Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Alhassanain (p) Network for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet (S)

Meaning of Imamate and Khilafah, as well as Shi'i and Sunni views on topics such as necessity of Imamate, infallibility, and Shura.

Author(s): Allamah Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi

Publisher(s): World Organization for Islamic Services (WOFIS)

www.alhassanain.org/english

Table of Contents

Part 1: General Meaning 4

1. Meaning of Imamate and Khilafah 4

2. Summary of Differences 4

3. Basic Difference 5

4. System of Islamic Leadership 7

Notes 8

Part 2: The Shi'ite Point of View 10

5. The Necessity of Imamate and the Qualifications of an Imam 10

A. Necessity of Imamate 10

B. Superiority (afdaliyyah) 10

C. Infallibility 10

D. Appointment by Allah 11

Verses of the Qur'an 11

E. Miracles 12

Precedent 12

Logical Reasons 13

6. Infalability of the Imams 13

7. Superiority of ‘Ali (as) 15

8. Appointment of Ali (as) 16

9. Verses of mastership ( wilayah) 16

10. The formal declaration of Ghadir Khum 17

I. Hadith of Ghadir: Mutawatir 19

II. Asnad of Hadith of Ghadir: 21

III. General Meanings of Mawla: 22

IV. Meaning of "Mawla" in the Context 23

11. 'Ali "self" of the Prophet 24

12. Traditions 24

13. Ulu 'L-Amr must be ma’sum 25

14. Ulu 'l-Amr: does it mean Muslim ruler? 27

15. Real meaning of Ulu 'l-Amr 29

16. Twelve caliphs or Imams 30

17. Few facts about the twelve Imams(a) 31

Notes 32

Part 3- The Sunni Point of View 34

18. Sunni views on the caliphate 34

19. Qualifications of a Caliph 34

20. Abu Bakr’s rise to power 35

21. Short review 37

22. Nomination of 'Umar 39

23. Ash-Sura: The committee 41

25. General review 43

26. The practical side 44

27. Al-Walid and Harun Ar-Rashid 45

28. Effects on the beliefs of the justice of God and 'ismah of the prophets 46

29. Is Shi’ism Undemocratic? 47

30. A Dynastic rule? 49

Notes 50

Bibliography 52

Part 1: General Meaning

1. Meaning of Imamate and Khilafah

Al-Imamah literally means 'to lead '; al-imam means 'the leader'. In Islamic terminology al-imamah (Imamate) means 'universal authority in all religious and secular affairs, in succession to the Prophet'1 .al-Imam means 'the man who, in succession to the Prophet, has the right to the absolute command of the Muslims in all religious and secular affairs '.

The word 'man' signifies that a female cannot be an Imam. 'Absolute command' excludes those who lead in the prayers: they are also called 'Imam of the prayers', but they do not have absolute authority. 'In succession to the Prophet ' denotes the difference between a prophet and an Imam. The Imam enjoys this authority not directly, but as the successor of the Prophet.

The word Al-Khilafah means 'to succeed' and al-khalifah means 'the successor'. In Islamic terminology al-khilafah and al-khalifah practically signify the same meanings as al-ima'mah and al-ima'm repectively.

Al-Wisayah means ' the executorship of the will', and al-wasiyy means 'the executor of the will'. Their significance in Muslims' writings is the same as that of al-khilafah (caliphate) and al-khalifah (caliph).

It is interesting to note that many previous prophets were also the caliphs of their predecessor prophets, thus they were nabiyy and khalifah both; while other prophets (who brought new shari'ah) were not caliphs of any previous prophets. Also there were those who were caliphs of the prophets but not prophets themselves.

The question of Imamate and caliphate has torn the Muslim community apart and has affected the thinking and philosophy of the different groups so tremendously that even the belief in Allah (at-tawhid) and the prophets (an-nubuwwah) could not escape from this divergence of views.

This is the most debated subject of Islamic theology. Muslims have written thousands upon thousands of books on caliphate. The problem before me is not what to write; it is what not to write. In a small work such as this, one cannot touch on all the various aspects of this subject, let alone go into detail on even those topics which are described therein. This provides only a brief outline of the differences regarding the caliphate.

It may be of help to mention here that regarding this question the Muslims are divided into two sects: the Sunnis, who believe that Abu Bakr was the first caliph of the Holy Prophet of Islam; and the Shi'ahs, who believe that 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, was the first Imam and caliph.

This fundamental difference has led to other differences which shall be described in the following chapters.

2. Summary of Differences

The Holy Prophet has said in a hadith which has been accepted by all sects of Islam:

My ummah (followers) will shortly break up into seventy-three sects, all of which shall be condemned except one2 .

The seekers of salvation have always made untiring efforts to inquire into the matter to discover the right course - the path to salvation. And indeed it is necessary for every man to take reason as his guide, try his best in this matter and never despair of attaining the truth. But this can only be possible when he has a clear view of the radical differences before him, and discarding all bias and prejudices, examines the points at issue with thoughtful mind, always praying to Allah to lead him in the right path.

For this reason I propose to briefly mention here the important differences and conflicts together with the arguments and reasonings of each sect, in order to facilitate the path of inquiry. The main questions are:

1. Does it lie with Allah to appoint a prophet's successor or is it the duty of the ummah (the followers) to appoint whomsoever they please as successor to the Prophet?

2. In the latter case, did Allah or the Prophet place in the hands of the ummah any systematic code containing the rules and procedures for the appointment of a caliph, or did the ummah by their unanimous consent before appointing a caliph, prepare a set of rules to which they adhered (subsequently), or did the ummah act according to what they thought expedient at the time and according to the opportunity at their disposal? Had they the right to act as they did?

3. Does reason and Divine Law demand the existence of any qualifications and conditions in an Imam and caliph? If so, what are they?

4. Did the Prophet of Islam appoint anyone as his caliph and successor or not? If he did so, who was it? If not, why?

5. After the Prophet's death, who was recognized to be his caliph and did he possess the qualifications necessary for a caliph?3

3. Basic Difference

It will save time if we explain at the outset the basic cause of the differences concerning the nature and character of the Imamate and caliphate. What is the primary characteristic of the Imamate? Is an Imam, first and foremost, the ruler of a kingdom? Or is he, first and foremost, the representative of Allah and vicegerent of the Prophet?

As the Imamate and caliphate is generally accepted as the successorship of the Prophet, the above questions cannot be answered until a decision is made on the basic characteristics of a prophet. We must decide whether a prophet is, first and foremost, the ruler of a kingdom or the representative of Allah.

We find in the history of Islam a group which viewed the mission of the Holy Prophet as an attempt to establish a kingdom. Their outlook was material; their ideals were wealth, beauty and power.

They, naturally, ascribed the same motives to the Holy Prophet. 'Utbah ibn Rabi'ah, the father-in-law of Abu Sufyan, was sent to the Holy Prophet to convey the message of the Quraysh: "Muhammad! If you desire power and prestige, we will make you the overlord of Mecca. Do you desire marriage into a noble family? You may have the hand of the fairest maiden in the land. Do you desire hoards of silver and gold? We can provide you with all these and even more. But you must forsake these nefarious preachings which imply that our forefathers who worshipped these dieties of ours were fools."

The Quraysh were almost certain that Muhammad (S) would respond favourably to this offer. But the Holy Prophet recited surah 41 in reply which, inter alia, contained the following warning:

But if they turn away, then say: "I have warned you of a thunderbolt (of punishment) like the thunderbolt of the 'Ad and the Thamud" ( 41: 13)

'Utbah was overwhelmed by this clear warning. He did not accept Islam, but advised the Quraysh to leave Muhammad (S) alone to see how he could fare with other tribes. The Quraysh claimed that he was also bewitched by Muhammad (S)4

Thus he wanted to leave Muhammad (S) to other tribes. On the other hand when the Prophet immigrated to Medina and the Quraysh waged war upon war, the other tribes thought it advisable to leave Muhammad (S) to his own tribe. 'Amr ibn Salamah, a companion of the Prophet, states: "The Arabs were waiting for the Quraysh to accept Islam. They used to say that Muhammad (S) should be left to his own people. If he would emerge victorious over them, he was undoubtedly a true prophet. When Mecca was conquered, all the tribes hastened to accept Islam."5

Thus according to them, victory was the criterion of truth! If Muhammad (S) would have been defeated, he would have been considered a liar!

The view that his sacred mission was nothing but a worldly affair was repeatedly announced by Abu Sufyan and his clan. At the time of the fall of Mecca, Abu Sufyan left Mecca to discern the strength of the Muslim army. He was seen by the uncle of the Prophet, 'Abbas, who took him to the Holy Prophet and advised the Prophet that he be given protection and shown respect, in order that he may accept Islam.

To summarize the event, 'Abbas took Abu Sufyan for a review of the Islamic army. He pointed out to Abu Sufyan eminent personalities from every clan who were present in the army. In the meantime, the Holy Prophet passed with his group which was in green uniform. Abu Sufyan cried out: "O ‘Abbas! Verily your nephew has acquired quite a kingdom! “‘Abbas said: "Woe unto thee! This is not kingship; this is Prophethood".6

Here we see two opposing views in clear contrast. Abu Sufyan never changed his views. When 'Uthman became caliph, Abu Sufyan came to him and advised: "O Children of Umayyah! Now that this kingdom has come to you, play with it as the children play with a ball, and pass it from one to another in your clan. This kingdom is a reality; we do not know whether there is a paradise or hell or not."7

Then he went to Uhud and kicked at the grave of Hamzah (the uncle of the Prophet) and said: "O Abu Ya'la! See that the kingdom which you fought against has at last come to us."8

The same views were inherited by his grandson, Yazid, who said: Banu Hashim staged a play to obtain the kingdom; actually, there was neither any news (from Allah) nor any revelation.9

If that is the view held by any Muslim, then he is bound to equate the Imamate with rulership. According to such thinking, the primary function of the Prophet was kingship, and, therefore, anyone holding the reins of power was the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet.

But the problem arises in-that more than ninety per cent of the prophets did not have political power; and most of them were persecuted and apparently helpless victims of the political powers of their times. Their glory was not of crown and throne; it was of martyrdom and suffering. If the primary characteristic of prophethood is political power and rulership, then perhaps not even 50 (out of 124,000) prophets would retain their divine title of nabiyy.

Thus it is crystal-clear that the main characteristic of the Holy Prophet was not that he had any political power, but that he was the Representative of Allah. And that representation was not bestowed on him by his people; it was given to him by Allah Himself.

Likewise, his successor's chief characteristic cannot be political power; but the fact that he was the Representative of Allah. And that representation can never be bestowed upon anyone by his people; it must come from Allah Himself. In short, if an Imam is to represent Allah, he must be appointed by Allah.

4. System of Islamic Leadership

There was a time when monarchy was the only system of government known to the people. At that time the Muslim scholars used to glorify monarchs and monarchy by saying, the king is the shadow of Allah, as though Allah has a shadow!

Now in modern times democracy is in vogue and the Sunni scholars are never tired of asserting in hundreds and thousands of articles, books and treatises that the Islamic system of government is based upon democracy. They even go so far as to claim that democracy was established by Islam, forgetting the city-republics of Greece. In the second half of this century, socialism and communism are gaining hold of the undeveloped and developing countries; and I am not surprised to hear from many well-meaning Muslim scholars tirelessly asserting that Islam teaches and creates socialism. Some people in Pakistan and elsewhere have invented the slogan of 'Islamic socialism'. What this 'Islamic socialism' means, I do not know. But I would not be surprised if within ten or twenty years these very people start claiming that Islam teaches communism!

All this 'changing with the wind' is making a mockery of the Islamic system of leadership. Some time ago in a gathering of Muslims in an African country, in which the president of the country was the guest of honour, a Muslim leader stated that Islam taught to 'Obey Allah, obey the Apostle and your rulers'. In his reply, the president (who incidentally, was a staunch Roman Catholic) said that he appreciated very much the wisdom of the commandment to obey Allah and the Apostle of Allah; but he could not understand the logic behind the order to obey 'your rulers'. What if a ruler is unjust and a tyrant'! Does Islam enjoin Muslims to obey him passively without resistance?

This intelligent question demands an intelligent reply. It cannot be regarded lightly. The fact is that the person, who invited that criticism, did so because of his misinterpretation of the Holy Qur'an.

Let us examine the system of Islamic leadership. Is it democratic? The best definition of democracy was given by Abraham Lincoln when he said that democracy was "the government of the people, by the people and for the people".

But in Islam it is not the government 'of the people'; it is the 'government of Allah'. How do people govern themselves? They govern themselves by making their own laws; in Islam laws are made not by the people, but by Allah; these laws are promulgated not by the consent and decree of the people, but by the Prophet, by the command of Allah. The people have no say in legislation; they are required to follow, not to make any comment or suggestion about those laws and legislations:

And it is not for a believer man or believer woman to have any choice in their affair when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter. . (33:36).

Coming to the phrase 'by the people', let us now consider how people govern themselves. They do so by electing their own rulers. The Holy Prophet, who was the supreme executive, judicial and overall authority of the Islamic government, was not elected by the people. In fact, had the people of Mecca been allowed to exercise their choice they would have elected either 'Urwah ibn Mas'ud (of at-Ta'if) or al Walid ibn al-Mughirah (of Mecca) as the prophet of Allah! According to the Qur'an:

And they say: "Why was not this Qur'an revealed to a man of importance in the two towns?"( 43 :31 )10

So not only was the Supreme Head of the Islamic State appointed without the consultation of the people, but in fact it was done against their expressed wishes. The Holy Prophet is the highest authority of Islam: he combines in his person all the functions of legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government; and he was not elected by the people.

So Islam is neither the government of the people nor by the people. There is no legislation by the people; and the executive and judiciary is not responsible to the people.

Nor is it, for that matter, a government 'for the people'. The Islamic system, from the beginning to the end, is 'for Allah'. Everything must be done 'for Allah'; if it is done 'for the people', it is termed 'hidden polytheism'. Whatever you do-whether it is prayer or charity, social senice or family function, obedience to parents or love of neighbour, leading in prayer or deciding a case, entering into war or concluding a peace-mustbe done with "qurbatan ila'llah", to become nearer to Allah, to gain the pleasure of Allah. In Islam; everything is for Allah.

In short, the Islamic form of government is the government of Allah, by the representative of Allah, to gain the pleasure of Allah.

And I did not create the jinn and the human beings except that they should worship me (51:56).

It is theocracy, and it is the nature and characteristic of Islamic leadership. And how it affects the meaning of the above verse concerning 'obedience' shall be seen in later chapters.

Notes

1. al-'Allamah al-Hilli: al-Babu 'l-hadi 'ashar, Eng. tr. W. M. Miller, p. 62; Mughniyyah: Falsafat Islamiyyah, p. 392.

2. al-Khatib at-Tabrizi: Mishkatu 'l-masabih, Eng. tr. James Robson, vol.l, p.45; al-Majlisi has collected, in a complete chapter, traditions to this effect in Biharu 'l-anwar,, vol. 28, pp. 2-36; al-Qummi, Sh. 'Abbas: Safinatu 'l-bihar, vol. 2, pp. 359-60.

3. Najmu 'l-Hasan: an-Nubuwwahwa 'l-khilafah, tr. Liqa' 'Ali Haydari, pp. 2 3.

4. Ibn Hisham: as-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah, vol.l, pp. 313 -4.

5. al-Bukhari: as-Sahih, vol. 5, p. 191; Ibn Kathir: al-Bidayah wa 'n-nihayah, vol. 5,p . 40.

6. Abu'l-Fida': al-Mukhtasar, vol.1, pp 143-4; alYa'qubi: at-Tarikh, vol. 2, p. 59.

7. Ibn 'Abdi 'l-Barr: al-lsti'ab, vol. 4, p.l679; Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid quotes the last sentence as follows: "By him in whose name Abu Sufyan swears, there is neither punishment nor reckoning, neither Garden nor Fire, neither Resurrection nor Day of Judgment."(Vide his Sharh Nahji 'l-balaghah, vol. 9, p. 53.)

8. Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid: op. cit., vol. 16, p. 136.

9. Sibt ibn al Jawzi: 'Tadhkirah, ed. S. M. S. Bahru 'l 'Ulum, p. 261; at-Tabari, at-Tarikh, vol.13, p. 2174.

10.For the explanation of "a man of importance", see, as-Suyuti: Lubabu u'n-nuqul fi asbabi'n-nuzul printed with Tafsiru 'l-jalalayn, pp. 289, 649.

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.