Nikah Al-Mut’ah, Zina or Sunnah?

All the Sahabah - including Abu Bakr and ‘Umar - considered mut’ah to be halal throughout the lifetime of the Prophet, and throughout the rule of Abu Bakr. For most of the era of ‘Umar, all the Sahabah generally affirmed the permissibility of mut’ah. However, at the end of his caliphate, he made it haram; and that changed everything. The generality of the Sahabah obeyed him; and only a handful remained steadfast in affirming the permissibility of temporary marriage. Some of the Tabi’in also proclaimed it halal. However, the number of the pro-mut’ah elements continued to dwindle among the Ahl al-Sunnah, until none - or almost none - accepted it anymore. The Shi’is, on their part, have remained unshakable and unyielding on the permissibility of temporary marriage - from the time of the Messenger till this very day of ours.

Author(s): Toyib Olawuyi

Table of Contents

Dedication 4

Acknowledgments 5

Preface 6

Notes 13

1. Mut’ah In The Qur’an 14

Notes 19

2. Reign Of The Verse Of Al-Mut’ah 21

Notes 26

3. Allah Calls Mut’ah “A Good Thing” 28

Notes 38

4. The Sunni Contradictions 41

Notes 50

5. The Practice Of Mut’ah 52

Mut’ah: A Tool Of Necessity 52

The Suitable Mut’ah Wives 52

Mut’ah With Christian And Jewish Women 61

The Case Of The Virgin Woman 63

The Terms Of The Contract 67

On The Inheritance Rights Of The Spouses 70

Mut’ah and its ‘Iddah Periods 73

Children Of Mut’ah 81

Renewal Of The Mut’ah 84

Notes 86

6. Al-Zawaj bi Niyyah Al-Talaq, The Sunni Attempt to Reinvent Mut’ah 93

Notes 97

7. Shi’i Ahadith Misused About Mut’ah 98

Hadith One 98

Hadith Two 100

Hadith Three 101

Hadith Four 101

Hadith Five 102

Hadith Six 103

Hadith Seven 108

Hadith Eight 108

Hadith Nine 109

Hadith Ten 110

Hadith Eleven 111

Hadith Twelve 111

Hadith Thirteen 112

Hadith Fourteen 112

Hadith Fifteen 114

Hadith Sixteen 119

Hadith Seventeen 120

Notes 120

8. Sunni Athar Misused About Mut’ah 125

Athar One 125

Athar Two 126

Athar Three 126

Athar Four 131

Athar Five 132

Notes 134

Bibliography 135

Dedication

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تحرموا طيبات ما أحل الله لكم ولا تعتدوا إن الله لا يحب المعتدين

This book is dedicated to

Imam Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Baqir,

peace be upon him, and upon his pure fathers and offspring.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Tural Islam, Ali Baker and Nader Zaveri for their support and encouragement. In particular, we express our profound gratitude to Ali Baker for his deep insights about the topic of mut’ah. May Allah bless our three brothers and all our loving brothers and sisters from the Shi’ah Imamiyyah and the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.

Preface

Mut’ah was unknown on the earth before Allah sent Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi. An average Sunni Muslim would be surprised to know this. Our brothers and sisters from the Ahl al-Sunnah have been repeatedly bombarded with severe anti-mut’ah propaganda for several years (or perhaps even decades or centuries), which claims that it was a pagan custom of the pre-Islamic Arabs that was temporarily tolerated by the Prophet - like alcohol - and was then banned eternally by him. However, ask the Sunni ‘alim to produce reliable Sunni evidence that mut’ah was ever practised during the Jahiliyyah period.

That is when things get really messy. He will never be able to give the proof - no matter the spread of his knowledge, and no matter his scholarly standing. Demand also, if possible, the same evidence from one billion Sunni ‘ulama, and you will never get it till the Day of al-Qiyamah. Of course, it does not exist! Mut’ah was introduced to this planet, to this cosmos, for the very first time by none other than the Messenger of Allah, on the Order of his Lord. It was part of His Mercy, made especially for this Ummah, as Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211 H) records:

عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج عن عطاء قال: لأول من سمعت منه المتعة صفوان بن يعلى، قال: أخبرني عن يعلى أن معاوية استمتع بامرأة بالطائف، فأنكرت ذلك عليه، فدخلنا على ابن عباس، فذكر له بعضنا، فقال له: نعم، فلم يقر في نفسي، حتى قدم جابر ابن عبد الله، فجئناه في منزله، فسأله القوم عن أشياء، ثم ذكروا له المتعة، فقال: نعم، استمتعنا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وأبي بكر، وعمر، حتى إذا كان في آخر خلافة عمر … قال عطاء: وسمعت ابن عباس يقول: يرحم الله عمر، ما كانت المتعة إلا رخصة من الله عز وجل، رحم بها أمة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، فلو لا نهيه عنها ما احتاج إلى الزنا إلا شقي، قال: كأني والله أسمع قوله: إلا شقي - عطاء القائل - قال عطاء: فهي التي في سورة النساء } فما استمتعتم به منهن { إلى كذا وكذا من الأجل، على كذا وكذا

‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - ‘Aṭa:

The person from whom I first heard about mut’ah was Safwan b. Ya’la. He narrated to me from Ya’la that Mu’awiyah did mut’ah with a woman at Ṭaif. So, I denied that upon him. Then, we entered upon Ibn ‘Abbas, and one of us mentioned (mut’ah) to him, and he said, “Yes”. But, it did not settle well in me, until when Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah arrived. So, we went to him at his house, and the people asked him about various things. Then, they mentioned mut’ah, and he said, “Yes. We did mut’ah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar UNTIL at the last part of the ‘Umar’s caliphate....”

‘Aṭa said:

I heard Ibn ‘Abbas saying: “May Allah show mercy to ‘Umar. Mut’ah was nothing except a PERMISSION from Allah the Almighty. He showed MERCY through it to the Ummah of Muhammad, peace be upon him. If he (‘Umar) had not forbidden it, none would have needed to commit zina except a wretched person.”

He - ‘Aṭa - said: By Allah, it is like I am still hearing his statement “except a wretched person”.

‘Aṭa said: It is that which is in Surah al-Nisa {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah} till such-and-such period, for such-and-such.1

Commenting on this hadith, al-Hafiẓ (d. 852 H) states:

فأخرجه عبد الرزاق من طريق صفوان بن يعلى بن أمية أخبرني يعلى ان معاوية استمتع بامرأة بالطائف واسناده صحيح

‘Abd al-Razzaq recorded it with the chain of Safwan b. Ya’la b. Umayyah: Ya’la narrated to me that Mu’awiyah did mut’ah with a woman at Ṭaif. And its chain is sahih.2

However, we have seen certain Sunni elements who argue against the authenticity of this riwayah on the basis of Ibn Jurayj’s tadlis. The keen observer notices though that Ibn Jurayj has narrated from ‘Aṭa using the phrases (قال ) [he said] and (قال عطاء ) [‘Aṭa said] in addition to his ‘an-‘an manner of transmission. ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) explains what both phrases indicate:

روى أبو بكر بن أبى خيثمة بسند صحيح عن ابن جريج قال: " إذا قلت: قال عطاء , فأنا سمعته منه , وإن لم أقل سمعت ".

Abu Bakr b. Abi Khaythamah recorded with a sahih chain that Ibn Jurayj said: Whenever I say: “ ‘Aṭa said”, then I HEARD it from him, even if I do not say “I heard”.3

This basically rules out tadlis completely in the above hadith of ‘Abd al-Razzaq. As such, the objection of tadlis is baseless and erroneous. But, there is more! Al-Albani further submits:

قد روى أبو بكر بن أبى خيثمة بسند صحيح عن ابن جريج قال: إذا قلت: قال عطاء فأنا سمعته منه , وإن لم أقل سمعت .

فهذا نص منه أن عدم تصريحه بالسماع من عطاء ليس معناه أنه قد دلسه عنه , ولكن هل ذلك خاص بقوله " قال عطاء" أم لا فرق بينه وبين ما لو قال " عن عطاء " كما فى هذا الحديث وغيره؟ الذى يظهر لى الثانى , وعلى هذا فكل روايات ابن جريج عن عطاء محمولة على السماع إلا ما تبين تدليسه فيه , والله أعلم .

Abu Bakr b. Abi Khaythamah has narrated with a sahih chain from Ibn Jurayj that he said: Whenever I say: “ ‘Ata said”, then I HEARD it from him, even if I do not say “I heard”.

This is an explicit statement from him that his omission to say “I heard” from ‘Aṭa does not mean that he has done tadlis from him. However, is this restricted to his statement “ ‘Aṭa said” or is there no difference between it and if he said “from ‘Aṭa” as in this hadith and others? What is apparent to me is the second. Thus, based upon this, all reports of Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭa are considered as what he heard explicitly, except that whose tadlis is clear. And Allah knows best.4

Therefore, there is no tadlis in the report of ‘Abd al-Razzaq, and it has a perfectly sahih chain - from Safwan b. Yala from Ya’la; from Ibn ‘Abbas; and from Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah. Al-Hafiẓ has explicitly declared the ‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - ‘Aṭa - Safwan b. Ya’la - Ya’la sanad to be sahih. Of course, both Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir were Sahabis. Therefore, the ‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - ‘Aṭa - Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - ‘Aṭa - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah chains are sahih as well.

That riwayah establishes that:

i. Mut’ah was a “permission” from Allah. This means that the Muslims were forbidden from practising it until He permitted them. This apparently defeats the theory that it was initially allowed and then disallowed. Rather, it was originally haram, and then was permitted by our Lord out of His Mercy to us.

ii. Allah revealed a verse in Surah al-Nisa to authorize the practice of mut’ah. ‘Aṭa recited that ayah, and we will have more to say about it later in this book.

iii. Mu’awiyah practised mut’ah during his caliphate, long after the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali, ‘alaihi al-salam. His action was supported by both Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ansari, raḍiyallahu ‘anhuma.

iv. Both Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir said “yes” to mut’ah, thereby allowing it and declaring it halal.

v. Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah asserted that mut’ah was allowed by the Prophet till his death, and was also allowed by Abu Bakr till his death. He further claimed that even ‘Umar too allowed it for most of his caliphate, but later banned it at the tail end of his rule.

vi. Ibn ‘Abbas proclaimed that mut’ah was a “mercy” from Allah specially for the Ummah of Muhammad. Whosoever knows how mut’ah truly works can easily confirm this.

vii. Ibn ‘Abbas also declared that if ‘Umar had not banned mut’ah, none would have needed to commit zina except the wretched ones. He is right about this too.

viii. Ibn ‘Abbas was very explicit that it was ‘Umar who banned mut’ah - NOT Allah, and NOT His Messenger.

‘Abd al-Razzaq has another hadith which confirms the last point above:

عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال: أخبرني أبو الزبير قال: سمعت جابر بن عبد الله يقول: استمتعنا أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، حتى نهي عمرو بن حريث

‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - Abu al-Zubayr - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

“We, the Sahabah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, did mut’ah UNTIL the prohibition of ‘Amr b. Hurayth (from it).”5

The only new name here is Abu al-Zubayr. Al-Hafiẓ says about him:

محمد بن مسلم بن تدرس بفتح المثناة وسكون الدال المهملة وضم الراء الأسدي مولاهم أبو الزبير المكي صدوق إلا أنه يدلس

Muhammad b. Muslim b. Tadrus al-Asadi, their freed slave, Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki: Saduq (very truthful), except that he used to do tadlis.6

There is no ‘an-‘an transmission in the above sanad. Therefore, it is hasan. The report is explicit that the Sahabah generally practised mut’ah without interference, from the lifetime of the Prophet, till when ‘Amr b. Hurayth was prohibited from it. ‘Abd al-Razzaq has another riwayah which sheds more light:

عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال: أخبرني أبو الزبير أنه سمع جابر بن عبد الله يقول: قدم عمرو بن حريث من الكوفة فاستمتع بمولاة، فأتي بها عمر وهي حبلى، فسألها، فقالت: استمتع بي عمرو بن حريث، فسأله، فأخبره بذلك أمرا ظاهرا، قال: فهلا غيرها؟ فذلك حين نهى عنها

‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - Abu al-Zubayr - Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah:

‘Amr b. Hurayth arrived from Kufah and did mut’ah with a slave woman. Then, she was brought to ‘Umar when she became pregnant, and he interrogated her. So, she said, “ ‘Amr b. Hurayth did mut’ah with me.” Then, he interrogated him, and he informed him through that of an apparent matter.” He said, “So, why not other than her?” That was the moment when he forbade it.7

The chain is hasan, as our reader can see. It seems that ‘Umar became very angry that ‘Amr b. Hurayth - a Sahabi - did mut’ah with a slave woman. For that reason, he banned it altogether - whether with free women, or with slaves. As Jabir testified in the other athar, this incident took place towards the end of ‘Umar’s caliphate.

Jabir made a clear point, that the Sahabah continued to practise mut’ah until ‘Umar made it haram in the case of ‘Amr b. Hurayth. Then, they stopped. However, it was not all of them that obeyed ‘Umar’s decree. The vast majority did; but, a few - along with their disciples - continued to uphold the Verse of Mut’ah and the Sunnah. Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456 H) gives us some of their names:

وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف، رضي الله عنهم، منهم من الصحابة، رضي الله عنهم، أسماء بنت أبي بكر الصديق، وجابر بن عبدالله، وابن مسعود، وابن عباس، ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان، وعمرو بن حريث، وأبو سعيد الخدري، وسلمة، ومعبد ابنا أمية بن خلف .

ورواه جابر بن عبدالله، عن جميع الصحابة مدة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ومدة أبي بكر وعمر إلى قرب آخر خلافة عمر. واختلف في إباحتها، عن ابن الزبير، وعن علي فيها توقف. وعن عمر بن الخطاب أنه إنما أنكرها إذا لم يشهد عليها عدلان فقط، وأباحها بشهادة عدليـن .

ومن التابعـين: طاووس، وعطاء، وسعيد بن جبير، وسائر فـقهاء مـكـة أعـزها الله .

A group of the Salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, were FIRM in declaring it halal AFTER the Messenger of Allah. Those of them from the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, were Asma bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq, Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, ‘Amr b. Hurayth, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, and Salamah and Ma’bad - sons of Umayyah b. Khalaf.

Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah also reported it (i.e. declaration of mut’ah as halal ) from all the Sahabah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar until near the end of the caliphate of ‘Umar. Ibn al-Zubayr had contradictory opinions on its permissibility, while ‘Ali expressed no opinion concerning it. It is narrated that ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭab only denied it if two just people did not act as its witnesses, and he considered it permissible if two just people acted as witnesses to it.

And among the Tabi’in were: Ṭawus, ‘Aṭa, Sa’id b. Jubayr, and the rest of the jurists of Makkah, may Allah honour it.8

So, all the Sahabah - including Abu Bakr and ‘Umar - considered mut’ah to be halal throughout the lifetime of the Prophet, and throughout the rule of Abu Bakr. For most of the era of ‘Umar, all the Sahabah generally affirmed the permissibility of mut’ah. However, at the end of his caliphate, he made it haram; and that changed everything. The generality of the Sahabah obeyed him; and only a handful remained steadfast in affirming the permissibility of temporary marriage. Some of the Tabi’in also proclaimed it halal. However, the number of the pro-mut’ah elements continued to dwindle among the Ahl al-Sunnah, until none - or almost none - accepted it anymore. The Shi’is, on their part, have remained unshakable and unyielding on the permissibility of temporary marriage - from the time of the Messenger till this very day of ours.

But, is it not strange? According to the theory of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the Prophet declared mut’ah to be haram before his death. Yet, the Sahabah as a whole paid no heed to his words. They continued to regard mut’ah as halal, and also continued to practise it. When Abu Bakr became caliph, he too made zero efforts to enforce the alleged decree of the Messenger. Instead, he allowed the Ummah to freely engage in mut’ah. ‘Umar also did not give a damn: he let the Sahabah marry people temporarily for most of his rule.

However, he became upset when ‘Amr b. Hurayth took it too far by contracting mut’ah with a slave woman. He asked ‘Amr: “So, why not other than her?” At that point, he declared it haram. Then, the same Sahabah who refused to respect the decree of their Prophet followed ‘Umar. Most of them abandoned mut’ah, and started to oppose it. A few of them, however, remained adamantly in defence of it, and used to practise it, till death.

Is this really a credible theory? Do the Ahl al-Sunnah truly want us to view the Sahabah as people who disregarded the words of their Messenger? Is that it? Do Sunnis seriously want us to believe that the words of ‘Umar carried more weight in the sight of the Sahabah than those of Allah and His Prophet? Do they want us to consider the Sahabah as those who indulged in illegal sex during the lifetime of Muhammad, and he did not stop them?! What about Abu Bakr? The Sunni theory assumes that he too condoned the fornication and adultery of the Sahabah during his caliphate.

Is that it? What of caliph ‘Umar? Yeah, he permitted zina among the people until ‘Amr b. Hurayth irritated him by doing it with a slave woman. If ‘Amr had not extended the pleasure to the lowest rung of the caste system, he possibly could have tolerated mut’ah till his death! Interestingly. The great caliph made no attempt to lash or stone ‘Amr for either fornication or adultery. Why was that?!

Or, was it that the generality of the Sahabah only happened to have missed the declaration of the Prophet on mut’ah, as many Sunnis claim? Can a kid believe that? The Messenger supposedly announced its prohibition multiple times in public among his Sahabah. Yet, somehow, that information never reached them until when ‘Umar re-banned it! Was that really it? What about Abu Bakr? He allowed mut’ah throughout his regime. He too never got wind of its prohibition by the Prophet? Where was he when the alleged decree of the prohibition of mut’ah was being publicly announced by the Messenger himself, on different occasions? Was he then on Mars? What of ‘Umar? Our Sunni brothers argue that he knew of the prohibition and had only enforced it.

Good! But then, why did he initially permit it? He forgot the hadith? Why did he not narrate it to Abu Bakr? Moreover, did that hadith reach Ibn ‘Abbas, Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, Mu’awiyah and other Sahabah from him? Or did those Sahabah happen to miss the public narration of the riwayah once more? If yes, why were they constantly missing the hadith? Then, why did none of the majority of the other Sahabah who followed ‘Umar make any attempt to narrate it to them? Or, did they hear it? If yes, why then did they continue to defend the permissibility of mut’ah? Why did they continue to practise it? Were they deliberately defending and committing zina? But, to what ends was that?

From whatever angle one looks at it, mut’ah is always an impossible situation for our Sunni brothers. If they accept its permissibility, ‘Umar takes a very devastating hit. Yet, if they proclaim its prohibition, a lot of the other Sahabah lose a lot of things within the Ummah! From our judgment, many Sunnis attack mut’ah in order to defend the honour of ‘Umar. However, little do they realize that they are only destroying that of other Sahabah, including Abu Bakr!

But, what is the truth about mut’ah? Did Allah truly reveal an ayah about it? If yes, was it ever abrogated? Can a hadith abrogate a verse of the Qur’an? What is the status of any riwayah that attempts to do that? How exactly is mut’ah practised? What are its conditions, restrictions and formalities? Is it really how most of the Ahl al-Sunnah picture it in their minds? Is it zina in truth? Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is it a shame or an honour? Can it be contracted with a depraved man, woman or girl? Is it truly a “mercy” from Allah as Ibn ‘Abbas claimed? Or, is it a curse for the Ummah? Is it a legitimate marriage? Or, is it only a perversion? In this book, we will be investigating these and other questions, in order to find what really happened in the early history of Islam, about mut’ah?

We must find out how we got where we are today, so that we could correct any wrong steps in the past and move to our Lord on a smoother path. This, we will be doing in this exploratory research of ours. We seek Allah’s Help in this effort, and we implore Him to forgive us all our mistakes in it, and to accept it as a worthy act of ‘ibadah. And may Allah send His salawat and barakat upon our master, Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah, and upon his purified offspring.

We will leave this preface with a beautiful athar recorded by ‘Abd al-Razzaq about Sa’id b. Jubayr - one of the greatest Imams of the Ahl al-Sunnah throughout history. This is part of what al-Hafiẓ has documented about him:

وقال يعقوب القمي عن جعفر بن أبي المغيرة :كان ابن عباس إذا أتاه أهل الكوفة يستفتونه يقول أليس فيكم ابن أم الدهماء يعني سعيد بن جبير وقال عمرو بن ميمون عن أبيه لقد مات سعيد بن جبير وما على ظهر الأرض أحد إلا وهو محتاج إلى علمه … وقال أبو قاسم الطبري هو ثقة إمام حجة على المسلمين قتل في شعبان سنة خمس وتسعين وهو ابن ٤٩ سنة … وكان سفيان يقدم سعيدا على إبراهيم في العلم وكان أعلم من مجاهد وطاووس

Ya’qub al-Qummi narrated that Ja’far b. Abi al-Mughirah said: “Whenever the people of Kufah came to Ibn ‘Abbas to seek his fatwa, he used to say, ‘Is there not among you Ibn Umm al-Dahma?’ referring to Sa’id b. Jubayr’” ‘Amr b. Maymun also reported that his father said: “Sa’id b. Jubayr died while there was no one on the face of the earth who did not need his knowledge” Abu Qasim al-Ṭabari said: “He was thiqah (trustworthy), an Imam, a hujjah upon the Muslims. He was murdered in Sha’ban 95 H while he was 49 years old” Sufyan used to consider Sa’id superior to Ibrahim in knowledge, and he was more knowledgeable than Mujahid and Ṭawus.9

This same Ibn Jubayr examined the Sunni arguments and “proofs” against mut’ah. Then, he drew his conclusion about it. ‘Abd al-Razzaq records:

عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال: أخبرني عبد الله بن عثمان بن خثيم قال: كانت بمكة امرأة عراقية تنسك جميلة، لها ابن يقال له أبو أمية، وكان سعد بن جبير يكثر الدخول عليها، قلت: يا أبا عبد الله ما أكثر ما تدخل على هذه المرأة، قال: إنا قد نكحناها ذلك النكاح - للمتعة - قال: وأخبرني أن سعيد قال له: هي أحل من شرب الماء - للمتعة .

‘Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. Khaytham:

There was a pious, beautiful Iraqi woman in Makkah. She had a son called Abu Umayyah; and Sa’d b. Jubayr10 used to enter upon her a lot. I said, “O Abu ‘Abd Allah! Why do you frequently enter upon this woman?” He said, “We have married her in that marriage”, referring to mut’ah.

He (Ibn Jurayj) said: He (‘Abd Allah) informed me that Sa’id said to him: “IT IS MORE HALAL THAN THE DRINKING OF WATER,” referring to mut’ah.11

Only ‘Abd Allah needs an introduction here. Al-Hafiẓ says about him:

عبد الله بن عثمان بن خثيم بالمعجمة والمثلثة مصغرا القاري المكي أبو عثمان صدوق

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. Khaytham al-Qari al-Makki, Abu ‘Uthman: Saduq (very truthful).12

Therefore, the report is hasan.

Notes

1. Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, pp. 496-497, # 14021

2. 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. 151

3. Muhammad Naṣir al-Din al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami; 2nd edition, 1405 H), vol. 4, p. 244, # 1050

4. Muhammad Naṣir al-Din al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami; 2nd edition, 1405 H), vol. 3, p. 97, # 629. We do not agree with the conjecture of al-Albani here, that the clearly ‘an-‘an reportage of Ibn Jurayj also means that he had “heard” the riwayah.

5. Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 499, # 14025

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. 132, # 6310

7. Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 500, # 14029

8. Abu Muhammad ‘Ali b. Ahmad b. Sa’id b. Hazm al-Andalusi al-Qurṭubi al-Ẓahiri, al-Muhalla (Dar al-Fikr li al-Ṭaba’ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’), vol. 9, pp. 519-520

9. Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Dar al-Fikr; 1st edition, 1404 H), vol. 4, pp. 11-13, # 14

10. The correct spelling is Sa’id b. Jubayr. A letter has been omitted in “Sa’id”. This is most probably a scribal error. Meanwhile, later in the same athar, the name has been spelt correctly.

11. Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Habib al-Rahman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 496, # 14020

12. 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. 513, # 3477

Meditations On Husayn’s Speech On The Day Of Ashura

Husayn (as) addressed the people on the Day of Ashura, saying:

“You have drawn the sword with which we armed you, against us, and ignited the fire we kindled against our enemy and yours, against us. So you have joined hands with the forces of your enemies against your allies, in spite of being aware that they (your enemies) have not established any justice among you, nor do you expect any good from them.”1

This is Husayn’s address to the people on the day of Ashura. It is a strange speech which he gave at that critical hour before they drew their swords on him. This address carries boundless grief on account of those people who drew their swords against the son of the daughter of the Messenger of God, (S). I will talk on a number of points regarding this speech.

1- “You Have Drawn The Sword With Which We Armed You, Against Us.”

With respect to any struggle people fall into three groups: The first and the second are the opposing parties, while the third are mere observers who stay behind without supporting the truth. This group makes up a wide cross section of society.

The first and second groups bear the price of the struggle, that is, hands and heads will have to fall. This equally involves both the contesting parties and is not specific to the party of truth or falsehood. This is the norm of God Most High with regard to contests. God Almighty says:

“If you are suffering they are also suffering like you, but you expect from God what they do not expect.” 2

He also said:"If a wound afflicts you, a like wound has already afflicted those people; and We make such vicissitudes rotate among mankind…” 3

The party of truth is distinguished in the contest by God’s help and support and the victory He grants them. Indeed God has promised them that. God Most High says:"If you help God, He will help you and make your feet steady” 4 and"God has ordained: ‘I shall surely prevail, I and my apostles.” 5

This is what the believers expect from God when they are engaged in a contest. This expectation assures the hearts of the believers of divine support on the battlefield, a support which will ensure the outcome of the conflict in their favour. The foregoing analysis pertains to the two warring parties. The third group is a very complex one that can easily slip towards the side of falsehood as it is susceptible to enemy influence.

These are the people whom Husayn (as) addressed on the day of Ashura. They had sheathed their swords during the times of Ali (as) and al-Hasan (as). They had abandoned Ali (as) in Siffin and after that al-Hasan (as) till he had to compromise with Mu’awiya in order to save what remained of his father’s partisans. When these people put down their arms and forsook Ali (as) and al-Hasan (as), Mu’awiya drew them and after him, on the day of Ashura, Yazid did the same.

They did not lay down arms for long because the field of struggle abhors those sitting on the fence. He who does not side with truth on the field of contest and prefers safety over trouble of battle will undoubtedly side with falsehood very soon. The stand of the defenders of truth is firm and secure, and beyond the reach of the enemy, but those who stand on the fence easily drift towards the enemy side. They are defenseless and within easy reach of the enemy who can allure them to join the bandwagon, or terrorize and force them to side with falsehood.

Because of this, the positions people take on the field of conflict boil down to two: either they stand with truth in terms of loyalty and denouncement or they stand with falsehood in a like manner. These were the people Husayn (as) was addressing at Karbala. They had sheathed their swords and betrayed his father and brother before and were drawing them on him in Karbala. So he said to them: ‘You have drawn the sword with which we armed you against us.’

The sword denotes power. Before the advent of Islam, the Arabs were an isolated, weak nation living in the desert with neither power nor wealth. Islam bestowed on them power and wealth, made them bearers of the message of monotheism and conquered the world for them, thus making them lords and rulers over the world. Syria was then the seat of this power, which Islam had brought to the Arabs, and it used it to exercise political and military influence over large parts of Asia and Africa.

To these people, Husayn (as) spoke on the day of Ashura at Karbala, saying:

“God has guided you through my grandfather the Messenger of God (S) and, through him, provided you with this vast control that stretches over the earth. He has made you leaders and lords in the world. Therefore, this power and sword is ours although it is now in your hands. However, you have forsaken my father and brother before; you sheathed your swords and abandoned them then. And here you are today drawing the sword, which the Messenger of God (S) placed in your hands, to fight the son of his daughter.

It would have been more becoming of you to have fought Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan with this sword before, in support of my father and brother, and today, Yazid ibn Mu’awiya in my support … for they have left the tradition (sunnah ) of God’s Messenger and we tried to bring them back to the straight path but they did not return to it.”

2- ‘And You Ignited The Fire Which We Kindled Against Our Enemy And Your Enemy, Against Us.’

What was this fire that Husayn spoke about on the day of Ashura?

Who ignited it?

Where did he ignite it?

This fire was the great explosion of light that took place in the Arabian Peninsula. It sent to mankind a radiance that enlightened the hearts and minds of men from the east to the west. With this light, which entered every house, God removed the darkness of ignorance from mankind. This light turned into faith, sincerity, service, certainty, values, sacrifice, prayer and supplication, schools for the dissemination of knowledge and mosques for

worship that soon spread all over the world. It also emerged as uprisings and movements of the oppressed against the oppressors. On the other hand, this fire eliminated the thrones of the tyrants in Persia, Byzantine and Egypt. It also broke away the fetters and shackles from the hands and feet of men, and set them free from the grip of the oppressors.

The Messenger of God (S) ignited this fire in the Arabian peninsula and it was barely fifty years after its kindling that it illuminated the globe from east to west. The Messenger of God, (S) did not select a specific class for this call. In fact he released the dormant forces of innate nature and reason from the souls of those Arabs who answered his call. He made them a great force that vanquished the armies of Persia and Byzantium, and swept away the thrones of Chosroe and Caesar.

This action of the Messenger of God (S) was exactly like the work of an engineer when he produces light and heat from a cold dark rock; or the way a cold dark piece of wood gives us light and heat when it comes into contact with fire. He produced, out of them, paragons of righteousness and piety, strength and resistance, faith and submission to God, who were able to propagate this mission all over the world. They became lords and leaders of humanity after having lived in isolation from civilization in a plantless desert region.

In no more than fifty years from the death of the Messenger of God (S), the people burnt the house of his daughter. They set fire to Fatima’s (as) door in Medina, and later to the tents of his household in Karbala.

How cruelly they disregarded the rights of the Prophet’s family!

How ungratefully they repaid the Messenger of God (S) for his favours!

How regrettable the conduct of the servants!!

And God Most High clearly expressed His Wish to them:

"Say, ‘I do not ask of you any reward for it except affection and respect for [my] kith and kin.’ 6

3- “You Have Joined Hands With The Forces Of Your Enemies Against Your Allies.”

This is the second act of apostasy, which is worse than the first. The Imam (as) pointed out to the first when he said: ‘you have drawn the sword which we armed you with, against us.’ When the people reneged the first time, the swords shifted from the side of the Household of the Messenger of God (S) to the side of their opponents and enemies. This fact has been precisely described by al-Farazdaq when he met Husayn (as) on the way to Iraq. He said to the Imam (as): “Their hearts are with you but their swords are against you.”7 This is a perfect description of the psychological and political condition of the people at that time. Indeed their hearts were with Husayn (as) until then although their political inclinations were in favour of the Umayyads. This was the beginning, and it constituted the first act of perfidy.

The normal situation is that the hearts and swords should converge on the side of the truth, but if the heart and the swords disagree, this is the first step towards apostasy. The second step is when the two are agreed on being

hostile to, and fighting the Prophet’s Household (as.). This is the situation about which the Imam (as) is informing us in this statement:

“You have joined hands with the forces of your enemies against your allies.”

The term al-ilb, which the Imam used, denotes rallying or joining hands with a common enemy and needs some explanation. A nation (ummah) is a group of people who are united by a common loyalty and a common thing which they repudiate. This is the soundest and most precise definition ofummah (nation).

The Muslim nation is united by loyalty to God, His Messenger (S) and the Imams (as) of the believers."Your guardian is only God, his Apostle and the faithful who maintain prayer and give the zakat while bowing down [in rukuh].” 8

He who accepts this guardianship is part of this nation and he who rejects it or part of it does not belong to this nation. Similarly, this nation has a common position of repudiating the rebellious forces oftaghut which God Almighty has ordered us to disbelieve in, and the idolaters. So he who repudiates these two is a member of this nation and he who does not is not its member."Worship God and keep away from the Rebel” 9

Thus, on the day of Ashura, The Imam (as) said to them: A repudiation of God’s enemies and a common hostility towards them used to unite us. We also shared a common loyalty towards God’s friends. But today “you have joined the forces of your enemies against your allies”, exactly the opposite of what should have been the case. You should have united with your allies against your enemies. This is the second act of apostasy.

In fact, this was the condition of the people whom Husayn (as) addressed on Ashura. This showed the change-over between the two poles of love and hate, loyalty and repudiation, and it is the highest form of volte-face in the human personality.

4- “They Have Not Established Any Justice Among You, Nor Do You Expect Any Good From Them.”

The Imam (as) is saying that their hearts have turned from guidance to misguidance, from God’s friends to His enemies. They have become loyal to those that deserved repudiation, while the Umayyads have not changed their former position: “they have not established any justice among you.” The Umayyads are still committing injustice as they did before, still steeped in oppression and deviation.

No change had taken place in the stand of the Umayyads; the only thing that happened was a volte-face of hearts from the axis of loyalty to that of repudiation and from repudiation to that of (a new) alliance, for the people had shifted their alliance from theAhl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s household) to the Umayyads without there being any change in theAhl al-Bayt (as) from the position of guidance and righteousness, or in the Umayyads from their deviation and oppression.

“Nor do you expect any good from them”

That change of hearts was not prompted by any transformation in the Umayyads from unjust rulers to justice-loving ones, nor was it because the

people expected the Umayyads to treat them with justice. Therefore, the people were not deceived by the Umayyads when they gave them their loyalty and fought their antagonists. What then prompted the people to change over from the family of God’s Messenger (S) to the family of Umayyah? The reason was that the Umayyads had subdued them with terror or enticement. There is a difference between deception and degradation. One who is deceived by his enemy loves his enemy, is loyal to him and fights his enemy’s enemy out of mistake. This is a weakness in terms of awareness and knowledge but not a debasement. But he who allies himself with his enemy and supports him with his arms and wealth, and then gives him his heart knowing that he is his enemy abases himself and becomes contemptible.

Nations have always been subdued and degraded either by force and terror or by money. The Umayyads used both methods: debasement with force and terror and debasement with money and power. Although they used enticements, propaganda and deception, their excessive oppression, luxury and sinful style of life was too prominent to be lost on anyone.

5- “Woe To You! Are You Heading Towards These People And Forsaking Us?

This is the most pathetic volte-face in man’s life: he turns against himself by loving his enemy and hating his friend. A human being loves and hates; loves his friends and hates his enemies. When one forgets oneself, he forgets who he should love and who he should hate and above all, love and hate change places for him so that he now loves his enemy and hates his friends! This is the condition with which God punishes those who forget Him; He makes them forget themselves"…who forgot God so he makes them forget their own souls.” 10

The people Husayn (as) addressed on the day of Ashura were among those who forgot God so He made them forget themselves, forgot who they loved and hated. They loved the Umayyads who they were supposed to be hostile to because they perpetrated tyranny, sin and ungodliness; and they fought their friends and allies whom God had commanded the Muslims to love and obey, as recorded in the definitive (muhkamat) verses of His book.11 I cannot imagine the extent of pain that afflicted the Imam’s heart as depicted by this speech. A pain that stems from his compassion for them with regard to the level of misery they had reached. This pain was not because the Imam had lost their support in his tribulation.

6- “O Slaves Of (This) Nation And Strangers!”

This is the trait of slaves. Slaves must be loyal to whoever buys them. There is no permanent principle for their loyalty. He who buys them from the slave market deserves their loyalty, whether they like or hate him. Therefore their loyalty changes hands instantly from one master to the new master who pays their price to the old one and the latter hands over the whip to the former.

In an instant, the slaves forget their old love and loyalty and become faithful to their new master and new loyalty. People’s loyalty is to their parties, in ease or difficulty and in defeat or victory, unlike those who are

strangers to the parties, for their loyalty is always for the victorious whether they are in the right or not. This is the situation with floating political alliances; they carry dangerous psychological implications that depict a lack of principles and values. Also this attitude shows complete subordination to the one with the upper hand and a complete abandoning of the self and values.

7- “Away With You, O Slaves Of The Nation And Strangers To The Parties!”

Here the Imam (as) is praying for their being distanced from the mercy of God. This is because God’s mercy descends on man at different stations in man’s life. When one distances himself from these points he removes himself from God’s mercy. This is God’s norm of treating His servants so let us ponder on it. There is a reciprocal relationship between the descending mercy of God and the points at which it descends.

This descending mercy activates the places it descends upon. When rain falls on a land it becomes green, blossoms, ripens and bears fruit. This is what the descending mercy does to its place of descent. The place of mercy also seeks its place of descent and does not come down on a place unless it deserves the descent of mercy.

This deserving is to seek God’s mercy in the existential sense by having the potential to receive it, and this is necessary for mercy to descend. On the other hand, rejecting God’s mercy pushes it aside and makes it remote. God’s mercy is continuously descending although there are factors that facilitate its reception, just as there are factors that bring about its rejection.

Ponder over the prayer of the righteous servant of God, Noah (as) against his people:“And Noah said: ‘My Lord! Do not leave on the earth any inhabitant from amongst the faithless. If you leave them, they will lead your servants astray and will beget only vicious ingrates.”(Qur’an-71:27) It is a strange prayer in which Noah (as) speaks of God’s norms of sending mercy and cutting it off. All their potential for receiving goodness had dried up and all readiness to seek mercy: “… and they will not beget any but vicious ingrates”. So, on what would God’s mercy descend?

Husayn (as) prays to God Most High against those people on the day of Ashura because their hearts have lost all the values, which are the points in their souls at which mercy descends. So there remained no place in their souls and lives on which divine mercy would alight. Thus he said: Away with you! O slaves of the nation.

8- “An Old Treachery That Was Part And Parcel Of Your Forefathers”

Just as good can be deep-rooted, evil can also be so. The roots of goodness reach out to innate nature, reason, conscience and the heart while those of evil are linked to selfish desires. When evil and selfish desires take root in the mind one loses all the sources of goodness that are in his soul. The foundations of goodness that are associated with his heart, conscience, reason and innate nature dwindle as well.

Heredity plays a part in establishing goodness or evil. I do not mean to say that the effect of heredity is inevitable but that it plays an important part.

Heredity enhances good and intensifies evil although not with coercion. This means that mankind falls into two groups: the good tree and the bad tree (lit. tree) and each one is a tree. A tree has roots and fruits and there are similarities in some aspects between the roots and fruits of a tree. The roots of a tree form its foundation, the fruits its derivatives while the trunk serves as the means of conveying the features from the roots to the fruits.

In like manner good and bad lines of mankind carry good and bad traits from ancestors to their offspring so that goodness or evil are deep-rooted in each of them. Consequently, these two sets of ancestors constitute two lines in human history: a rising line that moves upwards continuously and a falling line, continuous in descent. Nimrod’s family is on the descent and Abraham’s family on the ascent; the family of Moses is ascending and the family of Pharaoh descending.

The law of heredity enhances this ascent and descent. It does not only convey the features of good and evil from forefathers to offspring but also refines them and sorts out evil from good and vice versa. As time goes on, the divergence between these two families (of good and evil) widens until a time is reached when the members of the evil family become devoid of goodness and its spring dries up from their souls. At that point divine punishment descends on them since they no longer deserve mercy.

This is what happened at the time of Noah (as) and it could happen at any other time. Then the bad family comes to an end and falls, and a new circle of history will begin. Surely, the law of heredity carries good and bad traits from generation to generation and promotes both the good and the bad together. It is this law that Imam Husayn (as) was hinting at when he said:

“Certainly, I swear by God that yours is an old treachery which has become part and parcel of your forefathers and which the offspring among you have strengthened. So you are the worst fruits: an eye sore to the viewer and an easy morsel for the usurper.”

The Imam (as) meant to say that treachery and wickedness was deep-rooted in them. It first reared its head on the day of Siffin, after which sons inherited it from their fathers. It took root first with their forefathers and gained strength and blossomed at the hands of the offspring among those present.

Therefore, they are the worst fruit of the bad tree. We must add that the inheritance we are discussing here is that of values and behaviour and it does not apply to biological inheritance. The law of biological inheritance in plants, animals and humans does not necessarily apply to that of values, thoughts and behaviour. The two laws can be completely different as in the case of Noah's son.

The Qur'an gives a precise description of him saying:"Indeed he is a [personification of] unrighteous conduct" ,12 although he was among the offspring of Noah (as) who was a leader of the righteous. This difference came from the determining factor in biological inheritance that does not apply to the inheritance of actions and values, which follow will and choice.

Notes

1. - Sayyid Ibn Tawus’s Al-Luhuf fi Qatla al-Tufuf pg: 58.

2. - Qur’an Ch: 4, Vs: 104.

3. - Qur’an, Ch: 3, Vs: 140.

4. - Qur’an Ch: 47, Vs: 7

5. - Qur’an Ch: 58, Vs: 21.

6. - Qur’an Ch: 42, Vs: 23.

7. - Sheikh al-Sharifi’s Kalimat Imam al-Al-Husayn (a.s) pg. 370.

8. - Qur’an Ch: 5, Vs: 55.

9. - Qur’an Ch: 16, Vs: 36.

10. - Qur’an Ch: 59, Vs: 19.

11. - “Say, ‘I do not ask you any reward for it except the affection for [my] relatives’ – Qur’an Ch: 42 Vs: 23. “Your guardian is only God, His Apostle, and the faithful who maintain the prayer and give the zakat while bowing down” Qur’an Ch: 5, Vs: 55.

12. - Qur'an Ch: 11 vs: 46.