Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

www.alhassanain.org/english

A Victim Lost In Saqifah

Vol. 3

BY: ALI LABBAF

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY SAYYID MUHAMMAD DHIYABAADI

TRANSLATED BY A GROUP OF TRANSLATORS

ANSARIYAN PUBLICATIONS

www.alhassanain.org/english

Labbaf, Ali,

A Victim Lost in Saqifah/ Ali Labbaf; Translated by Hassan Najafi.-Qum: Ansariyan, 2008.

ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8

Original Title: مظلومي گمشده در سقيفه

1. Saqifeh Bani Sa’edeh. 2. Ali ibn Abitaleb, Imam I. 599 - 661 - Proof of Calihpate. I. Najafi, Hasan, Tr.

294.452 BP 223.54 .L32

مظلوم السقيفة باللّغة الانجليزية

Revised Edition with Comprehensive Additions

A VICTIM LOST IN SAQIFAH

Author: Ali Labbaf

With an introduction by Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi

Translator: Dr. Hasan Najafi

Publisher: Ansariyan Publications

First Edition: 2008 -1429 - 1387

ISBN: 978-964-438-976-8

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AND RECORDED FOR THE PUBLISHER

ANSARIYAN PUBLICATIONS

Qum, Islamic Republic of Iran

Email: ansarian@noornet.net & Int_ansarian@yahoo.com

www.ansariyan.org & www.ansariyan.net

Notice:

This version is published on behalf of www.alhassanain.org/english

The composing errors are not corrected.

Table of Contents

Dedicated to: 9

Acknowledgement 10

A Glance at thirteen years of Caliphs’ reign since Saqifah 11

Motive of this Research 12

Reminder 12

Analysis of Honorable Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi about the reign of Caliphs 16

Introduction: Claim of Righteous Caliphate is Untrue 18

Discourse One: Piety and Simplicity Scrutinized 25

Motive of Caliphs’ Piety 25

Political Piety 26

Piety or Public Deception 27

Hypocritical Piety 27

Personal use of Public Funds 30

A) 30

B) 31

C) 31

D) 32

Clandestine Luxury 32

Support to Royal life and Hoarding Wealth 33

1 - Support to Muawiyah 33

2 - Support to Tameem 34

3 - Support to Zaid bin Thabit 35

4 - Support to Qunfudh 35

Properties of Staff Members 35

A) 35

B) 35

Selection of officers 36

A) Selection of Mughaira bin Shoba 36

B) Selection of Khalid bin Waleed 36

C) Selection of Amr bin Aas 37

Piety without a Holy war 37

Pleasant Food 38

Rivalry to piety of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) 38

Discourse Two: Scrutiny of Social Justice 40

Help to the Deprived 40

Love for the People 41

Social Classes 42

A) 44

B) 44

C) 44

D) 44

Policy of Racial Discrimination 44

1 - Prohibition for non-Arabs to enter Medina 45

2 - Retaliation of Arab through non-Arab prohibited 45

3 - Prohibition to Speak in Language other than Arabic 46

4 - Objection against Rulership of Nobles over Quraish 46

5 - Restriction for Non-Arabs to marry Arab ladies 46

6 - Minimum possible allowance for non-Arabs from public treasury 46

7 - Distinction between an Arab living in a town and an Arab living in deserts 47

Racial discrimination Resulted in Advantage to Arabs 47

Cause of Rulers’ Greatness in view of Arabs 48

A) 48

B) 49

Influence of Greatness of Rulers over Ali’s Government 49

A) 49

B) 49

C) 50

D) 50

E) 50

F) 50

G) 50

Discourse Three: Scrutiny of Judicial justice 52

Double standards in judgment 52

1 - Two ways of dealing - with Zahra and Jabir bin Abdullah Ansaari 52

2 - Double Standard Treatment between Son of Amr Aas and Ubadah bin Samit 53

3 - Different Treatment between the Son of Amr Aas and Mughaira bin Shoba 54

Ignoring Calls of Oppressed 54

Discourse Four: Analysis of the Rights of Legal Opponents 56

Type of dealing with legal opponents 56

Iron-handed policy 56

Stamp of Apostasy 57

Examples of Caliphate facing its legal opponents 66

A - Malik bin Nuwairah 66

Two Reminders 67

B - Saad bin Ubadah 69

C - Umme Farwa 70

Fujayat al-Salma was burnt 70

Discourse Five: Analysis of Individual and Social Liberties 72

Dealing with youth 72

A) Dealing with Zaid bin Muawiyah Qashari 72

B) Behavior with Nasr bin Hajjaj 77

Sacrifices of Limitations 77

A) Ibn Abbas 77

B) Abu Ayyub 77

C) Slave of Zubair bin Awwam 78

D) Sabeegh bin Isal 78

E) Narrators of Traditions 79

Roughness and Extremism 79

Conclusion: Zahra’s speech describes the social conditions after usurpation of Caliphate and identifies the ills in politics and government 82

Notes 83

Dedicated to:

Zahra (s.a.) who bore most pains until the moment of her martyrdom because of Saqifah.

Fatima Research and Study Group

Acknowledgement

The Ansariyan Publications would like to express acknowledgement to Syed Athar Rizvi and Dr. Hasan Najafi for their contributions to the translation of this work into English.

A Glance at thirteen years of Caliphs’ reign since Saqifah

Motive of this Research

Analysis of the method and type of His Eminence, Amirul Momineen Ali’s (a.s.) government was one of the subjects for a thorough research in recent years, that is two years (Solar) were named after Imam Ali (a.s.). This resulted in an abundant output in this field, either in books or in shape of articles written on this matter.

Our main aim of writing this is to gauge the originality of these endeavors by means of criticism and analysis into claims such as:

“His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was not a governor or an administrator in an ordinary sense. He was not a Caliph as those of Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties. But he was a Caliph at parity with Abu Bakr and Umar!

The pivot around which policies of our Lord and Master Ali rotated was the spirit that protected Caliphate of the prophets and the way of the Righteous Caliphs.”![1]

“And this statement is not correct that Caliphate of the preceding Caliphs and the four members, altogether, differed from one another in thought, policy and aims. Each of these four Caliphs was a mirror reflecting one image. They together reflected and represented Caliphate of the Prophet. One spirit ran between the four. These four collectively completed one image, one system and one aim.”![2]

“Salient here is conduct and true faith of Caliphs in Islam and divine teachings. Humility of Caliphs, their unanimity in word and deed, their moderation and honesty is worth appreciating. Scrutiny into their life shows that they collectively had one and same moral and manner.”![3]

“When Islam was subject of conversation and Islamic teachings and law, Ali did not discriminate between the learned and ignorant. In the same way was Umar.”![4]

“Ali was like Umar in piety of a poor life.”![5]

“Ali was strict and hard like Umar. He acted as per laws of religion.”[6]

In order to answer these claims and conjectures we have tried to scrutinize the praises rendered to Caliphs and their rule. We have tried to display contrasts and contradictions in narrations based on documents of Sunni sources. This will assist the reader to conclude for himself in the light of proofs and reach a judgment about the claims made in this regard.

Reminder

Perhaps after reading the above statements our reader might ask why in this analysis of thirteen years of the rule of two Caliphs nothing is mentioned about usurpation of Ali’s Caliphate which is followed by denial of his Imamate and Wilayat, attack on Zahra’s house which resulted in the martyrdom of Zahra (s.a.) and Mohsin Ibne Ali (a.s.), usurpation of Fadak, denial of Khums and inheritance etc. and all the other crimes committed with regard to Ahle Bayt (a.s.)?

Because these events themselves are self-explanatory about the behaviors and moral of Caliphs and their tyrant rule.

In the same way some of you might think that if the analysis done so far had been compared with the method of administration of Imam Ali (a.s.) the result would have been more beneficial and satisfactory.

In reply, we should say that the thing which impeded us to write these points is that extensive influence of the outlook of open-minded people who urge us to avoid criticizing this period of thirteen years. They insist to not compare this period with Ali’s government. Else, the reader would see the simplicity and matchlessness of Ali’s government in those days. The reader would see the status of freedom and liberty. Thus they say:

“Had there not been shed the pure blood of these men of liberty, equality and justice; and had there not been the self gleaming path of God and its devotees, today we would have thought Islam and the spirit of Quran and Prophet’s traditions to be in the royal court of Uthman, sycophant courtiers, deceptive people, the Green palace of Muawiyah and his murder agents, the ignorant days’ arrogance and Arab bigotry. Not in the astonishing life of Ali and not in the simplicity, equality and freedom of the government of Abu Bakr and Umar.”![7]

In continuation of this same text written as preface to the book of Hujr bin Adi, we read in the footnote:

“Here the criticism of Shia narrated from Ali’s tongue that personifies the spirit of Islam, is accurate and detailed. But no historian having a least information about world politics will ever judge the government of these two renowned companions of Prophet at the scale of Choesroe’s and Caesar’s governments. He cannot resist admiring these governments. The only misfortune of these two, Abu Bakr and Umar, was that their rival was Ali an extraordinary man. Historians judge them at the level of Ali and hence condemn them.

If there were no Ali the rule of Abu Bakr and Umar would have been recognized as the best government in the world and a model.”![8]

Regarding the analysis of the question why Iran displayed its weakness when the soldiers entered, we read:

“It is quite obvious as to why: Umar was then the Caliph and advisors and commanders were close companions of Prophet. (continuation of the footnote). Indeed, in comparison to Ali they did have shortcomings and weakness. However comparing to Sassanides and Rome they were paragons of freedom and justice in the eyes of non-Muslims.”![9]

Therefore it seems necessary to scrutinize the system current in those days in order to provide information to our Shia youths. It is a dire necessity of the day that they, our youths, should become strong and powerful with knowledge to be able to answer such conjectures or not fall a prey to these conjectures. They should be acquainted with relative historical documents to make their answers weighty with reason and evidence. We will to try to prove here to our youths that Caliphs within themselves were not bound to any teaching of Islam. They wanted Islam only to the extent of their interests to have a ground to put their foot. They needed Islam as much as they needed power because Islam gave them a ground to establish their power. Therefore when necessary to their own interests they did not hesitate to crush under their feet principles and fundamentals of freedom and justice. On most occasions, they too acted as Romans and Sassanides. The only difference was that their rule was in a guise and name of Islam. From one side the name of Islam covered their real horrible designs and from the other side dishonest historians did not record the truth. Therefore it vanished from the history also. The record of thirteen years’ tyrant rule was wiped out from the annals. Therefore we face a great many difficulties on way of research; we face many shortages and lack of documents. For instance:

“Ahmad bin Hanbal in his book Al Ilal (The Causes) says: Abu Awana[10] in his book had recorded the defects of the companions of Prophet of God. Salam bin Abi Mutee came to him and said: Give this book to me. Abu Awana gave to him the book. Salam took and burnt it.[11]

Ahmad bin Hanbal in the same book has narrated from Abdur Rahman bin Mahdi that: I seek forgiveness of Allah for having seen the book of Abu Awana.[12]

He seeks God’s forgiveness for having seen the book. And another one takes the book and burns it without the owner’s permission.

In the biography of Abdul Rahman bin Kharash is written that he had recorded the defects of Abu Bakr and Umar in two volumes.

In the biography of Husain bin Hasan Ashqar it is mentioned: Ahmad bin Hanbal has narrated traditions from him and said that no one has called him a liar.

Someone told Ahmad bin Hanbal that Husain bin Hasan Ashqar narrated traditions against Abu Bakr and Umar and that he had a separate chapter in his book in this regard.

Ahmad bin Hanbal said that he (Ashqar) was no more competent and trustworthy to be quoted traditions from.[13]

Where are those two parts or chapters about defects of Abu Bakr and Umar?

Why nothing from its contents is narrated and reached us?

As soon as Ahmad bin Hanbal understood that Husain bin Hasan Ashqar has narrated traditions against Abu Bakr and Umar he changes his opinion. Ashqar, all of a sudden becomes a liar, unreliable and untrustworthy. He is not worth relating from. Why? But why!

In the biography of many great tradition scholars except the authors of Sihah Sitta it is mentioned:

They used to abuse Abu Bakr and Umar. For instance, see the biographies of Ismail bin Abdur Rahman,[14] Taleed bin Sulaiman,[15] and Ja’far Ibn Sulaiman al-Zabyee[16] and others.[17]

In the middle of third century curse and abuse of Abu Bakr and Umar was a common practice. Zaid bin Qadama who lived in that period (3rd Century) writes:

What a time has come! People abuse Abu Bakr and Umar.[18] This matter spread till in the Sixth Century prominent hadith scholar of Ahle Sunnat Abdul Mughees bin Zuhair bin Harb Hanbali Baghdadi wrote a book in praise of Yazid bin Muawiyah. He defended Yazid and prohibited cursing him (Yazid). The author of the book was asked why he had written it. He replied: To prevent the people from cursing the Caliphs.[19]

At the end of the eighth century we come across Taftazani. In Sharh al-Maqasid (Explanation of Purposes) he says:

If it is asked why some religious scholars consider Yazid eligible for curse but still consider it impermissible to curse him? In reply we say: It is so because that they may prevent cursing of persons beyond Yazid (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Muawiyah etc.)[20] …”[21]

“In view of what we said, after necessary search in sources we first conclude that there are many scholars and writers of Sunni school who have written about the impolite and indecent behavior and conduct of companions of Prophet either during his lifetime or after his death. But these narrations are missing mostly due to various reasons. Or these narrations are distorted.

Ibn Adi, died 365 Hijra, writes about Ibn Kharash:

He wrote two volumes containing defects and shameful actions of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Then Ibn Adi regards it most reliable.[22]

In the biography of Abdul Razzaq bin Hamaam he writes after praising him very much:

He has many things by way of defects of some companions and Caliphs which I shall not mention in my book. He has mentioned excellences of the Prophet’s Household and shameful behavior of companions and Caliphs, which is hard to accept.

Ibn Adi considers this also reliable.[23]

Zahabi (d. 798 A.H.) in the biographies of Abu Sult Haravi[24] and Rawajini[25] and similarly Ibn Hajar (d. 852 A.H.) in the biography of Ja’far bin Sulaiman[26] have mentioned the defects of Caliphs. According to them it is a weakness to mention the defects of companions and Caliphs.

In his Sahih, Muslim has mentioned:

Abdullah bin Mubarak used to say in public: Do not narrate anything from the tongue of Umar bin Thabit because he speaks ill of companions.[27]

In this regard we can refer to biographies of Ahmad bin Muhammad Ibn Saeed bin Uqda,[28] Ismail bin Abdur Rahman,[29] Taleed bin Sulaiman,[30] Qadasi,[31] Amr bin Shimr,[32] Muhammad bin Abdullah Shaibani,[33] Ziyad bin Mundhir[34] and others.[35]

Why did they curse Abu Bakr and Umar?

Did a narration or narrations reach them that encouraged them to curse them and themselves gave permission to curse the First and Second Caliph? Now where have those narrations and matters gone?”[36]

“The information certainly was within books. So what happened to those books?

Did they meet some other fate? Ahmad bin Hanbal says that the books were burnt. Whether all that information is locked in boxes of bigotry and obduracy? Or it is concealed in obstinacy and stubbornness? It is another tyranny that made such rare information inaccessible.

Zahabi writes:

Though writings and books are full of texts that convey disputes, brawls and skirmishes among companions, however at the same time some stories are short of documents and proofs. We must hide them. We must destroy them. This will pave way to make the people to love companions. People must be made pleased with them.

Concealing such matters is compulsory on all generally and on the scholars especially…[37] ”[38]

This reflects to our readers how difficult has become the job of scrutiny or research into history of the thirteen years since passing away of Prophet. Therefore it must be said:

Discussions in this book have limited scope and from the whole it is very little. This clearly shows that Islam served their own interest and was a tool to them to do what they wanted. They had no belief in its teachings. The enthusiastic reader will shift from plain thinking towards Caliphs’ government under the title of Islam to the depths of thought. If one performs a postmortem of those days one will see the cause of illness of Islam and the reason for its decline. Then he will be able to reach a correct and accurate judgment.

Analysis of Honorable Ustad Sayyid Muhammad Dhiyabaadi about the reign of Caliphs

[39]

“It might not be out of place here to remind them by way of admonishment. We mean the simple-minded people.

Sometimes we hear and read appreciations of deeds of the first category hypocrites of early days of Islam. They made wars and expanded territories of Islam. They extended far and wide the rule of Quran and laws of Islam. They lived a simple life. They were humble and were not worldly men. They hated the world and its enchantments. Such a show demonstrated by those hypocrites, indeed, has gone a long way to deceive many simple-minded people. They believe that it was a service to Islam and Muslims. It was propaganda in name of Islam disseminated by them. Therefore they consider those hypocrites worthy of praise. These simple-minded believe that a good deed should be praised and a bad one censured.

We have this to comment to tell them in reply to such thinking and such conclusions:

First you must know the wrong or sin in usurping something which does not belong to one. The office of Caliphate was already made known by the Prophet as to whom it belongs. But this was snatched away in a plot designed since long and in secrecy. The infallible Imam was set aside. In other words, he was discarded. Caliphate, which belonged to Ali by Divine command, was against God’s orders taken from Ali. This action ended in undesired consequences which contrast to God’s obvious orders and His Prophet’s instructions and teachings. By so doing, they changed the straight path of Islam shown by God and the Prophet. They indulged the society into misfortune and perversion. Everything went wrong. The direction, which was towards heaven, was changed to hell.

If you could understand this crime and reach into its depths then only you can guess or at least imagine the dimensions resulted therefrom. You can hear its agonies from the tongue of history of Islam. You will then be able to see the real ugly faces of these betrayers hidden in the guise of Islam. They concealed their face of paganhood behind a veil of false Islam. There is no havoc that they did not bring to the Muslims. There no calamity they did not bring for Islam.

They led the Ummah to a horrible valley of darkness. You will understand that their good deeds too were not good. In those good actions were hidden several crimes. Their good actions were their additional crimes, harmful and hurtful to mankind.

Suppose: A cheater comes to you. By a trick, he occupies your house and expels you from there. Then he behaves as if he is the real master of everything. He expands the house and builds it in the way he wants. He decorates and paints it after his own taste. This rogue got hold of your house by force and fraud, by trick and tyranny. So his later actions such as building and rebuilding and decorating the house would be regarded by you as service to you? Would you be indebted to him? Would you owe any gratitude to him? Of course not! It is usurpation. It is immoral. It is a transgression. It is regarded a sin, a crime, a tyranny.

In the same way we know that they forcibly occupied the seat and place of the Prophet and laid hands on the Prophet’s pulpit and niche. Their outward show was their good actions that they fought against pagans and the tribes of Arabs and Ajam (non-Arab).

They also waged wars and occupied countries where they hoisted the Islamic flag. They posed themselves as protectors of justice and guards of Islamic territories. They showed themselves as executors of Divine laws. In this respect, they even scourged their own son for his wrong or sin. But any of their deeds, however admirable, was not to the pleasure of God. From the root it was wrong. It originated from illegitimacy. They first robbed and from usurpation, they spent on good things. Therefore they did not deserve reward. They stand answerable for their very first step - that is their occupation of the Prophet’s seat which should have been occupied by his rightful successor, Ali. Their every good deed shall be counted as a sin for them.

One who, without having the capability and divine permission claimed to be Prophet’s successor, which is a divine office (caller towards Allah), in the view of Quran he is the greatest liar and most unjust being and will be liable to the most terrible punishments and most serious chastisements; even though from the position of the usurped pulpit and prayer niche in a show of piety delivers lectures of guidance calling people to god-worship, truth, honesty, trustworthiness and fear of God. And he makes war on the infidels and defeats them widening the territories of Islam and bringing countries under the banner of Quran!

Possibly the simple-minded people on the basis of this outward show could have accepted them as contributors to Islam and Quran. But their real features with real identities are seen by those who have insight and look deeply into issues. The lack of leadership of an infallible Imam was the cause of these fatal results that the tyrant Caliphs prepared ground for peoples’ negative thinking. They made people to doubt about the divine religion. They posed Islam as a tool to expand territories and to gain worldly purposes. Islam was looked upon not as a religion but a reason to rule and govern.”[40]

8. (a ) The Marriage Agreement

Marriage is of two kinds: (1) for life; (2) temporary. As the name implies, temporary marriage (also blown asmut'ah ) means that it is for a fixed period of time whichis agreed upon, before completing the marriage agreement.

So far as the first kind of marriage is concerned, all Muslims are unanimous in accepting it. As regards the second kind, only theShi'ah consider it lawful. The latter base their acceptance on the following verse of the Holy Qur'an: "famastamtatum bihi minhunna fa'tu hunna ujurahunna - and as such of them with whom you hadmut'ah ,

give them their dowries as a fixed reward." (Surah an-Nisa ': 24) This problem has been a topic of discussion since the timeOf 'sahaba " (companions of the Prophet (s.a.w .) up to the present time. In view of the importance of thismatter it would seem appropriate to clarify some of its points.

No-one who has spent some time in the study of religious laws can deny the validity ofmut'ah . The Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) himself made it lawful. During the life of the Prophet (s.a.w .), many distinguished 'sahaba ' put it into practice. Moreover, after the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), the noble 'sahaba ' continued to take advantage of this law.

'Abdullahibn 'Abbas , Jabiribn 'Abdillah al-Ansari ,ibn Mas'ud , andUbay ibn Ka'ab , who were men of exalted rank and eminence, all insisted on the lawfulness ofmut'ah and would recite the verse in this way: "Famastamtatum bihi minhunna ilaajalin musamman " (And as such of them with whom you hadmut'ah for specified term).

We should not however think that these companions considered that there was any defect in the Qur'an, since they werewell-versed in its interpretation, they merely wanted to make a commentary on this verse so that its meaning might be clearer. Since these distinguished persons had remained devoted to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) throughout his mission, they had had the opportunity to understand the interpretation of the Qur'an directly from the tongue of the Prophet himself (s.a.w .).

They therefore had no hesitation in disclosing the true meaning of this verse according to what they had learnt from the Prophet (s.a.w .).

We should add however that thetradition whichibn Jarir mentions in his large work ofQur'anic commentary shows that the part "Ila ajalin musamman " (for a specified term) was actually an original portion of the verse, as revealed by God.Ibn Jarir quotes AbuNasirah as saying: "When I read this verse beforeibn 'Abbas he said: 'Say 'ila ajalin musamman '.I said that I did not read like that. Upon thisibn 'Abbas said three times 'By God! This verse was revealed in this very way.'"

It is obvious that such an exalted personality asibn 'Abbas would never havewilfully changed the text of the Qur'an. If this tradition is correct, the meaning of this eminent Companion must surely have been that God the Almighty had revealed its interpretation in this way.

According to all the 'ulama ' this temporary marriage was allowed and practiced by the closest companions of the Prophet.

Those who reject the lawfulness ofmut'ah insist that God revealed further commands to hisProphet which revoked the former law. The varioushadith which are concerned with this revocation have conflicting meanings and cannot be relied upon. For the revocation of an expressordinance an express proof is necessary: some Sunnis claim that revocation took place through thesunnah , that is, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), after declaring it lawful, made it lawful.

Some of them say however that it was through the Book of God that a change in the law ofmut'ah was imposed upon the people. There is even conflicting views within the lattergroup : one party considering the "verse of divorce" as the relevant verse concerning the revocation, and the other the "verse of inheritance".

Furthermore most of the opponents ofmut'ah think that the following verse proves its abrogation "Illa alaazwajuhum aw mamalakat aymanuhum ". The verse gives two causes for the lawfulness of marriage, either the woman is one's wife or she is one's slave-girl (kaniz ), and asSayyid al-Alusi (a Sunni scholar) writes: "TheShi'ahs cannot regard the "Mumtu'ah " (woman taken inmut'ah ) as 'kaniz ',

a slave-girl (who is bound by laws other than those which affect a free woman), and they cannot call her the wife either, because she does not possess the conditions of wife-hood, that is 'mirath ' (inheritance), 'iddah ' (waiting period); the right to sustenance and maintenance on the part of husband, and divorce."

If we examine al-Alusi claim we find it to be completely without foundation. Contrary to what he says, the wife in a temporary marriage does have certain of the rights of wife-hood. One of these concerns inheritance. The wife of a temporary marriage may receive the inheritance (unconditionally according to someShi'a 'ulama ', and according to others, on condition that the right to inheritanceis stipulated at time of marriage contract).Moreover if al-Alusi is claiming that inheritance is an obligatory feature of non temporary marriage, then he is not speaking in accordance with the law.

according to the Islamic code there are many occasions where the law of inheritance become invalid: a wife, who for example, is an unbeliever or a murderess does not get inheritance.Likewise a woman who is married to a sick man who dies before he has sexual intercourse with her is deprived of the inheritance. On the contrary if somebody divorces his wife during a time of illness, and subsequently dies, even if her 'iddah is over she is entitled to receive inheritance one year after the death of her husband.

Again, theShi'ah believe in the lawfulness ofmut'ah and regard 'iddah after such a marriage as compulsory. Subsistence for the wife (nafagah ) is another subject of dispute. TheShi'a believe that this too cannot be regarded as a primary right of wife-hood. One may look for example at the case of the women who refuses to have sexual intercourse with her husband in spite of her being a wife; nofaqih would consider subsistence as one of her rights.

There is no divorce in temporary marriage: after spending the Weed timetogether the two parties may separate.

We should point out to those who still deny theIawfulness of temporary marriage that the abrogation ofmut'ah is impossible because the relevant verse is in theSurah anal-Mu'minin and al-Mi'raj , both of which were revealed inMakkah .

Moreover, even some distinguished Sunni 'ulama ' say that theQur'anic verse concerningmut'ah was not revoked .az-Zamakhshari , in his commentary al-Kashshaf , reports, on the authority ofibn 'Abbas , that the verse concerningmut'ah is one of the irrevocable ones. Other 'ulama ' have reported thatHakam ibn 'Ayniyah , when asked whether the verse ofmut'ah had been revoked, said that it had not.

Atfirst the majority community of the Muslims acknowledged the lawfulness ofmut'ah , but later they began claiming its revocation; we have tried to show the weakness of their claims. Sometimes as we have seen they tried to prove abrogation of the verse by another verse, and sometimes, as we shall see, they attempted to prove the abrogation of the verse through atradition :

they rely upon the tradition in the 'sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim which relate that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) mademut'ah unlawful either during the Conquest ofMakkah , or the Conquest ofKhaybar , or the Battle ofAwtas . Thesehadith are the subject of considerable dispute.

It is even reported on the authority ofQadi Ayad that some 'ulama ' say that themut'ah was made lawful a second time after a first abrogation,then subsequently made unlawful for the second time. Moreover it is recorded in some books thatmut'ah was revokedon the occasion of hajjat al-wida '. (that is the last hajj) in the 10th year of thehijrah .

Other books show that this was not so and that it was revoked during the battle ofTabuk in the 9th year of thehijrah .Some writers claim thatmut'ah was abrogated during the battle ofHunayn in the month of Shawwal in the 8th year of thehijrah ; it is also claimed by some that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) mademut'ah lawful on the occasion of the Conquest ofMakkah , but declared it to be unlawful only a short time later in the very place he was supposed to have declared it lawful.

Most of the Sunni 'ulama ' are of the opinion that the abrogation ofmut'ah .

We must stress that theQur'anic Verseconcernin mut'ah is not called into question by anyone who examines the validity of these so-calledhadith .Moreover thehadith reported by the Sunni (ulama ) are so full of conflicting reports that their falsehood is self-evident.

It is reported in theSahih of al-Bukhari that Abu Raja' quotes 'Imran ibn Hasin as saying that the verse concerningmut'ah is present in the Qur'an and "we acted upon it in the life time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .); neither did Allah make it unlawful in the Holy Qur'an, nor did the Prophet (s.a.w .) prohibit it during his life time. The prohibition ofmut'ah was an arbitrary act of one man.and it is said that this man was theCalip 'Umar .

" It is also reported in theSahih of Muslim on the authority of Atta' that "one day Jabiribn 'Abdillah al-Ansari came to perform 'umrah and people asked him various questions. We went to visit him at his house. When hewas asked aboutmut'ah , Jabir said: 'Yes we practicedmut'ah in the days of the Prophet (s.a.w .) and also in the days of AbuBakr and 'Umar .'"

Muslim gives another report and that is fromJabir also. Hesays: "During the days of the Prophet (s.a.w .) we used to practicemut'ah while giving a handful of dates or a handful of baked flour as a dowry." Muslim also reports in hisSahih that AbuNudrah said that he was sitting with Jabiribn 'Abdillah al-An-Sari when another man came in and said that there was a difference of opinion about the twomut'ahs (namely themut'ah of temporary marriage, and the kind ofhaj called hajjtamattu'a ) betweenIbn 'Abbas andIbn Zubayr . Jabirsaid: "While the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) was present we used to act upon both of them, but later 'Umar prohibited both of them, so we could not do them again." Indeed they could not do it again becauseHadrat 'Umar would have a man stoned to death if he was caughtpractising mut'ah .

The fact is that if the Chapter relevant to marriage in Muslim'sSahih is carefully studied, we will find such contradictory statements that we can only wonder at their source. There are claims of abrogation in one place, while in another place proofs of non-abrogation are given. As an example of suchhadith we may quoteJihni who says: "On the occasion of the conquest ofMakkah , the Prophet (s.a.w .) himself ordered that we should be permitted to performmut'ah , but we had still not left that place when the Prophet (s.a.w .) forbade us to do it."

Thus abrogation is sometimes attributed to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), and sometimes toHadrat 'Umar .Moreover they say thatmut'ah was current during the time of the Prophet, and during the period of the first Caliphate.

They also say thatHadrat 'Ali (a.s .) forbadeIbn 'Abbas on various occasions to talk aboutmut'ah , and so the latter subsequently changed his opinion about it. In a refutation of this we may cite the report that says that onceIbn Zubayr stood up inMakkah and said: "There are some people here who have been deprived of foresight just, as God has deprived them of their eye-sight: such persons are those who claim thatmut'ah is lawful." (Here the reference was toIbn 'Abbas , who had become blind.) At this,Ibn 'Abbas uttered loudly. "Why?I swear thatmut'ah was practiced up to the time of 'Ali (a.s .)." This clearly shows thatIbn 'Abbas never changed his opinion, and that even duringIbn Zubayr's caliphate he stood by his belief.

Rather surprisingly, the prohibitory order has even been attributed toHadrat Amir al-mu'minin (a.s .), though it was characteristic of all the Imams (a.s .) that they had declaredmut'ah wedlock to be lawful. Imam 'Ali's statement that if 'Umar had not forbiddenmut'ah there would have been only a few unfortunate men who committed fornication has become proverbial at-Tabari has reported this tradition in his "tafsir " also. In this connection ImamJa'afar as-Sadiq is reliably understood to havesaid: "I do not dotaqiyah (to deliberately conceal one's beliefs or opinions under certain conditions) in the matter of three things:mut'ahtu 'l-hajj,mut'atu 'n-nisa ', and al-mash 'ala 'l-khafayn ."

(The latter item refers to the Sunni practice of wiping over the shoes in place of washing the feet when performingwudu '.) According to the principles ofjurisprudence the conflicting reports of the Sunni commentators have been analyzed and proved to be full of falsehadith . The lawfulness ofmut'ah has been proved, and just as it was lawful at the time of the Prophet so it is today.

It wasHadrat 'Umar who prohibitedmut'ah during his rule; his prohibition was based on personal social considerations of the day, but it had nothing to do with religion. Heis reported to have said, "During the days of the Prophet (s.a.w .) twomut'ahs were permissible, but I now make them unlawful, and will punish those who disobey my order.

" What is worth noting is this that the second Caliph did not attribute the order of unlawfulness or abrogation ofmut'ah to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), but made himself responsible for it. He, too, was responsible for the matter of punishment. We can only repeat what we have tried to demonstrate with the above example: thatmut'ah , theQur'anic ordinance concerning its legality, theSunnah (practice) of the Prophet (s.a.w .), the practice of his Companions,

its beingpractised during the rule of AbuBakr and in the early period of 'Umar's own Caliphate, are all verifiable realities which are above all argument and discussion. The books of history and traditions bear witness to the fact that during the age of the Prophet (s.a.w .) the high-ranking companions and respected members of theQuraysh allpractised mut'ah ; indeed many of the noble Muslims of that time were sons of temporary marriages.

Raghib al-Isfahani , the celebrated Sunni scholar, has reported that a Sunni scholarYahya ibn Aktham , asked one of the important nobles ofBasrah whom he followed about the justification formut'ah .The noblesiad "'Umar ibn Khattab ." "How is this," askedYahya , "he was the sworn enemy ofmut'ah ." The mansaid: "Yes, it has been proved that onceHadrat 'Umar announced from the pulpit: "Oh people! God and His Prophet madetwomut'ahs lawful, but I now declare them unlawful.

Also I will punish those who disobey me.' We accept his statement but we do not accept the validity of his prohibition." A similarhadith has been related by 'Abdullahibn 'Umar ; it is shorter and less harsh than the former: "During the age of the Prophet (s.a.w .) there were twomut'ahs , and I now make them unlawful." Some have argued that 'Umar did not want to alter the command of Allah but only to make a law which was suitable for the society of the time.

At thisstage it would be useful to recall a great work by a renowned scholar of the 6th century A.H., Muhammadibn Idris al-Hilli , namely the "sara'ir ", in which the author writes: "Temporary marriage within the Islamic code of religion is lawful. Muslims believe that its lawfulness is proved according to the Book of Godand also according to theSunnah .However some people have claimed that it had been revoked, but the veracity of this requires proof.

Moreover 'aql (the faculty of reason which allows us to understand the workings of God in his creation) tells us that every useful act about which we have no fear that it will give us any loss in this world or the next is permissible. This condition applies tomut'ah . Wemust, through our reason, acknowledge its lawfulness.

Now, if somebody asks whatis the proof , given the conflicting opinions concerning its legality, that it would not cause us loss in the next world, the answer is that the onus of proof lies on the person who pleads the possibility of its being harmful. It is beyond doubt thatmut'ah was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), and that it was only later that they began talking of its unlawfulness and revocation. Thus until revocation can be proved we have no right to deny its lawfulness.

"When we examine thehadith which relate that the Prophet did makemut'ah unlawful, we find that these traditions all have weak chains of transmission and do not qualify as sources of certainty, nor do they provide a justification for action on the part of the Muslim.

"Let us examine again the relevant verse in the Qur'an. It occurs after the passage concerning the women who aremahram (oneis not allowed to marry them for reasons of consanguinity, etc.) "

And lawful for you are all (women) besides those mentioned', so that you may seek them by means of your wealth, taking (them) into marriage, and not committing fornication; and those with whom you concludedmut'ah give them their dowries as a fixed reward, and it shall not be a sin on you in whatever you mutually agree (to vary) after the fixed reward" (Surah an-Nisa '). In this holyverse the disputable work is "istamta'tum " which has two meanings - either to take pleasure in and profit from, or to make the agreement formut'ah according to the Islamic code - the first is the literal meaning and the second is according to its meaning within the Islamic code.

According to the principles of 'fiqh ', if a word in the Qur'an has two meanings - one literal and the other used specifically in the language of the "shari'ah " then the latter meaningmust be accepted and the literal meaning should not be relied upon. That is why for example the words "salat ", "zakat ", "sawm " and "hajj" are all to be understood according to the precise meaning of the Islamicshari'ah (code), and not according to the literal meaning to be found in the dictionary.

We have already made it dear that a well-known group of the companions believed in the lawfulness ofmut'ah and that Amir al-mu'minin himself openly declared its lawfulness; 'Abdullahibn 'Abbas used to enter into polemical discussion withibn Zubayr on this topic and these discussions became so widely known that they were not only talked of by the common people but the poets of that time also gave vent to their reactions in their verses.

Also 'Abdullahibn Mas'ud ,Mujahid ,Ata'i , Jabiribn 'Abdullah al-Ansari ,Salmah ibn al-Akwa ', AbuSa'id Khudri ,Mughirah ibn Sha'hab ,Sa'id ibn Jabir andIbn Jarih also gave the verdict thatmut'ah was lawful. All these men are esteemed and trustworthy men of knowledge; they arrived at their decision through careful examination of the matter.

We have so far thrown light on this topic from only a religious or historical point of view. Now let us assess it from the ethical and social point of view. Islam is a great blessing and mercy for the world. The message of Islam is like a divine song whichis diffused from heaven over the world of man, and which gave and still gives the answer to those who seek to understand the reason for man's existence on earth.

Our revealed religion suits every age, meets the needs of all men in every age in this world, and guarantees for them prosperity both spiritual and material. Islam was revealed by God not to make man's life harder but on the contrary, to fill it with mercy,meaning and order. That is why Islam is themost perfect religion and the last code of religion before the end of the world; this divine law adorns human culture and civilization with perfection; no other man-made institutions or laws are needed.

Let us now examine oneactivity which every individual is obliged to undertake at some time in his life, namely, travel. We find that the Islamic code indicates precisely the code of conduct to be expected from theMuslim who is travelling, whether for trade, for war or on the hajj or 'umrah , for example.

It hardly needs tobe pointed out that God, the All-Wise, has endowed man with sexual desire for the preservation of the human race. Andit also goes without saying that atraveller is unable to fulfill the requirements of a permanent marriage.

Under these conditions, what should thistraveller do who has been away from his home for a long time?

How should be behave especially when he happens to be young and subject to strong sexual urges.

There are only two alternatives possible if we do not allowmut'ah ; heshould either control his passion or must indulge in unlawful relationships. Itshould be stated that excessive control and suppressing of sexual desires sometimes causes serious physical and mental illness. Sterility is also another possible consequence of such self-control. Such practice is patiently against the dictates of wisdom, and God says in the Quran, "God wishes ease for you and does not wish for you discomfort."

May God save us from sexual mal-practices. Most parts of the world are suffering its consequences today.

I swear to God that if the Muslims act in compliance with the religious laws, this universe, according to the divine promise, will become complete mercy for them, and man will live in harmony andprosperty .

Mut'ah is thus a welcome and necessary law of the Islamic religion.If the Muslims acted in accordance with the conditions for lawfulmut'ah (the making of an agreement between the two parties stipulating the time limit and dowry, and the 'iddah , for example), and take advantage of this divine blessing, evil-doing would to a great extent be eradicated, thehonour of man and woman would be saved, the Muslim community would grow in number, the world would be rid of illegitimate children and moral values would be strengthened.

The pronouncement of the exalted man of the community, 'Abdullahibn 'Abbas cannot be over-praised. Ibn Athir relates that he says, "Mut'ah was a blessing with which God the Almighty endowed theummah of Muhammad (peace and the blessings of God be upon him and his descendents) and, had it not been prohibited, no-one, except the truly perverted ones, would have committedadultry (see the "Nahayah " ofIbn Athir and the "Fa'iq " ofaz-Zamakhshari ).

The effects of his exalted teacher and guardian, Amir al-mu'minin are reflected in this statement ofIbn Abbas . The fact is that the Islamic world is rejecting this divine mercy and as a result has plunged itself into shameless immorality.

8 (b)Talaq (Divorce)

It is clear that the essence of marriage is the very special union whichis established between man and woman, and which makes the two different individuals close companions and partners to each other. The cooperation and communion between wife and husbandmay be compared to a person's eyes and hands - each hand is different from the other but each complements and perfects the other.

The very nature of this act, that two personalities, who are quite unacquainted with each other,are so strongly joined and united through wedlock that it precludes any conception of a stronger union, shows the particular strength of this alliance . There can be no better words than the following verse of the Holy Quran: "Hunna libasuln lakum wa antum libasuln lahunna " (2:187), "They are your garments and you are their garments."Truly this verse expresses the subtle intimacy of the relationship of marriage.

The obvious feature of the non-temporary alliance is that the two make an agreement to remain together for life.

It may happen however that the marriageis no longer desired either on the part of one or both parties and divorce becomes necessary. The code of religion ordains that certain conditionsbe fulfilled according to the kind of divorce in question. There are three kinds of divorce: firstly, if divorce is desired from the side of the husband, separation is called "talaq "; secondly, it is desired from the side of the wife, she can obtain "khul "'.And lastly , if disagreement is on both sides, they can have recourse to "mubarat " to obtain separation.

Since Islam is a social religion and ithas been founded on unity and oneness, its greatest objective is love and concord. The creation of disharmony in whatever form is tobe avoided whenever possible. Accordingly, a large number oftraditons have expressed the undesirability of "talaq " (divorce) and some of them say that among the acts made lawful by God, there is no act more undesirable than divorce.

That is why the messenger of God has made clear toman the conditions and restrictions of divorce, so that it may occur as infrequently as possible within the Muslim community.

Among the rules of divorce, the presence of two just witnesses is a necessary condition. If divorce is pronounced in the absence of two just witnesses, it will be considerednull and void . This condition is the best means of doing away with mutual hatred, because two 'just' persons will consider it their duty to bring about peace and friendship between the couple through admonition and preaching before carrying out the divorce.

Of course, it will not be successful on every occasion but the number of divorcescan be minimized by the intervention of these two persons who are respected within their community for their good sense and justice.

It is regretful to note that our Sunni brothers, do not accept this argument. They did not consider the presence of two just witnesses necessary for divorce.Consequently the number of divorces is growing so great among them that it causes inconvenience to a great number of people.

Unfortunately, many of us, as well as our Sunni brothers, are unaware of the hidden wisdom contained in the religious code. We pray that Muslims may whole-heartedly comply with the divine laws so that the bitterness thathas been created in their private lives, and the confusion that has spread in their social affairs, may at least be reduced.

The important condition of divorce is that the one who divorces must not be under compulsion, or in a state of anger, or any other state ofmind which diminishes his ability to think clearly and make decisions in a reasonable manner. (Moreover, the divorce should have completed her monthly period of menstruation and not have had sexual intercourse in the 'new month'. This condition inevitably helps to delay and eventually lessen the number of divorces).

In theJa'fari (Shi'a ) 'fiqh ', pronouncement of divorce three times in one sittingis counted as only one divorce. Thus if a man pronounces divorce three times in one sitting, his wife does not become forbidden for him forever. Theycan be united again without any condition.

If the man then again divorces his wife, returns a second time to the woman and then divorces her a third time, the woman shall become forbidden after this third divorce. After that, she cannot become lawful for him unless she marries (and subsequently divorces) another man. If this thing happens, nine times, he will be unlawful for her former husband forever.

Most of the 'ulama ' of the Sunni community stipulate that if a husband says three times to his wife that he has divorced her, it will be considered as an irrevocabletalaq ; resumption of conjugal relations is only possible if the wife marries and subsequently divorces another man, though it is clearly stated in certain of their acceptedhadith that divorce pronounced three times in one sitting is to be counted as one divorce.

It is narrated in al-Bukhari , on the authority ofIbn 'Abbas , that "during the time of the Prophet, and during the caliphate of AbuBakr , and for two years during the caliphate of 'Umar , the 'three divorces' meant only one divorce, butHadrat 'Umar said: that although people were entitled to delay divorce, they did not wish to wait, and so, seeing no obstacle in the way, we granted permission for them to carry it out" (that is, he recognized the validity of irrevocable divorce after pronouncing divorce three times in one sitting).

The Holy Quran is itselfunambigious in this matter: "Divorce (shall be lawful) only twice, then (you should) either keep her in fairness or send her away with kindness." (2:229)After this, God, the Almighty, says: "So if he divorces her (for a third time), then she shall not be lawful to him until she weds another husband." (2:230) We have tried to give a brief account of the causes of divorce; if more details are required, one may refer to the books of Islamic jurisprudence..

* * * * *

There are also other causes of separation such as defects and diseases in either party. If the man is sexually impotent or becomes insane, the woman has the right to divorce him. Certain diseases of a woman's sexual organs entitle the man to divorce his wife.Zihar andilla ' (kinds of oaths of rejection of the woman on the part of the man, common amongst the Arabs before the coming of Islam) may also be a cause of separation.

The various kinds of "iddah " and other allied mattersare dealt with comprehensively in more specialized works offiqh .Suffice it to say that after the death of the husband, it is compulsory for the wife to observe "iddah " even if she is "ya'isah " (past the menopause), or is a minor, or has not had coition with her husband. In divorce, "iddah " is compulsory in cases other than the three mentioned above. In unlawful coition (adultery), there is no 'iddah .

The necessary waiting period after the death of the husband is four months and ten days, but, in case the woman is pregnant, she must wait until delivery. This, of course, may be less or more than the four months and ten days. The duration of the "iddah " after the divorce is three months, and for the pregnant woman, it istill delivery and for thekaniz , or slave girl, it is half the period of the free woman.

If the divorce has not accrued twice before and there is no 'khul ', the husband can resume conjugal relations at any time during the period of 'iddah . The man no longer has the right to return to the wife unless the two parties are willing to make a new act of marriage (and only then under certain conditions).

It is not considered necessary by theShi'a that two witnesses be present for the resumption of marriage (as it is in the case of divorce), but it is desirable; it is not necessary moreover to recite anything specific. Such words and signs as serve the purpose are sufficient.

As we have already made clear, the relationship of marriage cannot be broken unless one or both partners expresses dislike for the other; if the dislike is from the side of the husband, he has the right totalaq , through which he can, if he desires, divorce his wife; and if the wife detests him, she can, on payment of some money, demanded by the husband, (it may be equal to or more than the dower) and after reciting the prescribed words (sighah ), be released from the bond of wedlock.

This latter is calledkhul ' and it is only valid if all conditions of divorce are fulfilled and there is very strongill-feelings on the part of the woman for the husband. This is in accordance with what the Holy Qur'an says:

"And if you fear that they shall not (be able) to keep (themselves) within the limits (fixed) by God, there shall be no sin on either of them about what she gives up to get herself free (from the wedlock). These are the limits ordained by God. Beware! Exceed them not." (2:229)

The commentary of theahlu 'l-bayt about this verse is that it concerns the wife who says to her husband, "I will not believe in your swearing; I will not respect the divine code concerning marriage conduct as far as you are concerned. I will not allow coition; and will bring undesirable people into your house." This obviously shows extreme hatred on the part of the wife and there would then appear to be no possibility of harmonious relations between her and her husband.

If, however, the feeling of dislike is equally strong on both sides, anydivorce which takes place is called a "mubarat " divorce. This kind of divorce is likewise only valid if all the conditions oftalaq (divorce)are fulfilled , but in this case, the husband has no right to claim more than the dower money that he has paid to the wife. Inkhul ' and 'mubarat ', the divorces is irrevocable.

After it, the husband cannot assume conjugal relations. If however the woman takes back the money she gave the husband at the time of 'khal ", they may resume the conjugal alliance as long as the period of "iddah " has not come to an end.

There are also other causes of prohibition (for instance, if the husband calls his wife 'mother' or 'sister' or likens her to either, the wife becomes prohibited to him till he performs an act of atonement. Thisis called zihar .

Theseare explained in the relevant books. Such incidents seldom take placetoday as they were particular to the Arabs of pre-Islamic days.

8. (a ) The Marriage Agreement

Marriage is of two kinds: (1) for life; (2) temporary. As the name implies, temporary marriage (also blown asmut'ah ) means that it is for a fixed period of time whichis agreed upon, before completing the marriage agreement.

So far as the first kind of marriage is concerned, all Muslims are unanimous in accepting it. As regards the second kind, only theShi'ah consider it lawful. The latter base their acceptance on the following verse of the Holy Qur'an: "famastamtatum bihi minhunna fa'tu hunna ujurahunna - and as such of them with whom you hadmut'ah ,

give them their dowries as a fixed reward." (Surah an-Nisa ': 24) This problem has been a topic of discussion since the timeOf 'sahaba " (companions of the Prophet (s.a.w .) up to the present time. In view of the importance of thismatter it would seem appropriate to clarify some of its points.

No-one who has spent some time in the study of religious laws can deny the validity ofmut'ah . The Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) himself made it lawful. During the life of the Prophet (s.a.w .), many distinguished 'sahaba ' put it into practice. Moreover, after the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), the noble 'sahaba ' continued to take advantage of this law.

'Abdullahibn 'Abbas , Jabiribn 'Abdillah al-Ansari ,ibn Mas'ud , andUbay ibn Ka'ab , who were men of exalted rank and eminence, all insisted on the lawfulness ofmut'ah and would recite the verse in this way: "Famastamtatum bihi minhunna ilaajalin musamman " (And as such of them with whom you hadmut'ah for specified term).

We should not however think that these companions considered that there was any defect in the Qur'an, since they werewell-versed in its interpretation, they merely wanted to make a commentary on this verse so that its meaning might be clearer. Since these distinguished persons had remained devoted to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) throughout his mission, they had had the opportunity to understand the interpretation of the Qur'an directly from the tongue of the Prophet himself (s.a.w .).

They therefore had no hesitation in disclosing the true meaning of this verse according to what they had learnt from the Prophet (s.a.w .).

We should add however that thetradition whichibn Jarir mentions in his large work ofQur'anic commentary shows that the part "Ila ajalin musamman " (for a specified term) was actually an original portion of the verse, as revealed by God.Ibn Jarir quotes AbuNasirah as saying: "When I read this verse beforeibn 'Abbas he said: 'Say 'ila ajalin musamman '.I said that I did not read like that. Upon thisibn 'Abbas said three times 'By God! This verse was revealed in this very way.'"

It is obvious that such an exalted personality asibn 'Abbas would never havewilfully changed the text of the Qur'an. If this tradition is correct, the meaning of this eminent Companion must surely have been that God the Almighty had revealed its interpretation in this way.

According to all the 'ulama ' this temporary marriage was allowed and practiced by the closest companions of the Prophet.

Those who reject the lawfulness ofmut'ah insist that God revealed further commands to hisProphet which revoked the former law. The varioushadith which are concerned with this revocation have conflicting meanings and cannot be relied upon. For the revocation of an expressordinance an express proof is necessary: some Sunnis claim that revocation took place through thesunnah , that is, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), after declaring it lawful, made it lawful.

Some of them say however that it was through the Book of God that a change in the law ofmut'ah was imposed upon the people. There is even conflicting views within the lattergroup : one party considering the "verse of divorce" as the relevant verse concerning the revocation, and the other the "verse of inheritance".

Furthermore most of the opponents ofmut'ah think that the following verse proves its abrogation "Illa alaazwajuhum aw mamalakat aymanuhum ". The verse gives two causes for the lawfulness of marriage, either the woman is one's wife or she is one's slave-girl (kaniz ), and asSayyid al-Alusi (a Sunni scholar) writes: "TheShi'ahs cannot regard the "Mumtu'ah " (woman taken inmut'ah ) as 'kaniz ',

a slave-girl (who is bound by laws other than those which affect a free woman), and they cannot call her the wife either, because she does not possess the conditions of wife-hood, that is 'mirath ' (inheritance), 'iddah ' (waiting period); the right to sustenance and maintenance on the part of husband, and divorce."

If we examine al-Alusi claim we find it to be completely without foundation. Contrary to what he says, the wife in a temporary marriage does have certain of the rights of wife-hood. One of these concerns inheritance. The wife of a temporary marriage may receive the inheritance (unconditionally according to someShi'a 'ulama ', and according to others, on condition that the right to inheritanceis stipulated at time of marriage contract).Moreover if al-Alusi is claiming that inheritance is an obligatory feature of non temporary marriage, then he is not speaking in accordance with the law.

according to the Islamic code there are many occasions where the law of inheritance become invalid: a wife, who for example, is an unbeliever or a murderess does not get inheritance.Likewise a woman who is married to a sick man who dies before he has sexual intercourse with her is deprived of the inheritance. On the contrary if somebody divorces his wife during a time of illness, and subsequently dies, even if her 'iddah is over she is entitled to receive inheritance one year after the death of her husband.

Again, theShi'ah believe in the lawfulness ofmut'ah and regard 'iddah after such a marriage as compulsory. Subsistence for the wife (nafagah ) is another subject of dispute. TheShi'a believe that this too cannot be regarded as a primary right of wife-hood. One may look for example at the case of the women who refuses to have sexual intercourse with her husband in spite of her being a wife; nofaqih would consider subsistence as one of her rights.

There is no divorce in temporary marriage: after spending the Weed timetogether the two parties may separate.

We should point out to those who still deny theIawfulness of temporary marriage that the abrogation ofmut'ah is impossible because the relevant verse is in theSurah anal-Mu'minin and al-Mi'raj , both of which were revealed inMakkah .

Moreover, even some distinguished Sunni 'ulama ' say that theQur'anic verse concerningmut'ah was not revoked .az-Zamakhshari , in his commentary al-Kashshaf , reports, on the authority ofibn 'Abbas , that the verse concerningmut'ah is one of the irrevocable ones. Other 'ulama ' have reported thatHakam ibn 'Ayniyah , when asked whether the verse ofmut'ah had been revoked, said that it had not.

Atfirst the majority community of the Muslims acknowledged the lawfulness ofmut'ah , but later they began claiming its revocation; we have tried to show the weakness of their claims. Sometimes as we have seen they tried to prove abrogation of the verse by another verse, and sometimes, as we shall see, they attempted to prove the abrogation of the verse through atradition :

they rely upon the tradition in the 'sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim which relate that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) mademut'ah unlawful either during the Conquest ofMakkah , or the Conquest ofKhaybar , or the Battle ofAwtas . Thesehadith are the subject of considerable dispute.

It is even reported on the authority ofQadi Ayad that some 'ulama ' say that themut'ah was made lawful a second time after a first abrogation,then subsequently made unlawful for the second time. Moreover it is recorded in some books thatmut'ah was revokedon the occasion of hajjat al-wida '. (that is the last hajj) in the 10th year of thehijrah .

Other books show that this was not so and that it was revoked during the battle ofTabuk in the 9th year of thehijrah .Some writers claim thatmut'ah was abrogated during the battle ofHunayn in the month of Shawwal in the 8th year of thehijrah ; it is also claimed by some that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) mademut'ah lawful on the occasion of the Conquest ofMakkah , but declared it to be unlawful only a short time later in the very place he was supposed to have declared it lawful.

Most of the Sunni 'ulama ' are of the opinion that the abrogation ofmut'ah .

We must stress that theQur'anic Verseconcernin mut'ah is not called into question by anyone who examines the validity of these so-calledhadith .Moreover thehadith reported by the Sunni (ulama ) are so full of conflicting reports that their falsehood is self-evident.

It is reported in theSahih of al-Bukhari that Abu Raja' quotes 'Imran ibn Hasin as saying that the verse concerningmut'ah is present in the Qur'an and "we acted upon it in the life time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .); neither did Allah make it unlawful in the Holy Qur'an, nor did the Prophet (s.a.w .) prohibit it during his life time. The prohibition ofmut'ah was an arbitrary act of one man.and it is said that this man was theCalip 'Umar .

" It is also reported in theSahih of Muslim on the authority of Atta' that "one day Jabiribn 'Abdillah al-Ansari came to perform 'umrah and people asked him various questions. We went to visit him at his house. When hewas asked aboutmut'ah , Jabir said: 'Yes we practicedmut'ah in the days of the Prophet (s.a.w .) and also in the days of AbuBakr and 'Umar .'"

Muslim gives another report and that is fromJabir also. Hesays: "During the days of the Prophet (s.a.w .) we used to practicemut'ah while giving a handful of dates or a handful of baked flour as a dowry." Muslim also reports in hisSahih that AbuNudrah said that he was sitting with Jabiribn 'Abdillah al-An-Sari when another man came in and said that there was a difference of opinion about the twomut'ahs (namely themut'ah of temporary marriage, and the kind ofhaj called hajjtamattu'a ) betweenIbn 'Abbas andIbn Zubayr . Jabirsaid: "While the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .) was present we used to act upon both of them, but later 'Umar prohibited both of them, so we could not do them again." Indeed they could not do it again becauseHadrat 'Umar would have a man stoned to death if he was caughtpractising mut'ah .

The fact is that if the Chapter relevant to marriage in Muslim'sSahih is carefully studied, we will find such contradictory statements that we can only wonder at their source. There are claims of abrogation in one place, while in another place proofs of non-abrogation are given. As an example of suchhadith we may quoteJihni who says: "On the occasion of the conquest ofMakkah , the Prophet (s.a.w .) himself ordered that we should be permitted to performmut'ah , but we had still not left that place when the Prophet (s.a.w .) forbade us to do it."

Thus abrogation is sometimes attributed to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), and sometimes toHadrat 'Umar .Moreover they say thatmut'ah was current during the time of the Prophet, and during the period of the first Caliphate.

They also say thatHadrat 'Ali (a.s .) forbadeIbn 'Abbas on various occasions to talk aboutmut'ah , and so the latter subsequently changed his opinion about it. In a refutation of this we may cite the report that says that onceIbn Zubayr stood up inMakkah and said: "There are some people here who have been deprived of foresight just, as God has deprived them of their eye-sight: such persons are those who claim thatmut'ah is lawful." (Here the reference was toIbn 'Abbas , who had become blind.) At this,Ibn 'Abbas uttered loudly. "Why?I swear thatmut'ah was practiced up to the time of 'Ali (a.s .)." This clearly shows thatIbn 'Abbas never changed his opinion, and that even duringIbn Zubayr's caliphate he stood by his belief.

Rather surprisingly, the prohibitory order has even been attributed toHadrat Amir al-mu'minin (a.s .), though it was characteristic of all the Imams (a.s .) that they had declaredmut'ah wedlock to be lawful. Imam 'Ali's statement that if 'Umar had not forbiddenmut'ah there would have been only a few unfortunate men who committed fornication has become proverbial at-Tabari has reported this tradition in his "tafsir " also. In this connection ImamJa'afar as-Sadiq is reliably understood to havesaid: "I do not dotaqiyah (to deliberately conceal one's beliefs or opinions under certain conditions) in the matter of three things:mut'ahtu 'l-hajj,mut'atu 'n-nisa ', and al-mash 'ala 'l-khafayn ."

(The latter item refers to the Sunni practice of wiping over the shoes in place of washing the feet when performingwudu '.) According to the principles ofjurisprudence the conflicting reports of the Sunni commentators have been analyzed and proved to be full of falsehadith . The lawfulness ofmut'ah has been proved, and just as it was lawful at the time of the Prophet so it is today.

It wasHadrat 'Umar who prohibitedmut'ah during his rule; his prohibition was based on personal social considerations of the day, but it had nothing to do with religion. Heis reported to have said, "During the days of the Prophet (s.a.w .) twomut'ahs were permissible, but I now make them unlawful, and will punish those who disobey my order.

" What is worth noting is this that the second Caliph did not attribute the order of unlawfulness or abrogation ofmut'ah to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), but made himself responsible for it. He, too, was responsible for the matter of punishment. We can only repeat what we have tried to demonstrate with the above example: thatmut'ah , theQur'anic ordinance concerning its legality, theSunnah (practice) of the Prophet (s.a.w .), the practice of his Companions,

its beingpractised during the rule of AbuBakr and in the early period of 'Umar's own Caliphate, are all verifiable realities which are above all argument and discussion. The books of history and traditions bear witness to the fact that during the age of the Prophet (s.a.w .) the high-ranking companions and respected members of theQuraysh allpractised mut'ah ; indeed many of the noble Muslims of that time were sons of temporary marriages.

Raghib al-Isfahani , the celebrated Sunni scholar, has reported that a Sunni scholarYahya ibn Aktham , asked one of the important nobles ofBasrah whom he followed about the justification formut'ah .The noblesiad "'Umar ibn Khattab ." "How is this," askedYahya , "he was the sworn enemy ofmut'ah ." The mansaid: "Yes, it has been proved that onceHadrat 'Umar announced from the pulpit: "Oh people! God and His Prophet madetwomut'ahs lawful, but I now declare them unlawful.

Also I will punish those who disobey me.' We accept his statement but we do not accept the validity of his prohibition." A similarhadith has been related by 'Abdullahibn 'Umar ; it is shorter and less harsh than the former: "During the age of the Prophet (s.a.w .) there were twomut'ahs , and I now make them unlawful." Some have argued that 'Umar did not want to alter the command of Allah but only to make a law which was suitable for the society of the time.

At thisstage it would be useful to recall a great work by a renowned scholar of the 6th century A.H., Muhammadibn Idris al-Hilli , namely the "sara'ir ", in which the author writes: "Temporary marriage within the Islamic code of religion is lawful. Muslims believe that its lawfulness is proved according to the Book of Godand also according to theSunnah .However some people have claimed that it had been revoked, but the veracity of this requires proof.

Moreover 'aql (the faculty of reason which allows us to understand the workings of God in his creation) tells us that every useful act about which we have no fear that it will give us any loss in this world or the next is permissible. This condition applies tomut'ah . Wemust, through our reason, acknowledge its lawfulness.

Now, if somebody asks whatis the proof , given the conflicting opinions concerning its legality, that it would not cause us loss in the next world, the answer is that the onus of proof lies on the person who pleads the possibility of its being harmful. It is beyond doubt thatmut'ah was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w .), and that it was only later that they began talking of its unlawfulness and revocation. Thus until revocation can be proved we have no right to deny its lawfulness.

"When we examine thehadith which relate that the Prophet did makemut'ah unlawful, we find that these traditions all have weak chains of transmission and do not qualify as sources of certainty, nor do they provide a justification for action on the part of the Muslim.

"Let us examine again the relevant verse in the Qur'an. It occurs after the passage concerning the women who aremahram (oneis not allowed to marry them for reasons of consanguinity, etc.) "

And lawful for you are all (women) besides those mentioned', so that you may seek them by means of your wealth, taking (them) into marriage, and not committing fornication; and those with whom you concludedmut'ah give them their dowries as a fixed reward, and it shall not be a sin on you in whatever you mutually agree (to vary) after the fixed reward" (Surah an-Nisa '). In this holyverse the disputable work is "istamta'tum " which has two meanings - either to take pleasure in and profit from, or to make the agreement formut'ah according to the Islamic code - the first is the literal meaning and the second is according to its meaning within the Islamic code.

According to the principles of 'fiqh ', if a word in the Qur'an has two meanings - one literal and the other used specifically in the language of the "shari'ah " then the latter meaningmust be accepted and the literal meaning should not be relied upon. That is why for example the words "salat ", "zakat ", "sawm " and "hajj" are all to be understood according to the precise meaning of the Islamicshari'ah (code), and not according to the literal meaning to be found in the dictionary.

We have already made it dear that a well-known group of the companions believed in the lawfulness ofmut'ah and that Amir al-mu'minin himself openly declared its lawfulness; 'Abdullahibn 'Abbas used to enter into polemical discussion withibn Zubayr on this topic and these discussions became so widely known that they were not only talked of by the common people but the poets of that time also gave vent to their reactions in their verses.

Also 'Abdullahibn Mas'ud ,Mujahid ,Ata'i , Jabiribn 'Abdullah al-Ansari ,Salmah ibn al-Akwa ', AbuSa'id Khudri ,Mughirah ibn Sha'hab ,Sa'id ibn Jabir andIbn Jarih also gave the verdict thatmut'ah was lawful. All these men are esteemed and trustworthy men of knowledge; they arrived at their decision through careful examination of the matter.

We have so far thrown light on this topic from only a religious or historical point of view. Now let us assess it from the ethical and social point of view. Islam is a great blessing and mercy for the world. The message of Islam is like a divine song whichis diffused from heaven over the world of man, and which gave and still gives the answer to those who seek to understand the reason for man's existence on earth.

Our revealed religion suits every age, meets the needs of all men in every age in this world, and guarantees for them prosperity both spiritual and material. Islam was revealed by God not to make man's life harder but on the contrary, to fill it with mercy,meaning and order. That is why Islam is themost perfect religion and the last code of religion before the end of the world; this divine law adorns human culture and civilization with perfection; no other man-made institutions or laws are needed.

Let us now examine oneactivity which every individual is obliged to undertake at some time in his life, namely, travel. We find that the Islamic code indicates precisely the code of conduct to be expected from theMuslim who is travelling, whether for trade, for war or on the hajj or 'umrah , for example.

It hardly needs tobe pointed out that God, the All-Wise, has endowed man with sexual desire for the preservation of the human race. Andit also goes without saying that atraveller is unable to fulfill the requirements of a permanent marriage.

Under these conditions, what should thistraveller do who has been away from his home for a long time?

How should be behave especially when he happens to be young and subject to strong sexual urges.

There are only two alternatives possible if we do not allowmut'ah ; heshould either control his passion or must indulge in unlawful relationships. Itshould be stated that excessive control and suppressing of sexual desires sometimes causes serious physical and mental illness. Sterility is also another possible consequence of such self-control. Such practice is patiently against the dictates of wisdom, and God says in the Quran, "God wishes ease for you and does not wish for you discomfort."

May God save us from sexual mal-practices. Most parts of the world are suffering its consequences today.

I swear to God that if the Muslims act in compliance with the religious laws, this universe, according to the divine promise, will become complete mercy for them, and man will live in harmony andprosperty .

Mut'ah is thus a welcome and necessary law of the Islamic religion.If the Muslims acted in accordance with the conditions for lawfulmut'ah (the making of an agreement between the two parties stipulating the time limit and dowry, and the 'iddah , for example), and take advantage of this divine blessing, evil-doing would to a great extent be eradicated, thehonour of man and woman would be saved, the Muslim community would grow in number, the world would be rid of illegitimate children and moral values would be strengthened.

The pronouncement of the exalted man of the community, 'Abdullahibn 'Abbas cannot be over-praised. Ibn Athir relates that he says, "Mut'ah was a blessing with which God the Almighty endowed theummah of Muhammad (peace and the blessings of God be upon him and his descendents) and, had it not been prohibited, no-one, except the truly perverted ones, would have committedadultry (see the "Nahayah " ofIbn Athir and the "Fa'iq " ofaz-Zamakhshari ).

The effects of his exalted teacher and guardian, Amir al-mu'minin are reflected in this statement ofIbn Abbas . The fact is that the Islamic world is rejecting this divine mercy and as a result has plunged itself into shameless immorality.

8 (b)Talaq (Divorce)

It is clear that the essence of marriage is the very special union whichis established between man and woman, and which makes the two different individuals close companions and partners to each other. The cooperation and communion between wife and husbandmay be compared to a person's eyes and hands - each hand is different from the other but each complements and perfects the other.

The very nature of this act, that two personalities, who are quite unacquainted with each other,are so strongly joined and united through wedlock that it precludes any conception of a stronger union, shows the particular strength of this alliance . There can be no better words than the following verse of the Holy Quran: "Hunna libasuln lakum wa antum libasuln lahunna " (2:187), "They are your garments and you are their garments."Truly this verse expresses the subtle intimacy of the relationship of marriage.

The obvious feature of the non-temporary alliance is that the two make an agreement to remain together for life.

It may happen however that the marriageis no longer desired either on the part of one or both parties and divorce becomes necessary. The code of religion ordains that certain conditionsbe fulfilled according to the kind of divorce in question. There are three kinds of divorce: firstly, if divorce is desired from the side of the husband, separation is called "talaq "; secondly, it is desired from the side of the wife, she can obtain "khul "'.And lastly , if disagreement is on both sides, they can have recourse to "mubarat " to obtain separation.

Since Islam is a social religion and ithas been founded on unity and oneness, its greatest objective is love and concord. The creation of disharmony in whatever form is tobe avoided whenever possible. Accordingly, a large number oftraditons have expressed the undesirability of "talaq " (divorce) and some of them say that among the acts made lawful by God, there is no act more undesirable than divorce.

That is why the messenger of God has made clear toman the conditions and restrictions of divorce, so that it may occur as infrequently as possible within the Muslim community.

Among the rules of divorce, the presence of two just witnesses is a necessary condition. If divorce is pronounced in the absence of two just witnesses, it will be considerednull and void . This condition is the best means of doing away with mutual hatred, because two 'just' persons will consider it their duty to bring about peace and friendship between the couple through admonition and preaching before carrying out the divorce.

Of course, it will not be successful on every occasion but the number of divorcescan be minimized by the intervention of these two persons who are respected within their community for their good sense and justice.

It is regretful to note that our Sunni brothers, do not accept this argument. They did not consider the presence of two just witnesses necessary for divorce.Consequently the number of divorces is growing so great among them that it causes inconvenience to a great number of people.

Unfortunately, many of us, as well as our Sunni brothers, are unaware of the hidden wisdom contained in the religious code. We pray that Muslims may whole-heartedly comply with the divine laws so that the bitterness thathas been created in their private lives, and the confusion that has spread in their social affairs, may at least be reduced.

The important condition of divorce is that the one who divorces must not be under compulsion, or in a state of anger, or any other state ofmind which diminishes his ability to think clearly and make decisions in a reasonable manner. (Moreover, the divorce should have completed her monthly period of menstruation and not have had sexual intercourse in the 'new month'. This condition inevitably helps to delay and eventually lessen the number of divorces).

In theJa'fari (Shi'a ) 'fiqh ', pronouncement of divorce three times in one sittingis counted as only one divorce. Thus if a man pronounces divorce three times in one sitting, his wife does not become forbidden for him forever. Theycan be united again without any condition.

If the man then again divorces his wife, returns a second time to the woman and then divorces her a third time, the woman shall become forbidden after this third divorce. After that, she cannot become lawful for him unless she marries (and subsequently divorces) another man. If this thing happens, nine times, he will be unlawful for her former husband forever.

Most of the 'ulama ' of the Sunni community stipulate that if a husband says three times to his wife that he has divorced her, it will be considered as an irrevocabletalaq ; resumption of conjugal relations is only possible if the wife marries and subsequently divorces another man, though it is clearly stated in certain of their acceptedhadith that divorce pronounced three times in one sitting is to be counted as one divorce.

It is narrated in al-Bukhari , on the authority ofIbn 'Abbas , that "during the time of the Prophet, and during the caliphate of AbuBakr , and for two years during the caliphate of 'Umar , the 'three divorces' meant only one divorce, butHadrat 'Umar said: that although people were entitled to delay divorce, they did not wish to wait, and so, seeing no obstacle in the way, we granted permission for them to carry it out" (that is, he recognized the validity of irrevocable divorce after pronouncing divorce three times in one sitting).

The Holy Quran is itselfunambigious in this matter: "Divorce (shall be lawful) only twice, then (you should) either keep her in fairness or send her away with kindness." (2:229)After this, God, the Almighty, says: "So if he divorces her (for a third time), then she shall not be lawful to him until she weds another husband." (2:230) We have tried to give a brief account of the causes of divorce; if more details are required, one may refer to the books of Islamic jurisprudence..

* * * * *

There are also other causes of separation such as defects and diseases in either party. If the man is sexually impotent or becomes insane, the woman has the right to divorce him. Certain diseases of a woman's sexual organs entitle the man to divorce his wife.Zihar andilla ' (kinds of oaths of rejection of the woman on the part of the man, common amongst the Arabs before the coming of Islam) may also be a cause of separation.

The various kinds of "iddah " and other allied mattersare dealt with comprehensively in more specialized works offiqh .Suffice it to say that after the death of the husband, it is compulsory for the wife to observe "iddah " even if she is "ya'isah " (past the menopause), or is a minor, or has not had coition with her husband. In divorce, "iddah " is compulsory in cases other than the three mentioned above. In unlawful coition (adultery), there is no 'iddah .

The necessary waiting period after the death of the husband is four months and ten days, but, in case the woman is pregnant, she must wait until delivery. This, of course, may be less or more than the four months and ten days. The duration of the "iddah " after the divorce is three months, and for the pregnant woman, it istill delivery and for thekaniz , or slave girl, it is half the period of the free woman.

If the divorce has not accrued twice before and there is no 'khul ', the husband can resume conjugal relations at any time during the period of 'iddah . The man no longer has the right to return to the wife unless the two parties are willing to make a new act of marriage (and only then under certain conditions).

It is not considered necessary by theShi'a that two witnesses be present for the resumption of marriage (as it is in the case of divorce), but it is desirable; it is not necessary moreover to recite anything specific. Such words and signs as serve the purpose are sufficient.

As we have already made clear, the relationship of marriage cannot be broken unless one or both partners expresses dislike for the other; if the dislike is from the side of the husband, he has the right totalaq , through which he can, if he desires, divorce his wife; and if the wife detests him, she can, on payment of some money, demanded by the husband, (it may be equal to or more than the dower) and after reciting the prescribed words (sighah ), be released from the bond of wedlock.

This latter is calledkhul ' and it is only valid if all conditions of divorce are fulfilled and there is very strongill-feelings on the part of the woman for the husband. This is in accordance with what the Holy Qur'an says:

"And if you fear that they shall not (be able) to keep (themselves) within the limits (fixed) by God, there shall be no sin on either of them about what she gives up to get herself free (from the wedlock). These are the limits ordained by God. Beware! Exceed them not." (2:229)

The commentary of theahlu 'l-bayt about this verse is that it concerns the wife who says to her husband, "I will not believe in your swearing; I will not respect the divine code concerning marriage conduct as far as you are concerned. I will not allow coition; and will bring undesirable people into your house." This obviously shows extreme hatred on the part of the wife and there would then appear to be no possibility of harmonious relations between her and her husband.

If, however, the feeling of dislike is equally strong on both sides, anydivorce which takes place is called a "mubarat " divorce. This kind of divorce is likewise only valid if all the conditions oftalaq (divorce)are fulfilled , but in this case, the husband has no right to claim more than the dower money that he has paid to the wife. Inkhul ' and 'mubarat ', the divorces is irrevocable.

After it, the husband cannot assume conjugal relations. If however the woman takes back the money she gave the husband at the time of 'khal ", they may resume the conjugal alliance as long as the period of "iddah " has not come to an end.

There are also other causes of prohibition (for instance, if the husband calls his wife 'mother' or 'sister' or likens her to either, the wife becomes prohibited to him till he performs an act of atonement. Thisis called zihar .

Theseare explained in the relevant books. Such incidents seldom take placetoday as they were particular to the Arabs of pre-Islamic days.