Since Nawasib have not been able to find authentic Shia traditions prohibating Nikah al-Muta, they have resorted to fabricate traditions.
The un-named author of Zawaj al Mut’ah cited these two traditions:
The Shia themselves have a hadith narrated by Ali (r.a.a) which states that the Prophet made Mut’ah haram on the day of Khayber (Book of Tahdeeb: vol. 7, pg. 251, rewaya 10). The author states that Ali lied for the purposes of Taqiya. In Book of Istebsar: vol. 3, pg. 142, rewaya 5, there is a declaration by Ali that Mut’ah is haram. Again they accuse Ali of lying for Taqiya.
Nasibis quote these two traditions as if they are celebrating Eid, their happiness is on par with the happiness of their Imam Yazeed when the head of Imam Husayn (as) was brought to him. To them this great finding destroys the entire Shi’a aqeedah on Mut’ah. Putting aside the fact that this single hadeeth contradicts tens of thousands of other Shi’a hadeeths on the subject, there are further problems with this argument:
We read in Ahl as-Sunnah esteemed masterpiece Taufa Ithna Ashari, Chapter 9 page 266 Muthaeen Abu Bakr:
In the eyes of Ahl as-Sunnah, only those hadith are reliable that appear in the authoritative texts of hadith scholars.
Using this argument, we would point out that both hadith have not been recorded / relied upon by any authoritative hadith scholar.
The author of Tahdeeb and Istibsar namely Shaykh Tusi himself rejected the traditions. In his commentary of this hadith, he commented:
This narration was on account of Taqiyyah, this is in fact the aqeedah of the opponents of the Shi’a, those with knowledge should be aware that in our Imam’s religion, Mut’ah is Mubah.
Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 251 Hadith (1085)10
Moreover, Shaykh Baqir Majlisi wrote the following about the tradition recorded in Shaykh Tusi’s book:
“It appears to be a fabrication by the Zaidies as it appears from most of their traditions.”
Malaz al-Akhyar, Volume 12 page 32
A narrator in the chain is Husayn bin Alwan, about whom we read in Rijjal al Kashi and Rijjal al Kabeer:
“He was a ‘Aam’ Kufi”
When our hadith scholars grade a person as ‘Aam’ this means that he was ‘common’ a Sunni.
Another narrator Amro bin Khalid was also a Sunni (Wasail al-Shia, v30 p438) and if we analyze his status from even Sunni sources, we would come to know that he was not an authentic narrator as Ibn Hajar said about him: ‘Matruk’. Yahya ibn Mueen said: ‘liar’ and Abu Zar’a said: ‘He used to fabricate hadith’.
Having Sunni narrators in Shia text is not a strange thing. If we analyze the Shia text, we would come to know that some Shia narrators used to take traditions from Sunni narrators mixing up the chain of narration, as we read in Rijal Kashi, Volume 2 page 855:
Ibn Shaza said: ‘My father [ra] asked Muhammad bin Abi Umair: ‘You met many A’ama (Sunni) scholars, how come you didn’t hear (hadith) from them?’ He replied: ‘I heard (hadith) from them, but I saw many of our (Shia) companions heard from the A’ama (Sunni) narrations and Khasa (Shia) narrations, then they mixed up until they attributed the narrations of A’ama (Sunnis) with the Khasa (Shia) and the narrations of Khasa (Shia) with the A’ama (Sunnis), therefore I disliked to mix up the traditions, so I left that and remained on that (narrating only from Shia).’
Keeping this thing in mind, we know that the prohibation of Mutah at Khayber narrated by Ali (as) is found in Sunni text, thus it is quite possible that the shia narrators heard it from the Sunni narrators, mixed up the chain and attributed the tradition to Zaid bin Ali.
We shall also point out that a tradition is referred to as ‘Sahih’ according to the Shia school when:
“What is narrated in succession by the authentic and preserved Imami narrator from the same quality narrator till it ends to the infallible without any oddity or malady”
Resael fi Derayat Hadith by Abu al-Fazl al-Babeli, Volume 1 page 395
The very principle can also be found in Sunni school as Allamah Ibn al-Salah said in his book ‘Muqadimat ibn al-Salah’ page 16:
“The Sahih hadith is the one with continued chain continually narrated by the just and preserved narrator from the just and preserved narrator till it ends without being odd or malady’.
The oddity of any tradition can be defined as:
“The oddity is the sole chain hadith contradicting the various chains of hadith”
Resael fi Derayat Hadith by Abu al-Fazl al-Babeli, Volume 1 page 409
And this rule is not exclusive to the Shia school, rather Sunni school also uphold the very principle as Allamah Ibn al-Salah said in his book ‘Muqadimat ibn al-Salah’ page 61:
“Verily the odd (hadith) is what the authentic (narrator) narrated contradicting what the people narrate, al-Hafiz Abu Y’ala al-Khalili al-Qazwini reported the same definition from al-Shafiyee and group of scholars of Hijaz and then he said: ‘What is adopted by the scholars is that the odd hadith is which has only one chain narrated by an authentic or even unauthentic Sheikh, so what was narrated from unauthentic Sheikh is abandoned and what is narrated by authentic Sheikh so they stop on it and don’t use it as proof’.”
So the cited tradition is weak by both the perspectives mentioned by Allamah Abu Fal al-Babeli i.e. it is neither narrated by authentic and preserved Imami narrator from the same quality narrator till it ends to the infallible Imam nor it is free from any kind of oddity and malady since it is narrated by only one chain of narration contradicting the Shia hadiths which are more than two hundred in number pertaining to the permissibility of Mutah. Abu al-Fazl al-Babeli stated in his book ‘Resael fi Derayat Hadith’ Volume 1 page 488:
“If a contradiction took place then the priority will be given to the abundance (of hadith).”
The tradition therefore is of no value to us, since it:
Moreover Ayatullah (late) Syed Abul Qasim al-Khoei mentioned the same after citing a few traditions on the prohibition of Mutah (including the one narrated from Ali (as) for the prohibition of Mutah at Khayber) in his authority work ‘Al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Quran’ page 313:
“Answer:
First: Abrogation cannot consist of a ‘ahad’ tradition, as we mentioned several times.
Second: These narrations contradict the muttawatir narrations of Ahlulbayt (as) which refer to the validity of mutah and the Prophet never forbidding it.”
http://www.shiaweb.org/quran/bayan/pa63a.html
On page 322 of the same book, he clearly stated:
“What has been narrated from Ali (as) regarding the prohibation of Mutah is absolutely fabricated.”
And most importantly, the cited traditions narrated by Ali (as) suggest that Mut’ah was prohibited at Khayber whereas we already have advanced authentic traditions that point to the practice of Mut’ah after the victory of Makka, a year after Khayber.
The un-named author of Zawaj al Mut’ah stated regarding the two traditions he cited:
…The author states that Ali lied for the purposes of Taqiya… . Again they accuse Ali of lying for Taqiya.
It shows the sheer ignorance of the author since at no point does the author attest that it was Ali (as) who lied for the purpose of Taqiyah rather Taqiyah was practised by one of the narrators in the chain. That is what Faiz Kashani records in Al-Wafei, Volume 3 page 55:
“Attributing Taqiyyah to Amir al-Momineen (as) in relation to such a narration is impossible, but is possible if it is attributed to some of the narrators”
Al-Hur al-Amili likewise stated that the Taqiyyah was in ‘narrating’ the tradition not by the Imam (as). We read in Wasail al Shia:
“Al-Shaikh (Tusi) and others took this as Taqiyyah, that is, in the narrating…”
Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26387
Logically, why would Maula Ali (as) perform Taqqiyah at that time, since Prophet [s] was there and Umar had not banned it. Even after the prohibition of Mutah by Umar, we have clear-cut tradition narrated by Ali (as):
Aba Jaffar (as) said: ‘Ali (as) used to say: ‘Had son of Khatab not prohibited it, the only person to fornicate would be a wretched person”.
Al-Kafi, v5 p448. Hadi Najafi said: ‘The chain is authentic’ (Maouwsoat Ahadith Ahlulbayt, v5, p396).
And when we analyze the chain of narration we see that it was Zayd who practiced Taqiyah and his performing Taqiyah in this case is apparent by the fact that the first two narrators who narrated from Zayd namely Amro bin Khalid and al-Hussain bin Alw’an were Sunni, since Zayd was narrating in a Sunni environment and was wanted by the government of Bani Ummayah he attributed that hadith to the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) under Taqiyah.
Another hadeeth used by the enemies of the Ahl al-bayt (as) with their usual deceitful nature is the hadeeth of Imam Baqir (as), recorded ‘Tahdeeb al Ahkam’ and ‘Furu al Kafi’:
Abdullah Bin Umair asked Abi Ja’far (as): Is it acceptable to you that your women, daughters, sisters, daughters of your aunties do it (Mut’ah)? Abu Ja’far rebuked him when he mentioned his women and daughters of his aunties.
Since Nawasib are completely influened by their genes that they inherited from their ancestors, they never present the complete tradtion, particularly the part wherein the Imam (as) condemns Umar’s action of banning Nikah al-Mutah. This is the complete tradition:
Zurarah narrated: Abdullah ibn Umair Al-Laithi came to Abu Jafar (as) and he asked him: “What do you say about the Mutah of women?”
He answered: “Allah made it halal in His book, and on the tongue of His Prophet [s], so it is halal until the day of Qiyamah.”
He (Al-Laithi) said: “Those like you say this, but Umar made it haram and forbade it.”
He said: “Even if he did?”
He (Al-Laithi) said: “I seek refuge for you with Allah from that, that you deem halal that which Umar made haram.”
He said: “Then you are with the doctrine of your companion (Umar), and I am with the doctrine of the Messenger of Allah [s], invoke the curse of Allah (upon the one mistaken between us) – the truth is what the Messenger of Allah said and what your companion says is falsehood.”
Abdullah ibn Umair then advanced and said: “Does it please you that your women and your daughters and your sisters and the daughters of your uncle do (Muta)?”
Abu Jafar (as) turned away from him when he mentioned His (as) women and the daughters of his uncle.
1. Al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 186
2. Al-Furu, Volume 2 page 42 Hadith No. 4
The narration fails to prove that Mut’ah is haram, for there is nothing in it to establish that the Imam (as) turned away his face at the thought of Mut’ah. This is especially obvious since the Imam (as) himself emphasized it was halaal. It is far more probable that the Imam (as) turned away his face on account of the disrespect afforded to him by Ibn Umair.
Let us given an example that will justify the action of our Imam (as):
If a Sunni Shaykh ul Hadith is the father of a young 18 year old daughter, and a poor elderly man who sweeps the streets for a living poses a question to the esteemed Shaykh: “Can a poor old man have a Nikah with an 18 year old girl?” The Shaykh shall reply: “Yes, such a Nikah is sound. No hurdle exists in Islam to prohibit such a union. “If the elderly sweeper’s next question is ‘Will you therefore marry your 18 year old daughter to me’ will the Shaykh immediately jump for joy, urge the man to make a formal proposal, or will he turn his face away for this insulting comment?
Similarly, marrying four wives is Halaal in Islam, yet a son might not like the idea of his mother becoming someone’s third wife after his father dies. That does not mean, that polygamy and a widow’s right to remarry is haraam.
Another hadeeth that Nasibi ‘ulama have used is the following from Furu al Kafi, Kitab ul Nikah, the Imam said about Mut’ah:
Al-Mufadal bin Umar reported that Aba Abdullah (as) said about Mutah: ‘Abandon it, aren’t anyone of you ashamed of exposing his private parts, and then exposing it (by telling) to his pious brothers and companions?’
1. Furu al-Kafi , Volume 2 page 44 Hadith 4
2. Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26422
First of all, it should be noted that Allamah al-Majlesi in his commentary of the cited tradition said that its a ‘weak’ hadith (Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 20, page 234).
Secondly, it does not explicitly say anything on the prohibition of Mutah whilst we have a multitude of traditions narrated from the Imams (as) about its permissibility rather the main emphasis on this tradition was on the immoral act of seeing one’s private parts whilst being in Nikah and then discussing it with outsiders. It is recorded by Allamah Majlisi in its commentary:
“The meaning is that a woman after observing his private parts, and then following the expiry of Mutah and the Idah, subsequently informs another man and informs him (of what she saw).”
The condemnation of such an act is logical and is similarly evidenced in Sunni texts as follows:
Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) is quoted to have said: Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) led us in prayer, and when he had finished he turned toward us and said: “Remain seated. Is there among you one who comes to his wife, closes the door, and draws the curtain, and then goes out and speaks about it, saying, “I did this and I did that with my wife?” They remained silent. Then he turned toward the women and asked, “Is there among you one who tells about such things?” A girl raised herself on her knees so that the Messenger of Allah could see her and listen to what she said. She said, “Yes, by Allah, the men talk about it and the women do, too.” Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Do you know the similitude of those who do that? They are like a male and female devils who meet each other in the road and satisfy their desire with the people gazing at them.”
http://islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=74854
Screen shot from islam-online.net
(Kanzul Ummal, Hadith. 44906, Faiz al Qadeer, Hadith. 5431, Sahih Jame’a al-Saghir by Albaani, v1 p746 Hadith. 4008 etc.)
Furthermore, if this hadeeth is to be accepted as a prohibition of Mut’ah, then it means that it is haram for any woman to have sex with more than one man in her life. As such, according to the Sunni logic, if an 18-year old woman marries, and her husband dies two weeks later, she can never marry again. This is obvious non-sense.
Also, the cited hadith cannot be interpreted as evidence relating to the prohibition of Mutah since the chances of a woman seeing the private parts of her husband, getting divorced, remarrying later and then revealing the private parts of her ex-husband to the new one is possible in permanent Nikah also, does that mean permanent Nikah is also Haram in the eyes of our opponents?
Another hadith which is often rotated on the internet by Nawasib is:
Narrated by A’maar: Abu Abdullah said to me and to Suliman Bin Khaled: “I made Mut’ah Haram on you”
Nawasib utilised their innate deceptive abilities partially citing the tradition, and even then citing only those words that support their point of view. Let us cite the entire tradition with its full context.
“I have made Mutah haram for you two in my presence as long as you two are in Madinah, becuase both of you come to me frequently and I fear that you will be caught and it will be said, ‘these are the companions of Jafar.’”
1. Al-Kafi, Volume 5 page 467 Hadith 9
2. Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26424
The followers of Umer deemed Mutah Haram and they were aware that the Ahl’ul bayt (as) and their adherents deemed it Halal. The situation in Madina at that time was difficult for the Shi’a and any sign from the the sahabah of Imam Jafar (as) about deeming Mutah Halal could have put their lives in danger. It is clear that this edict was said under taqiyyah for those companions of the Imam (as) because contracting Mutah is not more valuable than one’s life. If Mutah was haram the Imam would have told both companions to permanently refrain from Mutah whether they were in Madina or outside it.
Lastly and most crucially the tradition is weak since it has Sahl ibn Ziyad in its chain who is deemed untrustworthy and weak (See Mo’jam Rijal Hadith by al-Khoi Vol 9 page 354 No. 5639). Shaykh Majlisi also counted the hadith amongst the known weak hadiths in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 20, page 259.
Here we see another Shia tradition being rotated all over the internet forums by Nawasib in order to prove that Mutah was prohibited by our Imam (as).
Ja’far Al-Sadiq says in a narration by Abdallah bin Sinan: “I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about Mutah. He said: “Don’t defile yourself with it”
Bihaar Al-Anwar, Volume 100, page 318
A similar tradition cited by Nawasib is this one:
Narrator says that he heard ibn Abi Umair who narrated from Ali bin Yaqtin saying: ‘I asked Aba al-Hassan (a.s) about the Mutah and He (a.s) replied: ‘What do you have to do with this, when Allah has made this unnecessary for you.’ I said: ‘I just wanted to know about it’. He (a.s) replied: ‘It is recorded in Ali’s (as)’s book’.
1. Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26420
2. Al- Kafi, Volume 5 page 442
The author of Bihar, Shaykh Majlisi has taken the first tradition from a book ‘Al-Nawadir’ by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa al-Ash’ary who has recorded many traditions on the lawfulness of Mutah. The statement of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) was in reference to the personal situation of Abdullah bin Sinan since he was a married man and his sole objective behind Mutah was to derive sexual pleasure, thus Imam Jafar (as) just advised him not to do it since it was ‘unnecessary’ for him. Abdullah bin Sinan is has seen the periods of two Imams namely Imam Baqir (as) and Imam Jafar Sadiq (as). Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as) became Imam after his father and started teaching when He was 31 years old. Abdullah bin Sinan supposed to be in the same age of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as) because he probably died before Imam Sadiq (as) or few months after Imam Sadiq (as). According to this tradition:
Umar bin Yazid narrated said: ‘I heard Abu Abdullah (as) mentioning Abdullah bin Sinan and said: ‘He is getting more benefits as he is getting older.”
1. Rijal Kishi, Volume 2 page 710
2. Min la Yhdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 431
Which means Abdullah bin Sinan was an elderly man during Imam Jafar al-Sadiq’s time and most probably he was older than Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as). Therefore, it he cannot be single by that age because the Shias, in fact all of the people of that time used to get married in young age and during Imam Jafar’s (as) time of Imamate, Abdullah bin Sinan’s age cannot be less than 30s. thus Imam Jafar (as) just advised him not to do it since it was ‘unnecessary’ for him. This is similar to the case of Ibn Yaqtin, a married man who asked Imam Raza (as) about Mutah, to which the Imam (as) replied: “What you have to do with this, when Allah has made this unnecessary for you.” (Wasa’il, Volume 21, page 22).
As stated by Imam Raza (as), Mutah is ‘unnecessary’ when one’s wife is already present otherwise it may cause problems pertaining to the mistreatment of women. Imam Raza (as) in another hadith has elaborated on the matter 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 Mutah. If Allah has made this unnecessary for you, then it is permissible for you only when you do not have access to your wife.”
al-kafi, Volume 5 page 453, Hadith 2
Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26421
Most relevantly a famed Shia work ‘Mustadrak-ul-Wasail’ (vol 14 page 455) records the tradition of Abdullah bin Sinan under the chapter of “The disliking of Mutah when one does not need it and when it necessitates repulsiveness and mistreatment of women” this concurs with logic and Quranic injunctions. It seems that Nawasib never bother to ponder over the Holy Book before attacking the Shia. We are clearly told in the Quran to keep aloof from polygamy if there are chances of commiting injustice against them.
“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)”
And we also read in Sunan Abu Dawood Bab ul Nikah Book 11, Number 2128:
“The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: When a man has two wives and he is inclined to one of them, he will come on the Day of resurrection with a side hanging down”
Are our opponents prepared to suggest that there is no harm in keeping a number of wives even if you do not treat them equally since they believe that the Holy Prophet (s) himself was unjust to his wives and he was more tilted towards Ayesha to the extent that his (s) daughter Fatima Zahra (as) had to intervene upon the behest of his other the wives (see Sahih Muslim, Bab Fadil Sahaba Book 031, Number 5984)?
Though, the tradition of Ali bin Yaqtin is clear in that respect, but the tradition of Abdulah bin Sinan can also be read from another prespective i.e. Imam advised to Ibn Sinan of not performing Mutah was for a specefic time and area since the women of that region were not secure during those days. As we read the words of Imam (as) in another tradition:
Narrated by Hasan bin Mahboob – Abaan – Abi Maryam that Abi Jaffar (as) was asked about Mutah, he replied: ‘These days, Mutah is not like it used to be earlier, as there used to be secure (women) but now a days, they are not secure, therefore ask about them.’
1. Min la Yahdruhu al-Fiqih, Volume 3 page 292 Hadith 4585
2. Al-Kafi, Volume 5 page 453 Hadith 2
3. Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 251 Hadith (1084)9
Sheikh Muhammad Baqer Behbodi decalred it ‘Sahih’ in his book “Sahih Men la Yahdruhu al-Fiqeh” page 287
Yet again, the traditions advanced by Nawasib fail to prove that the Imam (as) prohibited Mutah rather they negate the propaganda of the same Nawasib, people can misue Mutah when they have a permanent wife and this could lead to injustice towards them, and that is why our Imams (as) discouraged people from doing it.
Another Shi’a tradition rotating all over the internet is this one:
Ja’far Al-Sadiq says about Mutah in a narration by Hisham bin Al-Hakam: “Here only the fawajir [prostitute] do it”
Bihaar Al-Anwar, Volume 100 page 318
The author of Bihar, Shaykh Majlisi has taken this tradition from a book ‘Al-Nawadir’ by Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isa al-Ash’ary. Beside this tradition, the author has mentioned plenty of traditions about lawfulness of Mutah, we can therefore conclude that this tradition refers to the incorrect use of Mutah during that particular period. Some women may take advantage of Nikah al Mutah as a source of income (as prostitutes do), and it is such an intention that is beind condemned in this narration.
The word ‘here’ [Indana] clearly points out that Imam (as) was referring to the women of a certain time period and of a certain area/locality where the women with whom men were doing Mutah were not secure and sound in terms of character namd morality. The very point becomes further clear when we read the following tradition in Shia books:
Narrated by Hasan bin Mahboob – Abaan – Abi Maryam that Abi Jaffar (as) was asked about Mutah, he replied: ‘These days, Mutah is not like it used to be earlier, as there used to be secure (women) but now a days, they are not secure, therefore ask about them.’
1. Min la Yahdruhu al-Fiqih, Volume 3 page 292 Hadith 4585
2. Al-Kafi, Volume 5 page 453 Hadith 2
3. Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 251 Hadith (1084)9
Sheikh Muhammad Baqer Behbodi decalred it ‘Sahih’ in his book “Sahih Men la Yahdruhu al-Fiqeh” page 287
If our opponents are still adamant that this hadith doesn’t refes to a specific past period and it is general rule i.e only prostitues perform Mutah then will they say about Hadrath Ayesha the younger daughter of Hadrath Abu Bakar who deemed Mutah permissible (Sharh Muslim by Nawawi) and the elder daughter of Abu Bakar, Asma who went a step further and personally performed and gifted a prominent Sahabi to our Sunni friends from this union? And what about those Sahabah who during and after the life of Prophet (s) kept performing Mutah, were they cohorts to prostitution (noudobillah)?
We have noticed some of Nawasib evidence their ignorance by claiming that the Prophet of Islam (as) and the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) that the Shia adhere to never performed Nikah al-Mut’a. Their non practising of Mut’a doesn’t make Mut’a Haram and this is NO STANDARD in Islamic Sharia that demands that a Muslim performs every act that is halaal in the Shar’ah.
The Holy Prophet (s) and the Imams of Ahlubayt (as) never practised Mut’a because they already had permanant wives and according to Shia fiqh it is disliked to perform Mut’a in the presence of a permanant wife as we have mentioned above in the traditions of Abdullah bin Sinan and Ibn Yaqteen.
If our opponents are still adamant in citing this lame excuse then we should point out the position of Adhan and Iqamah in the Sunni school. Imam Nawawi wrote in Al-Majmo’a, Volume 3 page 82 that both Adhan and Iqamah are Sunnah, Ibn Mundhir and Dawood termed them fardh (obligatory), Imam Malik termed them Sunnah while Imam Ahmad called them Fardh Kifaya. Ibn Qudamah records in Al-Mughni, Volume 1 page 427 that Ata, Mujahid and Imam Auzai termed adhan as fardh (obligatory). Now it’s an open challange to the proponents of this excuse to show us a single narration wherein Holy Prophet (s) ever recited Adhan or Aqamah himself! On the contrary we read the following in authentic Sunni works:
“The prophet and subsequent caliphs lead the prayer but never gave adhan”
1. Neel al-Autar by Showkani, Volume 2 page 14
2. Tuhfat al-Ahwadi Shrah Jam’e Tirmidhi by Shaykh al-Mubarakfuri, Volume1 page 523
3. Al-Majmo’a by Imam Nawawi, Volume 3 page 79
Allamah Abu Bakar al-Kashani records in his esteemed Hanafi work ‘Badae al-Senae’ Volume 1 page 276:
“Its narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: ‘I prayed behind the messenger of Allah (pbuh), Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman, they usually began with prayer before the sermon and they never performed adhan or iqama”
The absurd Nasibi argument if applied here, would mean that we should deem Iqamah and Adhan Haram since there is no evidence that the Prophet of Islam (s) nor the esteemed rightly guided caliphs ever recited them! One should remember that what Holy Prophet (s) said, it shall suffice to act on it accordingly even if he didn’t act upon it personally.