Polarization around the Character of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib

1

Chapter 17: Just A Motto?

To turn the discussion of Khawarijism and the Khawarij into a discussion about a religious sect is pointless and to no effect, for there is no such religious sect in existence in the world today. However, a discussion about the Khawarij and the reality of what they did is nevertheless instructive for us and for our society, because, although the Khawarij sect has become extinct, their spirit has not died. The spirit of Khawarijism has been incarnated in the campaigns of many of us.

I should start with an introduction. It is possible that some sects may die as far as their motto is concerned, but live in spirit, just as the opposite may also happen: an ideology may live as a motto but be completely dead in spirit. Thus it is possible that one or several individuals may be counted as followers and adherents of some sect in name but not be followers of that sect in spirit, and vice versa, that is, some people may follow some sect in spirit although they do not accept the motto and slogans of that sect.

To give an example well-known to Ali, right at the beginning, after the death of the Prophet, the Muslims divided up into two groups, Sunni and Shi'ah; the Sunni believe in one motto and one frame-work of beliefs, and the Shi'ah in another.

The Shi'ah say that the caliph immediately after the Prophet is 'Ali, and that he designated 'Ali for the caliphate and as his successor by divine decree. This position is thus 'Ali's by special right after the Prophet. But the Sunni say that as far as the legislation of Islam is concerned, it has no special provisions in the matter of the caliphate or the Imamate, rather the matter of choosing a leader was handed over to the people themselves. The most that can be said is that the choice should be made from among the Quraysh.

The Shi`ah have some criticisms to make of many of the Prophet's companions who are counted as great personalities, distinguished and famous men, while the Sunni take a position complete opposed to that of the Shi`ah in this matter; they regard every person who was called a "companion" with an amazingly extravagant deference. They say that all the companions of the Prophet were just and upright men. The raison d'etre of Shiite Islam is to work through criticism, research, putting forth objections and exactitude[10] ; the raison d'etre of Sunni Islam to work through finding the most convenient solution, justification after the act and trust in providence."

In the day and age in which we live, is it enough for us to recognise a man as a Shi`ah that he says:" 'Ali is the caliph immediately after the Prophet", without requiring anything more from him? No matter what spirit or what kind of way of thinking he may have?

However, if we were to return to the advent of Islam, we would meet with a particular way of thinking which would be the way of thinking of Shiite Islam, and it would be only those who thought in that way who could unreservedly accept the successorship to the Prophet as belonging to 'Ali without being subject to any doubt or wavering. Opposed to this spirit and this way of thinking was another spirit and way of thinking which, by a kind of justification, explanation or interpretation, ignored the successorships to the Prophet while having complete faith in him.

In fact, this Islamic "schism" sprung from here, for one group, who were, of course, the majority, only looked at the superficial aspect, not being sufficiently sharp-sighted or penetrating to reach the depth and truth of every reality. They saw what was most apparent and found the most convenient solution. They said that some of the great men, the companions and elders, those who had served Islam for a long time, took a certain way, and it cannot be said that they were in error. But another group, who were the minority, said at the same time that they would respect anyone who respected the truth; however, where they saw that the fundamentals of Islam were violated at the hands of these very people who had served Islam for a long time, they would no longer respect them. They said they were partisans of the principles of Islam, not partisans of the personalities of Islam. Shi`ism came into existence in this spirit.

When, in the history of Islam, we follow in the tracks of Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad al-Kindi, `Ammar ibn Yasir and the such like, and look to see what had persuaded them to gather round 'Ali and leave the majority, we find that they were men of principle, who knew the fundamentals - that they both knew the religion and practised it. They said that they were not going to give their seeing and understanding into the hands of others, so that when these people made mistakes they themselves would also make mistakes. In reality the spirit of these people was a spirit over which principles and truths held command, not individuals and personalities.

One of 'Ali's companions was badly seized by doubt during the battle of Jamal. He looked round about himself, and saw on one side `Ali and great figures of Islam who were gathered round him striking away with their swords; and on the other side he saw the wife of the Prophet, `A'ishah, about whom the Qur'an said: And his wives are as their mothers. Gathered round `A'ishah he saw Talhah, one of the forerunners in Islam, a man with a good past record, an expert fighter in the field of battle for Islam, a man who had done valuable services for Islam; and he saw az-Zubayr, too, a man with an even better past record than Talhah, who had even been among those who had gathered in 'Ali's house on the day of Saqifah."

This poor man was in a state of great bewilderment. What was going on! Are 'Ali, Talhah and az-Zubayr not among the forerunners of Islam, the most devoted men, the strongest forts of Islam? Now they are fighting face to face. Who is the nearer to the truth? What must be done in this conflict?

But take care: this man must not be blamed too much in his confusion. Perhaps if we found ourselves in the same situation as he had found himself, the personalities of Talhah and az-Zubayr would also dazzle our eyes.

Now that we see 'Ali and `Ammar, Uways al-Qarani and others face to face with `A'ishah and az-Zubayr and Talhah, we do not feel any hesitation, for we wee the second group as people with the look of criminals, that is, the effects of evil and treachery are evident on their faces; and when we look at the faces and their characters we guess that they are people of the Fire. But if we had lived in those times, and had know their pasts from close-up, perhaps we would not have been immune from doubt.

Today, when we know that the first group were for truth and the second group for falsehood, it is because we have come to know 'Ali and `Ammar, on the one hand, and az-Zubayr, Talhah and `A'ishah, on the other, as a result of history's passing and the clarification of the facts, and in this context we have been able to judge correctly. Or, at any rate, if we are not researchers and students of history, we have been inculcated with the idea that things were like this, right from our infancy. But in those days, neither of these factors existed.

Anyway, this man was able to come up to Amir al-mu'minin and say: "Is it possible that Talhah and az-Zubayr and `A'ishah are gathered together for falsehood? How can personalities like these great companions of the Messenger of God err, and follow the way of falsehood? Is such a thing possible? "

In his reply, `Ali said something about which Taha Husayn, the Egyptian scholar and writer has said that no more forceful or greater thing has been said. He wrote that after the revelation had ceased and the call from heaven had come to an end, words with such greatness as these were not heard[13] `Ali said:

"It is you who have been cheated; truth has become an error for you. Truth and falsehood are not to be known by the measure of the power and personality of individuals. It is not right that you should first measure up the personalities, and then weigh truth and falsehood according to these weights: this is true because it accords with this, and that is false because it does not accord with this. No, individuals must not be made the criteria for truth and falsehood. It is truth and falsehood which should be the standards for individuals and their personalities."

This means that one should be a knower of truth and falsehood, not a knower of individuals and personalities; one should measure individuals, whether they be great personalities or small, according to truth - if they accord with it, then accept their personalities, if not, then leave them. Then there is no question as to whether Talhah, az-Zubayr and `A'ishah are with falsehood or not.

Here `Ali establishes truth itself as the criterion of truth, and the spirit of Shi`ite Islam is none other than this. In fact, the Shi `ah sect is born from a special perspicacity and a granting of importance to principles, not from individuals and persons. It is natural that the Shi'ah were the first believers and idol-breakers.

After the death of the Prophet, 'Ali was thirty-three years old with a small group less than the number of the fingers on one's hands; opposing him were old men of sixty years with a large and numerous majority. The logic of the majority was that this was the way of the leaders and the Shaykhs, and they do not make mistakes, so their way must be followed. The logic of the minority was that that which does not err is the truth, the elders must accord themselves with the truth. And for this reason it can be understood how numerous are the people whose motto is the motto of Shi`ite Islam, but whose spirit is not the spirit of Shiite Islam.

The way of Shi`ism is just like its spirit: the discernment of truth and the pursuance of it. And one of the greatest effects of this is attraction and repulsion. Not any attraction or any repulsion - we have said that attraction is sometimes attraction to falsehood, evil and crime, and repulsion is sometimes repulsion from the truth and human virtues - but attraction and repulsion of the like of attraction and repulsion to 'Ali. Because the true Shi'ah is a copy of 'Ali's conduct; the Shi'ah must also, like 'Ali, have two sides to his character.

This introduction was so that we should know that a religious sect may be dead, but its spirit lives on among other people who apparently are not followers of that sect but who deem themselves opposed to it. The Khawarij sect is dead, that is to say that today, on this earth, there is no observable group with the name of Khawarij which a number of persons, with that name, follow; but is the spirit of the Khawarij dead too? Has this spirit not incarnated itself, for example (may God forbid it), among us, especially among those of us who are, so to speak, pretenders to piety?

This is a matter which must be investigated separately. If we can truly recognise the Khawarij spirit, we can perhaps answer this question. This is, indeed, the value of a discussion about the Khawarij. We must know why 'Ali "repelled" them, that is to say, why his attraction did not pull them, but, on the contrary, his power of repulsion pushed them away.

It is certain, as we shall afterwards see, that not all the spiritual elements which had an effect on the personality of the Khawarij and the formation of their way of thinking were such as to be subject to the pressure and rule of 'Ali's force of repulsion. A good many bright distinctions and positive points are also to be found in their way of thinking, which, if they had not been there together with a series of dark points, would have been subject to the power and effect of `Ali's power of attraction. But the dark side of their spirit was so strong that they took their place in the ranks of 'Ali's enemies.

Notes:

[10]. The original reads: "looking for a hair in their yogurt." (tr.)

[11]. The text reads, literally, "insha'allah it was a cat". This is a reference to a well-known story of a pious and learned mulls whose cloak was touched by a dog, thus rendering it impure (or, according to some versions, he was told after he had drunk from his bowl that it had been touched by a dog - the result is the same), and who there upon said: "insha'allah it was a cat." The point is that the cat is not considered as a defiling animal. (tr. )

[12]. For information on these persons and events see: S. H. M. Jafri: The Origins and Early Development of Shi'a Islam. (London 1979) , especially chps. 2 & 4. (tr. )

[13]. In 'Ali' wa banuh (`Ali and His Sons), p. 40.

Chapter 18: 'Ali's Sense Of Democracy

'Ali acted towards the Khawarij with the utmost degree of liberality and democracy. He was the caliph and they were his subjects; every kind of punitive action was within his power, but he did not put them into prison, neither did he flog them; he did not even cut off their quota from the treasury (baitu 'l-mal). He looked upon them in the same way as upon other individuals. This matter is no exception in the history of 'Ali's life, but it is something of which there are few examples in the world. Everywhere they were free to express their opinions, and 'Ali and his companions freely opposed them with their own opinions and spoke to them. The two sides put forth their reasoning, and countered their opponent's reasoning.

Maybe such a degree of freedom is without precedent in the world, in which a government acts towards its opponents with such a degree of democracy. They came into the mosques and disrupted 'Ali's speeches and sermons. One day, 'Ali was speaking from the minbar when a man came forward and asked a question, and 'Ali gave an impromptu answer. A Khawarij who was among the people called out: "May God kill this man; what a knowledgeable man he is!" The others wanted to hold him back, but 'Ali ordered them to release him, saying: "It was only me he insulted."

The Khawarij would not pray behind 'Ali in communal prayers because they considered him a disbeliever, but they went to the mosque and refused to let `Ali alone, sometimes molesting him. One day, 'Ali had stood up to pray and the people had stoop up behind him, when one of the Khawarij whose name was Ibn al-Kawwa' shouted out, and read a verse from the Qur'an in allusion to 'Ali:

This verse was addressed to the Prophet:

And indeed it has been revealed to thee and to those (prophets) before thee, "If thou associatest (other gods with Allah), thy work shall surely fail and thou wilt be among the losers." (az-Zumar, 39:65 )

Ibn al-Kawwa' wanted to insinuate about `Ali by reciting this verse that: "Yes, we know your past history in Islam! First you were a believer, the Prophet chose you as a brother, your selflessness shone out on the night of the Prophet's escape from Mecca (laylatu 'l-mabit) when you slept in the place of the Prophet in his bed, you put yourself forward as a lure for swords. Truly your service for Islam cannot be denied. But God also said to His Prophet: `If you associate (others with God) your work will come to naught.' Now that you have become a disbeliever you have cancelled out your past deeds."

What could `Ali do, faced with this, with this man's voice shouting out the Qur'an? He remained silent until the man reached the end of the verse; and when he finished, 'Ali continued with the prayer. Then Ibn al-Kawwa' repeated the verse, and meanwhile `Ali fell silent again. He kept silent because it is a Qur'anic command that:

And when the Qur'an is recited, give you ear to it and be silent. (al-A'raf, 7:204)

And this is the proof for the fact that when the prayer leader is reciting the Qur'an, believers must be silent and listen.

After he had repeated the verse several times, wanting to disrupt the prayer, 'Ali recited this verse:

So be thou patient: surely Allah's promise is true; and let not those who have not sure faith make thee unsteady. (ar-Rum, 30:60)

Then he paid no more attention and continued with his prayer.[14]

In the beginning, the Khawarij were peaceable, and contented themselves with merely criticising and speaking openly. `Ali's behaviour with them was also just as we noted before, namely, he never caused them any trouble, not even cutting off their wages from the treasury (baitu 'l-mal). However, as they began to despair of 'Ali ever repenting, their activities gradually changed. They decided to bring about a revolution, so they gathered in the house of one of their brethren, who gave an aggressive and provocative speech in which he invited his friends to rise up in the name of "bidding to good and forbidding evil." He said (after praise to God)

I swear by God that it is not worthy of a group which has faith in a Merciful God and which adheres to the command of the Qur'an that the world should seem dearer to them than "bidding to good and forbidding evil" and speaking the truth, even though these (activities) may bring loss and involve danger; for everyone who incurs loss and danger in this world will be rewarded on the Day of the Resurrection with the felicity of God and the eternity of Paradise. O brothers! Le us go out from this city where injustice dwells (and go) to mountainous places or some other towns so that we can take a stand against these misguided innovations and put a stop to them.

With this morale-raising and fiery speech, they became even more fiery and went out form that place to try to bring about an uprising and a revolution. They threatened the security of the highways and took to marauding and sedition. Their aim was to weaken the government by this means, and to bring down the then existent rule.

Now it was no longer the time to leave them at liberty, for it was not a matter of the expression of beliefs, but of sabotage against public security and an armed uprising against the legal government. Thus 'Ali pursued them and met them face to face on the banks of the Nahrawan. He made a speech in which he advised them and gave them an incontrovertible proof. Then he put the flag of true faith into the hands of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari as a sign that everyone who gathered round it was a true believer. Out of twelve thousand men, eight thousand turned back from Khawarijism while the remainder showed their obstinacy. They were severely beaten, and apart from a very small band none remained.

Note:

[14]. Sharh, Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, vol.6, p.311.

1. Mut’ah In The Qur’an

Nikah al-Mut’ah, or simply mut’ah, is marriage between two consenting adults for a specified period of time. It is a form of marriage, which is why it is called a nikah. Since its duration is fixed, it is also often called “temporary marriage”. The woman, before the mut’ah, must NOT be in a pending marriage with anyone else. Moreover, both parties must be adult believers; and both must be chaste. In exceptional, emergency cases, the man is permitted to enter into a temporary marriage with a chaste Jewish or Christian woman.

However, the woman can only marry a chaste Muslim man - whether in mut’ah or in a permanent marriage. In addition, both parties must mutually agree on the dowry and the length of the union. In the case of a woman who has never married, the consent of her father is obligatory for the mut’ah. Also, the man cannot have sex with her (i.e. the woman who has never married) throughout the agreed duration of their nikah. After the expiration of the marriage, the woman enters into a period of ‘iddah in temporary unions that involved intercourse. The children of such a marriage are legitimate, and belong to the husband; and they inherit him.

The spouses in mut’ah too may also inherit each other if their marriage contract explicitly provides for it. Meanwhile, unlike in permanent marriages, there is no restriction to the number of temporary marriages a man may contract, simultaneously or consecutively. Also, mut’ah is available to single men and woman, as well as to married men, including those who already have four permanent wives.

During the life of Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, temporary marriage was legislated and practiced within the Ummah. Allah Himself decreed it in His Book, in the Verse of al-Mut’ah:

فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ولا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة إن الله كان عليما حكيما

Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is prescribed. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.1

This ayah was not revealed like this. Rather, its original version included extra phrases that leave no doubt about its import. For instance, Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) records:

أخبرنا أبو زكريا العنبري ثنا محمد بن عبد السلام ثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم أنبأ النضر بن شميل أنبأ شعبة ثنا أبو سلمة قال : سمعت أبا نضرة يقول قرأت على ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما {فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة} قال ابن عباس: فما استمعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى قال أبو نضرة : فقلت ما نقرأها كذلك فقال ابن عباس : والله لأنزلها الله كذلك

Abu Zakariyyah al-‘Anbari - Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Salam - Ishaq b. Ibrahim - al-Naḍr b. Shumayl - Shu’bah - Abu Salamah - Abu Naḍrah:

I read to Ibn ‘Abbas: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He said: “{Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period}”. Abu Naḍrah said: I said, “We do not recite it like that!” Ibn ‘Abbas replied, “I swear by Allah, Allah certainly revealed it like that.”2

Al-Hakim comments:

هذا حديث صحيح على شرط مسلم

This hadith is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.3

And Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) concurs:

على شرط مسلم

Upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim4

Imam Ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari (d. 310 H) also documents:

حدثنا ابن المثنى، قال: ثنا محمد بن جعفر، قال: ثنا شعبة، عن أبي سلمة، عن أبي نضرة، قال :قرأت هذه الآية على ابن عباس} :فما استمتعتم به منهن {قال ابن عباس} :إلى أجل مسمى{، قال قلت: ما أقرؤها كذلك !قال: والله لأنزلها الله كذلك ثلاث مرات .

Ibn al-Muthanna - Muhammad b. Ja’far - Shu’bah - Abu Salamah - Abu Naḍrah:

I read this verse to Ibn ‘Abbas: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah} [4:24]. He said: “{for a specified period}”. I said, “We do not recite it like that!” He replied, “I swear by Allah, Allah certainly revealed it like that.” He said it three times.5

Al-Hafiẓ (d. 852 H) says about its first narrator:

محمد بن المثنى بن عبيد العنزي بفتح النون والزاي أبو موسى البصري ….ثقة ثبت

Muhammad b. al-Muthanna b. ‘Ubayd al-‘Unaza, Abu Musa al-Basri.... Thiqah (trustworthy), thabt (accurate).6

He also states concerning the second narrator:

محمد بن جعفر الهذلي البصري المعروف بغندر ثقة صحيح الكتاب إلا أن فيه غفلة

Muhammad b. Ja’far al-Hazali al-Basri, better known as Ghandar: Thiqah (trustworthy), sahih al-kitab (i.e. ahadith from his books are sahih) except that there was some negligence in him.7

Ghandar’s negligence, of course, did not affect his riwayat from Shu’bah, as al-Hafiẓ quotes:

وقال ابن أبي حاتم سألت أبي عن غندر فقال كان صدوقا وكان مؤدبا وفي حديث شعبة ثقة

Ibn Abi Hatim said: “I asked my father about Ghandar and he replied, ‘He was saduq (very truthful), and was a teacher and in the hadith of Shu’bah, he is thiqah (trustworthy).’”8

So, apparently, this sanad is sahih too without any doubt.

Al-Ṭabari further records:

حدثنا أبو كريب قال ، حدثنا يحيى بن عيسى قال ، حدثنا نصير بن أبي الأشعث قال ، حدثني ابن حبيب بن أبي ثابت ، عن أبيه قال : أعطاني ابن عباس مصحفًا فقال : هذا على قراءة أبيّ قال أبو كريب قال يحيى : فرأيت المصحف عند نصير، فيه : (فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى ) .

Abu Kurayb - Yahya b. ‘Isa - Nasir b. Abi al-Ash’ath - Ibn Habib b. Abi Thabit - his father:

Ibn ‘Abbas gave me a mushaf. He said, “This is upon the qiraat of Ubayy b. Ka’b”.

Abu Kurayb narrated that Yahya said: “I saw the mushaf with Nusayr. In it was {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period}.9

Commenting upon this same chain with another narration, Prof. Ibn Yasin states:

ورجاله ثقات إلا يحيى بن عيسى صدوق، وابن حبيب هو عبد الله، وسنده حسن .

Its narrators are thiqah (trustworthy), except that Yahya b. ‘Isa is saduq (very truthful) as well as Ibn Habib - and he was ‘Abd Allah, and its chain is hasan.10

Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211 H) too reports:

عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال: أخبرني عطاء أنه سمع ابن عباس يراها الان حلالا، وأخبرني أنه كان يقرأ} فما استمتعتم] به [منهن إلى أجل فآتوهن أجورهن {

‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - ‘Aṭa:

I heard Ibn ‘Abbas while he saw it as halal, and he used to recite {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a period, give them their prescribed dowries}.11

This sanad is sahih, as we have discussed in the Preface.

Meanwhile, al-Hafiẓ Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H) has some more relevant information for us:

وكان ابن عباس ، وأبيّ بن كعب ، وسعيد بن جُبَيْر ، والسُّدِّي يقرءون : "فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ".

Ibn ‘Abbas, Ubayy b. Ka’b, Sa’id b. Jubayr and al-Suddi used to recite: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period, give them their prescribed dowries}.12

So, apparently, that extra phrase makes it impossible to apply to the verse to the permanent marriage as lots of the Ahl al-Sunnah do. The permanent marriage is never contracted “for a specified period”. As such, the verse is explicit in its legislation of temporary marriage.

Ibn ‘Abbas, raḍiyallahu ‘anhu, also made this clear. Al-Ṭabari says:

حدثنا حميد بن مسعدة، قال :ثنا بشر بن المفضل، قال :ثنا داود، عن أبي نضرة، قال :سألت ابن عباس عن متعة النساء، قال :أما تقرأ سورة النساء؟ قال :قلت بلى. قال: فما تقرأ فيها :فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى؟ قلت :لا، لو قرأتها هكذا ما سألتك !قال :فإنها كذا .

Hamid b. Mas’adah - Bashar b. al-Mufaḍḍal - Dawud - Abu Nadrah:

I asked Ibn ‘Abbas concerning mut’ah with women. He replied, “Do you not read Surah al-Nisa?” I said, “I do.” He said, “So, do you not read in it {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period} [4:24]?” I said, “No. If I had recite it like that, I would not have asked you!” He said, “Verily, it is like that.”13

About the first narrator, al-Hafiẓ comments:

حميد بن مسعدة بن المبارك السامي بالمهملة أو الباهلي بصري صدوق

Hamid b. Mas’adah b. al-Mubarak al-Sami or al-Bahili, Basri: Saduq (very truthful).14

What of the second narrator? He has an even better verdict:

بشر بن المفضل بن لاحق الرقاشي بقاف ومعجمة أبو إسماعيل البصري ثقة ثبت عابد

Bashar b. al-Mufaḍḍal b. Lahik al-Raqashi, Abu Isma’il al-Basri: Thiqah (trustworthy), thabt (accurate), a devout worshipper of Allah.15

And al-Hafiẓ states about the third narrator:

داود بن أبي هند القشيري مولاهم أبو بكر أو أبو محمد البصري ثقة متقن كان يهم بأخرة

Dawud b. Abi Hind al-Qushayri, their freed slave, Abu Bakr or Abu Muhammad al-Basri: Thiqah (trustworthy), extremely precise. He used to hallucinate during the last part of his life.16

Thus, this chain too is hasan. Hamid b. Mas’adah was saduq (very truthful), and Dawud’s late-life hallucinations were not serious. Note, in the riwayah, how Ibn ‘Abbas quoted the ayah as evidence of mut’ah.

So, what is that extra phrase “for a specified period”? Was it an interpolation by Ubayy, Ibn ‘Abbas and others like them? Or, is it only a case of tahrif, in which some parts of the Kitab have been expunged? To us, the best explanation of the status of the extra phrase is in this verse:

واذكروا نعمت الله عليكم وما أنزل عليكم من الكتاب والحكمة يعظكم به

And remember the Favours of Allah upon you, and that which He has sent down to you of the Book AND the Hikmah, whereby He instructs you.17

This ayah informs us that Allah has sent down two things to this Ummah: the Qur’an and the Hikmah. The same thing is repeated elsewhere:

وأنزل الله عليك الكتاب والحكمة

And Allah sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book and the Hikmah.18

It is often claimed that the “Hikmah” is the Sunnah of the Prophet. However, it is apparently more than that. The Hikmah too used to be “recited” like the Qur’an:

واذكرن ما يتلى في بيوتكن من آيات الله والحكمة إن الله كان لطيفا خبيرا

And remember that which is recited in your houses of the Verses of Allah and the Hikmah. Verily, Allah is Subtle, Aware.19

So, we know that “for a specified period” was revealed by Allah too within the Verse of al-Mut’ah, as testified by Ibn ‘Abbas. We also know that some of the Sahabah and Tabi’in used to “recite” it. However, we know as well that it is not part of the Qur’an nonetheless. Therefore, that phrase naturally falls under the Hikmah category. Allah revealed it to explain the ayah. It may be recited with the verse, and it may be excluded from it. Some of the Salaf - such as Ibn ‘Abbas, Ubayy b. Ka’b, Sa’id b. Jubayr and al-Suddi - chose to recite it with the ayah.

In the Shi’i books, the Verse of al-Mut’ah is also cited as evidence of its divine legislation. Shaykh al-Kulayni (d. 329 H), for instance, documents:

عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، وعلي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه جميعا، عن ابن أبي نجران، عن عاصم بن حميد، عن أبي بصير قال: سألت أبا جعفر عليه السلام عن المتعة، فقال: نزلت في القرآن } فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة فلا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة {

A number of our companions - Sahl b. Ziyad AND ‘Ali b. Ibrahim - his father - Ibn Abi Najran - ‘Asim b. Humayd - Abu Basir:

I asked Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, concerning mut’ah. So, he replied, “It is revealed in the Qur’an {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is prescribed}.20

‘Allamah al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H) says about this hadith:

حسن كالصحيح

Hasan ka al-Sahih.21

So, this is a hasan hadith which is equal to a sahih hadith.

Al-Kulayni again records:

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن علي بن الحسن بن رباط، عن حريز، عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي عبد الله قال: سمعت أبا حنيفة يسأل أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن المتعة فقال: أي المتعتين تسأل؟ قال: سألتك عن متعة الحج فأنبئني عن متعة النساء أحق هي؟ فقال: سبحان الله أما قرأت كتاب الله عز وجل } فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة { ؟ فقال أبو حنيفة: والله فكأنها آية لم أقرأها قط .

‘Ali b. Ibrahim - his father - Ibn Abi ‘Umayr - ‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Rabaṭ - Hariz - ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi ‘Abd Allah:

I heard Abu Hanifah asking Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, about mut’ah. So, he (Abu ‘Abd Allah) said, “Which of the two mut’ahs are you asking about?” He (Abu Hanifah) replied, “I (already) asked you about mut’ah of Hajj. So, inform me about mut’ah with women. Is it correct?” He (Abu ‘Abd Allah) said, “Subhan Allah! Do you not read the Book of Allah {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries}?” Then, Abu Hanifah said, “I swear by Allah, it is as though it is a verse I have never read”.22

Al-Majlisi comments:

حسن

Hasan.23

Notes

1. Qur’an 4:24

2. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Ṣahihayn (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Muṣtafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 2, p. 334, # 3192

3. Ibid

4. Ibid

5. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir b. Yazid b. Kathir b. Ghalib al-Amuli al-Ṭabari, Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Qur’an (Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: Ṣidqi Jamil al-‘Aṭṭar], vol. 5, p. 19

6. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Muṣtafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 2, p. 129, # 6283

7. Ibid, vol. 2, p. 63, # 5805

8. Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1404 H), vol. 9, p. 85, # 129

9. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir b. Yazid b. Kathir b. Ghalib al-Amuli al-Ṭabari, Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Qur’an (Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: Ṣidqi Jamil al-‘Aṭṭar], vol. 5, p. 18

10. Prof. Dr. Hikmat b. Bashir b. Yasin, Mawsu’at al-Ṣahih al-Masbur min al-Tafsir bi al-Mathur (Madinah: Dar al-Mathar li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’ wa al-Ṭaba’at; 1st edition, 1420 H), vol. 3, p. 239

11. Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 498, # 14022

12. Abu al-Fida Isma’il b. ‘Umar b. Kathir al-Qurshi al-Dimashqi, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Aẓim (Dar al-Ṭaybah li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 2nd edition, 1420 H) [annotator: Sami b. Muhammad Salamah], vol. 2, p. 259

13. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir b. Yazid b. Kathir b. Ghalib al-Amuli al-Ṭabari, Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Qur’an (Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: Ṣidqi Jamil al-‘Aṭṭar], vol. 5, p. 18

14. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Muṣtafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Aṭa], vol. 1, p. 246, # 1564

15. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 130, # 705

16. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 283, # 1822

17. Qur’an 2:231

18. Qur’an 4:113

19. Qur’an 33:34

20. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 448, # 1

21. Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 226

22. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, pp. 449-450, # 6

23. Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 230

2. Reign Of The Verse Of Al-Mut’ah

It is absolutely beyond doubt that Allah decreed mut’ah with women for the Ummah during the mission of His last Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi. There are authentic ahadith in both Sunni and Shi’i sources confirming this. So, naturally, the next question is - has the Verse of al-Mut’ah been abrogated? This question stands at the heart of a huge dispute between the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Shi’ah over the legitimacy of mut’ah after the Messenger’s death. The Sunnis argue that mut’ah was abrogated by the Prophet, and that it has thereby become a form of zina (fornication). On the other hand, Shi’is maintain that the Verse of al-Mut’ah was never abrogated, and that mut’ah remains a command of Allah and the valid Sunnah of His Messenger till the Day of al-Qiyamah.

The Shi’i position is well-captured in this hadith of al-Kulayni (d. 329 H):

علي، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن عمر بن أذينة، عن زرارة قال: جاء عبد الله بن عمير الليثي إلى أبي جعفر عليه السلام فقال له: ما تقول في متعة النساء؟ فقال: أحلها الله في كتابه وعلى لسان نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله فهي حلال إلى يوم القيامة فقال: يا أبا جعفر مثلك يقول هذا وقد حرمها عمر ونهى عنها؟! فقال: وإن كان فعل، قال: إني أعيذك بالله من ذلك أن تحل شيئا حرمه عمر، قال: فقال له: فأنت على قول صاحبك وأنا على قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فهلم ألاعنك أن القول ما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وأن الباطل ما قال صاحبك، قال: فأقبل عبد الله ابن عمير فقال: يسرك أن نساءك وبناتك وأخواتك وبنات عمك يفعلن، قال: فأعرض عنه أبو جعفر عليه السلام حين ذكر نساءه وبنات عمه .

‘Ali - his father - Ibn Abi ‘Umayr - ‘Umar b. Uzaynah - Zurarah:

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umayr al-Laythi went to Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, and said to him, “What is your opinion of mut’ah with women?” So, he (Abu Ja’far) said, “Allah made it halal in His Book and upon the tongue of His Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. Therefore, it is halal till the Day of al-Qiyamah.”

Then he (al-Laythi) said, “O Abu Ja’far! Someone of your calibre saying this, despite that ‘Umar had made it haram and had forbidden it?!” He (Abu Ja’far) said, “Even if he did so.” He (al-Laythi) said, “I seek refuge for you with Allah from that, from making halal something that ‘Umar made haram.” He (Abu Ja’far) said to him, “Your follow the teaching of your companion and I follow the teaching of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family. So, invoke the curse of Allah (upon the wrong party between us) - (I say) that the truth is what the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, said, and that the falsehood is what your companion said.”

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umayr then advanced and said, “Would it make you happy if your wives, daughters, sisters and the daughters of your uncle do (mu’tah)?” So, Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, turned away from him when he mentioned his wives and the daughters of his uncle.1

‘Allamah al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H) says:

حسن

Hasan.2

Al-Laythi was apparently a Sunni, who held ‘Umar in extremely high esteem. He did not believe in the legitimacy of mut’ah, solely on the premise that ‘Umar forbade it. The Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet, ‘alaihim al-salam, by contrast, follow his Sunnah, and uphold its legality. So, the official position of the chosen ones from the Messenger’s offspring is that mut’ah is decreed in the Qur’an and its verse had never been abrogated. As such, temporary marriage remains halal till the Last Hour. The Ahl al-Bayt also believe that it is a bid’ah to consider mut’ah to be haram, and that whosoever does so has opposed the Prophet of Allah. Al-Laythi insulted Imam al-Baqir, ‘alaihi al-salam, by asking if it would please him if his wives and the daughters of his uncle did mut’ah. Of course, mut’ah is haram for married women. A woman in Islam can only have one husband at a time. It is also very likely that the daughters of the Imam’s uncle were also already married at that time. Thus, due to al-Laythi’s mocking (or perhaps ignorant) insult, the noble Imam turned away from him.

Interestingly, there are some authentic Sunni riwayat which also confirm this Shi’i hadith. Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) has this surprising one:

حدثنا حامد بن عمرو البكراوي حدثنا عبدالواحد ( يعني ابن زياد ) عن عاصم عن أبي نضرة قال كنت عند جابر بن عبدالله فأتاه آت فقال ابن عباس وابن الزبير اختلفا في المتعتين فقال جابر فعلناهما مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ثم نهانا عنهما عمر فلم نعد لهما

Hamid b. ‘Amr al-Bakrawi - ‘Abd al-Wahid b. Ziyad - ‘Asim - Abu Naḍrah:

I was with Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, a person came and said, “Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn al-Zubayr disagree concerning the two types of mut’ah.” So, Jabir said, “We practised BOTH of them along with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. Then, ‘Umar forbade us from them both, and we have not reverted to them.”3

This hadith is significant in many ways. Among them, it establishes that the Prophet himself was practising both types of mut’ah - including that with women - along with his Sahabah. Moreover, Jabir explicitly stated that it was ‘Umar who first banned both of them.

The same fact is reiterated in this hadith of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H):

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا إسحاق ثنا عبد الملك عن عطاء عن جابر بن عبد الله قال كنا نتمتع على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وأبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهم حتى نهانا عمر رضي الله عنه أخيرا يعني النساء

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Ishaq - ‘Abd al-Malik - ‘Aṭa - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

We used to do mut’ah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, until ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, later forbade it, that is (mut’ah with) women.4

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ says:

إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.5

So, ‘Umar himself initially allowed it. Abu Bakr, on the other hand, had no problem with it throughout his rule.

Imam Muslim equally reports:

حدثني محمد بن رافع حدثنا عبدالرزاق أخبرنا ابن جريج أخبرني أبو الزبير قال سمعت جابر بن عبدالله يقول كنا نستمتع بالقبضة من التمر والدقيق الأيام على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وأبي بكر حتى نهى عنه عمر في شأن عمرو بن حريث

Muhammad b. Rafi’ - ‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - Abu al-Zubayr:

I heard Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah saying, “We used to contract mut’ah by giving a handful of dates and flour (as the dowry) during the time of the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr UNTIL ‘Umar forbade it in the case of ‘Amr b. Hurayth.6

This one repeats emphatically that the practice of mut’ah continued unimpeded and uninterrupted from the time of the Prophet till ‘Umar forbade it.

It is indeed of great interest that the Sahabah generally were engaging in mut’ah with women - and this naturally included sexual intercourse with them - and the Prophet never rebuked or punished a single one of them! This occurred till his death, and also during the rule of Abu Bakr. If mut’ah were haram, then the intercourse within it would have been zina (fornication or adultery), and it would have been obligatory upon the Messenger to investigate the cases and punish the mut’ah practitioners. After all, they were not doing it in secret. This was how Jabir knew that it was a general practice, in the first place. So, was the Prophet failing in his duties? Or, was he condoning disobedience and illegal sex? Or, was it that he never forbade it - as the Ahl al-Bayt and Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah claimed - and therefore had nothing to probe or penalize in it? What about Abu Bakr? Why would he allow zina to flourish in his domains?

Imam Ahmad still has more reports for us:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا يونس ثنا حماد يعني بن سلمة عن علي بن زيد وعاصم الأحول عن أبي نضرة عن جابر بن عبد الله قال تمتعنا متعتين على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم الحج والنساء فنهانا عمر عنهما فانتهينا

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Yunus - Hamad b. Salamah - ‘Ali b. Zayd AND ‘Asim al-Ahwal - Abu Naḍrah - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

We practised two forms of mut’ah during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him: Hajj and woman. But, ‘Umar forbade us from them both. So, we desisted.7

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ comments:

إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.8

He also records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا عفان ثنا حماد أنا علي بن زيد وعاصم الأحول عن أبي نضرة عن جابر بن عبد الله قال تمتعنا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم متعتين الحج والنساء وقد قال حماد أيضا متعة الحج ومتعة النساء فلما كان عمر نهانا عنهما فانتهينا

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - ‘Affan - Hamad - ‘Ali b. Zayd AND ‘Asim al-Ahwal - Abu Naḍrah - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

We practised mut’ah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, two types of mut’ah: the mut’ah of Hajj (i.e. Hajj al-Tamattu’) and mut’ah with women. But, when ‘Umar forbade us from them both, we desisted.9

Al-Arnauṭ again says:

إسناده صحيح

Its chain is sahih10

Then, Imam Ahmad tops them with this:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا عبد الصمد ثنا حماد عن عاصم عن أبي نضرة عن جابر قال متعتان كانتا على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فنهانا عنهما عمر رضي الله تعالى عنه فانتهينا

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - ‘Abd al-Samad - Hamad - ‘Asim - Abu Naḍrah - Jabir:

There used to be two types of mut’ah during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him. But, ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, forbade us from them both. So, we desisted.11

Al-Arnauṭ declares:

إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.12

So, the Sahabah were heavily into mut’ah with women till the deaths of both the Prophet and Abu Bakr, and also for a long time during ‘Umar’s rule. They freely practised it, even after the Messenger’s demise, and they freely allowed it.

Meanwhile, when ‘Umar banned mut’ah, his action naturally attracted opposition from some Sahabah. One of them was ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud, about whom Imam Muslim reports:

حدثنا محمد بن عبدالله بن نمير الهمداني حدثنا أبي ووكيع وابن بشر عن إسماعيل عن قيس قال سمعت عبدالله يقول كنا نغزو مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ليس لنا نساء فقلنا ألا نستخصى ؟ فنهانا عن ذلك ثم رخص لنا أن ننكح المرأة بالثوب إلى أجل ثم قرأ عبدالله { يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تحرموا طيبات ما أحل الله لكم ولا تعتدوا إن الله لا يحب المعتدين }

Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah b. Numayr al-Hamdani - my father, Waki’ and Ibn Bishr - Isma’il - Qays:

I heard ‘Abd Allah saying, “We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and we had no women with us. So, we said “Should we castrate ourselves?” But, he forbade us to do that. Then, he permitted us to do nikah (marriage) with the woman for a stipulated period, giving her a garment (as the dowry).” Then, ‘Abd Allah recited, {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you; and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits} [5:87].13

Ahmad has documented it too:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا وكيع عن بن أبي خالد عن قيس عن عبد الله قال كنا مع النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ونحن شباب فقلنا يا رسول الله ألا نستخصي فنهانا ثم رخص لنا في ان ننكح المرأة بالثوب إلى الأجل ثم قرأ عبد الله { لا تحرموا طيبات ما أحل الله لكم }

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) - my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Waki’ - Ibn Abi Khalid - Qays - ‘Abd Allah:

“We were with the Prophet, peace be upon him, and we were youths. So, we said to the Messenger of Allah, “Should we castrate ourselves?” But, he forbade us (to do that). Then, he permitted us to do nikah (marriage) with the woman for a stipulated period, giving her a garment (as the dowry).” Then, ‘Abd Allah recited, {Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you} [5:87].14

Shaykh al-Arnauṭ comments:

إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين

Its chain is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs15

Apparently, Ibn Mas’ud issued this statement in response someone’s declaration of mut’ah as haram. No doubt, this was ‘Umar. It is indeed of great interest that mut’ah was considered by Ibn Mas’ud to be one of the “good things” mentioned by Allah in His Book. This was clearly why he quoted the ayah in connection with it. Al-Hafiẓ Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852 H) has this commentary of that hadith:

وظاهر استشهاد ابن مسعود بهذه الآية هنا يشعر بأنه كان يرى بجواز المتعة

Apparently, Ibn Mas’ud’s use of this verse here as evidence shows that he considered mut’ah to be permissible.16

Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 H) has the same opinion:

) ثم قرأ عبد الله يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تحرموا طيبات ما أحل الله لكم ( فيه إشارة إلى أنه كان يعتقد اباحتها كقول ابن عباس وأنه لم يبلغه نسخها

(Then, ‘Abd Allah recited, {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you} [5:87]) there is an indication in it that he considered it permissible, as Ibn ‘Abbas also did, and that information concerning its abrogation did not reach him.17

The last part of al-Nawawi’s submission is only a desperate excuse. As Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, raḍiyallahu ‘anhu, claimed, the generality of the Sahabah freely practised mut’ah - unimpeded and interrupted - from the time of the Prophet till the rule of ‘Umar! Is it then possible that the information of its alleged abrogation also did not reach any of them - until suddenly, after ‘Umar banned it?

Meanwhile, there are a number of fawaid from the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud:

1. It establishes that mut’ah was NOT practised amongst the Muslims initially. This was why no Muslim did it until after the Messenger “permitted” them. This refutes the claim that the Muslims only carried on the practice of mut’ah from the Jahili era.

2. It also shows that mut’ah is one of the “good things” mentioned by Allah, and made halal by Him, in His Book. We will explain, in the next chapter, how Ibn Mas’ud concluded that Qur’an 5:87 is also about mut’ah, among others.

3. It further confirms that mut’ah is truly a form of nikah (marriage). So, the parties in it are legally husband and wife.

Notes

1. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 449, # 4

2. Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 229

3. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1405 (17)

4. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 3, p. 304, # 14307

5. Ibid

6. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1405 (16)

7. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 3, p. 356, # 14877

8. Ibid

9. Ibid, vol. 3, p. 363, # 14959

10. Ibid

11. Ibid, vol. 3, p. 325, # 14519

12. Ibid

13. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 2, p. 1022, # 1404 (11)

14. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurṭubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 1, p. 432, # 4113

15. Ibid

16. Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Ṣahih al-Bukhari (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah li al-Ṭaba’ah wa al-Nashr; 2nd edition), vol. 9, p. 102

17. Abu Zakariyyah Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sharh Ṣahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) vol. 9, p. 182