Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Mutah (Temporary) Marriage

Mutah is a kind of marriage (Nikah). The only difference is that one is periodic and the other is permanent. Its detail is given in the Holy Quran. Mutah is not compulsory or obligatory but the Holy Quran considers it lawful. Since no verse of Mutah is found to be abrogated, Shias believe that it is lawful and they practice it. Non-Shias regard it unlawful, because Umar Ibn Khattab has decreed it to be illegal.

In his own words: “I prohibit both.” How the statement of the Prophet or Caliph can abrogate a verse of Quran is beyond the understanding of this writer.

According to non-Shias, some tradition of the Prophet abrogated the command of Mutah and that is why the Caliph also instructed thus. The writer says that it is the same, whether there is some saying of the Prophet abrogating Mutah or not, neither the statement of the Prophet can abrogate a verse of Quran nor the saying of Umar. According to Shias belief, only Allah can abrogate His own command.

Even the Prophet or a descendent of a Prophet cannot abrogate a divine command. But the same cannot be expected from Ahlul Sunnat according to whose belief, Umar had the right to abrogate any command of Allah, since according to Ahlul Sunnat faith most verses were revealed because of Umar; so if after the passing away of the Prophet, the Caliph abrogates a command of Allah, what is wrong in it?

By following this faith, it becomes easy to accept the abrogation of the verse of Mutah, otherwise, apparently the command of Umar for abrogation of Mutah seems to be absolutely opposed to Islamic texts. This argument is not acceptable to the writer, because to say that Quranic verses were revealed according to Umar’s opinion is meaningless. In the view of intelligent people, Quranic verses were not revealed according to Umar’s opinion and Umar’s command cannot abrogate the command of Allah.

Ahlul Sunnat believe that Allah sent revelation according to the Caliph’s wish and this shows that Umar had a share in prophethood, which means that he was superior to the Prophet. Thus, when the Caliph disliked something, Allah’s command come down according to his wish and there was no interference of the Prophet or anyone else. We also come to know that Muhammad (S) and even Allah felt it necessary to bear in mind Umar’s likes or dislikes. If it was not so, how can they say that revelation was sent according to his wish?

Muhammad (S) was a channel to convey divine revelation and preaching of verses that whatever communications were sent by Allah, he was to bring them to the believers and without interfering, whether he liked it or not. It is clear that this is the function of the Messenger of Allah (S). But revelation was according to Umar’s opinion; and Allah had to ask Umar about his opinion before sending it, which means that Umar did not only have a share in prophethood, he also was a partner in godhood.

This belief seems to exceed the faith of Bahrul Uloom Maulavi Abdul Alaa, which regards Umar only to be the tutor of the Holy Prophet (S). Bahrul Uloom says that sometime the Prophet was in a position where even angels could not tread and sometimes he came down to the earthly level and it was in one of those moments that in the last days, the Messenger of Allah (S) said:

“Give me pen and paper, so that I may write for you something that you would never go astray after me.”

Umar understood that it was the moment of his earthliness and therefore he corrected him. Upon which the Messenger of Allah (S) continued to repeat: “I seek the refuge of Allah.”

The writer says: When Umar had a share in Quranic revelation, then how could the personal reformation of Prophet Muhammad (S) be difficult for the Caliph? But the writer cannot share the Maulavi’s faith, because the saying of the Holy Prophet (S) does not show that when he said: “Give me pen and paper…” he had fallen to the level of earthliness, because if it had been so, he would not have said: “So that you will not go astray after me.”

It is a statement, which shows that what he was saying was very important. That is, he wanted to write something, which would save his followers from going astray. It is clear that such a document cannot be concerned with his terminal condition. Certainly his thoughts were on Allah, but Umar could not understand the Prophet’s style and his demand of intelligence and wisdom, otherwise, he never would have tried to correct his thinking.

When at last the Prophet said, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” also it was not due to low thoughts. Rather, it seems that the Prophet was very much displeased of the people’s disobedience. No doubt, to say, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” was a demand of nature as his followers and all Muslims had always obeyed him, but now the condition was such that when he was in his terminal illness and asking for pen and paper, they were not prepared to obey him. On the contrary, Umar was also claiming that the Prophet was talking nonsense, as clear from his statement that: “The disease has overcome him…”

If the Prophet had not said, “I seek the refuge of Allah,” what else could he have said? Maulavi Abdul Alaa has, in his justifications, praised priesthood a lot, but it is regretful that his justifications have no relation to Nature. Now the people of justice can decide whether Umar had any share in divine revelation or not? The fact is that Ahlul Sunnat love the three Caliphs to such an extent that they do not care for the respect and honor of the Prophet. Allah and the Prophet have only minor value for them. We are horrified on seeing people like Bahrul Uloom and other learned Ahlul Sunnat. Although there are many strange things in the world, but the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is the strangest of all.

Thus, we should know that Mutah is sanctioned by Quran and it cannot be abrogated by a statement of the Prophet or a saying of Umar. Research shows that Mutah is lawful in religion and it was lawful during the time of the Prophet till the end of Bakr’s tenure. It was only Umar who decreed it unlawful and from then onwards, Ahlul Sunnat regarded Mutah unlawful.

There is no doubt that during the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr, Mutah was lawful, as Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari says that, “I performed Mutah during the time of the Messenger of Allah (S) and in the time of Abu Bakr,” and also in Tirmidhi1 it is mentioned that a Syrian asked Abdullah Ibn Umar that, “Mutah of Hajj was lawful with Umrah, but your father made it unlawful,” Abdullah replied, “My father made it unlawful but the Messenger of Allah (S) has made it lawful. Shall I leave the Sunnah (practice) of the Prophet and obey the commands of my father?”

Now, let us see what Mutah is?

We should know that permanent marriage (Nikah) is a civil contract in Islam, in the same way, Mutah (Temporary marriage) is also a civil contract. The difference in temporary or permanent marriage is that there is no divorce in Mutah and in Nikah, divorce is possible. It means that Mutah cannot be cancelled within the fixed period of time, as opposed to Nikah, which can be terminated anytime through divorce.

Since, according to the dictates of reason, Mutah is an unblemished contract, educated people of the world cannot deny its excellence. For example an Englishman, who was also a famous jurist of India, complied with this contract. He was among the friends of the writer. He married a respectable woman of his own community on contract for thirty years and his spouse participated in society with other married women.

Since he was not bound by Christian faith and discriminated between the merits and demerits of a thing, he did not consider such a contract to be defective. Now the excellence of Mutah is unfolded even among the people of America and it would not be a surprise if Mutah becomes customary in the whole world. We should know that both, Mutah and Nikah are based on the same principle and having the same aim. Both are means to protect against fornication. Islam has endeavored much to save the Muslims from fornication.

Islam has allowed four marriages at the same time and also fixed rational prohibitionary limits. By making Mutah lawful, in addition to permanent marriage, Allah has made martial relations so easy for the believers, which cannot be obtained by those who deny Mutah. Lack of facility in lawful sexual contact is due to the prohibition of Mutah. And this lack of facility results in fornication.

Rather, it can cause even worse consequences as seen during the time of Umar. From that time onwards, nothing could replace Mutah as a channel to save the people from fornication. When the order for prohibition of Mutah was announced in the Islamic lands, within a very short time, complaints arrived from Syria that soldiers were indulging in many inappropriate misdeeds2 due to the prohibition of Mutah, which was not surprising, considering the hot temperament of Arabs! Allah forbid! That is why, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) Amirul Mo-mineen (a.s.) stated that if Ibn Khattab had not prohibited Mutah, only the most wretched ones would have indulged in fornication.3

We should know that four marriages are permissible in Islam. This order is not obligatory nor compulsory; a man can marry one, two, three or four, or due to some helplessness, he cannot even marry one. Those who advocate monogamy, should know that if Allah had made it obligatory, the religion of Islam would have advanced in other countries, but it had no chance in the land of Arabs.

A community whose males were not at all worried of hunger and thirst during fasts and who considered the best way to end the fast through sexual intercourse with the wife, to think that they would be content with one wife is only madness! Such a community cannot be saved from fornication through limited sex.

Therefore, the permission of four marriages was not without exigency. Those who have accepted monogamy and are proud of it, they have no reason to be proud of as whatever is seen in Paris and London is beyond imagination. They advocate one wife even she were leprous or sterile! Indecency is not unexpected from one who is bound like this.

Experience shows that the slogan of one wife is only used to conceal obscenity. Islam has removed the system of one wife very intelligently and allowed four wives and to be safe from fornication, has also shown the easy way of Mutah.

If Mutah is adopted, there would be no need to keep prostitutes on contract in the army and that wherever the army moves the prostitutes go along with them! Government is not concerned whether the army personnel do this lawfully or unlawfully. While the government must assure that the army should not create disturbance.

It is clear that if the government would not supply prostitutes, disturbance could be created in the army such as the disturbance created in the army of Syria when Umar prohibited Mutah. According to the writer’s view, limited polygamy and Mutah, both are the best ways and Quran has considered both lawful. Certainly, if one does not consider fornication wrong, he cannot value these facilities!

One who knows the worth of polygamy and is aware of their necessity and he knows that fornication is appalling. I am not writing this against non-Muslims, otherwise, my writing would be in a different style.

Being a Muslim, I am not against Mutah. After it was made unlawful, what difficulties the Muslims had to bear! Imam Abu Hanifah had to derive the order that if a man pays an amount of money to fornicate with a woman, the amount would be lawful for that woman and that man would not be penalized for adultery. It is clear that if Mutah had not been made unlawful, Abu Hanifah would not have to formulate this point of law. Anyhow, whatever the Hanafites may think about this interpretation, according to the writer, Mutah is much better.

This order may be acceptable to whoremongers but the fact is that it is very abominable and it destroys the communal and personal respect of Muslims. In the eyes of the people of justice, such judgment can never have a religious sanction and a wise man could never follow it. Below, the writer presents his research about Mutah. Allah, the Almighty says in Quran:

“Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed.”4

Baidhawi states that this verse was revealed for Mutah and this order continued till after three days after the conquest of Mecca and then it was abrogated but no other verse can be seen that has abrogated this verse. Hence Noodi5 states that Imran bin Husayn says that the Holy Prophet (S) did not prohibit Mutah as long as he lived and Quran has not abrogated it.

On the same page, Imran bin Husayn says that “the verse of Mutah was revealed in Quran and the Prophet allowed Mutah for us, then the verse was never abrogated and the Prophet also did not prohibit it. But Umar did whatever he liked.”

It is worth considering that Baidhawi writes about abrogation of this verse, but he has not mentioned the verse, which has abrogated this verse of Mutah. If any verse had abrogated the verse of Mutah, he would have surely pointed it out. The fact is that there is no such verse that has abrogated the command of Mutah, as clear from the research of Imam Noodi. Another argument for the abrogation of Mutah is that in the chapter of ‘Fi-Nasikh and Al Mansukh’ of Tafseer Itqan6 we do no see the abrogated verse of Mutah.

In the same way, Mulla Jeevan Jaunpuri has included the verse of Mutah among the verses of legislation in his exegesis of Quran. The greatest argument of non- abrogation of Mutah is that according to Tarikh Ibn Khallikan7 , the command of Mutah continued during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and the first Caliph. If any verse of Mutah had been revealed to abrogate Mutah, it would not have remained concealed from the Prophet. How surprising that Umar was aware of it and the Prophet and the first Caliph were not. In short, it is confirmed that the verse of Mutah was not abrogated by any verse.

Some learned Ahlul Sunnat who try to abrogate Mutah through the verses of Surah Momin and Surah Maarij do not realize that these verses are Meccan, while the verse of Mutah is from Surah Nisa and it is Medinite. How can verses of abrogation be revealed before verses of legislation?

Umar had announced from the pulpit that, “Mutah of women and Mutah of Hajj, both were lawful during the time of the Prophet, but now I prohibit them.”8 According to Tarikhul Khulafa9 , in the Chapter of innovations of Umar, it can be seen that it was he that made Mutah unlawful. Abul Fida has also mentioned it in his history and Muwattah10 also states the same.

Now let us see whether Umar had the right to cancel the command of Mutah or not, because the Prophet and first Caliph had no right and if they had this right, surely the Prophet and the Caliph would have ordered as Umar did. From where did Umar get this discretion? Umar must have secured this right in the capacity of a jurist.

Thus, Allamah Qaushiji writes in Sharh Tajrid11 that Umar went to the pulpit and made Mutah of women and Mutah of Hajj unlawful and also cancelled the statement of “Hayya A’laa Khairil A’mal” (Rush to the best of deeds). He says that it is allowed for the jurist to give a verdict. Now the question is whether Umar, Abu Bakr or the Prophet had any right to abrogate a divine command or not?

Certainly, the Holy Prophet (S) had no right to abrogate even a small verse of Quran. Only Allah had the right to abrogate His command from Quran as some abrogated commands are seen in the Holy Quran. It is not possible for any tradition of Prophet to abrogate a verse of Quran, as clear from the statement of the Prophet that “If our tradition conforms to Quran, accept it and whatever is opposed to Quran, reject it.”12

When such is the position of a saying of the Prophet, then what is the value of the words of Abu Bakr and Umar?

No doubt, this jurisprudence of Umar is against the command of Allah and is not worthy to be followed by Muslims. Now let us see which followers of the Prophet followed Umar’s command and who were against it? Followers who accepted the command of Allah about Mutah, that is those who were against Umar were:

1) Abdullah Ibn Abbas

2) Abdullah Ibn Masood

3) Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari

4) Salma bin Al-Akwa

5) Abu Saeed Al-Khudri

6) Saeed bin Jubair

7) Mujahid

8) Abdullah Ibn Umar

9) Imran Ibn Al-Husayn

10) Akrama, slave of Ibn Abbas and

11) Abu Moosa Ashari.

We should know that the purified Imams of the family of the Prophet were also aloof from Umar’s jurisprudence and followed the command of Mutah.13 From the distinguished companions, only Uthman bin Affan and Abdullah Ibn Zubair are seen as supporters of Umar’s verdict. Now the writer states a few more points related to Mutah which are found in reliable books.

According to Noodi14 , Ibn Abbas used to certify the legality of Mutah and Ibn Zubair considered it unlawful. When Abu Nasrah, the narrator mentioned this before Jabir Ansari, Jabir said: “I did Mutah for a short period, along with the Prophet’s companions, but Umar became angry and said: ‘Allah has allowed Mutah in Quran, but if anyone does so, we would stone him to death.”

The writer says: “O Umar! Who are you? You were ready to stone to death a follower of Allah? You are not the Lord of the world that you can abrogate the verse of Holy Quran. Even the Prophet could not do so. How can the believers of Allah and Prophet interfere in the command of Allah and His Prophet (S)?” Really, we cannot understand Umar, because he had a special type of temperament and was very stubborn all the time. He didn’t like the peace treaty of Hudaibiya, due to which he doubted the prophethood of the Messenger of Allah (S) and could not hide it.

Obviously, if the treaty had not been signed and there had been fighting with the infidels of Mecca, they would not have helped the Prophet. Did the Prophet get his help in the war that he would give his help today? Well, the abrogation of the command of Mutah informs us of the hot temperament of Umar.

If it would be that he possessed knowledge of Quran and tradition and for this reason and had the capability to exercise the judgment there would have no need to establish committee of jurists whose member was Zaid Ibn Thabit etc. The biggest argument is that he had no intrinsic capability like Imam Ali. He was making mistakes in juridical matters and he could not understand such things even till the end of his life. With such useless ability, to issue the order of Mutah is a very surprising matter.

Imam Noodi says that Abu Moosa Ashari used to certify the legality of Mutah and he supported his view by a tradition of the Prophet. From Tafseer Nishapuri, one comes to know that even an illegal wife has a right like a legally married wife. Hence according to this explanation, the lawfulness of Mutah is proved.

From the Book of Nikah, Pg. 293, we come to know that according to Hanafite faith, Mutah is invalid but Imam Malik says it is lawful and Imam Zomur says Mutah is right because due an invalid condition the marriage does not become invalid. From Tafseer Kashaf it appears that Ibn Abbas was always convinced of the lawfulness of Mutah and didn’t revert to its unlawfulness. Noodi15 has recorded that Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari says: “I did Mutah during the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and in the time of Abu Bakr.”

Tirmidhi16 records that a Syrian asked Abdullah Ibn Umar about the Mutah during Hajj. Ibn Umar replied that Mutah was lawful. The man raised an objection and said: “Your father made it unlawful.” Ibn Umar replied: “If my father made it unlawful, the Holy Prophet (S) made it lawful. Shall I give up the practice of the Prophet and follow my father’s sayings?”

It is stated in Noodi17 that Imran bin Husayn says that “the verse of Mutah was revealed in the Holy Quran and the Prophet ordered me for Mutah and no other verse is revealed to abrogate this verse of Mutah and the Holy Prophet (S) has not made the Mutah unlawful, but Umar declared it unlawful.” From the research of Qastalani18 , it seems that Ibn Abbas made Mutah lawful and said that Mutah was lawful in times of need. It is also mentioned that Salma bin Al- Akwa says: “We were in the army and the Holy Prophet (S) came and said: ‘You are allowed to do Mutah’, therefore all did it.”

Noodi19 has recorded that Qadi bin Qalami says that even if time is not fixed verbally and it is only in mind, then also this marriage is lawful.

It is also written in the same book that Abu Moosa Ashari used to consider it lawful. One day a man asked: “Don’t you know that Umar has made it unlawful in Hajj rites?” Abu Moosa asked about it when he met Umar and he said: “No doubt, the Holy Prophet (S) and his companions did Mutah, but I disapproved such a thing in Hajj rites that people enjoy during the Hajj and bath water should drip from their heads.”

O Allah, be praised, Umar has mentioned this reason for the unlawfulness of Mutah! Allah provides facilities to believers and Umar regards them unlawful! Here, Umar himself had taken Allah’s place by force, after tutoring the Prophet! There is no limit to bad temperament! Even if the 16th part of this temperament had given you bravery, Islam would have been safe from different kinds of adversities. Bad times arrived for Islam due to Umar’s temperament. The destruction of the Prophet’s family, their troubles and dissension in Islamic Ummah etc. All this came to light only because of Umar.

Whether the bigots believe it or not, Umar is responsible for all the evils that inflict Islam. The family of the Prophet continued to shed tears of blood because of Umar and the religion of Muhammad today is not in fact the religion of Muhammad. Islam seems to be the religion of Umar or Zaid Ibn Thabit, but it is not the religion of Muhammad.

The religion of Muhammad was limited to Ahlul Bayt but now it is not an easy task to separate the religion of Muhammad from the religion of Umar. In the end, I quote a tradition related by Saeed bin Musayyab from the book of Noodi20 that says: Once His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Uthman met in the district of Affan. Ali (a.s.) was asserting that Mutah was lawful and Uthman claimed that it was unlawful. Ali (a.s.) asked: “What do you want? Do you want to prohibit something that the Messenger of Allah (S) had made lawful?”

In the same book, a tradition on this topic is recorded from Abdullah bin Shafiq, that Uthman considered Mutah unlawful as Umar had prohibited it and Uthman himself had no power to take a decision on Quranic verses. It is possible that Marwan or someone else had told him about the unlawfulness of Mutah; but Imam Ali’s view about the lawfulness of Mutah is worthy of attention, because none in the Islamic lands was more perfect in knowledge than His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after investigating all explanations and traditions of Ahlul Sunnat, we come to know that the unlawfulness of Mutah was only Umar’s creation and his command was totally against Allah and His Prophet. People of insight, who are aloof from prejudice, cannot say that Mutah is unlawful, because the Prophet, Ali (a.s.) and all family members of the Prophet conform to the command of Allah with regard to Mutah. Wisdom also dictates that whatever the Prophet and Ali (a.s.) agree upon, must be the truth; and it is the religion of Allah and all that is against it, is false.

Notes

1. Vol. 1, Pg. 107

2. Sodomy, perhaps.

3. Ref. Tafseer Tabari

4. Surah Nisa 4:24

5. Vol. 1, Pg. 293

6. Vol. 47, Pg. 310

7. Pg. 358

8. Ref. Tafseer Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 289.

9. Chapter of Awaliyate Umar, Pg. 136.

10. Pg. 196

11. Pg. 385

12. Ref. Tafseer Kabir, Vol. 3, Pg. 537.

13. Ref. Sharhe Ibn Abil Hadid, Vol. 2, Pg. 90.

14. Pg. 393

15. Vol. 1, Pg. 451

16. Vol. 1, Pg. 107

17. Vol. 1, Pg. 292

18. Vol. 8, Pg. 53

19. Vol. 1, Pg. 54

20. Pg. 104

First Case Of False Testimony In Islam

According to the report of Qays bin Hazm, Ibn Abbas, Aamir Shobi and Habib bin Umair have reported that when the caravan of ‘A’ysha, Talha and Zubair started from Mecca to Basrah to confront His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), when they reached Hawwab, the dogs started barking. At that time, ‘A’ysha ordered them to return from that place. The people asked her why she wanted to return. She replied that the Holy Prophet (S) had said that “one of my wives would rebel and the dogs of Hawwab will bark upon her.” Upon this Zubair said: “Be patient, Hawwab is very far away from here.” ‘A’ysha asked: “Do you have any witness to support your statement?” Zubair and Talha bribed fifty Arabs who swore that it was not Hawwab and ‘A’ysha’s caravan moved towards Basra. We should know that this was the first instance of false evidence in Islam. This caravan was marching to Basra to fight with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). In this battle, ‘A’ysha was defeated and Zubair and Talha were killed. Barwan killed Talha and someone else killed Zubair. This battle was named the Battle of Jamal because ‘A’ysha participated in the battle on her camel and one of her camels was also killed in the battle. Now the writer requests attention to the following points:

(1) We came to know from this tradition that the Holy Prophet (S) knew from his foreknowledge of his prophethood that one of his wives would rebel against his successor, that is, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.); and he also knew that she would be ‘A’ysha. He also knew that when ‘A’ysha would reach Hawwab, dogs would bark at her caravan. He knew all these things and they came to be true. Since the Prophet and his executor have knowledge of the unseen, how can the Prophet’s prediction be wrong? It happened as the Prophet had stated.

(2) ‘A’ysha had heard about her rebellion from the Prophet and the Holy Prophet (S) told her that its sign will be that dogs would bark at her at Hawwab. Even though she knew all this, she did not desist from war with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). Ahlul Sunnat consider this error of ‘A’ysha as an error of jurisprudence, but it does not seem to be so. Being informed by the Holy Prophet (S) she did all this knowingly. It was not a battle against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), it was a battle against the Holy Prophet (S) himself.

Anyway, the decision of ‘A’ysha is in Allah’s hands. No one can say, what would happen and what not, but I want to ask Ahlul Sunnat that when Pir Dastagir has said that ‘A’ysha was the most prominent woman of the world, to be most prominent demands that one should fight with Allah and that no one can become most excellent without it?

(3) The statement of Zubair that she was very far from Hawwab was a white lie. The writer asks: “Is falsehood necessary to be among the blessed ten?” Allah, the Almighty has made falsehood a greater sin and has cursed the liars. Quran says:

“And pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.”1

Inspite of this, in the view of Ahlul Sunnat, Zubair holds a great status. Certainly, the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is entirely beyond human understanding. Allah curses the liars and Ahlul Sunnat think they are blessed!

(4) When evidence was needed, Zubair and Talha bribed fifty Arabs of the neighboring area who falsely swore that, that place was not Hawwab. Apparently, Zubair and Talha were from the ten blessed persons of Paradise and it is highly regretful that they instruct witnesses to give false evidence. Praise be to Allah! What pure and pious persons are included among the ten blessed ones of Ahlul Sunnat! If such persons cannot be heavenly, who can be? Really the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is beyond the understanding of rational people.

(5) In the view of Ahlul Sunnat all these deeds of Zubair and Talha are errors of jurisprudence and their war with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) is also considered as error of jurisprudence. Everything has a limit after all! Clearly, they fought with Ali (a.s.) and also made ‘A’ysha fight against him and this is called error of jurisprudence! Indeed, in order to save them from blame, enemies of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) have created a nice trick of the error of jurisprudence. How can any intelligent person accept a religion that is having such illogical principles?

(6) The incident of Hawwab shows that ‘A’ysha remembered the words of the Holy Prophet (S) and wanted to return, but Zubair lied and bribed fifty persons to give a false testimony to prevent her. The writer thinks that it seems if Zubair and Talha would not have been there, ‘A’ysha was not capable to fight His Eminence, Ali (a.s.).

Certainly Zubair was a strange elder! First he was not prepared to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr after Saqifah and wanted to give it to Imam Ali (a.s.) and make other people also give allegiance to His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). But later he claimed revenge for Uthman’s blood and entered the battlefield to fight against His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). The fact is that he was not a man of principles and he was a slave of worldly pleasures. He had no concern with His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) or Abu Bakr, he was only interested in personal gains and because of it he was killed with his companion, Talha. Both swore allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s.) but later broke it and joined ‘A’ysha. They had taken oath at the Imam’s hand because they thought they would gain something; but after the oath, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) put out the lamp and it dawned on them that they could not benefit from His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) in a legal way. So they left Ali (a.s.) and joined Muawiyah and ‘A’ysha.

The incident of the lamp is that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) was checking the accounts of the Public Treasury in the light of a lamp which burnt the oil bought from public funds. Zubair and Talha came to meet the Imam for some worldly matter and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) put out the lamp and began to speak to them.

They understood from this act of Imam Ali (a.s.) that when he was so careful about public funds, how can they get anything from him? After that the two seekers of the world had no option but to break the oath of allegiance and join the adversaries of Imam Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after paying attention to all these points the writer says that a religion cannot be said to belong to Allah if it considers such unprincipled persons as ones who are promised Paradise. Allah has given sense to human beings to discriminate between good and bad. If a man does not employ this sense, how can he call himself a human being?

Note

1. Surah Aale Imran 3:61

Umar And Bravery

It is common belief of all Ahlul Sunnat that Umar was a very brave man. Hence, Qadi Sulaiman Patyalvi has mentioned in his book that the Holy Prophet (S) stated about the bravery and courage of Umar. The writer is surprised that when there was no bravery and courage in Umar, why has the Qadi confidently attributed it to him?

I have discussed in detail that Umar was not at all brave and there was no need to repeat my discussion again, but after seeing the biography of Qadi it was necessary to write afresh about the Caliph’s alleged bravery and courage. Readers are requested to pay attention to the following:

I have represented previously that during the age of Ignorance, Umar was going to display a feat of courage, but it was postponed as narrated before. When Umar came to know that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah is the Messenger of Allah (S) who wanted to establish a new religion, he became very angry and was suffering from anger and sorrow for six years, till the day he came out of his house with a sword to kill the Messenger of Allah (S).

On the way, someone said to him: “You are going to kill Muhammad (S) but children of Zahra (s.a.) will take revenge from you.” Upon this, he gave up the idea of killing and returned home. It seems that he dared to kill the Holy Prophet (S) in ire and fury, but when his anger calmed down, his courage also calmed down. In the period of Ignorance, his sole deed of courage was going to be committed, but after practical wisdom, he forgot everything.

After converting to Islam, his greatest feat was that after performing Hajj, he migrated from Mecca to Medina openly without caring for the infidels of Mecca and this speaks of his great courage! But the fact is that his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl guaranteed his safety, so no one could harm him and in this condition he migrated openly and it cannot be called any kind of courage.

In the same way is the matter connected to his going to Mecca. Its detail is that when after a few years, the Holy Prophet (S) wanted to send him to the infidels of Mecca with a message, he refused to take it and stated that the reason of his refusal was that since Abu Jahl was not alive anymore, ‘the people of Mecca would kill me.’ Thus, neither his walking from Mecca to Medina was an act of bravery, nor his refusal to go to Mecca.

As for his martial exploits, he did not participate in the Battle of Badr because his maternal uncle, Abu Jahl had come to fight against the Holy Prophet (S); so how could he participate in the battle against his uncle? Secondly, he fled from the battlefield in Uhud to save his life, leaving the Holy Prophet (S) wounded.

In his own words: ‘I was scampering away like a mountain goat.’ Besides, he refused to confront Amr Ibn Abde Wudd in the Battle of Khandaq and in the Battle of Khaybar, he hid himself from Marhab and Harith for two days and did the same in the Battle of Hunayn. We cannot find any evidence in Quran, traditions and History that Umar or Abu Bakr ever caused an injury to anyone or were ever injured in a battlefield.

Whenever such a time arrived they used to flee from there. When this is the reality, why has Qadi Sulaiman Patyalvi praised Umar’s bravery? The truth is that Umar was not brave or courageous at all, but it was all a result of his obstinacy. If Umar had courage, he would not have beaten a lady.

The greatest sin committed by him was the severe blow to Lady Fatima (s.a.) that caused miscarriage. After that, Fatima fell ill and finally passed away. It is clear that a brave man can never stoop so low.

To beat a woman is an act of cowardice and to behave mercilessly with the Lady of Paradise? Leave alone Muslims, even infidels cannot commit such an ugly deed.

We should know that Umar had no courage at all, but he was a very bad tempered man and Ahlul Sunnat believe that Umar was very brave and courageous because of his hot temper. Brave people cannot be a hot tempered. They are always kind and merciful, but Umar was not concerned with kindness and mercy. He behaved harshly with everyone, whether he was a Muslim or infidel.

An example of his real temperament is that when the prisoners of Badr were brought to Medina, he advised the Prophet to kill them all in such a way that each Muslim soldier would kill his relative by his own hands. The Prophet turned away his face from this advice and did whatever he felt appropriate. If the Prophet had acted according to Umar’s ugly opinion, people would have blamed Islam.

It is clear that Umar’s opinion shows hot temperament. What a shame that Umar did not do anything during the actual battle; but when prisoners were brought to Medina, he roamed the city with his sword. This was not an act of bravery. But regretfully, his sword could not come out from the sheath in the battles of Khandaq, Uhud, Khaybar and Hunayn. Now decide for yourself whether attribution of bravery to Umar by Qadi Sulaiman Sahab is lawful or not?

How This Writer Converted To Shiaism?

The writer’s father, late Shamsul Ulamah Sayyid Wahiduddin Khan Bahadur was a well known leader and besides being an intellectual had acquaintance with religious precepts of all faiths and respected all religions and he himself knew about the world and hereafter, because he knew Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Latin, English, Sanskrit and Hebrew languages and always referred to the religious books in these languages.

In brief, he knew all about Islam as well as the religions of Greece, Rome, Hindu, Buddha, Magians, Jews and Christian etc. He knew the Taurat and Injeel by heart as one knows the Quran by heart. If not perfect, he had sufficient knowledge.

He was pre-eminent regarding religion in the beginning and the writer witnessed him performing the fundamental rituals of Shiite faith in his last days, but after his death, his funeral was performed according to Hanafiya School, because his children and family believed in Hanafiya religion, except me. His father and grandfather, Sayyid Imdadali Khan Bahadur also believed in the same religion but as a matter of fact, the late grandfather believed in Shiite religion, but according to the faith of his son, Akbar Nawab Munshi Sayyid Najmuddin, he did not call himself a Shia. Najmuddin also believed in the Shiite religion, but being a narrator of traditions, he did not like to be associated only with Shiite religion.

Besides, from Sayyid Imdadali Khan Bahadur, the writer’s great grandfather upto Imam Ali Murtadha’ (a.s.), all followed the Shiite faith and none were Sunni. Though his father was a learned man, he left no stone unturned in his training and education. He appointed teachers to teach his son Arabic and morals and also appointed calligraphist and appointed an army officer to teach him how to use a gun and also appointed a tutor to teach him English for a long time.

Here I want to mention about a teacher who was appointed to teach me Arabic. Most of these teachers frequently left their service and new tutors came to take their place. All these teachers were of Hanafite religion and the last tutor who was appointed for me for Arabic language was Sayyid Muhammad Gul Jalalabadi. His religion was Hanafite, due to communal restriction.

The writer was seventeen years old at that time and in matters of religious faith, he was well informed. The religious faith was firm in his mind by the source of education that Allah is one and Prophet Muhammad (S) is His Messenger, and then Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman and then His Eminence, Ali (a.s.), then Muawiyah, then Yazeed, and then six Caliphs of Bani Umayyah, and then all remaining Imams including Imam Mahdi (a.j.). The most prominent woman is ‘A’ysha and after her, Lady Fatima (s.a.).

After this instruction and after clearing the Intermediate exams, the writer came from Bhagalpur to Patna and was admitted in Patna College and separated from Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Gul Nurullah. There he started taking religious lesson from Maulavi Abdul Karim. He was also of Hanafite religion, but he was not convinced of Yazeed’s Caliphate and followed the Sunni religion but did accord importance to Yazeed after Muawiyah. Anyhow, his belief did not affect me, because I believed Yazeed as a rightful person, according to the instructions of Maulavi Sayyid Gul Muhammad.

When the writer was nineteen, he got a chance to witness a religious disturbance. The writer’s uncle, Nawab Munshi Sayyid Najmuddin, also lived on the other side of the same house. As mentioned above, his uncle was of Sufi religion and many times Sufi people gathered in his house making nice mystic jokes everyday. But one day by chance they mentioned Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan. Since the uncle did not have any devotion to Muawiyah, he delivered a speech, from which no dignity of Muawiyah could be derived.

This was unbearable to the Sufi, who was one of our neighbors. He became extremely irritated and said that if you refuse the excellence of Muawiyah you have forgone the Sunni faith. What is the difference between deniers of excellence and a Shia? Other Sufi gentlemen present there also supported him. But the writer’s uncle remained adamant in his opinion and due to this the Sufi group broke up. Not only this, their friendship declined and both parties began to debate in writing about the excellence of Muawiyah or lack of it.

At last Shah Ali Habib of Pahelwari Sharif got information about it and he opposed Sayyid Munshi Najmuddin. First he tried to make him understand but in vain. Nawab Munshi remained same as he was before. Then Shah Ali wrote a powerful book entitled Uswatul Hasana in praise of Ahlul Sunnat faith and all the beliefs were explained according to their faith, which clarified that no Sunni can refuse to believe in the excellence of Muawiyah.

On the contrary, a Sunni can also not decline that Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah, was not a rightful Caliph. The writer is not concerned with the merits or demerits of this disturbance, but the fact is that he learnt many new things which were opposed to his previous faith. This matter fully convinced him that according to the writing of Pir Dastagir, it is impossible for Ahlul Sunnat to avoid Muawiyah.

Rather, according to Ghazzali they are also bound by their faith to accept Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah as a legal and official Caliph, like his father. But when information increased about Yazeed and Muawiyah, both seemed extremely evil; on the other hand, Muawiyah looked worse than Yazeed. No doubt, this disturbance weakened my Sunni belief. When I got free time from college, I read books regarding this controversy and was also thinking about this matter all the time.

My previous teacher, Sayyid Muhammad Gul did not even allow me to read any book of history or biography; and when I asked any question regarding faith, he said that such a question was misleading. But now the writer had access to all kinds of books. Such effect was not only restricted to the writer, it affected Maulavi Abdul Karim also, a famous scholar of Ahlul Sunnat. He announced his disbelief in Muawiyah and gradually became entirely opposed to the Amir of Sham (Muawiyah). I gradually I had no concern with Muawiyah and in my view, he seemed to be worse than his son.

Sometime after this disturbance, the writer had to travel to Chhaprah1 . His uncle, Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali was a very respected advocate of Chhaprah, who had obtained the certificate of High Court of Calcutta, but he practiced law in the courts of Chhaprah. His prestige was such that all people of that district respected him, besides the Europeans and Hindustani officials.

As a matter of fact, none equaled him among the writer’s peers, as far as human qualities were concerned. He deserved more than he was ever honored. He had a very good memory and was a good respondent. Allah had granted him great intelligence and he had no equal in wisdom and understanding. He was outwardly as elegant as he was internally perfect.

Along with these naturally acquired attributes, he was a learned man having studied the books of Zawahid and Sadr Awafiq and acquired knowledge of Hanafite faith from Maulana Wajidali Benarsi. He was the younger brother of the venerable Maulana Muhammad Ismail. Hakim Muhammad Ali alias Hakim Munna was the son of late jurist. Even today he is well known among the people of Chhaprah and other villages.

Thus, Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali had mastery over Arabic language and in addition to that he had no equal as far as the knowledge of English was concerned.

The writer spent every evening during his stay in Chapprah with his late Uncle to gain knowledge and every moment of his company was edifying for the writer. The writer heard each statement of that gentleman with attention and tried to benefit from it. Everyday, there were useful talks, but one day in the company of some of his friends, he said: “Although many books are written to refute Shia objections, the fact is that none of them are reasonable answers to Shia objections.”

This statement created a strange effect on my mind. If it had not been a statement of Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali, it would not have created this effect on my mind, since I knew that the Maulavi had mastery on all religions and he was not interested in foolish talks. This statement of my uncle opened up for me a completely new field of research and I decided not to leave any stone unturned in my search for truth.

After that, he explained the matter of Fadak in great detail. Allah had granted him knowledge and eloquence. The audience listened to him attentively were and very much impressed and after mentioning about the matter of Fadak he himself wept. This meeting further inclined the writer to verify the truth.

On the third occasion, the Maulavi stated: “When I die, recite the same supplications at my burial ceremony that Shia people recite.” This constrained me more to inquire about the truth and I started to refer to books of both the sects. The writer was occupied in this when all of sudden Maulavi Sayyid Farzandali expired. The dead is helpless over the alive. How could I get the chance to exercise the bequest of the Maulavi against the wishes of his family?

At that time, I was also unaware of the ways and manners of pronouncing the Shia creed to dead and to recite blessings for the dead. Even if I had been aware of them, what I could have done? Maulavi Abdul Karim was present to recite the funeral prayer and I had no time to say anything.

Anyway, I wrote the supplication of Naade Ali on a piece of paper and placed it under his shroud. The Maulavi expired, but this writer did not falter from the path of investigation. The fact is that if the writer had not had the company of the late Maulavi, such readiness would not be created in his mind to research the truth. In research of truth, I had to be such as is apparent from my above writings. Below, the writer shall narrate the story of his religious research.

The writer started his religious investigation with eagerness after the death of his uncle. The late Maulavi Abdul Karim did not like my association with books. He didn’t want me to refer to the art of history or scholastic theology, but he could do nothing about it.

Note

1. A city in North-East India.