on one occasion.”(Wasa’il al-Shi’a, v14, p444).

The Imam Ja’far said: "It is reprehensible in my eyes that a man dies while there yet remains a practice of the Messenger of God that he has not adopted.”He was asked: "And did the Messenger of God practice Mut’a ?”He replied: "Yes.”Then he recited the Qur’anic verse: "And when the Prophet confided to one of his wives a certain matter...(66:3-5)”(Wasa’il al-Shi’a, v14, p442).

Note how beautiful the Imam explains the reason why one should uphold the practice of Mut’a. The encouragement, promotion, and rewards for the Mut’a are not for the physical/sexual action, but are rather due to REVIVING the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) which has been forsaken by the majority of Muslims. If Umar would not have abolished this Sunnah of the Prophet, such reward would not have been attached to the Mut’a.

The Shi’a call Abu Ja’far Muhammad al-Tusi (d. 460/1068) the "Elder of the Denomination”(Shaikh al-Ta’ifa), since he was the first who organized a systematic methodology for demonstrative jurisprudence (al-Fiqh al-Istidlali). We can conclude this discussion with a summary of his views on Mut’a. He writes that the Shi’a reasons for considering Mut’a permissible are as follows:

• The Consensus of the Twelver Shi’ites.

• The words of the Qur’an:

"Marry such women as seen good to you! (Qur’an 4:3),”

since Mut’a is a kind of marriage, but one which men desire to perform by expending their property.

• The words of the Qur’an:

"So those of them whom you enjoy, give to them their appointed wages (Qur’an 4:24).”

The word Istimta’a (enjoy), unless otherwise qualified, signifies temporary marriage.

• Ibn Masud’s version of the Qur’an, which adds the words "to an appointed time”to the above verse.

• There is no disagreement over the fact that Mut’a was allowed at the beginning of Islam. So those who claim that the verse was abrogated must prove their assertion.

• The principle from which discussion must begin is that Mut’a is permitted. That it should be forbidden should be proven.

• The words of Umar concerning the two types of Mut’a. Here Umar tells us that at the time of the Prophet, Mut’a was permitted, i.e., that it was a part of the religion of Islam. Proof must be provided that it is no longer so.

Reference: al-Khilaf, v2, pp 179-180

After referring to the above reasons, al-Tusi answers the arguments of those who claim Mut’a is forbidden in much the same way that we have seen above.

References:

(1) al-Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, Istanbul, 1307/1889-90

(2) al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin Suyuti, 1377/1957

(3) al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, by Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Abi Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi (d. 671/1273), Cairo, 1967

(4) al-Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Published in Beirut

(5) Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Saudi Arabia, 1980

(6) Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Saudi Arabia

(7) al-Fiqh Ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’a,by Abd al Rahman al-Jaziri, Cairo 1969

(8) Wasa’il al-Shi’a, by Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Hurr al-Amili, Tehran, 1385/1965-66

(9) Sharh al-Lum’a (al-Rawdat al-Bahiyya fi Sharh al-Lum’at al-Dimashqiyya), by al-Shahid al-Thani (Zayn al-Din Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali al-Jab-i al-Amili d. 965/1558), Beirut 1967.

(10) Jawahir al-Kalam, by Shaykh Muhammad Hasan (d. 1266/1850), Tehran, 1325/1907.

(11) al-Khilaf, by Abu jafar Ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi, Tehran 1372/1952-53

(12) Tafsir al-Mizan, by Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai (d. 1982), Beirut 1974.

(13) Majma’ al-Bayan, cited as al-Bayan, by Abu ‘Ali al-Fadl Ibn al-Hasan al-Tabarsi (d. 548/1153) Tehran, 1339/1960

(14) al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, by Abul Qasim al-Musawi al-Khoei, Najaf, 1375/1955-56

(15) al-Mut’a, by Murtada Ibn Muhammad Amin al-Dizfuli (1214-81/1800-64) Tehran, 1352/1973

(16) Temporary Marriage in Islam, by Abdullatif Berry, Arabic-English, Al-Zahra International Co.

(17) Fixed Term Marriage, by Muhammad Sharif, English, Islamic Seminary Publications.

(18) Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law, by Abul Qasim Gourji, rendered to English by Sachiko Murata.

Seventh Hadith: Anger (Ghadhab)

بِالسَّنَدِ المُتَّصِلِ إِلى مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ فَرْقَدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: الغَضَبُ مِفْتُاحُ كُلِّ شَرٍّ

...Muhammad ibn Ya’qub (al-Kulayni), from ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim, from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa, from Yunus, from Dawud ibn Farqad, who reports al ‘Imam al-Sadiq (A) to have said,“Anger is the key (that opens the door) to all kinds of vices.” 1

Exposition

The great researcher Ahmad ibn Muhammad, popularly known as Ibn Maskawayh, in his book Taharat al-’a’raq, which is a fine book of rare excellence in beauty of style and orderliness of contents, writes something which can be summarized as follows: Anger, in fact, is an inner psychic movement due to which a state of agitation is produced in the heart’s blood, arousing a desire for vengeance. And when this agitation becomes more violent, it intensifies the fire of anger.

A violent commotion in the blood seizes the heart, filling the arteries and the brain with a flurry of dark smoke, on account of which the mind and the intellect lose control and become powerless. At that time, as the hukama’ maintain, the inner state of the person resembles a cave where fire has broken out, filling it with flames and suffocating clouds of smoke that leap out of its mouth with intense heat and a fiery howl.

When that happens, it becomes extremely difficult to pacify such a person and to extinguish the fire of his wrath; whatever is thrown in it to cool it down becomes a part of it, adding to its intensity. It is for this reason that such a man becomes blinded to propriety and deaf to guidance. In such a condition, there is no hope for him.

Then Ibn Maskawayh adds:“Hippocrates says that he is more hopeful about a ship encircled by a fierce storm and violent winds which has been knocked away from its course by the sea waves into rocky waters, than about an enraged person. Because, in such conditions, the sailors may somehow manage to save the ship by means of clever maneuvers, but there is no hope of deliverance for the soul engulfed in rage; for all such efforts as counsel, advice, and exhortation fail to appease him. The more one tries to pacify it through humble entreaties and tearful supplications, the more violent it becomes.”

Advantages of Al-Quwwah Al-Ghadabiyyah (The Power of Anger)

It should be known that the Power of Anger is one of the biggest favors of God conferred upon His creatures, by means of which they are enabled to pursue activities constructive to their world and Hereafter, are assured the continuity of the species as well as, the safety and survival of the individual and the family.

It also plays a great role in the establishment and maintenance of social order and civic life.’ If this noble faculty were not ingrained in the animal’s nature, it would not have been able to defend itself against natural adversities, and would have been defenseless against the dangers of destruction and extinction. And if it were absent in the human nature, man would have failed to achieve most of his accomplishments and attainments.

Moreover, even its deficiency and insufficient presence below the moderate level is itself considered a moral weakness and flaw which gives rise to innumerable vices and defects like: fear; timidity; weakness; laxity; laziness; greed; lack of restraint, patience and tolerance; lack of constancy and perseverance when needed; love of comfort; torpor; lethargy; submissiveness to oppression and tyranny; submitting to insults and disgraces to which an individual or his family may be subjected; dastardliness; spiritlessness, etc. Describing the qualities of the believers God Almighty says:

﴿أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ ﴾

(The believers) are hard against the unbelievers and merciful among themselves. (48:29)

The fulfillment of the duty of al-’Amr bi al-ma’ruf wa al-nahy ‘an al-munkar (to enjoin good conduct. and forbid indecency), the implementation of hudud (punishment prescribed by the Islamic penal law), ta’zirat (punishments adjudged by a judge), and the carrying out of other policies set forth by religion or guided by reason, would not have been possible without the existence of this noble Power of Anger.

On this basis, those who believe in eradicating the Power of Anger and consider its destruction as an accomplishment and mark of perfection are highly mistaken and in great error, ignorant as they are about the signs of perfection and the bounds of moderation.

Poor fellows, they do not know that God Almighty has not created this noble faculty in vain in all the species belonging to the animal kingdom. To the children of Adam (A) He bestowed this power as the source of securing a good life in this world and the Hereafter, and a vehicle for procuring various blessings and felicities.

The holy jihad with the enemies of the Din; the struggle for the preservation of mankind’s social order; the defense and protection of one’s own life, property and honor, as well as the Divine values and laws; and above all the combat with one’s inner self, which is the biggest enemy of man, none of these could be possible without the existence of this noble faculty.

It is under the banner of this noble faculty that aggressions and encroachments upon rights are repelled, borders and frontiers are protected, and other social and individual offences, noxious practices, and harmful deeds are checked. It is for this very reason that the hukama’ have recommended various remedies for treating any deficiency in this Power, and prescribed numerous practical and theoretical remedies for the purpose of its regeneration, like participation in acts of heroism and going to battlefronts on the occasion of war with the enemies of God.

It is even narrated of some sages that they used to visit risky places, stayed there and exposed themselves to great perils and dangers. They would board a ship at a time while the sea was turbulent and stormy, so that they might get rid of fear and overcome their timidity and sluggishness.

In any case, the Power of Anger is ingrained in the nature of human beings and animals, except that in some cases it is dormant and torpid, like a fire smouldering under the ashes. If someone perceives in himself any signs of torpor and lack of the sense of honor, he must try to overcome this condition by means of its antidote, courage, which is a commendable quality and a moral virtue, to return to a normal state. We shall have occasion to refer to it again in due course.

Vice of Immoderation in Anger

In the same way as the deficiency and lack of moderation is considered a moral vice and source of numerous moral corruptions, the excess and going beyond the upper limits of moderation is also regarded, morally, as a vice and source of countless deviations. The tradition quoted in al-Kafi is sufficient to indicate the dangers of such a state:

عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: الغَضَبُ يُفْسِدُ الإيمَانَ كَمَا يُفْسِدُ الخَلُّ العَسَلَ

It is reported on the authority of Imam al-Sadiq (A) that the Apostle of God (S) said,“Anger spoils faith in the same way as vinegar destroys honey.” 2

It may happen that someone gets angry and, in a bout of extreme anger, turns away from the Din of God. The hot flames and the dark fumes of anger not only destroy his faith by consuming his righteous beliefs, they also lead him to apostatize by rejecting God, thus leading him to eternal damnation. And when he becomes aware of it, his remorse is of no avail, as the fire of anger, which was lit by a spark thrown in by Satan, continues to roar in his heart, as Imam al-Baqir (A) has said:

إنَّ هَذَا الغَضَبَ جَمْرَةٌ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ تُوقَدُ فِي قَلْبِ ابْنِ آدَمَ

Indeed, this anger is the spark lit by Satan in the heart of the son of Adam.3

In the next world, this fire will acquire the form of the fire of Divine Wrath, as reported from al-Baqir (A) in al-Kafi:

مَكْتُوبٌ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ فِي مَا نَاجَى اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِهِ مُوسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: يَا مُوسَى أَمْسِكْ غَضَبَكَ عَمَّنْ مَلَّكْتُكَ عَلَيْهِ أَكُفَّ عَنْكَ غَضَبِي

It is recorded in the Torah regarding that which God Almighty confided to Moses (A), saying:“O Moses, control your anger towards those over whom I have given you authority, so that I may spare you from My Wrath.” 4

It must be known that no fire is more painful than the fire of Divine Wrath. It is mentioned in a tradition that Jesus, the son of Mary, was asked by his disciples as to which of the things is the hardest to bear.“The Fury of the Most High God is the hardest thing to bear,” he replied. They questioned him,“How can we save ourselves from it?” “By not getting angry,” Jesus said.

Therefore, it must be obvious that God’s Wrath is more painful and severer than any thing else, and the fire of His Fury is most destructive. The Hereafterly form of our anger in this world is the fire of Divine Wrath in the next world. In the same way as anger emanates from the heart, perhaps the fire of Divine Wrath, which is the abode of our anger and all other inner vices, will also emanate from the inner depths of the heart and spread over the external being, and its tormenting flames will emerge from the external sense organs like the eyes, the ears, and the tongue.

Rather, the external senses are themselves the doors which shall be opened to the fire of Hell. The fire of the hell of deeds and the physical hell encompasses the without and travels towards the within. Hence man is tortured from both the sides by these two hells: one emanates from within the heart and its flames enter the body through pia mater of the brain, and the other, which is the result of the vicious deeds, advances towards the inner being from without, and man is subjected to torments and pressures.

What sort of torment and torture it will be? God alone knows what pain and distress it will bring in addition to the burning and melting. You imagine that the topological mode of the Hell’s encompassment is something that you know. Here things are surrounded only externally and outwardly; but in that world, encirclement will occur both externally and internally; it will cover the outer surface of the body as well as the inner depths of the human heart and being.

And if, God forbid, anger becomes permanent part of one’s nature, it will be more catastrophic; for the form that such a one shall acquire in the Barzakh and on the Day of Resurrection will be a beastly form, that too one which has no match in this world; for the brutality of the person in this state cannot be compared with any of the ferocious beasts. In the same way-as none of the creatures can touch this marvel of nature from the aspect of attainment of nobility and perfection, so also from the aspect of his capacity for degeneration and meanness and his leaning towards perverseness, man cannot be compared with any creature. It is about his perverseness that the Holy Quran says:

﴿أُوْلَئِكَ كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ ﴾

These are as the cattle-nay, they are worse in misguidance. (7:179)

It is about the hardness of the human heart that it says:

﴿فَهِيَ كَالْحِجَارَةِ أَوْ أَشَدُّ قَسْوَةً ﴾

(Then the hearts of the Jews) became hardened like stones, or even yet harder. (2:74)

All this that you have heard about the evil effects of this consuming fire of anger is merely a fraction of its danger. It holds true in cases where no other vice and offence spring from it, that is, if this inner fire lies dormant in the inner darkness, having been choked and suffocated, although having extinguished the light of faith by its dense smoke.

However, it is very rare, or rather impossible, that in a fit of its intense conflagration one should remain immune from committing other, even mortal, sins. It happens that in a brief outburst of anger, this cursed firebrand thrown by the Devil, man falls over the precipice of destruction and doom. He may even, God be our refuge, abuse the prophets of God and saints, assassinate an innocent person, or desecrate something holy, thus bringing about his own destruction in the world as well as in the Hereafter, as is mentioned in a hadith of al-Kafi:

عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِي حَدِيثٍ: كَانَ أَبِي يَقُولُ: أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الغَضَبِ؟ إنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيَغْضَبُ فَيَقْتُلُ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللهُ وَيَقْذِفُ المُحْصَنَةَ

It is reported from Imam al-Sadiq (A) that he said that his father used to say:“Is there anything more violent than anger? Verily, a man gets angry and kills someone whose blood has been forbidden by God, or slanders a married woman.” 5

Many atrocious deeds have been committed under a spell of anger and its agitation. Therefore, one, while in a state of tranquility of mind, should be apprehensive of his own anger if he is in a habit of often getting angry. He should contemplate upon its cure, when in a state of mental composure, and think about its causes, its bad consequences and repercussions, and he should strive to get rid of it.

He should consider that a faculty which was granted by God Almighty for the sake of the preservation of the world’s order, for the continuity and survival of human species and individual, for the discipline and order of the family system, for the advancement and progress of humankind, and for protecting human rights and safeguarding Divine laws, a faculty under whose shadow the visible as well as the invisible system of the visible world and the hidden world is to be reformed and maintained, if he acts contrary to this purpose and makes use of this power against the Divine design, it will be a breach of trust of a severe kind that deserves censure and punishment.

What an act of ignorance and injustice it is not to fulfill the Divine trust, by employing what could be easily employed for the purposes of justice in incurring His Wrath. It is clear that such a person will not be sheltered from the Divine Wrath. Hence it is in order to think seriously about the moral vices and vicious deeds that are the outcome of anger, and to try to remove the effects of this crooked quality, each one of which is capable of afflicting a person till eternity, causing many a calamity in this world as well as chastisement and damnation in the Hereafter.

Moral Hazards of Anger

As to the moral hazards, it may cause malice towards creatures of God, leading sometimes even to the enmity not only of prophets and awliya’, but also of the Holy Essence of the Necessary Being and the Nourisher. This shows how dangerous and disgraceful its consequences may be. I seek refuge in God from the evil of the rebellious self, which, if left reinless for a moment, throws one down rolling in the dust of ignominy or dashes with him towards eternal damnation. It may also give rise to other vices, like hasad, about whose evils you have read in the exposition of the fifth tradition, and many more besides it.

Its Behavioral Hazards

There is no limit to the behavioral hazards that are products of this vice. Perhaps, it may lead one, God save us, to use abusive language or revile the prophets of God and awliya’. Or he may desecrate sanctities and utter slanders about venerable persons. He may murder a pious soul, wreck the lives of innocent creatures, wreck a family, or reveal the secrets of others tearing up the veils that cover them. There seems to be no limit to such monstrous acts that man may commit at the time of outbreak of this faith-consuming fire that also destroys many homes.

As such, it can be said that this habit is the mother of all spiritual maladies and the key to each and every evil action. As opposed to this vice is the ability to restrain one’s anger. This ability to extinguish the fire of anger has been considered the essence of wisdom and the focus of all virtues and noble qualities, as stated in this tradition of al-Kafi:

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا، عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ النَّضْرِ بْنِ سُوَيْدٍ، عَنِ القَاسِمِ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبِي عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يَقُولُ: أَتَى رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه رَجُلٌ بَدَوِيٌّ فَقَالَ: إنِّي أَسْكُنُ البَادِيَةَ، فَعَلِّمْنِي جَوامِعَ الكَلامِ. فَقَالَ: آمُرُكَ أَنْ لا تَغْضَبَ. فَأَعَادَ عَلَيْهِ الأعْرَابِيُّ المَسْأَلَةَ ثَلاثَ مَرَّاتٍ حَتّى رَجَعَ الرَّجُلُ إلَى نَفْسِهِ فَقَالَ: لا أَسْأَلُ عَنْ شَيْءٍ بَعْدَ هَذَا.مَا أَمَرَنِي رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ إلا بِالخَيْرِ

قَالَ: وَكَانَ أَبِي يَقُولُ: أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الغَضَبِ؟ إنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيَغْضَبُ فَيَقْتُلُ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللهُ وَيَقْذِفُ المُحْصَنَةَ

(Al-Kulayni says) From a number of our (i.e. al-Kulayni’s) companions, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid (al-Barqi), who narrates on the authority of a chain of narrators from Imam al-Sadiq (A) that he heard his father (Imam al-Baqir [A]) as saying:“A Bedouin came to the Prophet (S) and said: ‘I live in the desert. Teach me the essence of wisdom.’ Thereupon the Prophet (S) said to him: ‘I command you not to get angry’ After repeating his question thrice (and hearing the same reply from the Prophet every time) the Bedouin said to himself: ‘After this I will not ask any question, since the Apostle of God (S) does not command anything but good’.” Imam al-Sadiq (A) says,“My father used to say, ‘Is there anything more violent than anger? Verily, a man gets angry and kills someone whose blood has been forbidden by God, or slanders a married woman.” 6

After that a wise person coolly ponders upon its evil consequences and the benefits of restraint, he should make it incumbent upon himself to put out this fire in the region of his heart with every possible effort and to clear from his heart the black soot of its smoke. This is something which is not very difficult when one resolves to act against one’s inner self and its desires, after having reflected upon their evil effects and by admonishing one’s self. In fact, one may get rid of all moral evils and ugly spiritual traits and acquire all good qualities and excellences of character and soul whenever he resolves to improve his spiritual condition.

Controlling Anger

There are also several practical and theoretical remedies for curing anger when it has flared up. The theoretical remedy involves reflecting upon the matters mentioned above, which is also a kind of practical remedy in this case. But among the practical remedies the important ones involve withholding of the self in the initial stages of anger. This is because it is ignited little by little, becoming more intense until its furnace is set burning fiercely and its flame becomes violent and furious. When that happens, it gets completely out of control and shuts off the lights of one’s faith and intellect. Blowing off the lamp of guidance, it reduces man to an utterly wretched state.

Therefore, one should be on one’s guard so as to dissociate oneself by some means before its fierceness mounts and its fire becomes more violent. He should either leave the place where his anger may be provoked, or change his posture: that is, if seated, he should stand up, and if standing sit down, or engage his mind in the remembrance of God (some people consider it even obligatory), or he should make himself busy in some other activity to divert his attention.

In any case, it is easier to put a curb on it in the beginning. It has two results. Firstly, he will be able to pacify his self at that early stage and the flames of anger will be put out. Secondly, the experience will always remain with one as a primary cure for treating one’s self. If one always pays attention to one’s condition and treats one’s self in this way, one will undergo a complete transformation as one’s inner state moves towards the point of moderation. An allusion to this matter is made in the following traditions from al-Kafi:

عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: إنَّ هَذَا الغَضَبَ جَمْرَةٌ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ تُوقَدُ فِي قَلْبِ ابْنِ آدَمَ. وَإنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ إذَا غَضِبَ احْمَرَّتْ عَيْنَاهُ وَانْتَفَخَتْ أَوْدَاجُهُ وَدَخَلَ الشَّيْطَانُ فِيهِ. فَإذَا خَافَ أَحَدُكُمْ ذَلِكَ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ فَلْيَلْزَمِ الأَرْضَ، فَإنَّ رِجْزَ الشَّيْطَانِ لَيَذْهَبُ عَنْهُ عِنْدَ ذَلِكَ

It is reported from al ‘Imam al-Baqir (A) that he said,“Verily, anger is a spark ignited by the Devil in the human heart. Indeed, when anyone of you gets angry, his eyes become red, the veins of his neck become swollen and Satan enters them. Therefore, whosoever among you is concerned about himself on account of it, he should lie down for a while so that the filth of Satan may be removed from him at the time.” 7

And:

عَنْ مَيْسِرٍ قَالَ: ذُكِرَ الغَضَبُ عِنْدَ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَقَالَ: إنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيَغْضَبُ فَمَا يَرْضَى أَبَداً حَتَّى يَدْخُلَ النَّارَ. فَأَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ غَضِبَ عَلَى قَوْمٍ وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ فَلْيَجْلِسْ مِنْ فَوْرِهِ ذَلِكَ، فَإنَّهُ سَيَذْهَبُ عَنْهُ رِجْزُ الشَّيْطَانِ. وَأَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ غَضِبَ عَلَى ذِي رَحِمٍ فَلْيَدْنُ مِنْهُ فَلْيَمِسَّهُ. فَإنَّ الرَّحِمَ إذَا مُسَّتْ سَكَنَتْ

Maysir reports that once anger was discussed in the presence of Imam al Baqir (A). He said,“Verily, it happens that an angry person would not be satisfied until he enters the Fire (i.e. his anger does not subside unless it drags him into the hellfire). Therefore, whoever is angry with someone let him sit down immediately if he is standing; for, indeed, it would repel from him the uncleanliness of Satan. And whoever gets angry with his kinsman, let him approach him and pat him; for the feeling of consanguinity, when stimulated by touch, induces calmness.” 8

These two traditions suggest two practical remedies of anger in its initial stage. One is general and recommends sitting down and bringing about a change in posture (according to another tradition, if somebody be seated at the time of getting angry, he should stand up). It is reported by Sunni sources that the Apostle of God (S), if he ever got angry while standing, would sit down, and if seated, would recline, and his anger would subside. The other remedy which is particular is concerned with blood relations and suggests that if anybody gets angry with someone related to him by blood, if he touches him with his hand his anger will cool down.

These are the methods of curing oneself of one’s anger; but if others want to treat an enraged person, if his anger is in the initial stage, any one of the methods from among the various practical and theoretical ones suggested may be useful. But if he is in extreme anger, advice and counsel give opposite results, and it becomes very difficult to treat him in this stage, except by being put in a state of alarm by someone whom he holds in high esteem; for anger vents itself on those whom one deems weaker and inferior to oneself or at least as equal in power and position. But in front of those persons with whom he is impressed, his anger is never provoked.

Rather his outer excitement and agitation will be transformed into an internal fury confined to his inner self. Not finding any outlet, it will change into a grief within the heart. Hence, it is not at all an easy task to appease a person undergoing outbursts of extreme rage. We seek refuge in God from it.

How to Eradicate the Roots of Anger

Among the fundamental remedies of anger, one is to exterminate the factors responsible for its provocation. They are many, and here we can mention only a few of them. One of them is self-love, which in ‘turn begets the love of wealth, glory, and honor and the desire to impose one’s will and expand one’s domain of power.

These factors are inherently responsible for exciting the fire of anger, as the individual infatuated with these things tends to hold them in high regard and they occupy a high place in his heart. He, improperly, gets angry and excited if any one of these aspired goals is not achieved or when his desire faces any obstacle and loses control over himself. Greed, avarice, and such other vices that take root in his heart as a result of self-love and the love of glory, snatch the reins of reason from his hands, leaving the self to commit deeds that deviate from the path of Divine Law and reason.

But if his love and interest in these things is not intense-and he gives lesser importance to these matters, his inner calm and contentment, obtained by giving up the love of wealth, honor and the like, will not allow his self to act against the demands of justice. Then, he will not find it difficult to maintain his patience in hardships, and will not lose grip of self-restraint. He would not get angry unnecessarily and abnormally. If the love of the world is eradicated from his heart and this vice is completely wiped out, then all other vices also take leave and vanish from it, vacating the realm of the soul to be taken over by moral virtues.

Another factor that arouses anger is that sometimes anger and its evil manifestations, which are in fact great moral defects and indecencies, are imagined to be merits and accomplishments on account of ignorance and lack of understanding. Some fools reckon those vices as marks of bravery and courage and brag about themselves on account of them. They confuse the virtue of valor, which is a superb attribute of the believer’s character and a commendable quality, with this pernicious vice.

However, it should be noted that courage or valor is a different thing, and its source, its causes, effects and characteristics differ totally from those of that injurious vice. Courage originates in the strength of one’s spirit, serenity of mind, moderateness, faith, and lack of concern for the vanities of life and indifference to its vicissitudes; whereas anger is the product of spiritual weakness and degeneration, insufficiency of faith, immoderation of character and soul, love of the world and concern for mundane things and the fear of losing the pleasures of life.

Hence this vice is found more frequently in women than in men, more in sick individuals than in healthy people, more in children than in grown ups, more in the elderly than in young people. Valor and courage is its opposite. Those suffering from moral infirmities are more liable to get angry sooner than those who are morally sound. Thus, we often see such people get angry sooner and becoming fiercer if any encroachment is made upon their property than the others.

This was about the origins and motives of anger and courage. However, they are also different as to their effects. The irascible person, when under the spell of anger and its excitement, behaves unreasonably like a lunatic or like an animal which acts without rationally considering the consequences of its actions, and commits ugly and indecent acts. His tongue, limbs, and other parts of the body go out of his control. His eyes, lips and mouth are distorted in such an ugly manner that he will be ashamed of his ugly features if he is shown a mirror at the time.

Some persons who are afflicted with this vice not only do not refrain from venting their anger on innocent animals, but do not spare even inanimate things. They curse air, water, earth, snow, rain and other elements of nature if anything happens against their wish. Sometimes they vent their fury on a book, pen, glass or jug, tearing it up or breaking it into pieces.

But the behavior of a courageous person is different in all these matters. His acts are based on reason and tranquility of soul. He gets angry on the proper occasion and is patient and restrained when required to be so. He is not provoked or incensed by each and every annoyance. He becomes angry on the proper occasion to the proper extent and takes his vengeance with reason and discretion. He knows well as to against whom to take his revenge, on what occasion, to what degree and in what manner, and as to whom he should forgive and what to overlook and ignore.

In the state of anger, he does not lose control of his reason, and he never makes use of indecent language nor acts indiscreetly. All his acts are based on rational considerations and are in accordance with the norms of justice and Divine Law. He always acts in such a manner so as not to regret later on.

Thus an aware human being should not confuse this quality, which is one of the attributes of prophets, awliya’ and true believers and is considered a spiritual accomplishment and achievement, with the vice which is one of the attributes of Satan, a diabolical incitement, a spiritual abomination and a flaw of the heart. Yet, the veils of ignorance and folly and the curtains of self-love and attachment to the world cover man’s hearing and blind his vision, rendering him helpless and bringing about his destruction.

Certain other causes of anger have also been pointed out, such as ‘ujb, bragging (iftikhar), pride (kibr), disputatiousness (mira’), obstinacy (lajaj), jesting and the like; but to go into their details will prolong this discussion and might be cumbersome. Possibly most or all of them, directly or indirectly, originate in the two sources already discussed. And praise be to God.

Notes

1. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 412.

2. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 412.

3. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

4. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

5. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

6. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

7. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

8. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

Seventh Hadith: Anger (Ghadhab)

بِالسَّنَدِ المُتَّصِلِ إِلى مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ فَرْقَدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: الغَضَبُ مِفْتُاحُ كُلِّ شَرٍّ

...Muhammad ibn Ya’qub (al-Kulayni), from ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim, from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa, from Yunus, from Dawud ibn Farqad, who reports al ‘Imam al-Sadiq (A) to have said,“Anger is the key (that opens the door) to all kinds of vices.” 1

Exposition

The great researcher Ahmad ibn Muhammad, popularly known as Ibn Maskawayh, in his book Taharat al-’a’raq, which is a fine book of rare excellence in beauty of style and orderliness of contents, writes something which can be summarized as follows: Anger, in fact, is an inner psychic movement due to which a state of agitation is produced in the heart’s blood, arousing a desire for vengeance. And when this agitation becomes more violent, it intensifies the fire of anger.

A violent commotion in the blood seizes the heart, filling the arteries and the brain with a flurry of dark smoke, on account of which the mind and the intellect lose control and become powerless. At that time, as the hukama’ maintain, the inner state of the person resembles a cave where fire has broken out, filling it with flames and suffocating clouds of smoke that leap out of its mouth with intense heat and a fiery howl.

When that happens, it becomes extremely difficult to pacify such a person and to extinguish the fire of his wrath; whatever is thrown in it to cool it down becomes a part of it, adding to its intensity. It is for this reason that such a man becomes blinded to propriety and deaf to guidance. In such a condition, there is no hope for him.

Then Ibn Maskawayh adds:“Hippocrates says that he is more hopeful about a ship encircled by a fierce storm and violent winds which has been knocked away from its course by the sea waves into rocky waters, than about an enraged person. Because, in such conditions, the sailors may somehow manage to save the ship by means of clever maneuvers, but there is no hope of deliverance for the soul engulfed in rage; for all such efforts as counsel, advice, and exhortation fail to appease him. The more one tries to pacify it through humble entreaties and tearful supplications, the more violent it becomes.”

Advantages of Al-Quwwah Al-Ghadabiyyah (The Power of Anger)

It should be known that the Power of Anger is one of the biggest favors of God conferred upon His creatures, by means of which they are enabled to pursue activities constructive to their world and Hereafter, are assured the continuity of the species as well as, the safety and survival of the individual and the family.

It also plays a great role in the establishment and maintenance of social order and civic life.’ If this noble faculty were not ingrained in the animal’s nature, it would not have been able to defend itself against natural adversities, and would have been defenseless against the dangers of destruction and extinction. And if it were absent in the human nature, man would have failed to achieve most of his accomplishments and attainments.

Moreover, even its deficiency and insufficient presence below the moderate level is itself considered a moral weakness and flaw which gives rise to innumerable vices and defects like: fear; timidity; weakness; laxity; laziness; greed; lack of restraint, patience and tolerance; lack of constancy and perseverance when needed; love of comfort; torpor; lethargy; submissiveness to oppression and tyranny; submitting to insults and disgraces to which an individual or his family may be subjected; dastardliness; spiritlessness, etc. Describing the qualities of the believers God Almighty says:

﴿أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ ﴾

(The believers) are hard against the unbelievers and merciful among themselves. (48:29)

The fulfillment of the duty of al-’Amr bi al-ma’ruf wa al-nahy ‘an al-munkar (to enjoin good conduct. and forbid indecency), the implementation of hudud (punishment prescribed by the Islamic penal law), ta’zirat (punishments adjudged by a judge), and the carrying out of other policies set forth by religion or guided by reason, would not have been possible without the existence of this noble Power of Anger.

On this basis, those who believe in eradicating the Power of Anger and consider its destruction as an accomplishment and mark of perfection are highly mistaken and in great error, ignorant as they are about the signs of perfection and the bounds of moderation.

Poor fellows, they do not know that God Almighty has not created this noble faculty in vain in all the species belonging to the animal kingdom. To the children of Adam (A) He bestowed this power as the source of securing a good life in this world and the Hereafter, and a vehicle for procuring various blessings and felicities.

The holy jihad with the enemies of the Din; the struggle for the preservation of mankind’s social order; the defense and protection of one’s own life, property and honor, as well as the Divine values and laws; and above all the combat with one’s inner self, which is the biggest enemy of man, none of these could be possible without the existence of this noble faculty.

It is under the banner of this noble faculty that aggressions and encroachments upon rights are repelled, borders and frontiers are protected, and other social and individual offences, noxious practices, and harmful deeds are checked. It is for this very reason that the hukama’ have recommended various remedies for treating any deficiency in this Power, and prescribed numerous practical and theoretical remedies for the purpose of its regeneration, like participation in acts of heroism and going to battlefronts on the occasion of war with the enemies of God.

It is even narrated of some sages that they used to visit risky places, stayed there and exposed themselves to great perils and dangers. They would board a ship at a time while the sea was turbulent and stormy, so that they might get rid of fear and overcome their timidity and sluggishness.

In any case, the Power of Anger is ingrained in the nature of human beings and animals, except that in some cases it is dormant and torpid, like a fire smouldering under the ashes. If someone perceives in himself any signs of torpor and lack of the sense of honor, he must try to overcome this condition by means of its antidote, courage, which is a commendable quality and a moral virtue, to return to a normal state. We shall have occasion to refer to it again in due course.

Vice of Immoderation in Anger

In the same way as the deficiency and lack of moderation is considered a moral vice and source of numerous moral corruptions, the excess and going beyond the upper limits of moderation is also regarded, morally, as a vice and source of countless deviations. The tradition quoted in al-Kafi is sufficient to indicate the dangers of such a state:

عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: الغَضَبُ يُفْسِدُ الإيمَانَ كَمَا يُفْسِدُ الخَلُّ العَسَلَ

It is reported on the authority of Imam al-Sadiq (A) that the Apostle of God (S) said,“Anger spoils faith in the same way as vinegar destroys honey.” 2

It may happen that someone gets angry and, in a bout of extreme anger, turns away from the Din of God. The hot flames and the dark fumes of anger not only destroy his faith by consuming his righteous beliefs, they also lead him to apostatize by rejecting God, thus leading him to eternal damnation. And when he becomes aware of it, his remorse is of no avail, as the fire of anger, which was lit by a spark thrown in by Satan, continues to roar in his heart, as Imam al-Baqir (A) has said:

إنَّ هَذَا الغَضَبَ جَمْرَةٌ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ تُوقَدُ فِي قَلْبِ ابْنِ آدَمَ

Indeed, this anger is the spark lit by Satan in the heart of the son of Adam.3

In the next world, this fire will acquire the form of the fire of Divine Wrath, as reported from al-Baqir (A) in al-Kafi:

مَكْتُوبٌ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ فِي مَا نَاجَى اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِهِ مُوسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ: يَا مُوسَى أَمْسِكْ غَضَبَكَ عَمَّنْ مَلَّكْتُكَ عَلَيْهِ أَكُفَّ عَنْكَ غَضَبِي

It is recorded in the Torah regarding that which God Almighty confided to Moses (A), saying:“O Moses, control your anger towards those over whom I have given you authority, so that I may spare you from My Wrath.” 4

It must be known that no fire is more painful than the fire of Divine Wrath. It is mentioned in a tradition that Jesus, the son of Mary, was asked by his disciples as to which of the things is the hardest to bear.“The Fury of the Most High God is the hardest thing to bear,” he replied. They questioned him,“How can we save ourselves from it?” “By not getting angry,” Jesus said.

Therefore, it must be obvious that God’s Wrath is more painful and severer than any thing else, and the fire of His Fury is most destructive. The Hereafterly form of our anger in this world is the fire of Divine Wrath in the next world. In the same way as anger emanates from the heart, perhaps the fire of Divine Wrath, which is the abode of our anger and all other inner vices, will also emanate from the inner depths of the heart and spread over the external being, and its tormenting flames will emerge from the external sense organs like the eyes, the ears, and the tongue.

Rather, the external senses are themselves the doors which shall be opened to the fire of Hell. The fire of the hell of deeds and the physical hell encompasses the without and travels towards the within. Hence man is tortured from both the sides by these two hells: one emanates from within the heart and its flames enter the body through pia mater of the brain, and the other, which is the result of the vicious deeds, advances towards the inner being from without, and man is subjected to torments and pressures.

What sort of torment and torture it will be? God alone knows what pain and distress it will bring in addition to the burning and melting. You imagine that the topological mode of the Hell’s encompassment is something that you know. Here things are surrounded only externally and outwardly; but in that world, encirclement will occur both externally and internally; it will cover the outer surface of the body as well as the inner depths of the human heart and being.

And if, God forbid, anger becomes permanent part of one’s nature, it will be more catastrophic; for the form that such a one shall acquire in the Barzakh and on the Day of Resurrection will be a beastly form, that too one which has no match in this world; for the brutality of the person in this state cannot be compared with any of the ferocious beasts. In the same way-as none of the creatures can touch this marvel of nature from the aspect of attainment of nobility and perfection, so also from the aspect of his capacity for degeneration and meanness and his leaning towards perverseness, man cannot be compared with any creature. It is about his perverseness that the Holy Quran says:

﴿أُوْلَئِكَ كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ ﴾

These are as the cattle-nay, they are worse in misguidance. (7:179)

It is about the hardness of the human heart that it says:

﴿فَهِيَ كَالْحِجَارَةِ أَوْ أَشَدُّ قَسْوَةً ﴾

(Then the hearts of the Jews) became hardened like stones, or even yet harder. (2:74)

All this that you have heard about the evil effects of this consuming fire of anger is merely a fraction of its danger. It holds true in cases where no other vice and offence spring from it, that is, if this inner fire lies dormant in the inner darkness, having been choked and suffocated, although having extinguished the light of faith by its dense smoke.

However, it is very rare, or rather impossible, that in a fit of its intense conflagration one should remain immune from committing other, even mortal, sins. It happens that in a brief outburst of anger, this cursed firebrand thrown by the Devil, man falls over the precipice of destruction and doom. He may even, God be our refuge, abuse the prophets of God and saints, assassinate an innocent person, or desecrate something holy, thus bringing about his own destruction in the world as well as in the Hereafter, as is mentioned in a hadith of al-Kafi:

عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِي حَدِيثٍ: كَانَ أَبِي يَقُولُ: أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الغَضَبِ؟ إنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيَغْضَبُ فَيَقْتُلُ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللهُ وَيَقْذِفُ المُحْصَنَةَ

It is reported from Imam al-Sadiq (A) that he said that his father used to say:“Is there anything more violent than anger? Verily, a man gets angry and kills someone whose blood has been forbidden by God, or slanders a married woman.” 5

Many atrocious deeds have been committed under a spell of anger and its agitation. Therefore, one, while in a state of tranquility of mind, should be apprehensive of his own anger if he is in a habit of often getting angry. He should contemplate upon its cure, when in a state of mental composure, and think about its causes, its bad consequences and repercussions, and he should strive to get rid of it.

He should consider that a faculty which was granted by God Almighty for the sake of the preservation of the world’s order, for the continuity and survival of human species and individual, for the discipline and order of the family system, for the advancement and progress of humankind, and for protecting human rights and safeguarding Divine laws, a faculty under whose shadow the visible as well as the invisible system of the visible world and the hidden world is to be reformed and maintained, if he acts contrary to this purpose and makes use of this power against the Divine design, it will be a breach of trust of a severe kind that deserves censure and punishment.

What an act of ignorance and injustice it is not to fulfill the Divine trust, by employing what could be easily employed for the purposes of justice in incurring His Wrath. It is clear that such a person will not be sheltered from the Divine Wrath. Hence it is in order to think seriously about the moral vices and vicious deeds that are the outcome of anger, and to try to remove the effects of this crooked quality, each one of which is capable of afflicting a person till eternity, causing many a calamity in this world as well as chastisement and damnation in the Hereafter.

Moral Hazards of Anger

As to the moral hazards, it may cause malice towards creatures of God, leading sometimes even to the enmity not only of prophets and awliya’, but also of the Holy Essence of the Necessary Being and the Nourisher. This shows how dangerous and disgraceful its consequences may be. I seek refuge in God from the evil of the rebellious self, which, if left reinless for a moment, throws one down rolling in the dust of ignominy or dashes with him towards eternal damnation. It may also give rise to other vices, like hasad, about whose evils you have read in the exposition of the fifth tradition, and many more besides it.

Its Behavioral Hazards

There is no limit to the behavioral hazards that are products of this vice. Perhaps, it may lead one, God save us, to use abusive language or revile the prophets of God and awliya’. Or he may desecrate sanctities and utter slanders about venerable persons. He may murder a pious soul, wreck the lives of innocent creatures, wreck a family, or reveal the secrets of others tearing up the veils that cover them. There seems to be no limit to such monstrous acts that man may commit at the time of outbreak of this faith-consuming fire that also destroys many homes.

As such, it can be said that this habit is the mother of all spiritual maladies and the key to each and every evil action. As opposed to this vice is the ability to restrain one’s anger. This ability to extinguish the fire of anger has been considered the essence of wisdom and the focus of all virtues and noble qualities, as stated in this tradition of al-Kafi:

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا، عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ النَّضْرِ بْنِ سُوَيْدٍ، عَنِ القَاسِمِ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبِي عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يَقُولُ: أَتَى رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه رَجُلٌ بَدَوِيٌّ فَقَالَ: إنِّي أَسْكُنُ البَادِيَةَ، فَعَلِّمْنِي جَوامِعَ الكَلامِ. فَقَالَ: آمُرُكَ أَنْ لا تَغْضَبَ. فَأَعَادَ عَلَيْهِ الأعْرَابِيُّ المَسْأَلَةَ ثَلاثَ مَرَّاتٍ حَتّى رَجَعَ الرَّجُلُ إلَى نَفْسِهِ فَقَالَ: لا أَسْأَلُ عَنْ شَيْءٍ بَعْدَ هَذَا.مَا أَمَرَنِي رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ إلا بِالخَيْرِ

قَالَ: وَكَانَ أَبِي يَقُولُ: أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الغَضَبِ؟ إنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيَغْضَبُ فَيَقْتُلُ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللهُ وَيَقْذِفُ المُحْصَنَةَ

(Al-Kulayni says) From a number of our (i.e. al-Kulayni’s) companions, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid (al-Barqi), who narrates on the authority of a chain of narrators from Imam al-Sadiq (A) that he heard his father (Imam al-Baqir [A]) as saying:“A Bedouin came to the Prophet (S) and said: ‘I live in the desert. Teach me the essence of wisdom.’ Thereupon the Prophet (S) said to him: ‘I command you not to get angry’ After repeating his question thrice (and hearing the same reply from the Prophet every time) the Bedouin said to himself: ‘After this I will not ask any question, since the Apostle of God (S) does not command anything but good’.” Imam al-Sadiq (A) says,“My father used to say, ‘Is there anything more violent than anger? Verily, a man gets angry and kills someone whose blood has been forbidden by God, or slanders a married woman.” 6

After that a wise person coolly ponders upon its evil consequences and the benefits of restraint, he should make it incumbent upon himself to put out this fire in the region of his heart with every possible effort and to clear from his heart the black soot of its smoke. This is something which is not very difficult when one resolves to act against one’s inner self and its desires, after having reflected upon their evil effects and by admonishing one’s self. In fact, one may get rid of all moral evils and ugly spiritual traits and acquire all good qualities and excellences of character and soul whenever he resolves to improve his spiritual condition.

Controlling Anger

There are also several practical and theoretical remedies for curing anger when it has flared up. The theoretical remedy involves reflecting upon the matters mentioned above, which is also a kind of practical remedy in this case. But among the practical remedies the important ones involve withholding of the self in the initial stages of anger. This is because it is ignited little by little, becoming more intense until its furnace is set burning fiercely and its flame becomes violent and furious. When that happens, it gets completely out of control and shuts off the lights of one’s faith and intellect. Blowing off the lamp of guidance, it reduces man to an utterly wretched state.

Therefore, one should be on one’s guard so as to dissociate oneself by some means before its fierceness mounts and its fire becomes more violent. He should either leave the place where his anger may be provoked, or change his posture: that is, if seated, he should stand up, and if standing sit down, or engage his mind in the remembrance of God (some people consider it even obligatory), or he should make himself busy in some other activity to divert his attention.

In any case, it is easier to put a curb on it in the beginning. It has two results. Firstly, he will be able to pacify his self at that early stage and the flames of anger will be put out. Secondly, the experience will always remain with one as a primary cure for treating one’s self. If one always pays attention to one’s condition and treats one’s self in this way, one will undergo a complete transformation as one’s inner state moves towards the point of moderation. An allusion to this matter is made in the following traditions from al-Kafi:

عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: إنَّ هَذَا الغَضَبَ جَمْرَةٌ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ تُوقَدُ فِي قَلْبِ ابْنِ آدَمَ. وَإنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ إذَا غَضِبَ احْمَرَّتْ عَيْنَاهُ وَانْتَفَخَتْ أَوْدَاجُهُ وَدَخَلَ الشَّيْطَانُ فِيهِ. فَإذَا خَافَ أَحَدُكُمْ ذَلِكَ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ فَلْيَلْزَمِ الأَرْضَ، فَإنَّ رِجْزَ الشَّيْطَانِ لَيَذْهَبُ عَنْهُ عِنْدَ ذَلِكَ

It is reported from al ‘Imam al-Baqir (A) that he said,“Verily, anger is a spark ignited by the Devil in the human heart. Indeed, when anyone of you gets angry, his eyes become red, the veins of his neck become swollen and Satan enters them. Therefore, whosoever among you is concerned about himself on account of it, he should lie down for a while so that the filth of Satan may be removed from him at the time.” 7

And:

عَنْ مَيْسِرٍ قَالَ: ذُكِرَ الغَضَبُ عِنْدَ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَقَالَ: إنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيَغْضَبُ فَمَا يَرْضَى أَبَداً حَتَّى يَدْخُلَ النَّارَ. فَأَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ غَضِبَ عَلَى قَوْمٍ وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ فَلْيَجْلِسْ مِنْ فَوْرِهِ ذَلِكَ، فَإنَّهُ سَيَذْهَبُ عَنْهُ رِجْزُ الشَّيْطَانِ. وَأَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ غَضِبَ عَلَى ذِي رَحِمٍ فَلْيَدْنُ مِنْهُ فَلْيَمِسَّهُ. فَإنَّ الرَّحِمَ إذَا مُسَّتْ سَكَنَتْ

Maysir reports that once anger was discussed in the presence of Imam al Baqir (A). He said,“Verily, it happens that an angry person would not be satisfied until he enters the Fire (i.e. his anger does not subside unless it drags him into the hellfire). Therefore, whoever is angry with someone let him sit down immediately if he is standing; for, indeed, it would repel from him the uncleanliness of Satan. And whoever gets angry with his kinsman, let him approach him and pat him; for the feeling of consanguinity, when stimulated by touch, induces calmness.” 8

These two traditions suggest two practical remedies of anger in its initial stage. One is general and recommends sitting down and bringing about a change in posture (according to another tradition, if somebody be seated at the time of getting angry, he should stand up). It is reported by Sunni sources that the Apostle of God (S), if he ever got angry while standing, would sit down, and if seated, would recline, and his anger would subside. The other remedy which is particular is concerned with blood relations and suggests that if anybody gets angry with someone related to him by blood, if he touches him with his hand his anger will cool down.

These are the methods of curing oneself of one’s anger; but if others want to treat an enraged person, if his anger is in the initial stage, any one of the methods from among the various practical and theoretical ones suggested may be useful. But if he is in extreme anger, advice and counsel give opposite results, and it becomes very difficult to treat him in this stage, except by being put in a state of alarm by someone whom he holds in high esteem; for anger vents itself on those whom one deems weaker and inferior to oneself or at least as equal in power and position. But in front of those persons with whom he is impressed, his anger is never provoked.

Rather his outer excitement and agitation will be transformed into an internal fury confined to his inner self. Not finding any outlet, it will change into a grief within the heart. Hence, it is not at all an easy task to appease a person undergoing outbursts of extreme rage. We seek refuge in God from it.

How to Eradicate the Roots of Anger

Among the fundamental remedies of anger, one is to exterminate the factors responsible for its provocation. They are many, and here we can mention only a few of them. One of them is self-love, which in ‘turn begets the love of wealth, glory, and honor and the desire to impose one’s will and expand one’s domain of power.

These factors are inherently responsible for exciting the fire of anger, as the individual infatuated with these things tends to hold them in high regard and they occupy a high place in his heart. He, improperly, gets angry and excited if any one of these aspired goals is not achieved or when his desire faces any obstacle and loses control over himself. Greed, avarice, and such other vices that take root in his heart as a result of self-love and the love of glory, snatch the reins of reason from his hands, leaving the self to commit deeds that deviate from the path of Divine Law and reason.

But if his love and interest in these things is not intense-and he gives lesser importance to these matters, his inner calm and contentment, obtained by giving up the love of wealth, honor and the like, will not allow his self to act against the demands of justice. Then, he will not find it difficult to maintain his patience in hardships, and will not lose grip of self-restraint. He would not get angry unnecessarily and abnormally. If the love of the world is eradicated from his heart and this vice is completely wiped out, then all other vices also take leave and vanish from it, vacating the realm of the soul to be taken over by moral virtues.

Another factor that arouses anger is that sometimes anger and its evil manifestations, which are in fact great moral defects and indecencies, are imagined to be merits and accomplishments on account of ignorance and lack of understanding. Some fools reckon those vices as marks of bravery and courage and brag about themselves on account of them. They confuse the virtue of valor, which is a superb attribute of the believer’s character and a commendable quality, with this pernicious vice.

However, it should be noted that courage or valor is a different thing, and its source, its causes, effects and characteristics differ totally from those of that injurious vice. Courage originates in the strength of one’s spirit, serenity of mind, moderateness, faith, and lack of concern for the vanities of life and indifference to its vicissitudes; whereas anger is the product of spiritual weakness and degeneration, insufficiency of faith, immoderation of character and soul, love of the world and concern for mundane things and the fear of losing the pleasures of life.

Hence this vice is found more frequently in women than in men, more in sick individuals than in healthy people, more in children than in grown ups, more in the elderly than in young people. Valor and courage is its opposite. Those suffering from moral infirmities are more liable to get angry sooner than those who are morally sound. Thus, we often see such people get angry sooner and becoming fiercer if any encroachment is made upon their property than the others.

This was about the origins and motives of anger and courage. However, they are also different as to their effects. The irascible person, when under the spell of anger and its excitement, behaves unreasonably like a lunatic or like an animal which acts without rationally considering the consequences of its actions, and commits ugly and indecent acts. His tongue, limbs, and other parts of the body go out of his control. His eyes, lips and mouth are distorted in such an ugly manner that he will be ashamed of his ugly features if he is shown a mirror at the time.

Some persons who are afflicted with this vice not only do not refrain from venting their anger on innocent animals, but do not spare even inanimate things. They curse air, water, earth, snow, rain and other elements of nature if anything happens against their wish. Sometimes they vent their fury on a book, pen, glass or jug, tearing it up or breaking it into pieces.

But the behavior of a courageous person is different in all these matters. His acts are based on reason and tranquility of soul. He gets angry on the proper occasion and is patient and restrained when required to be so. He is not provoked or incensed by each and every annoyance. He becomes angry on the proper occasion to the proper extent and takes his vengeance with reason and discretion. He knows well as to against whom to take his revenge, on what occasion, to what degree and in what manner, and as to whom he should forgive and what to overlook and ignore.

In the state of anger, he does not lose control of his reason, and he never makes use of indecent language nor acts indiscreetly. All his acts are based on rational considerations and are in accordance with the norms of justice and Divine Law. He always acts in such a manner so as not to regret later on.

Thus an aware human being should not confuse this quality, which is one of the attributes of prophets, awliya’ and true believers and is considered a spiritual accomplishment and achievement, with the vice which is one of the attributes of Satan, a diabolical incitement, a spiritual abomination and a flaw of the heart. Yet, the veils of ignorance and folly and the curtains of self-love and attachment to the world cover man’s hearing and blind his vision, rendering him helpless and bringing about his destruction.

Certain other causes of anger have also been pointed out, such as ‘ujb, bragging (iftikhar), pride (kibr), disputatiousness (mira’), obstinacy (lajaj), jesting and the like; but to go into their details will prolong this discussion and might be cumbersome. Possibly most or all of them, directly or indirectly, originate in the two sources already discussed. And praise be to God.

Notes

1. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 412.

2. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 412.

3. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

4. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

5. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

6. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

7. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.

8. Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi (Tehran), Vol. III (Arabic text with Persian translation by Sayyid Jawad Mustafawi, p. 415.