|
|
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.
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
|
|