لطفا منتظر باشید ...
 |  |  |
tranquility.
In the Shi'a religion it is of two kinds: "Jihad
al-akbar" (the greater jihad) and "Jihad
al-asghar" (the lesser jihad).
To face that internal enemy called the
"nafs" (self), and to fight against its harmful
qualities, such as ignorance, cowardice, oppression,
tyranny, envy and pride, is the "jihad
al-akbar". It was the Prophet of God himself who
declared: "your greatest enemy is the self and it is
to be found right in your own body." Jihad al-asghar
means subduing anyone who is opposed to justice and
equity, peace and humanity, and religion and reality.
7. Amr Bi 'l-ma 'Ruf and Nahy 'ani
'l-munkar (The enjoining of good and the
prevention of evil)
This is one of the most important of the compulsory
acts prescribed by religion and the basis of the Muslim's
moral duties; moreover, it is the most effective means of
demonstrating the truth and reality of Islam and is a
successful weapon against infidelity and paganism.
Any nation which ignores this holy law is doomed to
ruin; indeed it will become the haven of oppressors and
cheats.
It is for this reason that the Prophet (s.a.w.), who
taught the divine code of religion, and our infallible
Imams (a.s.), who have preserved and protected it, have
laid great stress on this matter; they have, on numerous
occasions explained in detail the benefits accruing from
its execution and have warned against the horrible
consequences of neglecting it.
Today we are seeing with our own eyes the truth of
these statements: we have totally abandoned the
"enjoining of good and the prevention of evil".
We can only pray that the situation does not become so
degenerate that what is ma'ruf comes to be regarded as
munkar, and what is munkar as ma'aruf. "Verily we
are God's and verily to Him shall we return!" We
pray to God to protect us from these who call to the
enjoining of good deeds but themselves do not heed the
call. God the Almighty curses the wicked scholar, and
wicked preachers and guides!
Such prayers are called the "mother of
prayers" (meaning the best prayers); we have been
able to make only cursory references, but one can
research further on this topic in numerous books written
by 'ulama' belonging to the period ranging from the first
century A.H. till the present time. Countless fine works
of research are still available despite the attempt in
past centuries to destroy any trace of them.
8. Mu'amalat (Mutual Dealings)
In mutual dealings there must be two individuals or
two parties (the one has something to offer and the other
accepts). Proposal and acceptance is a necessary
condition.
Mu'amalat are of two kinds: in the first the dealings
are purely financial (for instance, buying and selling,
contract and pledging, or loans and gifts), but in the
second, property and wealth are only of secondary
importance, and the real aim of the deal between the two
parties is the management of domestic life, the numbers
of the Muslims and the preservation of the human race: a
contract of marriage often involves money, but this is
not an essential part of it.
8. (a) The Marriage Agreement
Marriage is of two kinds: (1) for life; (2) temporary.
As the name implies, temporary marriage (also blown as
mut'ah) means that it is for a fixed period of time which
is 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 the Shi'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 had mut'ah, give them their dowries as a fixed
reward." (Surah an-Nisa': 24) This problem has been
a topic of discussion since the time Of 'sahaba"
(companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) up to the present
time. In view of the importance of this matter 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 of mut'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. 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, Jabir ibn
'Abdillah al-Ansari, ibn Mas'ud, and Ubay ibn Ka'ab, who
were men of exalted rank and eminence, all insisted on
the lawfulness of mut'ah and would recite the verse in
this way: "Famastamtatum bihi min hunna ilaajalin
musamman" (And as such of them with whom you had
mut'ah for specified term). We should not however think
that these companions considered that there was any
defect in the Qur'an, since they were well-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 the tradition which ibn
Jarir mentions in his large work of Qur'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 Abu
Nasirah as saying: "When I read this verse before
ibn 'Abbas he said: 'Say 'ila ajalin musamman'. I said
that I did not read like that. Upon this ibn 'Abbas said
three times 'By God! This verse was revealed in this very
way.'"
It is obvious that such an exalted personality as ibn
'Abbas would never have wilfully 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 of mut'ah insist that
God revealed further commands to his Prophet which
revoked the former law. The various hadith which are
concerned with this revocation have conflicting meanings
and cannot be relied upon. For the revocation of an
express ordinance an express proof is necessary: some
Sunnis claim that revocation took place through the
sunnah, 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 of mut'ah was imposed upon the people. There
is even conflicting views within the latter group : 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 of mut'ah think that
the following verse proves its abrogation "Illa
ala azwajuhum aw ma malakat 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 as Sayyid al-Alusi (a Sunni scholar) writes:
"The Shi'ahs cannot regard the "Mumtu'ah"
(woman taken in mut'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 some Shi'a
'ulama', and according to others, on condition that the
right to inheritance is 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, the Shi'ah believe in the lawfulness of mut'ah
and regard 'iddah after such a marriage as compulsory.
Subsistence for the wife (nafagah) is another subject of
dispute. The Shi'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; no faqih would consider subsistence as one of her
rights.
There is no divorce in temporary marriage: after
spending the Weed time together the two parties may
separate. We should point out to those who still deny the
Iawfulness of temporary marriage that the abrogation of
mut'ah is impossible because the relevant verse is in the
Surah anal-Mu'minin and al-Mi'raj, both of which were
revealed in Makkah.
Moreover, even some distinguished Sunni 'ulama' say
that the Qur'anic verse concerning mut'ah was not
revoked. az-Zamakhshari, in his commentary al-Kashshaf,
reports, on the authority of ibn 'Abbas, that the verse
concerning mut'ah is one of the irrevocable ones. Other
'ulama' have reported that Hakam ibn 'Ayniyah, when asked
whether the verse of mut'ah had been revoked, said that
it had not.
At first the majority community of the Muslims
acknowledged the lawfulness of mut'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 a tradition : they
rely upon the tradition in the 'sahihs of al-Bukhari and
Muslim which relate that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) made
mut'ah unlawful either during the Conquest of Makkah, or
the Conquest of Khaybar, or the Battle of Awtas. These
hadith are the subject of considerable dispute. It is
even reported on the authority of Qadi Ayad that some
'ulama' say that the mut'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 that mut'ah was revoked on the occasion of hajjat
al-wida'. (that is the last hajj) in the 10th year of the
hijrah. Other books show that this was not so and that it
was revoked during the battle of Tabuk in the 9th year of
the hijrah. Some writers claim that mut'ah was abrogated
during the battle of Hunayn in the month of Shawwal in
the 8th year of the hijrah; it is also claimed by some
that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) made mut'ah lawful on the
occasion of the Conquest of Makkah, 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 of mut'ah.
We must stress that the Qur'anic Verse concernin
mut'ah is not called into question by anyone who examines
the validity of these so-called hadith. Moreover the
hadith reported by the Sunni (ulama) are so full of
conflicting reports that their falsehood is self-evident.
It is reported in the Sahih of al-Bukhari that Abu
Raja' quotes 'Imran ibn Hasin as saying that the verse
concerning mut'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 of mut'ah was an arbitrary
act of one man. and it is said that this man was the
Calip 'Umar." It is also reported in the Sahih of
Muslim on the authority of Atta' that "one day Jabir
ibn 'Abdillah al-Ansari came to perform 'umrah and people
asked him various questions. We went to visit him at his
house. When he was asked about mut'ah, Jabir said: 'Yes
we practiced mut'ah in the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.)
and also in the days of Abu Bakr and 'Umar.'"
Muslim gives another report and that is from Jabir
also. He says: "During the days of the Prophet
(s.a.w.) we used to practice mut'ah while giving a
handful of dates or a handful of baked flour as a
dowry." Muslim also reports in his Sahih that Abu
Nudrah said that he was sitting with Jabir ibn 'Abdillah
al-An-Sari when another man came in and said that there
was a difference of opinion about the two mut'ahs (namely
the mut'ah of temporary marriage, and the kind of haj
called hajj tamattu'a) between Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubayr.
Jabir said: "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 because
Hadrat 'Umar would have a man stoned to death if he was
caught practising mut'ah.
The fact is that if the Chapter relevant to marriage
in Muslim's Sahih 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 such hadith we may quote Jihni
who says: "On the occasion of the conquest of
Makkah, the Prophet (s.a.w.) himself ordered that we
should be permitted to perform mut'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 to Hadrat 'Umar. Moreover
they say that mut'ah was current during the time of the
Prophet, and during the period of the first Caliphate.They also say that Hadrat 'Ali (a.s.) forbade Ibn 'Abbas
on various occasions to talk about mut'ah, and so the
latter subsequently changed his opinion about it. In a
refutation of this we may cite the report that says that
once Ibn Zubayr stood up in Makkah 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 that mut'ah is lawful."
(Here the reference was to Ibn 'Abbas, who had become
blind.) At this, Ibn 'Abbas uttered loudly. "Why? I
swear that mut'ah was practiced up to the time of 'Ali
(a.s.)." This clearly shows that Ibn 'Abbas never
changed his opinion, and that even during Ibn Zubayr's
caliphate he stood by his belief.
Rather surprisingly, the prohibitory order has even
been attributed to Hadrat Amir al-mu'minin (a.s.), though
it was characteristic of all the Imams (a.s.) that they
had declared mut'ah wedlock to be lawful. Imam 'Ali's
| | |
