The topics being discussed in this chapter are:
[1]. The Qiyas Argument: Comparing Mut’ah to Zina
[2]. Qiyas 1: Mut’ah and Zina both are performed for the purpose of sex, therefore both are haram
[3]. Ibn al-Hashimi al-kadhab’s assertion that a woman does not have rights of azl in Mut’ah
[4]. Qiyas 2: Zina and Mut’ah are for a fixed time, hence they are both haram
[5]. Qiyas 3: Zina and Mut’ah are done in hiding, hence they are both haram
[6]. Qiyas 4: Zina is like Mut’ah, since neither involve Talaq (divorce). Hence, both are haram.
[7]. Qiyas 5: Zina and Mut’ah carry no Inheritance hence both are haram
[8]. Qiyas 6: Temporary wives do not inherit, the same as women in haram sexual relationships
[9]. Qiyas 7: Temporary wives are not treated like permanent Wives
[10]. Qiyas 9: No one would claim to be the child of Mut’ah
[11]. Qiyas 9: Mut’ah and Zina both destroy families
[12]. Qiyas 10: Mut’ah does not require witnesses, therefore it is like zina and, therefore, becomes haram
[13]. Qiyas 11: No respectable people like the practice of Mut’ah
[14]. Qiyas 12: The Shi’a share Mut’ah women and this is shameful
[15]. Qiyas 13: Man can misuse Nikah al Mut’ah and may marry women whilst having a permanent wife
[16]. Qiyas 14: Performing Mut’ah with a fornicator; prostitues may make misuse of it
[17]. Qiyas 15: Mut’ah is similar to a one night stand
[18]. For all those who apply Qiyas and deem Mut’ah an immoral act
One of the main arguments used by the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) is that Mut’ah does not practically differ in any way from fornication. Our study in the previous chapter has already demonstrated the fallacious nature of this argument: Mut’ah involves dowry, inheritance, legitimization of children, and a marriage contract, all of which are hallmarks of the Islamic marriage institute. Nonetheless, Sunni and Wahabi ‘ulama who have becomes obsessed with denying the Mercy of Mut’ah make a concerted attempt to argue that Mut’ah is no different from zina. If we lay bare all of these arguments, they all revolve around a fundamental point: both zina and Mut’ah involve sexual intercourse. Therefore, through a strange application of Qiyas (analogical reasoning, something the Prophet (s) and Imams (as) forbade), the conclusion of these scholars is that Mut’ah must be haram. Several Sunni ‘ulama have presented this argument, which demonstrates not only their inability to disprove Mut’ah based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, but also the corrupt methods which the Sunni schools of law use in deducing law. We are therefore refuting the Qiyas comparisons between Zina and Mut’ah, that can be found in the following esteemed Nasibi works:
This is a strange argument which we read in the books of Sunni ‘ulama such as in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari p. 03 Part 10, the Chapter of the Muthaeen Umar:
Our comment on Zina and Mut’ah, both are a means of sexual release, a means of control of sexual urge, both are haram.
We read in Saeed Ismaeel’s ‘The Difference between the Shi’ah and the Muslims who follow the Sunnah’ the following argument as well:
Saeed Ismaeel states:
Brothers and sisters, is there any difference between a woman lending her body for a few minutes as in prostitution or for a few days or months as in Mut’ah, since both are temporary? Don’t you think that the permission of Mut’ah today would humiliate our sisters, open the doors for playmates and finally destroy the concept of family in Islam? Remember the Shi’ah scholars of high status rarely allow their female relatives to practice Mut’ah in order to avoid humiliation. In fact the Mut’ah permitted occasionally before its final prohibitions did not require the female to be a Muslim or even one from the People of the Book which makes it completely distinguished from marriage. How could a Muslim legalize such a type of illegal relationship for Muslims or practice it himself? What is the difference between fornication today and Mut’ah in terms of their purposes? Aren’t both to satisfy the sexual desires alone?
This type of argument shows the utter paucity of Qiyas, and why Allah (swt) has forbidden its use in Islam. By this argument all forms of marriage become haram, which is obviously non-sense. In any case, if sexual release is fornication and therefore essentially evil, then why do we read in Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Volume 1 page 74:
“There’s no doubt the in the outset of Islam, Mut’ah was allowed under the Shari’ah”.
Similarly in ‘Nur al-Yaqin’ page 207 Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Shaykh al-Khudary said:
“The contractual marriage, which was a marriage for a definite time, had been practiced at the inception of Islam”.
At this stage we can only ask for justice: if there is no distinction between Mut’ah and zina, why was Zina, deemed to be lawful and halaal for the Companions? Why were Sahaba given the green light to indulge themselves in prostitution? Does Ibn Kathir leave Islam for arguing that Mut’ah was originally halaal, and therefore ascribing the sin of prostitution to the Holy Prophet (s)? None of these arguments hold any logic. That is the reason Ahle-Hadeeth scholar Maulana Waheed’ud Deen az Zaman in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari, ‘Tayseer al Bari’ Volume 7 page 44 differentiated between Mut’ah and Zina:
”You cannot compare the prohibition on Mut’ah to that of Zinah. If an individual is traveling and fear being tempted to commit Zinah he can practice Mut’ah, since there is a dispute over whether Mut’ah was made haraam, whilst there is an absolute agreement that Zinah is haraam, this is not acceptable under any form of Shari’ah, whilst Mut’ah’s practice under the Shari’ah has been established on many occasions.”
In any case, the statement of Imam Razi in his Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 4 page 44 refutes this strange Qiyas given by the author of Taufa Ithna Ashari. Imam Razi first quoted a similar kind of objection from a scholar:
“{desiring chastity} and chastity cannot be except through correct nikah, the third statement {Ghair Musfahin}, adultery called ‘Safaha’ because there isn’t any reason for it except ejaculating sperm and it is not done seeking child and the rest of benefits of nikah and Mut’ah is only for ejaculating sperm so it is ‘Safaha’ that is what Abu bakr al-Razi said…”
Then Imam Fahkruddin Al-Razi gave his own verdict:
“And his third statement: adultery called ‘Safaha’ because there isn’t any reason for it except ejaculating sperm, and Mut’ah is not so, as the meaning of it is ejaculating sperm in a lawful way permitted by Allah.”
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 4 page 44
To those Nawasib who equate Mut’ah with Zina, we suggest they look at the comments of their great Sunni Imam Razi, who refuted such comments. The Qiyas that is presented is utterly without basis: What these enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) seem to be arguing is that anything done solely for the sake of releasing sexual desire is haram. Since Mut’ah is supposedly only for releasing sexual desire (and obviously this may not be the case, as there are many reasons why a man and woman might contract a temporary marriage), then Mut’ah is haram. But if this logic is true, and if it is true that anything done solely for the release releasing sexual frustration qualifies as zina, then this means that barren women, or a women that suffers from constant menstruation, or who is of old age or pregnant, would all be haram. This is because when a husband has sex with women of this category; the objective is not to have children (since this would be biologically impossible under these circumstances but solely to release his sexual frustration. So if Mut’ah’s objective is to have sex and nothing more, then by the same token when a husband has sex in the above examples, the Sunni ‘ulama need to also pass a fatwa deeming such an act as Zina, and such a person should be whipped or stoned to death.
The ignorant Nasibi author of www.ahlelbayt.com also jumps in and raises a similar objection:
The Shia Ulema make it clear that Mut’ah is done for sex, and that this is the basic aim. We read:“In contrast to permanent marriage, the basic aim of Mut’ah is enjoyment, not the production of offspring.” [10](source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm)In a marriage, the basic aim is to create a family bonded by love and affection for all time. On the other hand, the Shia Mut’ah is just for enjoyment, whereby a man can enjoy renting out women, without any responsibilities on the man. He can, for example, practice ‘Azl (coitus interruptus, i.e. removal of the penis from the vagina just prior to ejaculation) in order to prevent a pregnancy. We read that there is:“…a consensus of the ulama’ on this point. They say the consensus derives from a hadith reported from the Imam Ja’far: ‘That [semen] belongs to the man: he may expend it as he wishes.’” [9](source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/4.htm)
We know that the majority of Muslims are in agreement that contraceptives, condoms, and other such things are allowed in the Islamic religion. People may use contraceptives and still engage in sexual activity according to Islam; yet it is obvious that such sexual activity could not be for the sake of having children. Of interest is the fact that the Sahaba themselves practiced contraception during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s) we read in Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Hadith Number 136, on the authority of Jabir:
We used to practice coitus interruptus while the Quran was being revealed. Jabir added: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle while the Quran was being revealed.
We also read in Sunan Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2166 a tradition narrated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri:
A man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.
Whilst the birth of a child is in the hands of Allah (swt), notice how the man makes clear that he does not want the woman to become pregnant, and is hence only having sex for the purpose of enjoyment. The objective of this type of sex is based solely on sexual pleasure, and not to have children; so will the Sunni ‘ulama also deem contraceptive sex to be Zina? Were the Sahaba who practiced contraception fornicators?
Along the same line, do these Mullahs from the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) not practice contraception and allow it for their followers? Do they not continue to have marital relations with their wives after menopause? The idea that any sexual act done solely for the sake of sexual pleasure must be haram is not an Islamic argument; it is the type of argument we have come to expect from Christianity and other religions that view sexual pleasure as inherently evil.
In the end we shall point out to these Nawasib that according to Shaafiyee sect, marrying for the purpose of enjoyment and fun (sex) is totally permissible. Shaykh Abdurehman Jazri records:
The Shaafies say: ‘The judgment in marriage is lawfulness, so it is permissible for a person to get married for the purpose of enjoyment and fun, if he performs (marriage) for the purpose of chastity or having a son so it is mustahab.’
Fiqh ala Madahib al-Arba, Volume 4 page 10
Our opponent’s claim that Mut’ah is Zina (adultery), is refuted by the testimony of Rasool Allah (saw) that Mut’ah is not Zina, but amongst Halal [Lawful] and “Tayyibaat” [Good and pure of filth] acts of Islam. We are evidencing this from most authentic hadith books of Ahle Sunnah:
Narrated ‘Abdullah Ibn Masud: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us (to castrate ourselves) and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (Mut’ah) and recited to us: ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things, which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87)
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7 tradition 13a
And here is the Quranic Verse, which Rasool (saw) recited for Mut’ah:
[5:87]
O you who believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the GOOD (i.e. Pure of Filth, Tayyibaat) things which Allah has made Lawful (Halal) for you and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
Therefore, we learn the following from this testimony of the Prophet (saw).
Let us make the last point more clear to our readers. Please note that this is the 87th Verse of Surah Maidah, which was revealed in the 7th Hijri. This again shows that Mut’ah was Halal and practiced until at least 7th Hijri. Now Allah (swt) legalized the Islamic method of marriage in Mecca or at most at beginning of Madinian period (e.g. when the verses of Surah Nisa were revealed). In Surah Nisa, Allah (swt) made clear the CONDITIONS for the Islamic method of marriage, i.e.
These conditions were not only for Nikah, but also valid for Mut’ah and Sahaba and Sahabiat practiced Mut’ah according to these conditions. Therefore, Mut’ah has no nexus with the era of Jahiliyyah as our opponents try to prove, as Allah (swt) Himself legalised it and made it Halal for the Muslim Ummah through the imposition of these conditions. If even after this testimony of the Prophet (saw), someone still insists that Mut’ah is Zina, then it is his own fate for he has been misguided by Shaitan Iblees.
Since the matter of Azl has come into discussion, let us quote the lies advanced by Ibn al-Hashimi’s on this topic.
The right of coitus interruptus is reserved with the man, who can engage in this without the consent of the female, even if she wishes to conceive. On the other hand, the woman has been given no such right. Grand Ayatollah Sistani says:Q146: [Is it permissible for women to practice] Coitus interruptus (‘azl), by which they prevent their husbands from depositing the semen in the vagina during intercourse.
A: They do not have the right to do that. (FM, p.429)
Since the cited Shia text discusses Azl, it seems that Ibn al-Hashimi was desperate to use this reference, even though he makes no relevant point pertaining to the topic of Mut’ah. If he is trying evidence that the Shia fiqh lowers the status of a woman by not allowing her the personal choice of using contraception, then he is, as usual cheating his readership by not presenting the complete picture, preferring to instead tell the side of the story that suited him. Syed Sistani’s text quoted by the deceitful Ibn al-Hashimi is in a book ‘Fatawa Muyasra’ page 429, it was a part of a paragraph which is about a woman who uses Az’l in order to prevent pregnancy whilst the husband wants her to get pregnant, the answer was that she was not entitled to do so ‘if it is against the wish of her husband’ – what is wrong with that? In a husband / wife relationship, Islam has given an upper hand to the husband and if a wife opposes his wishes particularly on the important decision of bearing children, her stance should be discouraged and ruled as contravening Islam. Having said this, we shall also make it clear to the Sunni masses in order to save them from the influence of Ibn al-Hashimi the liar, that unlike his assertion, a woman in Shia fiqh DOES HAVE the right of Azl if the husband consents or such a stipulation has been made in the marriage contract. Syed Sistani in his detailed work ‘Minhaj al-Salehin’ Volume 3 page 11 states:
Problem 10 – The az’l is permissible which is the ejaculating the sperm outside the vagina during the sexual intercourse with the temporary or permanent wife, yes apparently it is Makruh except if she agreed or if he stipulated it during performing the (marriage) contract, but the wife preventing the husband of dropping the sperm in her vagina so that is apparently unlawful except if he agreed or she stipulated that during marriage (contract).
A similar principle exists in the Sunni school also. We read in “Mou’aswat al-Fiqh” by the Kuwaiti government (Islamic issues ministry), Volume 1 page 94:
“Some of the Hanafies allow a woman to block her womb, but the main opinion of the madhab is its prohibition where the husband’s consent has not been obtained.”
Mou’aswat al-Fiqh by the Kuwaiti government (Islamic issues ministry), Volume 1 page 94
Similarly we read in “Fatawa al-Azhar” by Egyptian government (Islamic issues ministry), Volume 2 page 319:
“The scholars disagreed about the lawfulness and reprehensibility of the use of az’l, as a way of preventing pregnancy or birth control, on that topic Imam Ghazzali said in his book Ihya Uloom al-Deen under Nikah rules about the az’l judgment that the scholars are split into four opinions about the lawfulness and reprehensibility of az’l, some of them allowed using az’l in all circumstances, some of them forbade it in all circumstances, some of them allowed in a case if the wife agreed and forbade it if the wife disagreed, others said it is lawful to use it with the slave woman but not with the free woman.”
We also read:
“The jurists of the madhabs are almost agreed that use of az’l that prevents the sperm of the man to infuse into the ovum of woman, is lawful in a case wherein both wife and husband consent, and it is forbidden if one of them disagreed.”
Fatawa al-Azhar by Egyptian government (Islamic issues ministry), Volume 2 page 319
The text of Imam Ghazzali referred to in the official edict of Al-Azahr cited above can be read in:
Ihyah Uloom al-Deen, Volume 2 page 44-45
It is amazing that Nasibies advance such lame excuses, whilst their books are filled with incidents where the great Sahaba performed temporary relationships with slave-women in order to fulfill their sexual desires, and after that sold them to other masters, who would do likewise.
Nawasib like that of the founder of Jamia Ibrahimiyah Siyalkot, Pakistan Allamah Muhammad Ali Jaanbaz, in his book ‘Hurmut Mut’ah’ page 58 argued that since both zina and Mut’ah are temporary, they both are haram, but as we have seen, the Qur’an allowed Mut’ah, and we see that Ibn ‘Abbas and other Companions used to read the Verse of Mut’ah with the added commentary of “for a prescribed time” after the words “Those women whom you have done Mut’ah with” as such, there is no doubt that companions would perform Mut’ah for a fixed time. Would these Sunni scholars rule that the Companions were merely consenting to fornication for a fixed time?
Shah Abdul Aziz in his book Tauhfa raised the nightmare scenario wherein a man practices Mut’ah, then separates from the woman, offspring don’t know who their father is, and he might end up marrying them sixteen years later.
Why do authors like the Shah Abdul Aziz not apply this same rationale on Mut’ah to divorce? After all, a man separates from his wife following Talaq, and in the same way the Shah picked faults in Mut’ah the same faults can be applied to Talaq.
Let us cite an example:
A married man is traveling abroad without his wife at his side. He gets sexually frustrated, he is on his own it is Wajib on him to perform Nikah. He decides to marry a woman, remains with her for a few nights, after this he divorces her. He continues this method throughout his one-year travels abroad, marrying and then divorcing a few days later.
This is perfectly permissible according to Sunni fiqh, though it is not according to Shi’a fiqh. In Shi’a fiqh, a man is not allowed to divorce his wife at the drop of a hat; however, this is allowed in Sunni fiqh, as there are absolutely no restrictions on divorce in their thinking. Yet according to the Sunni logic, in the above scenario, any children borne from this brief marriage will not know who their father is, they will encounter problems with locating his inheritance. The practice of Talaq brings about many faults. If after sixteen years he marries in the locality wherein he frequented on his travels he may end up marrying his daughter, a brother might marry his daughter etc. All these problems have come about due to the lawfulness of Talaq. In the same way that the Shah’s argument was as ‘proof’ that Mut’ah is haram the same argument can be used to prove that Talaq is haram. If these Sunni’s are quick to draw their pens against Mut’ah, pens could also be drawn against Talaq. This shows the utter futility of using Qiyas in Islamic law.
As Shah Abdul Aziz deemed Mut’ah haram, thus making such offspring illegitimate, he sets out the risk of a man unknowingly marrying this illegitimate daughter, being a Sunni he should have had no objection to this since the Sunni (Shafiyee) school deems such a union perfectly acceptable. We read in Al-Fiqh Ala al Madahib al Arba’a by Sheikh Abdurehman Jazri, Volume 4, page 40:
“It is permissible for a man to marry his daughter who is born through adultery.”
Moreover we read:
“The one (girl) who is born through adultery does not become mahram (to her father) as the Shafiee say, because she is not considered as daughter since there is no inheritance between them.”
Al-Fiqh ala Madahib al-Arba, Volume 4 page 40
This can also be read in:
Mukhtasir Al-Fiqh ala Madahib Arba by Sheikh Ibrahim Muhammad Ramadhan, Volume 2 page 303
Allamah Qurtubi in the commentary of the verse 25:54 records:
Lineage and relationship through marriage are two terms that describe the personal relationships that may exist between humans. Ibn Al-Arabi said, “Lineage is an expression referring to the mixture of fluids between a male and a female from a religious legal point of view. However, if this union (between male and female) occurs through disobedience (fornication) then the resulting child is not considered a part of a person’s true lineage. That is why a daughter born from adultery is not mentioned in Allah’s saying, ‘Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers and daughters’ (Surah 4:23) because she is not considered a daughter according to the most authentic teaching of our (Islamic) scholars and the most authentic teaching of our religion. If there is no legal lineage then there is no legal relationship; for adultery does not prohibit (from marriage) the daughter of the mother (you committed adultery with) nor the mother of a woman (you committed adultery with).”…I (Qurtubi) say: ‘The scholars have differed on the permissibility of a man marrying his daughter who was the result of an adulterous relationship; or for that matter marrying his sister or granddaughter who was the result of adultery. Some prohibited this type of relationship; among them was Ibn Al Qasim, which is also the saying of Abu Hanifa and his companions. Others however, allowed this type of marriage such as Abdul Malik Al Maj’shun, which is also the saying of Al Shafi’i. ‘
What can we say to the immense logic put forward by Allamah Jaanbaz Nasibi in ‘Hurmut Mut’ah’? When any Mullah intends to copulate with his wife does he perform this act in public? Does Wasaya declare at the time of the Friday Sermon that he shall sleep with his wife tonight? Did the Sahaba indulge in this act in public? The only characters who were conceived in such a great manner were 5th Imam of the Nasibis, Mu’awiya, Amr Bin Aas and Ziyad bin Sumayya. We read in Tareekh of Ibn Atheer Volume 3 page 301:
When Mu’awiya decided to propitiate Ziyad and obtain his affection to declare him as his brother and both agreed on that, he summoned the people and witnesses including Abu Maryam al-Salooly, Mu’awiya said to him: ‘Oh Abu Maryam what you will testify for?’ He replied: “I testify that your father Abu Sufyan attended my place and asked for a prostitute, I said to him: ‘I don’t have any except Sumaya”. He (Abu Sufyan) said: ‘Bring her to me with her dirt and filth’. I brought her to him, then he went in isolation along her and I left him whilist her vagina was releasing (his) semen.’
Tareekh Kamil, Volume 3 Chapter: 44 H, page 301
Moreover, these Nasibies should first look at their regulations in relation to the slave women before producing such lame excuses. In Nasibi Fiqh, it is allowed for a person to:
How is it possible that Nawasib still show this double standards / hypocrisy and crticize Mut’ah but not their Fiqh?
If we accept Sunni claims that Mut’ah was halaal in the beginning, then it had no procedure of Talaq at that time either. As such, does that mean that Allah (swt) permitted adultery? We have already proved from the Holy Qur’an that such a thing is possible.
Furthermore, we should note one key difference between fornication and Mut’ah: a woman who menstruates must observe ‘iddah (waiting period) after each Mut’ah. As such, she cannot have conjugal relations with more than one-man in less than 45 days or two complete menstrual cycles. There is also no divorce procedure for a man who has sex with his slave girl. If these Sunni ‘ulama want to make analogies, why do they not examine some of the important differences between temporary marriage and acts of fornication?
If, for the sake of argument, we accept this belief (and we have already proven that the child of a temporary marriage does inherit), then the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) should know that their 5th Imam, Mu’awiya, turned the Shari’ah on its head by deeming his bastard (illegitimate ) brother Ibn Ziyad to be his brother, by calling him the son of Abu Sufyan. We have already read the incident:
When Mu’awiya decided to propitiate Ziyad and obtain his affection to declare him as his brother and both agreed on that, he summoned the people and witnesses including Abu Maryam al-Salooly, Mu’awiya said to him: ‘Oh Abu Maryam will you testify to?’ He replied: “I testify that your father Abu Sufyan attended my place and asked for a prostitute, I said to him: ‘I don’t have any except Sumaya”. He (Abu Sufyan) said: ‘Bring her to me with her dirt and filth’. I brought her to him, then he went in isolation along her and I left him whilst her vagina was releasing (his) semen.’
Tareekh Kamil, Volume 3 Chapter: 44 H, page 301
Imam Suyuti also said in ‘Al-Debaj ala Muslim’ volume 1 page 84 that this was in contradiction to Rasulullah(s). This is because the illegitimate offspring of Zina have no inheritance entitlements under the Shari’ah, but Mu’awiya allowed his bastard (illegitimate) brother to inherit his father’s property. As we have seen, children do inherit from their father if they were born from temporary marriage, a wife may likewise inherit if this is stipulated in the marriage contract. This Qiyas is particularly absurd, since its basic premise (that Mut’ah does not carry inheritance) is false and in any case, we have seen that the great Imam of the Sunnis, Mu’awiyah, openly legitimized the illegitimate (Haram) offspring of his polytheist, adulterous father.
Ultimately, this argument falls prey to the same errors that the other analogies do: once one begins to argue that Mut’ah is immoral, one is in fact slandering the Prophet (s) who not only permitted it but ordered the Muslims to practice it, as we previously read in Sahih Muslim. Let us now cite the esteemed Sunni work ‘Au Jaza al Masalik fi Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik Volume 9 page 403 wherein Shaykh ul Hadith Muhammad Zakaria Uthmani narrates as follows:
“Ibn Abbas believed in the permissibility of Mut’ah, and like Ibn Abbas many Sahaba like Ata, Autus, and Imam Jurraya issued a Fatwa on the permissibility of Mut’ah, and the Sahaba of the Prophet (s) Abu Saeed Khudri and Jabir also believed in its legitimacy, the Shi’a also ascribe to the legitimacy of Mut’ah”.
We see that many highly respected Sahaba, such as Ibn ‘Abbas, believed in the exact same type of Mut’ah that the Shi’a do. Would the Sunnis claim that such a person was a fornicator? We have quoted dozens of hadeeths in this regard, and only a fanatical person would claim that they are all made up. Furthermore, we have seen that illustrious Sunni ‘ulama have not expressed any doubt about the veracity of these narrations. Dr. Salamah has demonstrated himself to not only be an enemy of the Prophet (s) and his family, but also an enemy of the Prophet (s)’ companions who stand at the centre of the Sunni belief system.
First of all, Nawasib should be reminded that the law relating to a Mutah wife not inheriting her husband is not an invention of the Shias rather the Sahaba and Tabayeen had been performing Nikah al-Mut’ah with the same principle and condition as can be found today, hence to say that Mut’ah is Haram ‘today’ because a wife doesn’t inherit her husband is to say that Sahaba and Tabayeen indulged in the same Haram act. Regarding the inheritance of a wife in Nikah al-Mut’ah, the late Imam of the Deobandies, Allamah Abu Muhamad Abdul Haq Haqqani states in Tafseer Haqqani:
“Some scholars deem Mut’ah permissible, in the same way the Sahaba Ibn Abbas and Imran bin Husain deemed it permissible, they say that this woman is also a wife, they say that as she is temporary there is no inheritance for her”.
Tafseer Haqqani, Vol 2 page 4 (published in 1956, Deoband UP. India)
If we were to agree to the absurd comparison done by the Nawasib, then these enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) should know that according to their fiqh – the wives of Rasulullah(s) also did not inherit anything form him (s), as this was the fatwa of their 1st Imam Abu Bakr. Now wives of Rasulullah(s) did not inherit, according to this enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt (as), and at the same time these enemies of the Prophet (s) claim that a woman who does not inherit is like a fornicator. As such, according to this Qiyas, all the wives of the Prophet (s) were fornicators (naudobillah). This shall suffice as the appropriate response with which to invalidate this specific Qiyas, as well as the use of Qiyas in general.
Furthermore, as we said addressing Qiyas 5 a wife may inherit if this is stipulated in the marriage contract which means in those cases this Qiyas does not even apply.
Moreover, even with permanent marriage scenarios arises where a woman does NOT inherit from her husband. According to the Hanafi view of inheritance, we read in their classical source “Siraajee fil Meeras” page 214:
“Those [wives] that cannot inherit are four:
1. A Slave whether partial or complete
2. A murderess where Qasaa or Kaffara is obligatory
3. If the husband and wife have a different religion
4. If there are differences between countries”
These are examples where the Nikah is valid but partners do not inherit from one another. This proves that Mut’ah is not the only Nikah that precludes couples from inheriting from one another.
According to Sunni Fiqh, if a man pronounces divorce three times [at once] on his wife (even in anger), then she becomes haram to him until she marries another man, has sexual intercourse with him, and then divorces him. This practice is known as halala. If the woman marries the second man with no other intention except to have intercourse with him once, and then obtains a divorce him, is she being treated like a normal, permanent wife? Yet the Sunni fiqh is not only unanimous on the permissibility of such an act, but on its obligation in certain circumstances.
Can Ahlul Sunnah produce a single person who claims to have been the product of halala? Sunni Mullah’s often benefit from halala, so has any child ever pointed out his Mullah father from halala? Alhamdolillah children born from Nikah al-Mut’ah exist in the Shi’a community and are afforded the same rights / respect as a child born from standard wedlock.
Let us leave the Shi’a community aside, the Nawasib should know that from the outset of Islam, Sahaba contracted Mut’ah using dough/cloth as dower and their children of Mut’ah weren’t locked away. Take the example of Abdullah Ibn Zubayr. We read on the authority of the famous Imam of Ahl as-Sunnah Imam Abu Ja’far Ahmad At-Tahawi in his Sharh Ma’ani al-Asaar, Volume 3 page 24, a hadeeth of Saeed bin Jubayr who discusses a conversation between Ibn ‘Abbas and Abdullah ibn Zubayr:
‘I heard Abdullah Ibn Zubayr reading a sermon wherein he condemned Abdullah ibn Abbas for believing in the permissibility of Mut’ah. Ibn Abbas said: ‘You should ask your mother about this if you are truthful’. His mother said: ‘Ibn Abbas spoke the truth, Mut’ah did indeed exist’. Ibn Abbas then said: ‘If you like, I can cite the names of the men from Quraysh who were born from Mut’ah’.’
Similarly we read in Musnaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 7 page 499 Tradition 14027:
Abu al-Zubair said: ‘I heard Tawoos saying that Ibn Safwan said: ‘Ibn Abbas allows fornication, thus Ibn Abbas mentioned names of men who are people of Mut’ah, I cant remember the names except of Mo’abad bin Uamaya”.
This serves as proof that many of the Sahaba’s children were the products of Mut’ah, their identities were known, and their lineage was connected with their fathers [men from Quraysh] as attested by Ibn Abbas. If these children did not inherit from their fathers how did Ibn Abbas know who they were?
This is the argument of Hasan Alaudeen Suhrawardi, the author of the paper Hurmat al-Mut’ah. We shall in later chapters expand on the tradition of the Sahaba Jabir [in Sahih Muslim], who confirmed that Mut’ah was a common place practice during the lifetime of Rasulullah(s) and Abu Bakr. Can Ahl as-Sunnah confirm the number of Sahaba (male or female) whose homes were wrecked on account of Mut’ah? This is not an attack against the Shi’a, but is really an attack against the Prophet (s) for allowing this allegedly despicable practice.
Dr Salamah states:
”There is no need for witnesses or any open declaration in Mut’ah.” 27
There is nothing in the Holy Qur’an to establish that witnesses are needed for a permanent marriage, much less a temporary one. ‘Umar insulted the Prophet (s) on his deathbed by saying ‘The Qur’an suffices us’ – yet the Qur’an does not suffice the Sunni ‘ulama in proving that a Nikah needs witnesses. We are confident enough to say that if Umar rose from his grave today, he would be unable to locate this verse for anybody. When these enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) try to spread hatred against the Shi’a, one of their arguments is that the Shi’a practice bloodletting i.e. Zinjeer Zani, Qama Zani that cannot be evidenced from the Qur’an. By the same token we challenge you to show us a reference about witnesses to a Nikah from the Book of Allah (swt).Taking two separate extra witnesses is highly recommended in the Fiqh of Ahl’ul bayt (as), but not obligatory and both Nikah and Nikah Mut’ah are valid without these two extra witnesses as well (i.e. the man and woman getting married are sufficient to form two witnesses themselves).
As we stated above, Allah (swt) set out the conditions of marriage at several places in Quran, but at no point did He (swt) place a condition that we take two extra witnesses. Unlike this when it comes to divorcing a woman, Allah (swt) that we have two extra witnesses.. Allah (swt) says in Surah Talaq:
[Yousuf Ali 65:1-2]
O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods: And fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, … and take for witness two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence (as) before Allah.
If you want to know about the evils of this innovation, then you must go to the courts and police stations of Pakistan (and in other Islamic countries), where you witness such cases. For example, women enter courts claiming that their respective husbands divorced them thrice in anger whilst their husbands deny issuing any kind of divorce. From the woman’s perspective, they are notifying the residing judge that they can no longer remain with their spouses as they divorced them thrice in anger, but the husband having regained his senses, does not want to lose his wife. The problem is should these women return to their ‘ex’ husband future sexual contact would constitute adultery (as they have become Haram to due to the divorce). The couple are now in a real dilemma. The only way that the poor woman can return to her husband is if she performs halala with a Sunni Mullah, another act that contradicts the Qur’an. These enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) allege that the Shari’ah has no room for Mut’ah, yet Mut’ah has clear Qur’anic backing. The Sunni fatwa that marriage requires witnesses and divorce does not, it has no Qur’anic backing rather it contradicts it.
This is a very important concept and one must understand it in order to understand the Islamic Sharia. Once you understand it, you will be able to deduce how Nasibi Fiqh has contradicted itself by declaring witnesses to be obligatory. Islam is applicable to all scenarios and eras. Up until this century, there was no custom of a written document when contracting Nikah amongst Muslims. Now consider the following cases:
We therefore see that Islamia Sharia considers the testimony of a husband and wife to be sufficient. When Nasibi Fiqh claims that two extra witnesses are obligatory, then there is a contradiction in their Fiqh which they cannot see due to blindness.
Once again, we know that no such witnesses were required during the Prophet (s)’s time, meaning that, according to Salamah, the Prophet (s) allowed and ordered fornication. We read in Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 32523, Bab ul Nikah:
Rabi’ b. Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) during the Victory of Mecca, and we stayed there for fifteen days (i. e. for thirteen full days and a day and a night), and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted us to contract temporary marriage with women. So I and another person of my tribe went out, and I was more handsome than he, whereas he was almost ugly. Each one of us had a cloaks, My cloak was worn out, whereas the cloak of my cousin was quite new. As we reached the lower or the upper side of Mecca, we came across a young woman like a young smart long-necked she-camel. We said: Is it possible that one of us may contract temporary marriage with you? She said: What will you give me as a dower? Each one of us spread his cloak. She began to cast a glance on both the persons. My companion also looked at her when she was casting a glance at her side and he said: This cloak of his is worn out, whereas my cloak is quite new. She, however, said twice or thrice: There is no harm in (accepting) this cloak (the old one). So I contracted temporary marriage with her, and I did not come out (of this) until Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) declared it forbidden.
We can see from this tradition that:
Now let us see what Imam Nawawi says in his commentary of this tradition:
“This hadith serves as proof that a guardian and witness is not required for Nikah Mut’ah.”
Although these words of al-Nawawi serve as a big slap on the face of all Nawasib, they still continue to attack the concept of Mut’ah! We shall also remind Nawasib the words of great Sunni scholar Allamah Abd Ar-Rahman al-Jazeri that we had cited in chapter two. He wrote in his famous book Al-fFqh Ala Al-Madhahib al-Arba:
The reality of Nikah Mut’ah is that, in the marriage recital performed with a woman, words are added which stipulate that the marriage is for a fixed time. For example a man shall say ‘she shall remain as my wife for a month, or I shall have Nikah Mut’ah with you for a year.” The parties themselves act as witnesses. It can occur in the presence of a Wali or witnesses, or without them.
Al-Fiqh Ala Al-Madhahib al-Arba, (Lahore Edition) Volume 4 page 167
Moreover we have cited the definition of Nikah al-Mut’ah from various Sunni scholars uptil now and no one in their discussion of Mut’ah stated about taking witnesses and having the consent of guardian as a condition to perform Nikah al-Mut’ah.
If Shia traditions are still causing indigestion to the stomach of the Nawasib then tell us:
If the Nawasib answer in the affirmative, that would mean that Mut’ah was Halal in the eyes of Abu Bakar and if the answer is “no” that would once again prove that the presence of witnesses and guardian’s consent is not obligatory to perform Mut’ah.
Furthermore, a large number of Sunni ‘ulama have agreed that witnesses are not needed for a Nikah:
We read in Imam Showkani’s authority work Neel al Autar:
“Narrated in al-bahr from Ibn Umar, Ibn al-Zubair, Abdulrahman ibn Mahdi and Dawud that witnesses are not required (for nikah)”
Allamah Hassan bin Mansoor Qadhi Khan records in his famed Hanafi work ‘Fatawa Qadhi Khan’:
For the recital of Nikah the declaration shall suffice, it is not compulsory to have witnesses present.
We read in Hidaya:
“This is huja on Malik that (for a Nikah) he required the declaration as the condition not the witnesses”
For those of our opponents who pretend to be the die hard supporters for having witnesses in Nikah (Mut’ah) and attack the Shia traditions according to which witnesses are not obligatory for Nikah al-Mut’ah, we read the following interesting edict about the witnesses to a Nikah in their school:
“If someone marries a woman in the presence of drunken witnesses and they understand the matters of marriage, but they forget about it when sober, the nikah will remain valid”
Fatawa Alamgiri (Urdu), Volume 2 page 127
If our opponents are so fond of drunken witnesses that forget what they had actually witnessed then we are content with not having such witnesses. In this connection, we also read:
“Nikah will even take place in the presence of those witnesses who ineligible to testify”
Fatawa Alamgiri (Urdu), Volume 2 page 126
Why do they shout at the necessity of witnesses then?
Besides the role of witnesses, in the very famed Hanafi work ‘Fatawa Alamgiri’ we read the following about the role of a guardian during a Nikah:
“The marriage of a free and adult woman without a guardian is valid according to Imam Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on them)”
Fatawa Alamgiri, Volume 2 page 162
Talking of the role of a guardian in the Sunni school and the objection of the author at having no need for any open declaration in Mut’ah, we further read in Fatawa Alamgiri that it is allowed for a woman to hide the marriage from her guardians.
“(If a) Man submits a marriage proposal before a woman and she accepts but doesn’t want her guardians be informed about it, if she refers her guardianship to the man, that Nikah is permissible”
According to Dr. Salamah’s logic, however, all of these Sunni ‘ulama are condoning fornication, since he classifies any marriage done without witnesses as zina!
Now we are coming to a very interesting part of Nasibi Fiqh, which will make the contradictions in Nasibi Fiqh more clear to our readers. In Nasibi Fiqh, it is allowed for a Master to:
Similarly, we read in Muwatta of Imam Malik that:
Here is the tradition from Muwatta Imam Malik,Book 41, Number 41.6.19a:
Malik said, “The best of what is heard about a slave-girl whom a man has intercourse with while he has a partner in her is that the hadd is not inflicted on him and the child is connected to him. When the slave-girl becomes pregnant, her value is estimated and he gives his partners their shares of the price and the slave-girl is his. That is what is done among us.”
Malik said about a man who made his slave-girl halal to (another) man that if the one for whom she was made halal had intercourse with her, her value was estimated on the day he had intercourse with her and he owed that to her owner whether or not she conceived. The hadd was averted from him by that. If she conceived the child was connected to him.
Malik said about a man who had intercourse with his son’s or daughter’s slave-girl, “The hadd is averted from him and he owes the estimated value of the slave-girl whether or not she conceives.”
How is it possible for Nawasib to exhibit double standards and criticise Mut’ah but not their home grown Nasibi Fiqh?
When Nawasib are presented with the issue of a slave woman in relation to witness testimony, they state there is a difference between free and slave women. This excuse is amazing. The difference is only in the STATUS of slave and free woman, but there is no difference in issues wherein:
The difference between slave/free women is basically in status, but not in relation to issues as stated above. Nasibi conjecture therefore has no worth regarding the issue of having witnesses.
The Wahabi scholar Maulana Sayyid Abu’l A’la Maudoodi advances this Qiyas in his discussion of Surah Mu’minun, verse 7 (in Tafheem ul Qur’an Volume 8 page 13 footnote 4 (b):
“Holding Mut’ah as absolutely permissible, practising it without any real necessity, or resorting to it even when one has a legal wife or wives is a kind of licence which is abhorred by good taste, much less it to be attributed to the Shari’ah of Muhammad (Allah’s peace be upon him) and imputed to the learned jurists of his family. I think that among the Shi’ite Muslims themselves no respectable person would like that somebody should ask for the hand of his daughter or his sister not in marriage but for the purpose of Mut’ah. For if Mut’ah is held as absolutely permissible, it would imply that there should exist in society a low class of women, like the prostitutes, who should be available for the purpose as and when required, or if not that Mut’ah be restricted to the daughters and sisters of the poor stratum of society and the well to do be given the freedom to exploit them as and when they like. Can such an injustice and discrimination be expected of the Divine Law? And will Allah permit an act which every respectable women would regard not only disgraceful for herself but shameful too?”
Similarly in the Deobandi’s famed monthly journal ‘Islamic voice’ Vol 13-11 No:155 Nov’ 1999) the same ‘decency’ argument was advanced as PROOF that Mut’ah was haraam:
…No Shi’a would ever permit his daughter to enter into Muta’ contract with any one. The permanent marriages are announced with pride and the world knows of it but we have never come across even a small list of clerics’ daughters who were given into Muta’ proudly. It shows that the practice is practically disgraceful in their own eyes.
The Ahl as-Sunnah have a type of Nikah called Halala – which stipulates that the only means via which a divorced woman can return to her first husband is if she remarries and copulates with her new spouse. To paraphrase Maudoodi:
‘I think that among the Sunni Muslims themselves no respectable person would like that somebody should ask for the hand of his freshly divorced daughter or his sister for the purposes of Nikah Halala’
Despite this the Sunni ‘ulama have issued edicts on the permissibility of Halala, and they themselves happily accept becoming ‘husbands’ in Nikah halala. According to Maudoodi logic Mut’ah is haraam no decent parent would tolerate Mut’ah for his daughter, by the same token no decent father likes the notion of his daughter being presented for Nikah Halala, hence this should also be deemed haraam.
If the claim that Mut’ah should logically be haraam, because no decent father would tolerate its usage for his daughter, then we can counter this by asking whether any respectable woman would tolerate a Talaq being given to her? Would any respectable father / brother the practice of Talaq to be used against his married daughter / sister? Despite this dislike, the Shari’ah has not catered for these people’s likes / dislikes, it permits the usage of . It should also be pointed out that this practice is not even equitable under the Shari’ah, since the right of divorce is the exclusive right of the husband, women cannot administer it, as a result the entire married lives of such women are destroyed, they are forced to live oppressed, unhappy lives with their husbands, who refuse to divorce them – they may spend their entire married lives depressed because their husbands will not free them from the shackles of an unhappy marriage because their husbands refuse to divorce them.
If we apply Maudoodi’s rationale, in the same way that a pious father might abhor his daughter practicing Mut’ah, respectable people do not like Talaq either, hence both should be haraam. We should also ask Maudoodi type thinkers what their view is of those Sahaba (men and women) that practiced Mut’ah during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s), if they were not pious people what were they?
The Shari’ah does not force people to practise Mut’ah, rather Mut’ah is a means via which couples prevent themselves from fornicating, and there is no distinguishing between rich and poor on this. In society all types of people (rich and poor) are exposed to the lures of fornication, this crosses the class divide. The Shari’ah has provided a counter to this haraam activity in the form of Mut’ah, the couple can be rich, poor or from either background, they can contract Mut’ah – a legitimate method stipulated under the Shari’ah rather than indulge in fornication. Mut’ah can be practised according to the circumstances that a man or women find themselves in, if people do not like it, then they can refrain from it, after all there is no religious obligation on all believers to practise Mut’ah – it is an available option for anyone who deems it necessary, like Maudoodi’s thinking Abu Bakr may well have not liked it, but his daughter deemed it necessary and Abu Bakr allowed this practise to continue throughout his reign.
The final comments of Maudoodi’s rationale are indeed amazing, for he posed the rhetorical question:
And will Allah permit an act which every respectable woman would regard not only disgraceful for herself but shameful too?”
The irony is (as Maudoodi himself admits in the same Tafseer) that Allah (swt) did indeed permit this act, if Mut’ah is indeed a disgraceful, shameless act then why did Allah (swt) deem it lawful for the daughters and sisters of the noble Sahaba?
If we are to accept Maudoodi’s claim that every respectable woman deems Mut’ah disgraceful and shameful what can we say of the characters of esteemed women such as Asma binte Abu Bakr who practised Mut’ah, were such women shameless and disgraceful? Clearly Maudoodi’s attack on Mut’ah via the use of Qiyas is an attack on Allah (swt), Rasulullah (s) and the Sahaba.
Shah Abdul Aziz in Tauhfa page 255 states:
The Shi’a share Mut’ah women, a group share a Mut’ah woman, they take turns having sex with her
This is an out and out lie; we have already mentioned and will repeat again that one of the most basic conditions for contracting Mut’ah with a woman is that she may not already be married. According to Shi’a fiqh, under no condition is it allowed to have physical relations with a woman already married.
In any case, we see from the history that the great Sunni Imam, Mu’awiyah, was the product of exactly such a “sharing.” We read Sharh Ibn al Hadeed Volume 4 page 94 under the Chapter “Mun Kitab Ziyad Ubayya” that Muawiyah wrote a letter to Ziyad. Muawiyah addressed Ziyad with the words ‘O son of Sumayya’. Ziyad replied to Mu’awiya with these words: ‘If I am Ibn Sumayya then you are Ibn Jamaat [son of a group]‘. Ziyad said so becuase:
“There were four people who were thought to be Mu’awiya’s father, Abi bin Umar bin Musaafir, Abi Umar bin Waleed, Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and Sabah”
Rabi’ul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari, Volume 3 page 551
A sect whose Imam was the product of group sexual intercourse with several men and one woman should stay clear of attacking Shi’a conceptions on temporary marriage which can be evidenced from the Quran and Sunnah.
If Nawasib are trying to object that the Shia perform Mut’ah with a woman who previously was under Nikah al Mut’ah with somebody then such logic is totally absurd because if a woman is divorced or has become a widow, it is her prerogative to decide whether or not she intends on marrying again (after fulfilling all the requirements of Iddah). We have many examples about the era of the Sahabah wherein a Sahabi married the widow or ex-wife of another Sahabi. However we read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 124 that a Sahabi whilst dividing and offering his property to another Sahabi in brotherhood, was charitable enough to also offer his wife:
Narrated Sa’d's father:
When the emigrants reached Medina. Allah’s Apostle established the bond of fraternity between ‘Abdur-Rahman and Sad bin Ar-Rabi. Sad said to ‘Abdur-Rahman, “I am the richest of all the Ansar, so I want to divide my property (between us), and I have two wives, so see which of the two you like and tell me, so that I may divorce her, and when she finishes her prescribed period (i.e. ‘Idda) of divorce, then marry her.”
Those people who in order to prove Mut’ah immoral say that a man can misuse Mut’ah by performing Mutah with countless women or indulging in it whilst already married. For all those people who advance such foolish logic to prove the forbiddance of Mut`ah we would like to cite the fact that Nikah al Mut’ah is an Islamic practice just like Nikah, Zakat, Hajj, Fasting etc. all of these practices are open to abuse. For example prosperous Arabs mainly from Saudi Arabia and UAE often visit the Indian Sub-continent and find suitable teenage girls from poor muslim families so that they can address their poverty in exchange for a girl with whom the Arab perform (permanent) Nikah after fulfilling their lust they divorce the girl. Does that mean we should start start questioning the institution of “Nikah” itself rather than the people who are misusing it? People involved in the departments of collecting Zakat are often caught filling their own pockets from the obtained money. Does that mean we abandon the obligation of Zakat as well? In countries like India and Pakistan, people makes millions through donations to construct mosques or madrassas. Does that mean we stop making mosques rather than condemn those culprits? Former American pets like Osama bin Ladin, Zawahiri and Zarqawi and Nawasib like ‘Sipah e Sahabah’ bomb and kill innocent people in the name of Islam, does that mean people should abandon the religion of Islam? The point is that it is upto an individual to determine how best he makes use of Islamic rituals. If he is insincere then no one has the right to point fingers at that particular Islamic practice the finger pointing should be restricted purely to its perpetrators.
Coming back to the point of performing Mut’ah whilst married, such a practice is not at all Haram rather this would be an ‘unnecessary’ requirement which is why the Imams of Ahllubait (as) have clearly expressed their reservations at such a practice and discouraged it. For example we read in famed Shia work ‘Mustadrak al-Wasail’ the incident of a Ali bin Yaqtin, a prominent Shi’ah who held a high post in Abbasid government and already had a wife, he once came to Imam ‘Ali ar-Raza (as) to ask about Mut’ah and Imam (as) replied:
“What you have to do with this, when Allah has made this unnecessary for you.”
1. Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26420
2. Al-Kafi, Volume 5 page 452
3. Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 100, page 318
4. Mustadrak al-Wasail, Volume 14, page 455
As stated by Imam Raza (as), Mut’ah is ‘unnecessary’ when a wife is already present there for a man since it would beget problems such as the mistreatment of women. Imam Raza (as) in another hadith elaborated on the point as follows:
Imam Abu Hasan (as): “It is Halal, Mubah Mutlaq, for he whom Allah has not made this unnecessary through marriage. So seek chastity through Mut’ah. If Allah has made this unnecessary for you, then it is permissible for you only when you do not have access to your wife.”
1. al-kafi, Volume 5 page 453, Hadith 2
2. Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26421
The stance of our Imam (as) was based entirely on logic and most importantly on Quranic injunctions which orders us not polygamous marriages simply for the purpose of enjoyment when we are unable to treat each of them justly as this would lead to the mistreatment of women.
“Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice,” (4:3)”
That is why we also see that Abdullah bin Sinan a companion of Imam Jafar (as) who was also a married man asked Imam (as) about Mut’ah to which He (as) advised him not to do it and most relevantly that hadith is recorded in authority Shia work ‘Mustadrak-ul-Wasail’ (vol 14 page 455) under the chapter of “The disliking of Mut’ah when one does not need it and when it invites repulsiveness and the mistreatment of women”.
Some Nawasib who are always busy finding objections against Mut’ah often come with the objection that prostitutes may use Nikah al Mut’ah as a tool for their trade. We would like to ask all those ignorant ones whether Allah (swt) and his Messenger (s) were aware of this potential abuse, and if they were, why did they still allow Nikah al Mut’ah? Prostitutes lived in that period as well and the Banu Ummayya women folk were pioneers in this field. The point goes back to our reply in Qiyas 13 that it is up to an individual how s/he adheres to Islamic practices and if s/he is insincere fault should be apportioned to them not the Islamic practice.
In Shia Fiqha it is highly discouraged to perform Nikah al-Mut’ah or permanent Nikah with a fornicating woman (prostitute). We read the following Hadith in Usool al-Kafi:
Ali bin Ibrahim narrated from Muhammad bin Isa from Yunus from Muhammad bin al-Fudhail who said: ‘I asked Aba al-Hasan (as) about that a pretty Fajira, is it permitted for a man to perform Mut’ah with her for a day or more?’ He answered: ‘If she is popular for adultery then neither Mut’ah nor Nikah is permissible to be performed with her’
1. Usool al-Kafi, Volume 5 page 454 Hadith 6
2. Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 7, page 252, Hadith 12
We also read:
Abi Sara said: ‘I asked Abi Abdullah (as) about it – meant Mut’ah – he answered: ‘It is lawful, marry only the one that is chaste, verily Allah stated ‘And who guard their private parts’ (023.005), so don’t put your private part where you cant secure your Derham.’
1. Al-Kafi, Volume 5, page 453, Hadith 2
2. Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 7, page 252, Hadith 11
3. Al-Istibsar, Volume 3, page 142, Hadith 1
We also read:
Muhammad ibn al-Faydh said: ‘I asked Aba Abdillah (as) about Mut’ah. He replied: ‘Yes if she was aware of it. We said: ‘May we be sacrificed for you, what if he wasn’t aware of it?’
He replied: ‘Disclose it to her and tell her, if she accepts then marry her, if she rejects leave her, beware of the kawashif, Dawaei, Baghaya and Zawat al-Azwaj. I asked: ‘Who are kawashif?’ He replied: ‘Those who announce about themselves and their houses are known and have been attended (by men)’. I asked: ‘Dawaei?’. He replied: ‘Those who invite (the men) for themselves and are known for corruption’. I asked : ‘The Baghaya?’. He replied: ‘Those who are popularly known for adultery’. I asked: ‘Zawat al-Azwaj?’. He replied: ‘Those who have been divorced on the way other than the way of the Sunnah.’
1. Al-Kafi, Volume 5, page 454, Hadith 5
2. Men la yahdaruh al-Faqih, Volume 3, page 460, hadith 4586
3. Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 7, page 252, Hadith 13
4. Al-Istibsar, Volume 3, page 143, Hadith 3
5. Ma’ani al-Akhbar, page 225, Hadith 1
Shaykh Saduq records in ‘Al-Hedaya’ page 265:
“If he wants to perform Mut’ah with a woman, she shall be religious and secure; verily it is not allowed to perform Mut’ah with a fornicator or the unsecured”
Similarly Shaykh Tibrizi in ‘Sirat al-Nijat, Volume 1 page 318, Shaykh Wahid Khorasani in ‘Minhaj al-Salehin’ Volume page 3 page 302 and Shakyh Ishaq al-Faydh in his ‘Minhaj al-Salehin’ Volume 3 page 24 records:
“As the measure of an obligatory precaution (ahwat luzuman) one should avoid performing Mut’ah with the popularly known promiscuous woman until her repentance appears”
Allamah Hili records in ‘Tahrir al-Ahkam’ Volume 3 page 523:
“It is makruh to perform Mut’ah with the fornicator, if he performed (Mut’ah), he should forbid her of lechery”
Sheikh al-Jawaheri records in ‘Jawahir al-Kalam’ Volume 30 page 139:
“According to the popular view, it is makruh to marry a renowned female fornicator until she repents”
Famed Shia scholars including Muhaqiq al-Hili in ‘Al-Mukhtasar al-Nafaei’ page 181, Shaykh Luftallah al-Safi in ‘Hidayat al-Ebad’ Volume 2 page 447, Shaykh al-Mughnia in ‘Al-Shia fi al-Mizan’ page 358, Syed Muhammad al-Amili in ‘Nehayat al-Maram’ Volume 1 page 223, Ibn Fahad al-Heli in ‘Al-Muhadab al-Baria’ Volume 3 page 314, Ibrahim al-Kalbasi in ‘Memhaj al-Hidayah’ page 328, Syed Ali al-Tabatabai in ‘Riyadh al-Masael’ Volume 10 page 16 and Ali Asghar Marwarid in ‘Al-Yanabi al-Feqyha’ Volume 19 page 537 have called it Makruh to perform Mut’ah with a female fornicator.
So, if man is completely adhering to the Islamic injunctions and fulfilling all the requirements of Nikah al-Mut’ah then how would any (regular) prostitute find a man to perform Mut’ah with so as to achieve her goal?
It should be pointed out that prostitution is explicitly Haram in Islam then how would a prostitute be observing the conditions of Nikah al Mut’ah for a prescribed time when she doesn’t even care about what is Halal or Haram? Even if she bothers to do so for any reason, there is no difference to her between permanent Nikah and a temporary one, it is simply money that motivates her. A woman that observes Islamic injunctions and performs Mut’ah or a permanent Nikah one after another (fulfilling all requirements of Nikkah and Iddah) cannot be deemed a prostitute in any Fiqha of Islam.
At this point, we would like to cite the words of Ayatullah Khomeni that are not much different to the views of the above cited esteemed Shia scholars but Dr. Salamah has taken liberty to translate it according to his own desired manner and then mock it:
To conclude this discussion, aquotation from Ayatullah Khomeini is presented:It is permissible to engage in Mut’ah with a fornicator woman but with a disliking in [one's] heart, especially if she is a well-known and professional fornicator. When a person contracts Mut’ah with her, he should advise her to quit the profession of fornication.”61In other words, a man should first have his sexual gratification with a prostitute and then should advise her to quit her profession. Could this be Islam? Isn’t it obvious which belief Sunni or Shi’ah, represents the authentic religion of Islam? Should one enjoy the “virtues” of Mut’ah or accept Islam, which is free from such corrupt practices?
The reference that Khomeni cited was no different to what we quoted from Allamah Hilli and that exactly can also be found in “Hidayat al-Ebad” (v2 p447) Shaykh Luftullah al-Safi and at no place have the words ‘he should advise her’ been used, it seems that the deceitful author has concocted these words so that he can have a feeble opportunity to mock the Shi’a. The actual words are as follows:
“It is permissible to perform Mut’ah with a fornicator woman but with karaha, especially when she is a whore and well known with fornication, if a person contracted (Mut’ah with her) he should forbid her from lechery“
Tahreer al-Waseelah, Volume 2 page 292
So according to the majority view, first a man should forbid her from the Haram practice of fornication, let her repent for her sins and then he shall perform Nikah al-Mut’ah with her. As for those who deemed it permissible but with Karaha, the aim behind such words is to bring a woman indulged in sinful activities back to an honourable life which is logically possible only when such a woman is with you and you have an influence on her and this very logic has also been advanced a great Sunni scholar and one of the teachers of beloved Salafi scholar Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen (1925-2001)(1421 H) namely Shaykh Muhammad Al-Amin Al-Shanqiti (d. 1393 H) in ‘Adhwa al-Bayan’ Volume 5 page 430 while defending his Sunni clergy who deem it permissible to marry with a fornicator woman he wrote:
“You have to know that those who said that it is permissible for the chaste (man) to marry a fornicator (woman), this does not mean that the husband of the fornicator woman is a pimp, since he married her to preserve her, protect her and forbid her from performing what she is not supposed to do.”
Download book- Adhwa al-Bayan fi Edha al-Quran bil Quran, from www.almeshkat.net
Adhwa al-Bayan, Volume 5 page 430
As we have cited the views of various Shia scholars, it is an obligatory measure of precaution to avoid doing Mut’ah with a fornicator woman until she repents and it has been termed Makruh. If despite this, indigestion remains in Dr. Salamah’s stomach then we would like to mention that the Sunni view is also not much different than the Shia ruling on performing Nikah (Mut’ah) with a fornicator woman. For example prior to the above reference, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Amin Al-Shanqiti (d. 1393 H) recorded:
“You have to know that the scholars disagreed about the permissibility of the chaste (man’s) marriage with a fornicator (woman) and the chaste (woman’s) marriage with a fornicator (man), a group of scholars who are the three imams among them said it is permissible but it is makruh according to Malik and his companions”
Adhwa al-Bayan, Volume 5 page 422
We also read:
“The majority of scholars permit marriage with fornicator”
Adhwa al-Bayan, Volume 5 page 428
Ibn Rushd records in Bedayat al-Mujtahid, Volume 2 page 33:
“They (scholars) disagreed about marriage with a fornicator, the majority allowed it and a group forbade it”
A Shafi’ee scholar died in 9th century Al-Minhaji al-Asuti records in ‘Jawahir ul-Uqood’ Volume 2 page 22:
“Malik deemed marriage with the fornicator to be Makruh”
We also read:
“Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) said: ‘It is not allowed to marry her except with two conditions; she should repent and perform ablution’.”
If there still remains some problem to the Nasibi masses then allow us to cite the words of their master Ibn Kathir recorded by him while talking about the very topic of marrying a fornicator under the commentary of 24:3:
“If the repentance is performed then the marriage is lawful”
Having cited the above Hanbali and Maliki views let us now hit a final nail in the coffin of Salamah by citing a clear-cut Hanafi edit from an esteemed Hanafi work ‘Dur al Mukhtar’ according to which Nikah with a female fornicator is absolutely permissible:
“If the woman has committed adultery the nikah is correct. It means that nikah with a female adulterer is permissible, even if the man has seen the woman commit adultery.”
Dur ul Mukhtar, volume 2, page 25, Kitab ul Nikah.
Dr Salamah has tried his best to attribute filth and shamelessness to the pure madhab of Ahlulbayt (as) but if he and his ilk possess an ounce of shame then their nerves should shatter after reading the following Hanafi and Shafiyee belief:
“If an adulterer man does nikah with an adulterer pregnant woman, having sex with her is correct as is agreed by the Hanafi and Shafi’ee.”
Dur ul Mukhtar, volume 2, page 24, Kitab ul Nikah.
Nevertheless, it is indeed an interesting fact that among Ahle Sunnah, an female adulteress even after committing illegal intercourse remains within the category of virgins. We read in Fatawa Alamgiri:
“If she damaged her virginity due to jumping or menses or surgery or old age, she remains under the category of virgin, if she damages it due to adultery she still remains within this virgin category according to Abu Hanifa”
Fatawa Alamgiri, Volume 2 page 167
We hope that Dr. Salmah, Ibn al-Hashimi, Nawasib belonging to Ansar.org and kr-hcy.com lead happy married lives wither their respective (former) ‘virgin’ wives!
Though we have proved that similar to Shia scholars, various Sunni scholars also deem it Makruh to perform Nikah with a female fornicator while it is allowed after her repentance appears some Nasibi elements within Ahle Sunnah advance the following verse in an attempt to prove that the Nikah between a pure partner and a fornicator is impermissible:
‘The adulterer shall not marry save an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater’
So for such Nawasib we would like to remind them that they have no grounds to bring the cited verse in their defense since according to their clergy the verse has been abrogated. Ibn Kathir records:
A group of scholars claimed that this verse is abrogated, ibn Abi Hatim said narrated Abu Saeed al-Ashaj from Abu Khalid from Yahya bin Saeed from Saeed bin Musayab that it was mentioned in front of him ‘The adulterer shall not marry save an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater’ (ibn al-Musayab ) said: ‘The following verse abrogated it: ‘Marry those among you who are single’ [024.032 ] (ibn al-musayab) said: ‘It’s the singles from the Muslims’.
The same Ubaid al-qasim bin Salam narrated in the book “al-Nasikh wa al-Nansukh” on authority of Saeed ibn al-Musayab and Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Idrees al-Shaf’ee confirmed that’.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer
Imam al-Shaf’ee states in ‘Ahkam al-Quran’ volume 1 page 178:
“It has been abrogated by Allah’s statement: ‘Marry those among you who are single’”.
We read in Ma’ani al-Quran by al-Nahas, volume 4, page 499:
“It has been abrogated by the following verses: ‘Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female’ and the fornicator is included amongst the Muslims singles”
We read in Tafsir ibn Zamnin, volume 3, page 221:
“It was revealed about every male and female fornicator then it was abrogated”
We also read in ‘Adhwa al-Bayan’ by al-Shanqiti, volume 5 page 419:
‘The verse is abrogated by the saying of Allah almighty: ‘Marry those among you who are single’
Famed Hanafi work “Dur al Mukhar” records:
“The verse ‘The adulterer shall not marry save an adulteress’ has been abrogated by the verse ‘marry of the women, who seem good to you’ . The instruction in this verse was to do Nikah irrespective of one being a fornicator”
Dur al Mukhtar, Volume 2 page 25
The ahlelbayt.org website have experienced extreme indigestion at the words of Grand Ayatullah Sistani, who was asked a question about Mut’ah. They sought to sensationalise the matter by placing the matter under the headline grabbing title,
‘Grand Ayatollah Sistani on the Only Difference between Mut’ah and a “One Night Stand’
The question posed is as follows:
Can you explain to me in detail the differences in Mut’ah and a ‘one night stand’ of American culture in which a man buys a woman flowers and dinner as mahr, and they agree on a time duration to only spend a few nights together? Thanks for you help.
The reply is short and simple:
“It is the very the difference between Shari Contract marriage and friends having sex”
Tell us Ibn al Hashimi, what is the precise distinction between dining in a halal and non halal restaurant? Both restaurants might look the same as one another, the furniture might be identical, and the chicken may be identical in terms of size, smell and taste so to all extents and purposes both scenarios are identical. So what is the distinction? The distinction is the chicken in the halal restaurant has been slaughtered pursuant to Islamic laws, thus lawfully entitling a Muslim to eat from it whereas the other chicken has not. The sole act of the Islamic slaughter, namely cutting the throat of the chicken whilst reciting the Shahada is what is the difference between eating meat permissible under shariah, and eating that which is not. The same applies to the scenario here, all of the ingredients of a one night stand might well be in existence, namely a couple getting together, have dinner, spend some nights together, save one crucial distinction the recitation of the Nikah by both parties prior to the commencement of a relationship renders the entire process pursuant to Islamic Shariah. Without this Nikah, the one night stand remains an act of fornication.We find it difficult to see what is objectionable here, indeed only a fanatic brain with Nasibi blood flowing through his veins would use his conjecture to misinterpret the fatwa. The reply is clear, namely that one is an Islamic method, the other is not. This shall suffice for those possess brain cells and utilize them. If the fatwa is still causing indigestion to the stomach of Ibn al-Hashimi then let us elaborate further on the difference between Mut’ah and a ‘one night stand’.
If one considers the above points regarding Mutah and a one night stand, one can conclude that the concept of a one night stand has no association with Islam on the contrary, according to Islamic injunctions such a sexual union clearly falls within the category of adultery.
We hope these 8 points shall suffice to work as medicine for the disturbed stomach of Ibn al-Hashimi that will enable him to differentiate between Muta and a one night stand.
Should the symptoms persist and Ibn al-Hashimi still equates Muta with one night stand, that would mean that in his eyes, our Prophet (as) permitted the revered Sahaba, men and women alike, to have one night stands.
If the ahlelbayt.com believe there is no difference between Mut’ah and a one night stand, then allow us to quote the whole procedure of performing Mut’ah as mentioned in Sahih Muslim put forward by the Rabi’ the son of Sahabi Sabra. This is how the romantic event unfolds in Sahih Muslim:
Rabi’ b. Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) during the Victory of Mecca, …As we reached the lower or the upper side of Mecca, we came across a young woman like a young smart long-necked she-camel. We said: Is it possible that one of us may contract temporary marriage with you? She said: What will you give me as a dower? Each one of us spread his cloak. She began to cast a glance on both the persons. My companion also looked at her when she was casting a glance at her side and he said: This cloak of his is worn out, whereas my cloak is quite new. She, however, said twice or thrice: There is no harm in (accepting) this cloak (the old one). So I contracted temporary marriage with her….
In light of this event, tell us Ibn al-Hashimi, would Sabra having sex with a woman fall within the definition of a ‘one-night stand’? Didn’t Sabra just ‘pick up’ a girl and have sex with her? The question referred to giving woman flowers and taking her to dinner, the female in this scenario was even cheaper to bed, she agreed to sex for a piece of cloth! And what shall we say of this woman that Sabra was propositioning? She knew that this arrangement was purely associated with sex, so shall we interpret this arrangement, as an arrangement to have a ‘one night stand’ with a whore?
The amusing thing is you can achieve exactly the same from Misyar marriage as can be Mut’ah that has been equated with a one night stand by Ibn al-Hashimi, the only thing in Misyar is that the woman is not told of the intention of the man, so a guy goes out, enters into the Nikah, gives her flowers for Dowry, takes her to dinner, sleeps with her and then divorces her the next morning. The only difference is the poor woman doesnt even no she’s being duped. At least with Mut’ah both parties know that the relationship is temporary in nature, there is no ‘trick element’ with which to surprise the female partner. Compare this to Misyar marriage, where only the male knows the intention is to leave the woman; after he has his way with her, the poor woman happily assumes that she has entered into a lifelong marriage commitment! She assumes that the man has fallen head over heels in love with her, and has proposed there and then. Little does she know, is that he is using her, and will get rid of her, once he has had sex with her. With Mut’ah, partners know that the matter will be over within a short time and that too in a written form, with Misyar the poor woman assumes that the relationship is permanent, and will not know the truth until she is divorced the next morning, the decent ‘husband’ has kept his intention to divorce a secret. There is no difference between Misyar and a one night stand, with one exception, a woman is tricked into bed! Subhanallah! Ibn al-Hashimi comments:
Sistani has attempted to equate “having sex with friends” to marriage, completely oblivious to the fact that marriage is not only about having sex but raising a family together, long-term companionship, and a life of commitment. How far removed is marriage from “friends having sex” or Mut’ah/prostitution!
First of all Agha Sistani has no wehre attempted to equate “having sex with friends” to marriage and its just the Nasibi mind of the author that interpreted so.
Secondly, Misyar marriage has nothing to do with ‘raising a family together, long-term companionship, and a life of commitment’. The intention behind Misyar is purely for Salafi students overseas to have short term marriages, so they can satiate the sexual lust, having children, long term companionship does not even come into the equation. In Misyar there is no such thing as a life commitment, since the Salafi student has hidden his intention to divorce the woman when he wishes to.
Ibn al-Hashimi claims that ‘Misyar is permanent’ he has failed to add that ‘Misyar is permanent, in the eyes of the poor tricked woman’ – this is not the case with the Salafi husband whose intention is to divorce her at some later date.The amazing thing is if Bin Baz Imam of the Salafis was asked the difference between a one night stand and misyar marriage, he would assert:
“It is the very the difference between Shari Contract marriage and friends having sex, but you must ensure that the friend you pick up doesn’t know that you are going to divorce her in the morning
One is at a loss to understand exactly how Ibn al Hashimi can ever attempt to take the moral high ground when his own Salafi Ulema have issued an edicts that is in effect the green light to partake in one night stands! We read this article that appeared in the Lebanese based newspaper al Nahar:
أصدر رجال دين سلفيون يدعمون الجماعات الاسلامية المقاتلة في سوريا فتوى تبيح ما سمي بجهاد المناكحة في سوريا. وتنص هذه الفتوى على اجازة ان يقوم المقاتلون ضد نظام الاسد من غير المتزوجين . او من الذين لا يمكنهم ملاقاة زوجاتهم بابرام عقود نكاح شرعية مع بنات او مطلقات لمدة قصيرة لا تتجاوز الساعة
Salafi clerics who support the armed Islamic squads in Syria have issued a fatwa legalizing the so called Jihad al-Munakaha. The said fatwa entitles the unmarried fighters that are fighting against Assad’s regime as well as those who are unable to meet their wives to partake in a marriage contract with single or divorced women for a short time of under an hour.
http://www.al-nhar.com/index.php?aa=news&id22=15928
Observe the sheer hypocrisy of the Nawasib! They mock the Shia for believing that Mutah can be performed in an hour, but have legitimized their Salafi ‘warriors’ to relieve themselves by partaking in sexual relationships within a one hour window. This is marriage contract:
If this isn’t temporary marriage in all but name then what is it? If there is not difference between Mutah and a one night stand, then tell us what the distinction is between Jihad al Munkaha and a one night stand? Lest not forget the objection of Ibn al Hashimi:
Sistani has attempted to equate “having sex with friends” to marriage, completely oblivious to the fact that marriage is not only about having sex but raising a family together, long-term companionship, and a life of commitment. How far removed is marriage from “friends having sex” or Mut’ah/prostitution!
Does Jihad al Munkaha have anything to do with raising a family together, long-term companionship, and a life of commitment? No it does not, it is all about having a quick sex session pure and simple. If this Nasibi has umbrage with the notion of “having sex with friends” what explanation can he provide here, wherein Salafi men can in effect have sexual intercourse with strangers, wherein the only purpose for getting together with a woman is to penetrate her?
These Naswasib produced all this Qiyas to oppose Mut’ah. If this Qiyas is correct then all the negative aspects of Mut’ah would have been present during the time of Rasulullah (s). Nawasib argue that Mut’ah was an Arab Pagan practice, so did our Holy Prophet (s) seek to discourage the practice of pagan Mut’ah by advancing the type of qiyas that today’s Nawasib do? Let us just take the example of the prohibition of intoxicants. Intoxicants were forbidden in the Qur’an through several separate verses revealed at different times over a period of years. At first, it was forbidden for Muslims to attend to prayers while intoxicated (4:43). Then a later verse was revealed which said that alcohol contains some good and some evil, but the evil is greater than the good (2:219). This was the next step in turning people away from consumption of it. Finally, “intoxicants and games of chance” were called “abominations of Satan’s handiwork,” intended to turn people away from God and forget about prayer, and Muslims were ordered to abstain (5:90-91).
We can see that the mindset of the Sahaba was being set, so that they would be repulsed to it. If Mut’ah was this abominable practice then why didn’t Rasulullah (s) seek to discourage its practice, by citing its alleged ‘harmful affects on society’, and its ‘exploitation’ of women? We appeal to justice:
a). Was Rasulullah (s) not more aware of risks to society that could be brought about by the supposed ‘evils’ of Mut’ah?
b). Can Nawasib produce a single reference that Rasulullah (s) discouraged Mut’ah by citing a single one of the Qiyas arguments that the Nawasib have done?
c). If Rasulullah (s) never passed comment on the negative aspects of Mut’ah, who do theses scholars think they are? Do they think that they are more learned that the Prophet (s)?