Aisha's Leading Role in Killing of Uthman

For the Last 13 Centuries, Nasibies are blaming Shias for being Killers of Uthman (in name of fictious Story of Abdullah Ibn Saba which was forged by Saif Ibn Umar Kadhab). It’s a CHALLANGE to our opponents to show even a Single Authentic Tradition (whose chain is free of Saif Ibn Umar) which shows that it were Sabaies/Shias who killed Uthman. But there are tens of traditions (from different multiple chains) in their own books, which show that Aisha played major role in agitation and finally killing of Uthman.
But these people keep on following Saif Ibn Umar, and turning totally blind eyes towards the role of Aisha.
Aisha’s role during the life of Uthman

Many Sunni historian reported that Once Aisha went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance of Prophet (after so many years passed from the death of Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money by reminding her that she was one those who testified and encouraged Abu-Bakr to refrain to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah (AS). So if Fatimah does not have any share of inheritance, then why should she? Aisha became extremely angry at Uthman, and came out saying:
"Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever."
References:

1. History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
2. Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
3. al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
4. Sharh al-Nahj, by Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
5. Manaqib by Khawarzmi, page 117
6. Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38
7. Asadul Ghaba Volume 3 page 14, "Dhikr Jamal"
8. Al Istiab Volume 2 page 185
9. Al Nahaya Volume 5 page 80
10. Qamus page 500 "lughut Nathal" by Firozabadi
11. Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 117 "Dhikr Jamal"
12. Shaykh Mudheera page 163

Ibn Atheer in Nahaya page 80 Volume 5 and Ibn Mansur in Lisan al Arab Volume 11 Chapter "Lughuth Nathal" page 670 both record that:
"Nathal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha said kill this Nathal, by Nathal she was referring to ‘Uthman".
Note: Today Nasibies try to deny that Aisha ever called Uthman to be a “NATHAL” (Old Fool). But in coming traditions, we will see that many Sahaba were witness to this saying of Aisha, and they mentioned it to Aisha (after the killing of Uthman) that it was she herself who used to say Nathal to Uthman e.g.

1. Ubayd bin Abi Salma (His tradition is coming just in next section)
2. Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (His tradition is also coming just in next section)

So, after these multiple references (in which this incident of Nathal has been mentioned by different Sahaba at different Times in history), Nasibies have no chance of denying this tradition.
Another Sunni historian, al-Baladhuri, writes:
"When situation in Madina became very bad, then Uthman sent Marwan bin Hakam and Abdur Rahman to Aisha to convince here that she stop inciting people against Uthman.
They came to Aisha when she was leaving for Hajj. They said: "We pray to Allah that you stay in Madina and may Allah protect Uthman from you.
Aisha answered: ""I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honor your request. Upon this Marwan said: "You put the fire and you have to extinguish it now".
Upon that Aisha replied: You blame me for all this, but I wish he (Uthman) was in one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then through him into the sea."
Sunni reference:

1. Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, part 1, v4, p74-75
2. Tabqat Ibn Sa'ad (Urdu Edition), Nafees Academy, volume 5, page 37
3. History of Ibn Sahibah al-Umairi (died 262 Hijri), page 1172

Aisha wanted that Uthman should be killed as soon as possible and her cousin Talha become the next caliph. Sunni historian Tabari writes when Uthman was besieged, Ibn Abbas came to Aisha before her journey to Mecca. Aisha appealed Ibn Abbas to incite people against Uthman. Imam Tabari recorded this conversation in his book:

Is Bibi Aisha Siddiqa/Truthful? - Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari

Salaam Alaykum, The most reliable book after the Holy Quran for the Sunnis is Saheeh al-Bukhari. The 2nd largest Narrator in that book is Bibi Aisha. Our Sunni brothers and sisters refer to her as Siddiqa (Most truthful). Here is a video asking whether she really is Siddiqa? As it has great consequences on Islamic  History

 .

IMAM BUKHARI GUSTAKH E RASOOL pbuh&hf

غم حسین میں رسول اللہ (ص) روے- صحاح سته

Click on the link to view the video

http://www.shiaforums.com/vb/f284/a-14084/#.ULon6mfPK9s

Who killed Imam Hussain? - Maulana Ishaq.

Click the link to view the video
http://www.shiaforums.com/vb/f284/who-killed-imam-hussain-maulana-ishaq-14078/#.ULok92fPK9s

Abu Bakr v/s Janabe Fatima Zehra(S.A)

ABU BAKR

who was he? A Muslim A Leader A ruler
Companion of the Prophet Muhammad (s).A senior companion.

Revered by many. The first Muslim Caliph.He became ruler after Prophet Muhammad(s).
Do you want to know more about him?
CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH...?
It is reported in none other than . . .
Sahih al Bukhari

The most authentic book according to the Sunni school of thought.

Supposedly 100% authentic.

Quoting
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Hadith 61

"Allah's Apostle said,"Fatima is a part of me.and he who makes her angry,makes me angry.""

The Prophet of Islam said.
Fatima(a) is:

"The leader of all the women in paradise."&"The leader of all beieving women."

Reported in Sahih al Bukhari,volume 4, Book 56, Hadith 819

So that is the status of  FATIMAH (A)


You would think that people would respect her,treat her well and not hurt her ....

However......

The same book states:

"Fatimah, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr,and continued assuming that attitude till she died."

Reported by Aisha, Sahih al Bukhari ,volume 4, Book 53, Hadith 325

So for six months Fatimah (a)  was angry with Abu Bakr and stopped speaking to him!

Whoever angers Fatimah (a) angers the Prophet (s).

Whoever angers the Prophet (s) angers ALLAH.

Nasibi propaganda that certain prominent Shia narrators possessed deviant beliefs

Refuting the allegation that Abdullah Ibn Saba had any link to Shiasm

In this chapter we are going to refute an article that has been circulating on different Nasibi websites with the title “RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY OF IRAN”. The summary of this article is that in an alleged magazine called Al-Rasheed, published an article titled “Abdullah lbn Saba: Founder of Shi’aism” by an unnamed author, to which the Iranian Embassy on the 15th of August 1999 allegedly wrote a letter to the magazine expressing dissatisfaction at its contents. The unknown author defended his article by defiantly writing back to the Iranian Embassy wherein he sought to ‘prove’ his claim, that in summary was as follows::

• Abdullah Ibn Saba existed
• He was the founder of Shiaism
• He attributed traits of God to Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
• Kufa became the place where Ibn Saba’s ideas prevailed
• Three or four prominent Shia narrators of Shia Hadith books halied from Kufa
• These narrators were cursed by Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) for the same reasons

Whilst we don’t know if the article and subsequent correspondences are fact or fiction, our prime interest is the anti-Shia materials cited in the article that has attracted widespread acclaim from Nasabi quarters.
In relation to the first part of the Nasibi article, namely the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba, we have no reason to deny this, since whether or not he existed does not effect us a single iota. What really matters are the theories attributed to him that are relied upon to draw an inference that Shias adhere to same beliefs that hence proves Ibn Saba is the founder of the Shiasm. The unknown author in his article has tried to prove that the existence and beliefs espoused by Abdullah Ibn Saba have been recorded in both Shia and Sunni books but as usual, these Nawasib merge both authentic and weak reports sp as to portray an image that best supports their evil machinations. We have already dedicated a chapter on on Abdullah Ibn Saba in our article  Who really killed Uthman? when the Pied Piper of Deception, Nasibi author Ibn al-Hashimi sought to shift the blame on those that aided and abetted Uthman’s murder from the Sahaba and Tabayeen to Abdullah Ibn Saba. Hence, our readers are advised to go through that chapter as there isn’t any need to repeat all that here, but we will just repeat the crux of their arguments, namely:

- Authentic texts prove the existence of a Yahud character called Abdullah Ibn Saba who:
a). appeared during the era of the caliphate of Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
b). attested to the divinity of Ali (as)
c). was subsequently murdered by Ali bin Abi Talib (as).

- The weak and rejected traditions [purposely fabricated by the early Sunni and Nasibi scholars] claim that:
a). a Jewish character namely Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared during the era of the caliphate of Uthman
b). claimed that the right of rulership or succession to the Prophet (s) belonged to Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
b). misguided a bulk of the Sahaba and Tabayeen who whist adhering to his footsteps launched a rebellion against the caliph and subsequently assassinated him.

The reason that the early Sunni and Nasibi authorities sought to fabricate such stories was two fold:

1. To protect the esteemed image of those Sahaba and Tabayeen that had co-ordinated popular movement against Uthman that led to his downfall. Faced with this reality, it was incumbent on the later generations of Sunni and Nasibi adherents of the State religion to shift blame elsewhere, since failure to do so would severely puncture their entire belief system that revolved around ‘each and every Sahabi is just’. They desperately needed to apportion all culpability in relation to this rebellion to Abdullah Ibn Saba as this was only means of protecting their canonical beliefs.
2. To attack the Shias of the Ahlulbayt (as) by suggesting their beliefs on Imamate echoed those of Ibn Saba, he was hence their founding father and conveniently everything bad in Islamic history was their fault alone.

Fortunately, those Sunni and Shia readers who are desirous of conducting independent research free from bias and bigotry have successfully distinguished both categories of reports regarding Abdullah Ibn Saba and have arrived an informed decision on the basis of the authentic reports, namely that Abdullah Ibn Saba affirmed belief in the divinity of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) a belief that cannot be attributed to the Shias of Ahlulbayt (as) whose belief in relation to the Ahlulbayt (as)’s legal entitlement to Imamate (leadership) was with Ahlulbayt (as) can be evidenced from the Quran and Sunnah.

Refuting the allegation that Kufa was heavily influenced by the Ghulat beliefs propagated by Abdullah Ibn Saba who subsequently fabricated beliefs and attributed it to the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as)

Relations between Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as)

As part of their efforts to mock the Ahl’ul bayt (as) so as to defend Abu Bakr, the Nawasib have sought to point out that if Sayyida Fatima (as)’s anger is on par with that of Rasulullah (s) then Shi’a books highlight her anger at ‘Ali (as). Their logic is simple if the anger Sayyida Fatima (as) do not harm the status of Imam ‘Ali (as)’s then the same rationale applies to Abu Bakr. This is a ‘powerful’ weapon used by the followers of Mu’awiya to silence the Shi’a. Just consider these comments of Ahlebayt.com:

The Shia say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) in the incident of Fadak, but what about their own narrations that say that she was also angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at the same time?
Thus, based on the simple fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) made Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry on more than one occassion, we arrive at the following conclusions:1) The Prophet’s saying “whoever disturbs her, disturbs me” is addressed to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) but the Shia use it only for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه); if this statement involved punishment from Allah then it would certainly befall Ali (رضّى الله عنه) before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).2) There are other incidents (narrated by the well-reknowned Al-Majlisi, Al-Tusi, Al-Erbali, and others) that occurred in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) angered Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). What is the Shia response to this anger? Whatever response they use to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه), then we could use the same response to defend Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).

Since Ibn al Hashimi is seen as the expert in this field, we have decided to dedicate this chapter to exposing his falsehood by proving that Maula ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) were the shining examples of the perfect couple, always supporting one another, their marital lives were an example for us.

Before we launch into analysing the traditions that Ibn al Hashimi cited we feel it apt to cite the way that Allah (swt) praises this marriage.

We read in the Holy Qur’an:

He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together:
Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress:
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Out of them come Pearls and Coral:
Al-Qur’an, Surah 55, Ayah 19 – 22, translated by Yusufali

Comment

The two rivers of chastity and purity are Ali (as) and Fatima (as). The barrier between them is the Holy Prophet (s) and pearl and coral are Hassan (as) and Husayn (as).

This is confirmed by the following esteemed Sunni works:

1. Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 6 page 143
2. Tadhkirathul Khawwas al Ummah, page 134
3. Yanabi al Muwaddah, page 118 Chapter 39
4. Shawahid al-Tanzil by Hasakani, Volume 2 page 285
5. Tafsir al-Thalabi, Volume 9 page 181

Durre Manthur:

According to Ibn Abbas the two rivers mean ‘Ali and Fatima. The barrier means the Holy Prophet and the pearl and coral mean Hasan and Husayn

Yanabi al Muwaddah:

The companions and the Imams in exegesis of this verse say that Fatima and Ali are two deep rivers of the secrets of nature, rivers that do not overstep each other and the barrier between them is the Holy Prophet and the pearls and corals extracted from them are Hasan and Husayn.

Deobandi scholar Shah Rafiudeen translated the words as follows:

They do not contravene each other.

Allah (swt) has decreed that Ali (as) and Fatima (as) are two rivers of chastity who never transgress each other. Therefore strife between them is impossible or else God forbid the report of the Qur’an is false. If an incident is found in any book that indicates that strife between the two existed, it contradicts the Qur’an and is therefore false. Let us now look at the traditions that our opponents regularly cite against us.

Four false incidents cited by the Nawasib

First Incident

Some Nasibi authors in their works have used the following tradition to highlight a quarrel between Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and Fatima Zahra (as):

Ibn Abdrabu al-Andalusi in his book al-Aqd, from Abdullah bin al-Zubair from Mu’awyia bin Abi Sufyan who said: ‘…I said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, you went away sad and returned happy?’ He replied: ‘Oh Mu’awyia, why should I not feel happy when I have achieved a reconciliation between the two, that are the most honorable creatures of Allah.’’
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 43 page 42

Reply

As the Shia scholar Shaykh Baqir Majlisi recorded this tradition in his book Bihar al-Anwar, the Nawasib have grasped an opportunity to cast doubts on the esteemed merits of the revered couple. The reality is this tradition is of no use for use to them, since the primary source of the tradition as cited by Shaykh Majlisi is the famed Sunni book Al-Aqd al-Farid by Allamah Ibn Abdrabu al-Andalusi. Moreover the narrator of the tradition is the notorious enemy of Ahul’bayt (as) whose parentage is usually attributed to Sufiyan. It is therefore not surprising that Shaykh Baqir Majlisi cited the comments of Shaykh Seduq about this tradition that the filthy Nawasib conveniently fail to mention:

قال ابن بابويه: هذا غير معتمد

Ibn Babweh (Seduq) said: ‘This is unreliable’

If the question is raised as to why Majlisi would cite a false narration, then we should point out that there is no prohibition on citing traditions from other Sects (beliefs). Allah (swt) has also mentioned the beliefs of the Kuffar and Munafiqeen in the Holy Qur’an.

Salafi belief that Prophet (s) remained an idol worshiper for 40 years (God forbid)

We read in Sahih al-Sirah al-Nabawyiah by Dr.Muhammad Rezq al-Tarhuni, volume 2 page 41:

كان على أمر قومه أربعين عامًا

“For forty years, He was on the faith of his people”.

Similarly we read:

Tafseer Al-Kabeer, Page 424, By Mohammad Fakhr ud-Din Razi

“Some people believe that in the beginning he (the Prophet) was a Kaffir. Then Allah (swt) guided him and made him a Prophet. Qalbee says : This verse “And He found thee wandering” means that that he was kafir among misguided people. Then Allah (swt) guided him to the path of Tauheed. Al-Sudi states that he (the Prophet) followed the faith of his Kaffir people for forty years”.
Tafsir al Kabir by Fakhruddin al Razi, Volume 8 page 424

Nasibi belief that Holy Prophet (s) was unaware of the correct religion and guidance (God forbid)

We read in Aysar al-Tafasir by Abu Bakr al-Jazaeri, volume 5 page 2070:

}ووجدك ضالا فهدى } : أي لا تعرف ديناً ولا هدى.

‘{And He found thee wandering, and He gave thee guidance.}’ means don’t know any religion nor guidance.

Salafi belief that the Prophet would eat haram meat

If you observe Salafis of today you will see how they strictly observe products to ensure that there are no haraam products. They will even enter restaurants with a halal sign and still ask the owner if the meat is halal. These are all precautionary measures, since no Muslim wishes to eat meat that has been incorrectly slaughtered. Its seems that Salafis are more conscious than the Prophet (s) since not only did he care about the type of meat he ate, since in their deviant world he (s) even ate meat prepared by Pagans! We read in Sahih Bukhari merits of the Ansar Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169:

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin ‘Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, “I do not eat anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah’s Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering.” Zaid bin ‘Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say, “Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as something abominable.

A slightly extended version can found in Sahih Bukhari the Book of hunting, slaughtering Volume 7, Book 67, Number 407:

Narrated ‘Abdullah:
Allah’s Apostle said that he met Zaid bin ‘Amr Nufail at a place near Baldah and this had happened before Allah’s Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah’s Apostle presented a dish of meat (that had been offered to him by the pagans) to Zaid bin ‘Amr, but Zaid refused to eat of it and then said (to the pagans), “I do not eat of what you slaughter on your stonealtars (Ansabs) nor do I eat except that on which Allah’s Name has been mentioned on slaughtering.”

General Facts about Fadak

What is Fadak?

For evidence as to how much area constituted fadak, we are relying on the following esteemed Sunni works:

1. Maujam ul Buldan by Yaqoot Hamawi, v14, p238
2. Tareekh Khamees, v2, p88
3. Wafa-ul-Wafa by Noor-ud-Deen Al-Samhoodi, v4, page 1480

“Fadak was a city, which was situated 2 or 3 days of travel from Madina. There were wells of water and trees of dates in it. It was the same Fadak, about which Fatima Zahra (r) said to Abu Bakr, “My father gave me this Fadak as a present”. Abu Bakr asked her in reply to produce witnesses.”

Note: Upon this demand of Abu Bakr, Fatima (as) recited this verse of the Qur’an:

“Nay, but ye have yourselves contrived a story (good enough) for you. So patience is most fitting (for me).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 12, Ayah 83, translation by Yusufali

Objection raised by Sunni scholors

Fadak was only a village, in which there were some date trees. How did it become a city?

In Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Dairat-ul-Ma’arifa, Volume 7 page 135 it is written:

“Fadak is the name of a ‘Qarya’ near Khayber.”

The term ‘Qarya’ according to Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work “Al-Qamoos”, chapter “Bab ul Wa’a Waliya” is as follows:

“In all respects, ‘Qarya’ means ‘Masar Jameh’.

In Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Urdu edition, v1, page1 18 under the Tafseer of following Quranic verse:

And remember We said: Enter this Town ‘Qarya’, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish;
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 58, translated by Yusufali

Ibn Katheer in his commentary of this verse states that:

“Qarya means Bait ul Muqaddas”

Now people with rational minds should recognise that Bait-ul-Muqaddas was not a village, but it was the first Qibla, and in the same way that the second Qibla is situated in a city, the first Qibla was also situated in a city.

The question no doubt comes to mind, ‘Why is there a dispute in the meanings of “Qarya”?

Our response is that the defenders of the Sahaba want to prove that Fadak was not a large property hence taking a small piece of land was not such a contentious issue. They should of course accept the orders of the Qur’an, where we are told that:

And oppression is the biggest evil.

Refuting common Nasibi objections to Azadari

First Objection – Martyrdom should be celebrated not mourned

Why do the Shi’a deem the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) a tragedy, when it should be a happy occasion?

The slain leader of the Nasibi organization Sipah Sahaba, Azam Tariq in his famed ‘Khutbah Jail’ sets out a detailed attack on the Shi’a commemorating Imam Husayn (as)’s Shahadath by asserting that Muslims deem martyrdom to be a happy honour whilst Shi’a deem it a tragedy. Below, we will set out a vast array of responses.

Reply One – It is natural to mourn suffering

Whilst there is no doubt that Imam Husayn (as) should be praised for his exceptional bravery, patience and character at Karbala, the hardships he faced and sacrifices that he presented in the way of Allah (swt), is something worth crying and It is natural that commiserate with someone for his suffering and praise him for his success. Our Azadari fulfils both the requirements. It gives credit and appreciation for the success of the mission of Karbala and on the other hand we mourn the adversities and hardships faced by the progeny of the Holy Prophet (s) and their faithful companions.

All schools of thoughts unanimously agree that if a person faces hardships, persecution or death whilst carrying out a noble deed, his service should not be forgotten. The martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) does not mean that the Shi’a should be happy rather than sad in Muharam.

Reply Two – It is natural to express grief at the plight of fallen heroes

During the Indo / Pak wars of 1965 and 1971 the entire Pakistani nation offered their respects to those killed. At the same time televised pictures of these ceremonies depicted images of relatives crying at the loss of their loved ones. This doesn’t mean that they were unhappy at their bravery and success. The media showered praise on their bravery but also expressed grief at the huge sacrifice / loss of life that was undertaken in attaining this objective.

Reply Three – The Sahaba mourned when Umar was martyred

The Ahl’ul Sunnah believe that Umar was martyred, did the Sahaba rejoice at this happy occasion? Let us see the vivid picture painted by Ibn Abbas (ra) as recorded in Tareekh e Baghdad, volume 12, page 357:

“When Umar was assassinated, the people were so grieved that they left eating.” Abbas [Ibn Abdul Mutalib] said ‘The deaths of the Holy Prophet(s) and Abu Bakr were also great losses but we didn’t leave eating, so even now we should eat’ and after that he himself started eating and so did the other people.”

Such was the tragedy that befell the Sahaba that the people abandoned eating, and it took the efforts of Ibn Abbas to console them and get them back into the eating mode again.

Along the same lines Wahaby scholar Waheed uz Zaman Haiderabadi stated:

“After the death of Umar, Uways Qarni mourned by saying Oh! Umar Oh! Umar Oh! Umar”
Hadiya tul Mahdi, volume 1, page 23, Published in Delhi

If crying and mourning for a martyr is wrong then why did the Sahaba (including) Uways Qarani (ra) mourn for Umar?

• Did they think that he had failed to succeed in his Islamic duty?
• Did they think that he wasn’t a martyr?
• Was their perception wrong?

Reply Four – Lady Hajra mourned when she heard of her son’s pending death

Traditions record that Hajra fainted when she visited the spot where her husband intended to slaughter his son. Some of the narrators say that it was this very grief that gradually caused her death. Nasibi logic would dictate that Hajra should have been doubly happy because her son was alive and also got the rewards for succeeding in the examination – she should have kept praising Ismail (as), however, she was a mother and not a foe, the latter would have been happy at the hardships faced by her son and husband. It is natural that whenever a loved one is in trouble, or if he has faced hardships, it always causes pain and sorrow, hence those who love Imam Husayn (as) will mourn and cry and his enemies will praise their persecutors.

Reply Five – Mourning a martyr is part of one’s innate nature

The misuse of Shi’a texts to ‘prove’ that Azadari for Imam Hussain (as) is Haraam

Tradition One

The darling of the Nasibi movement Qadhi Mazhar Husayn in his book ‘Ham Matam kyo nahee kartay’ [Why do not we perform mourning] said:

Imam Ja’far Sadiq (as) has said that patience and hardships, both comes to the believer, hence on the appearance of hardships, he exhibit patience and adversities impatience comes to kafir hence on the appearance of adversities, he exhibits signs of Jaza’
Al-Kafi, Volume 3 page 223

Reply

The Nasibi does not know the true meaning of ‘patience’ – its is Nasibi perception that those who stay quite during grief and hardships and refraining from wailing and crying are considered patient. The reality is that wailing and crying does not negate the concept of patience while complaining and holding Allah (swt) responsible for the adversities during hardships constitutes impatience, i.e. commenting on an act due to a lack of knowledge is impatience.

The story of Musa (as) and Khider (as) mentioned in Qur’an serves as a proof for our notion. As Musa (as) asked Khider (as) that He wanted to go with him and wanted to learn the things which Khider (as) had learnt from Ilm-e-Ladunni. Khider (as) told Musa (as) that He didn’t possess patience and how would he endure a matter that he lacked knowledge of. Prophet Musa (as) told him that “Inshallah”, he will find Khider (as) enduring and would not oppose anything Khider (as) did. Despite this, when Khider (as) made an hole in the boat and Khider (as) said that hadn’t, Khider (as) said he failed to maintain patience. The same reply was given to Musa (as) by Khider (as) when he (as) commented on the killing of servant by Khider (as). The verse proves that lack of ‘Sabr’ involves commenting on mater that you lack knowledge of.

In the eyes of Ulema, the definition of patience is that the ‘self’ shall not indulge in an unsound act. True patience is that exhibited in war, and refers to not fleeing the battlefield.

The terms ‘Sabr’ [patience] means not to complain about Allah (swt) before any other than God. We have the example of Prophet Yaqub (as) who maintained this high level of patience even after his lamentation. as he complained about his adversities to Allah (swt) as we have already mentioned.

Unless someone issues a complaint at adversities to persons other than Allah (swt), merely weeping and chest beating does not fall under the category of impatience.

The tradition makes no reference to the prohibition of mourning etc rather the condition of two classes are being discussed that a believer is he who stands firm on his iman and his endurance is unshakable whilst a Kâfir complains and holds Allah responsible for his calamity and suffering and hence shows impatience.

During the pre Islamic era, it was the tradition of these people to wail and cry at adversities blaming all on Taqdir, they would recite poetry wherein they commented on the wisdom of Allah and how they exhibited impatience. The same thing has been mentioned in this tradition. To advance a weak Hadeeth and twist in effort to prove that mourning for Imam Husayn (as) is Haraam is fitting of these Nawasib.

Tradition Two – The Definition of Jaza

Jabir said: ‘I asked Abu Jaffar (as) about the grief (Jaza). He replied: ‘The climax of grief is to scream and woe, beating the cheek, face, chest and pulling the hair. Whoever made a mourning assembly verily he abandoned patience and followed the other way but whoever was patient and mentioned Allah and praised him, verily he is pleased by Allah’s will, therefore he will be rewarded by Allah. But whoever doesnt do this, he will be judged and he is condemned and Allah will not reward him’
Furu al-Kafi, Volume 1 page 121
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 79 page 89

Reply One – The tradition has been graded as weak

Allamah Majisi in his book Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 14 page 181 has declared it a weak tradition.

Reply Two

Even for the sake of discussion we suppose the tradition was authentic, than the only meaning which we get from this is to mourn while going out of the mentioned limits is impatience and illegitimate. In pre Islamic age people during the adversities and when confronted by clamities, used to wail and cry and create poetries based on inappropriate words for Allah (swt) and the condemnation we just read in the tradition is for the very absurd customs. But in the Azadari of Imam Husayn (as) maintains the high prestige of Allah (swt), we don’t commit any blasphemy against Allah (swt) and our lamentation would not be defined by our Imam (as) as Jaza. When it comes to Imam Husayn (as) such mourning is valid and legitimate! The Shi’a do not conduct Azadari for ordinary people, we reserve it for Imam Husayn (as), these acts are in accordance with dictates of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Tradition Three

AQD-E-MUTTAH- According to Shias

This is well known fact that during the life time of Holy Prophet the Muttah was not only the legal Aqd but was also fully in practice as well. Now if there is any dispute on this issue is that whether according to Shar’ee point of view this Aqd is still legal or it is cancelled.

Before proceeding forward it must be cleared to all , that to cancel any act of Shariyat is only in the authority of Holy Prophet and non of anyone else. If any act of Shariyat -e-Mohammadi was not cancelled by the Holy Prophet and remained legal to the last movement of Holy Prophet then that act will remain legal till to the day of Qiyaamat and even the whole Ummah could not declare any Halal -e-Mohammad as Haram or Haram-e-Mohammad as Halal.

Halal-e-Mohammad is Halal till to the day of Qiyaamat

and

Haram-e-Mohammad is Haram till to the day of Qiyaamat.

Tasfeer-e-Kabeer Pt-3 Page-286 :-

” It is agreed fact for the whole Ummah that Muttah was lawful and admissible in Islam and no one has any dispute in it. ”

Now the question is that, Is this admissible act of Shariyat still admissible or became unlawful and prohibited ?

So we know that to Hazrat Ali, Ahllalbait-e-Nabvi and to a group of Sahaba Karam like Hazrat Abdullah Ibn-e-Abbas, Imran bin Haseen, Jaber Ibn-e -Abdullah Insari, Muslim Ibn-e-Aqwa, Saeed Bin Jabeer , Mujahed and Atta, (Rezwan-ul-llah Alay Him) the Muttah is lawful and admissible act and is not being cancelled.

Justification Of Muttah In the Light Of Holy Quran :-

Ayat-e-Muttah is in the Holy Quran , Allah says that we do not cancel any Ayat of Quran till we bring batter Ayat for that, so if the Ayat of Muttah is cancelled ( as it is claimed ) than which Ayat is revealed in its place which replaces the Ayat-e-Muttah ?

and if we don’t find any replacement for Ayat-e-Muttah in Holy Quran , it means that Ayat-e-Muttah is not replaced or cancelled. and when a Hadeeth cannot cancel the Ayat of Holy Quran then how the declaration of some one can cancel the Ayat of Holy Quran ???

The Ayat of Muttah is as follow :-

Para-5 Surah Nisa, from the middle of Ayat-24. ” Famastamtatum Behi Minhunna Fatuhunna Ajoorahunna Farizatan Wala Junaha Alaikum Fima Trazaitum Behi Min Ba’adil Farizatin Innallaha Kana Aleemun Hakima ”

Urdu Translation :- ” Jin Aurtoon sey tum ney Muttah kia hey un ka jo Mehr mukarrar hoa hey woh un ko dey do agar Mehr ki kami beshi par tum apas mein razi ho jaoto tumharey zimmey koi Guna nahi , Beshak Allah Aleem aur Hakeem hey ”

The trick in Translation :-

Now while doing the translation of this verse generally the word, Famastamtatum is translated as when you get benefit from them ,but the direct translation ‘ when you do Muttah with them ‘ is avoided , those this translation is not wrong but is against the prevailing way of translation where always by doing translation we do not take the literary meaning of the word but take their Sharri sense of acceptation is taken, for example :- The literary meaning of, Salaat is Dua, Soom means to hold on, Hajj means Attention. But we know that in Sariyyat these words have their special meanings which are quite different from their literary meaning and when such words will come in Ayyat or in narrations their Sharri meaning will be taken and not the literary meanings. For example while one says ” Qad Qama-tessalaat ” it means to perform special Ebaadat ” Namaaz ” and not jut to do some dua. and so on, So it is very clear that while translating Salaat. Soom , Hajj. or Jehad always their Sharri meaning will be take and not just the literary. So the word Muttah though its literary meaning is to take benefit but this word has its complete sense and meaning in Sharri language. Therefore while translating the Quranic word Famastamtatum to avoid its Sharri meaning that is Muttah, shows that some thing some where is being wrong or some weakness is being covered. Daal mein Kala Hay .

Tafseer-e-Kabeer Pt-3 Page 289, Dur-e-Musoor Pt-2 Page-140.

” Abdullah Ibn-e-Mas’ood, Abdullah Ibn-e-Abbas and Abee Bin Kaab while reciting the above ayat-e-Muttah used to recite it in a such a way that its translation become like this :- ” When you do Muttah with women for some fixed period you must pay their Mahr to them ”

SAYING OF HAZRAT ALI ( A.S) :-

TAFSEER-E-KABEER Pt-3 Page-289, Dur-e-Mansoor Pt-2 Page-140.

If the Umer ( By using his state power ) would have not prohibited from Muttah then some most unfortunate and vulgar may have committed adultery ( Zina ).

Now from the above saying of Hazrat Ali it could be easy concluded that by stopping the legal and Sharri act of Muttah has resulted in the overspread of Zina and who is the one, responsible for the over spread Zina in Muslin Ummah ??????

SAYING OF SAHABA KARAM :-

Nihaya Ibn-e-Aseer Page-194, Dur-e-Munsoor Pt-2 P-141.

Hazrat Abdullah Ibn-e-Abbas said, ” Muttah was Rahmat for Ummat-e-Mohammadia , if it would not has been stopped, perhaps some most vulgar may commit Zina. ”

Tafseer-e-Kabeer Pt-3, P-289.

Hazrat Omran bin Haseen said, ” Allah revealed the Ayat about Muttah in the Holy Quran and did not cancelled it, Holy Prophet ordered for Muttah and then did not stop from it, but later on some one ( Umar ) did what he wished.

Muslim with Sharah-e-Noodi Pt-1 P-451

Abu Nafrah narrated that once I was with Hazrat Jaber Ibn-e-Abdullah when a person came and asked him about Muttah, Hazrat Jaber replied, ” We acted on Muttah during the period of Holy Prophet but later Umar Ibn-e-Katab prohibited from it. ”

From the above saying of four Sahaba-e-Karam it is very cleared that all of them referred it prohibition not to Holy Prophet but to Hazrat Umar, and according to famous narration that the Mazhab of the people is that of their Rulers so the masses obeyed what their Ruler ordered and ultimately the position reached to such point that the Hurmat of Muttah was taken as a rule of Islam.

ACT OF DAUGHTER OF HAZRAT ABU BAKAR :-

Tafseer-e-Mazhari Pt-2, P-74, Masnad Abu Da’ood Pt-1, P-309.

” The Asma Bintay Abubakar said that during the period of Holy Prophet I myself did the Mutta ”

The Confessing Statement of Hazrat Umer :-

Tareikh-e-Khufa P-136, Tafseer-e-Kabeer Pt-3 P-289, Sarah-e-Fazal Qooshegi, P-484:-

” Hazrat Umar decleared, Muttah was legal and lawful during the period of Holy Prophet but I decleared it HARAM. ”

Interesting Joke:-

According to Al-Mohazerat of Raghab Asfahani one day a man asked Hazrat Abdullah Ibn-e-Umar about legality of Muttah, he replied that it is legal and lawful, on his reply the man said that your father (Umar) declared it Haram. On this Hazrat Abdullah said that did not my father say that it was Halal in the period of Holy Prophet and I declare it Haram , the man replied yes he said like this, so Hazrat Abdullah Ibn-e-Umar said that I certify the first part of the statement of my father that it was Halal in the period of Holy Prophet and I did not agree with the second part of the statement that – I declare it Haram – because who is my father to declare the Halal-e-Mohammad as Haram ”

But we think that the followers of Hazrat Umar are more obedient to Hazrat Umar then his own son Abdullah ……….. ! ! ! !

Is Muttah Nikah or Zina ???

Now we will consider the resembling points of Muttah and Nikah-e-Daami and let the readers to justify that whether it is Nikah or Zina !

Muttah ( a temporary Nikah ) and the Nikah-e-Da’emi ( Permanent Nikah ) resemble in most of the points except few which decide and distinguish the separate position of Muttah.

1:- Nikah-e-Da’emi cannot be done with married woman so the Muttah also cannot be done with the married woman.

2:- In Nikah-e-Da’emi it is must the the Sigha of Nikah to be read out in a correct way, so in Muttah it is must that Sigha of Muttah has to be read out in a proper and correct way.

3:- Children born with Nikah-e-Da’emi legally inherit their father so the children born with Muttah also legally inherit their father.

4:- Nikah-e-Da’emi can not be done with a woman who is in Eadaat after divorce so the Muttah cannot be done with the woman in Iddat after divorce .

5:- In Nikah-e-Da’emi after divorce the women has to observed Iddat so in Muttah after finishing of Muttah period woman has to observed Iddat. ( the period of Iddat in Muttah is half of that in Nikah-e-Da’emi )

6:- Mahr has to be fixed in Nikah-e-Da’emi so the Mahr has to be fixted in Muttah also.

All the above conditions are not there in Zina. so one could easily justify that Muttah is close to Nikah-e-Da’emi or to Zina.

So on one side there is the order of Allah and Rasool and your conscience and on other side is the decision of Hazrat Umar

decide where you stand ??????????

In Nikah-e-Da’emi the relations of man and woman remain till the woman is divorced or one of them dies but in Muttah which differs here is that man and women themselves decide the period of their Aqd and after the expiry of that decided period the woman automatically considered as divorced and after this again the same common rules about Iddat for Nikah-e-da’emi and Muttah get enforced.

Before going to last conclusion its batter to mention the Siga-e-Muttah over here. So after the decision of Mahr and the period of Aqd if the man and the woman themselves want to read the Sigha than it will be read as below :-

Sigha -e- Muttah
Final Conclusion :-

So with the above discussion we reach to conclusion that the order of Muttah was revealed in Holy Quran and was ordered by Holy prophet and was nether cancelled in Quran nor prohibited by the Holy Prophet but contrary to Allah and Rasool was declared prohibited by Hazrat Umar and was enforce with the power of state ,as many other rules of Shariyyat were modified with force by Hazrat Umar which are called the ” Awleyat-e-Umar ” so Muttah is one of them. Now the position for the followers of Hazrat Umer became very critical because there is Allah and Rasool on one side and the declaration of Hazrat Umar on the other side so they could adopt one and they always adopt the decision of Hazrat Umar in all such cases where ever he strikes with Allah and Rasool , and they openly reject the decision of Allah and Rasool …very improtant part…think

Sahih Bukhari Proves : Some Companions were Hypocrites

And what is the sin of the Muslim who reads in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.) to his companions: 

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 172:

Narrated Asma':
The Prophet said, "I will be at my Lake-Fount (Kauthar) waiting for whoever will come to me. Then some people will be taken away from me whereupon I will say, 'My followers!' It will be said, 'You do not know they turned Apostates as renegades (deserted their religion).'" (Ibn Abi Mulaika said, "Allah, we seek refuge with You from turning on our heels from the (Islamic) religion and from being put to trial").

---

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 173:

Narrated 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar) and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'"

---

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174:

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:
I heard the Prophet saying, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar), and whoever will come to it, will drink from it, and whoever will drink from it, will never become thirsty after that. There will come to me some people whom I know and they know me, and then a barrier will be set up between me and them." Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri added that the Prophet further said: "I will say those people are from me. It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.' Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! "

The Qur'an reveals the Truth about some companions

In order that an obdurate person may not think that the verses on the hypocrites do not pertain to the companions, as the ahl al-sunna claim, we have decided to present some of the verses that refer specifically to the believers.

In the wise book, Allah's says: "O You who believe! What is it with you that when it is said to you to go forth in the cause of Allah you cling heavily to where you are? Do you prefer the life of this world to that of the hereafter? Little is the comfort of this life when compared to that of the hereafter. If you do not go forth, He will inflict a grievous punishment upon you and substitute another people in your place. You cannot harm Him in the least. And Allah has power over all things" (9:34).

"O you who believe! whoever of you reverts after having believed, Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love him, humble with the believers, powerful over the disbelievers, struggling in the way of Allah, not afraid of the sternest critics. That is the grace of Allah. He bestows it upon whom He wills. Allah's knowledge encompasses [everything]" (5:54).

"O you who believe! Do not be treacherous to Allah and His Prophet. Do not knowingly betray your trust. And know that your property and your children are a test and that with Allah lies great reward" (8:28).

"O You who believe! Respond to Allah and His Prophet when they call you to what enlivens you. And know that Allah comes between a man and his heart and that to Him you shall be gathered. Beware of discord that it should not affect especially those of you who do wrong; know that Allah is severe in punishment" (8:25).

"O You who believe! Remember the bounties of Allah when armies came against you but we sent against them winds and forces that you could not see. Allah saw clearly all that you did. They came to you from above and from below. And behold! The eyes became dim and the hearts gaped up to the throats and you imagined various things about Allah. Then the believers were tested and they were shaken tremendously. The hypocrites and those in whose hearts there is sickness say: "Allah and His Messenger have promised us nothing but delusions" (33:12).

Aisha believes some Verses of Quran were eaten away by Goat

Significance of Mourning the Martyrs of Karbala (Azadari) - Part 1

An excellent short video on the significance of Azadari or mourning for the martyrs of Karbala and tyranny against the progeny of Prophet Mohammad (SAAS). It is highly informative video and contains many answers about why Shia communities throughout the world commemorate the events of the tragedy of Karbala? What is the background of mourning, and the history of crying, and matam or "self-flagellation" in the form of striking one's face and chest, or using chains and blades in matam. It takes the viewer through different stages of the commemoration of tragic events and ends beautifully with the couplet that "In the Murder of Hussain, Indeed is the death of Yazid; Thus Karbala has revived Islam".

باغ فدک اور امام بخاری کی روایات-Baghe Fidak aur Imam Bukhari

باغ فدک پے ایک چھوٹا سا آرٹیکل جو کہ اعترافات بخاری کتاب سے نقل کیا جارہا ہے جس کے مصنف مولانا سید عباس ارشاد نقوی ہے

جابر بن عبداللہ روایت کرتے ہیں کہ رسول اللہ نے فرمایا اگر بحرین سے مال آگیا تو تمہیں اتنا کچھہ دونگا لیکن بحرین سے مال نہ آیا حتی کہ رسول اللہ کا انتقال ہوگیا جب بحرین سے مال آیا تو ابوبکر نے اعلان کرایا جس شخص سے رسول نے کوئی وعدہ کیا ہو یا آپ پر کسی کا قرض ہوتو میرے پاس آجائے چنانچہ میں ان کے پاس آیا میں نے کہا رسول نے مجھے اتنا مال کا وعدہ کیا تھا مجھے ابوبکر نے مٹھی بھر کر دی میں نے گنا تو پانچ سو دینا یا دھرم تھے اور کہا اس سے دوگنا لے لو -

بخاری کتاب الکفار

خدارہ انصاف کیجیے کہ جابر بن عبد اللہ محترم ضرور ہے مگر کہا بنت رسول کہا جابر ایک طرف جب بی بی فاطمۂ اسی ابوبکر کے پاس فدک واپس لینے گعی تو گواہ مانگے گعے اور جابر مال لینے گعے تو بغیر گواہ کے صرف مال ہی نہ دیا بلکہ دوگنا لینے کو کہا -

عبیداللہ بن ابی ملکیہ سے روایت ہے کہ نبی صہ نے صہیب مولی ابن جدعان نے دو گھروں اور ایک حجرے کا دعوی کیا کہ رسول اللہ نے یہ صہیب کو عطا فرمائے تھے پس مروان نے کہا تمہارے اس دعوے کی گواہی کون دیتا ہے انہوں نے کہا ابن عمر پس انہیں بلایا گیا تو انہوں نے شہادت دی کہ یقیناً رسول اللہ نے صہیب کو دو مکان اور ایک ہجرہ عطا فرمایا تھا پس مروان نے ان کی شہادت پر ان لوگوں کے حق میں فیصلہ کر دیا -

متعہ-Mut'ah

عبداللہ : جب تمام مسلمان متعہ کے حرام ہونے پر اجماع رکھتے ہیں تو آپ شیعہ حضرات اس کو جائز کیوں مانتے ہیں ۔

رضا: عمر خطاب کے قول کے مطابق ’’رسول خدا (ص) اس کو حلال اور جائز سمجھتے تھے ‘‘ہم بھی اس کو جائز مانتے ہیں
۔
عبد اللہ : پیغمبر (ص) نے کیا کہا تھا ۔

رضا : جاحظ ، قرطبی ، سرخسی حنفی ، فخر رازی اور بہت سے دوسرے اہل سنت اماموں نے نقل کیا ہے کہ عمر نے خطبہ میں کہا متعتان کانتا علیٰ عہد رسول اللہ (ص) و انا انہی عنھا و اعاقب علیھا متعۃ الحج و متعۃ النساء رسول (ص) کے زمانہ میں دو متعہ جائز تھے میں انہیں منع کررہا ہوں اور جو اس کا مرتکب ہوا اس کو سزادوں گا ، متعہ حج (۳۸)اور متعہ نسائ(۳۹) ( ازدواج موقت )۔
تاریخ ابن خلکان میں آیا ہے کہ عمر نے کہا دو متعہ پیغمبر (ص) اور بوبکر کے زمانہ میں جائز تھے اور انھیں منع کرتا ہوں۔(۴۰)
آپ کا اس کے بارے میں کیا نظریہ ہے کیا عمر کا یہ کہنا کہ دومتعہ رسول (ص) کے زمانے میں جائز اور حلال تھے ایک سچی بات ہے یا جھوٹ ہے ۔

عبداللہ: عمر سچ کہہ رہے ہیں ۔

رضا : تو پھر رسول (ص) کے کہنے کو چھوڑ دینا اور عمر کے کہنے کو مان لینے کی کیا وجہ ہے ۔
عبد اللہ: اس بات کی وجہ عمر کا منع کرنا ہے

رضا: تو پھر ( حلال محمد(ص) روز قیامت تک حلال ہے اور حرام محمد (ص) روز قیامت تک حرام ہے (۴۱) ) کا کیا مطلب یہ ایک ایسی بات ہے جس پر تمام علمائے اسلام بغیر کسی استثناء کے متفق ہیں ۔

عبداللہ: ( کچھ فکر کرنے کے بعد ) صحیح کہہ رہے ہیں ، لیکن پھر عمر بن خطاب نے اس کو حرام کیسے کردیا اور انکے پاس اس کے لئے کیا سند تھی ۔

رضا: یہ ان کا پنا اجتہاد تھا اگر چہ ہروہ اجتھاد جو نص کے مقابلہ میں کیا جائے قابل قبول نہیں ہے ۔

عبداللہ : حتی اگر وہ اجتہاد عمر بن خطاب کا ہو ؟!

رضا: اگر اس سے بھی بزرگ کا ہو تب بھی اس پر توجہ نہیں کی جاسکتی آپ کی نظر میں خدااور رسول(ص) کا فرمان پیروی کرنے لائق ہے یا عمر بن خطاب کی بات ؟

عبداللہ : کیا قرآن میں متعہ اور اس کے جائز ہونے کے سلسلہ میں کوئی آیت آئی ہے ؟

Objections and our Replies regarding Permissibility of Mutah- Part 2

There are some more laws, which change according to circumstances. It does not mean that a woman is not the wife if any of these conditions are not fulfilled.

For instance,

    If a person (Sunni) performs permanent marriage with a Jew or Christian woman, then also, the wife cannot inherit her Muslim husband. Similarly, if a wife kills her husband, she cannot inherit him. Nevertheless, not becoming an inheritor does not end her wifehood, while fulfillment of other obligatory conditions like Iddah are obligatory and she would be considered wife in all conditions.

Similarly, if according to some Shia scholars, if the woman taken in Mutah marriage cannot inherit her husband, how can it be proved that ‘since she cannot inherit, how can she be a wife’?

I have purposely used the phrase ‘some Shia scholars’ because a group of Shia scholars are of the opinion that a wife inherits the husband in Mutah also. Alamul Huda Syed Murtada (a.r.) writes in Kitabul Intesar:[1]

“Not receiving inheritance is not a proof that a woman is not a wife of a man because ‘dhimmiyyah wife’[2], ‘slave wife’ and husband’s murderer-wife are neither his inheritors nor is the husband their inheritor. However, they are wives without any doubt. Apart from this, according to our religion, inheritance is given in Mutah also provided that there is no condition of non-inheritance among the special conditions decided at the time of marriage.” 

[1] Pg. 63, 64; Iran
[2] Jew or Christians living in Muslim territories

If a wife is disobedient to her husband, her maintenance is not obligatory on the husband even though she may be a permanent wife. This is a uniform verdict among all the Muslims. However, non-obligation of maintenance does not affect her wifehood because inheritance and maintenance, both are not the essential elements of marriage. Similarly, if the maintenance of wife in Mutah is not necessary on the husband what effect does it have on her wifehood?
    There is no divorce in ‘limited marriage’ i.e. Mutah. The reason for this is already discussed above. As this marriage is dissolved automatically after a stipulated period, there is no need to quote some formula again to end it. While permanent marriage is for the whole life. Hence it is necessary to quote the formula of divorce in order to end it (if it needs be ended before death).

Except divorce, all issues applicable for the permanent wife like ‘Zihar’[1], ‘Liaan’[2] Eelaa[3] etc. are also applicable to the Mutah wife. There is no difference between them.

[1] Pre-Islamic form of divorce, consisting in the words of repudiation: You are to me like my mother’s back. (anti a’layyah ka-zahri ummi).
[2] Sworn allegation of adultery committed by either husband or wife
[3] Willful oath that one would not to go to ones wife

If the readers permit I would quote some paragraphs of our scholars, which would shed light on the terms and conditions described by me and those who are really involved in a misunderstanding about Mutah would be reassured. As for people like the Rizwan editor who purposely remain ignorant, their solution was not with even the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).

    The Mutah of woman is that a woman marries one provided that there is no prohibited act in marriage according to the religion of Islam. That is, she must not be among the prohibited degree of relational prohibition as well as causal. She must not be in prohibited degree due to breast-feeding. She must not be already having a husband and not be in the Iddah of previous one and other religious prohibitions should not be present. For instance, she must not be the ex-wife of ones father or sister of a present wife etc. She must marry one in such a state for a fixed dower and period through recitation of marriage formula, which is based on Islamic law. After mutual agreement she must recite the formula of Mutah like in Nikah. Then mention the fixed dower and time (e.g. a day, a month, a year or some years etc.). One should immediately reply: ‘Qabiltu’ (I accept). It is permissible to have a representative (to pronounce the formula of Mutah) like it is done in other marriages. After this, the woman is one’s wife and he her husband till the stipulated period of time comes to an end.[1]

 A woman with whom Mutah is performed is also a lawful wife and a legal marriage is performed with her. As for sustenance, inheritance and distribution of nights, in which she does not have a share, all these are based on particular factors due to which a wife in Mutah is exempted from these general rules.[2]

    [1] Fusulul Muhimma, Pg. 54, 1347 A.H. Edition
    [2] Kitab-e-Madhkur, Pg. 60

 All the signs of wifehood are applied to a woman with whom Mutah is performed. All the rules are valid on her except some of those orders, which with definite evidences do not include a Mutah wife.[1]
    When the mutually fixed time ends, it is permissible for the husband to immediately tie a knot with her once again, and not wait for completion of Iddah (as it is permitted in permanent marriage to return during the Iddah of revocable divorce). However, no other man except her husband can marry her till the period of Iddah ends.[2]
    If conjugal relations were established, the woman would have to observe Iddah for two menstrual cycles after the Mutah ends. According to a narration, it could be observed for only one menstrual cycle, but it is not a reliable report. If a woman does not have menses and she has not reached menopause she must observe Iddah for 45 days. If the husband dies during the period of Mutah she would have to observe Iddah of death for four months and ten days even if conjugal relations were not established and she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant she has to observe Iddah till the childbirth or four months and ten days, whichever is longer.
    It is narrated from Ibne Bazigh that a person asked Imam Reza (s),“If a person performs Mutah with a woman and puts forth a condition that if a boy is born it would not be his. What if a male child is born to her after this?” Imam (s) strictly opposed this denial and considered the rejection of the father a great sin, he said, “What? Would he reject that boy?”[3]

[1] Aslush Shia wa Usulaha, Pg. 94
[2] Sarair, Ibne Idris

[3] Furu al-Kafi, Vol. 2, Pg. 196, Tahzib, Man Laa Yahzaruhul Faqih

 Zihar is valid occurs with Mutah wife also (due to more correct saying) because the verse of Zihar is general and the Mutah wife is also a wife and there is no restriction of a permanent wife in the verse.[1]
    Shaykh al-Mufeed and Syed Murtada (a.r.) have said that ‘Liaan’ is applicable with the Mutah wife because she is a wife and hence, she is also included in the generality of the verse.[2]
    Scholars have a difference of opinion about the right to inheritance in Mutah. There are a number of opinions in this. The first is that both husband and wife become mutual inheritors of each other through this marriage as in the case of permanent marriage. This is a saying of Ibne Barraj and he gives the evidence that the verse of inheritance in marriage is general. The Mutah wife is also a wife and she also inherits like other wives.

The second opinion is exactly opposed to the first. None of the spouses inherit each other. Its proof is that inheritance is a religious command and its right is based on some religious proofs. And merely being a wife is not a proof enough of being rightful to inheritance because there are many wives who inherit and many who cannot. Thus, how can inheritance be given on the basis of just wifehood, without any other legal commandment?[3]

[2] Sharh Lumah, Vol. 2
[3] Masalikul Afham, Vol. 1
[4] Hadaifun Nadhrah, Vol. 7, Pg. 165

This is Mutah, whose dreadful picture is drawn by the Rizwan editor. You have seen that there is no difference between Mutah and Nikah except that there is no period fixed in permanent marriage while a period is fixed in Mutah.

All the supposed evils of Mutah can also be found in permanent marriage after which, divorce may be given. Rather the evils become ten-fold due to divorce after permanent marriage. An example of this is, suppose you want to travel somewhere and you hire a vehicle for this purpose and start your journey. On the way, you reach a deserted area where there is no place to stay at night or hire some other vehicle and the vehicle owner leaves stranded there and returns. What hell would befall you? Just imagine!

On the contrary, if the vehicle owner tells you beforehand that he would drop you at so and so place and not go ahead, you would have the option to travel with him and plan your future course of action or find some other way if you do not like his terms and conditions.

Which is the better option between the two? Indeed, every sensible person would denounce the vehicle owner in the first case. However, no accusation can be laid on him in the second case because he had already stated the terms beforehand.

The same corollary is found in ‘divorce after Nikah’ and ‘Mutah’. A man performing Mutah tells the woman beforehand that he would keep her as a wife, say for five years. After that, she is free, after completing the Iddah period. If a woman considers this condition acceptable, she can perform Mutah or the discussion would end; but in any case there would no deceit.

On the contrary, if the man does not reveal any of his such plans and a permanent marriage is performed, then if he divorces the wife after two, four or ten days, you can imagine the condition of the poor woman due to the shipwreck of her life, in the middle of the high seas.

It is clear from this example that those hypothetical defects (none of which has happened till date) described about Mutah are ten-fold in divorce after Nikah. Keeping in mind this example, is the Rizwan editor still prepared to ridicule divorce and permanent marriage also?

In any case, it has become as clear as daylight from the above discourse that there is no difference between the importance and conditions of the elements, conditions and nature of Mutah and permanent marriage from the point of view of reason and jurisprudence. Now a possible question is whether Mutah is permissible and in accordance with the command of God or not? Hence I consider it important to describe the history of Mutah and some related issues so that its historical background is revealed.

For more Details , Read Part 3

Objections and our Replies regarding Permissibility of Mutah- Part 1

 (Published in ‘Al-Jawwad’, March 1957 A.D., April 1957 A.D., February 1958 A.D.)
 

Written by Allamah Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi ( Shia Scholar)
 .....

Regarding Mutah, the editor of Rizwan writes:

According to the Shias it is a very good deed to use women after giving them some pennies, without performing Nikah with them. It is even that, God forbid, it is permissible even with Sayyid women after giving them some money. This is so because they believe that performing Mutah gives them the rank of Husain, Ali and even the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.). It is mentioned on page 50 of Burhanul Mutah: “One who performs Mutah once gets the rank of Hasan. One who performs twice gets the rank of Husain. One who performs thrice gets the rank of Ali and one who performs Mutah four times gets the rank of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).”

I have estimated from a later writing that either the Rizwan editor is unaware of the meaning of Mutah or he intentionally wants to deceive the common people. Since he has tried to answer the questions of ‘Razakar’ regarding Mutah in December 1954 A.D. issue and has used about three pages for it. 

I present his( Rizwan editor)  statements that tell us about his knowledge regarding Mutah.

1)  “The method of performing Mutah is to catch a woman and say, “I want you for one night or a definite period for five rupees.” If the woman agrees, everything is permissible. If Mutah is correct, what is the difference between this and going to a brothel?”[1]

2)  “However, they should know that there is a vast difference between Mutah and Nikah. This is the reason why we find two different chapters in the books as Kitabul Mutah and Kitab Al-Nikah. In brief, Mutah is a temporary contract, which is a way of passing ones time just like a temporary contract with a prostitute. And just a little amount is fixed for it, it is done similarly in Mutah.”[2]

3)  “As an amount is fixed with a prostitute and a deal is made for one or two nights, similarly it is done in Mutah. As if the wine is same and the label has changed.”[3]

[1] Rizwan, Pg. 14
[2] Rizwan, Pg. 15
[3] Rizwan, Pg. 15

In such a condition, first I would like to describe the rules and regulations and the actual nature of Mutah so that there would not be any possibility of misunderstanding.

It appears from the writings of the Rizwan editor that maybe Mutah is another name for adultery and there is no difference between the two. 

Hence, first of all, I would like to ask what is the difference between a permanent Nikah and adultery?

The natural urges are fulfilled in Nikah as well as adultery. Hence if an atheist says, “The method of Nikah is to catch a woman and say that one wants her in exchange of a definite amount. If the woman agrees, everything is permissible. Nikah is correct. Then what is the difference between this and going to a brothel?”  

What reply would the Rizwan editor give?

Perhaps, he would say that there is a ‘proposal’ and ‘consent’ therein, but this purpose is present in adultery also.

Probably, he would suggest ‘dower’, but then people going to brothels also fix an amount and pay it.

May be he would mention the open declaration of Nikah but then many a times lustful rich people keep prostitutes after open declaration of ‘proposal and consents’ (in their own words) and giving them money.

Possibly he would present the issue that after Nikah a woman is confined to a single man only. However, there are many such prostitutes who are confined to a rich man after signing a contract with him.
Maybe he would say that both spouses inherit each other in Nikah. Nevertheless, this rule is not general and absolute because if the wife kills her husband she does not inherit. Similarly, if she is from among the People of the Book[1] she cannot inherit. Thus, if all these wives cannot inherit, what is the problem in keeping a prostitute who would not inherit? What is the difference?

Actually, the difference between Nikah and adultery is that Nikah is under the command of God while adultery is against it. No other strong reason of excellence can be presented. As it would be discussed later, both permanent and temporary marriages performed on the command of God are equal. Thus, although many acts are similar to fornication, yet they are appreciable in permanent marriage because they are carried out according to Divine commands. Similarly, Mutah is also appreciable because it is in accordance to Divine commands.

Let us now make a comparison between permanent and temporary marriage.

We should first know that Islamic jurisprudence and Quran have fixed two types of Nikahs. First, the permanent Nikah, in which no time limit is fixed, while proposal and consent are required. Naturally, this contract lasts for an unlimited period of time. Once a person is bound by this contract he would have to take a particular step in order to terminate it, which is called ‘divorce’. If divorce were not given this contract would last life long.

The second type is called ‘limited Nikah’ (also called as Mutah) whose matrimonial proposal and consent also has a time limit. Naturally, such a contract automatically ends after the stipulated period of time.

Now let us compare the rules and regulations of the two.

(1)   It is an important condition in both types of Nikah that the wife should not be from the prohibited degree (Mahrams). That is, she must not be among the women whom the Holy Quran has prohibited to marry. She must not be already married to someone or in the waiting period (Iddah) of some other man. In brief, temporary marriage is prohibited with those women who are prohibited for permanent marriage also because both are kinds of Nikah only. And as it is permissible but detestable to marry a prostitute in every Islamic sect, it is also detestable to do Mutah with her.

(2) Dower (Mehr), matrimonial proposal and consent are obligatory in permanent marriage; they are obligatory in Mutah also. As the amount of Dower is fixed through mutual agreement between man and woman in the first kind, it is done in the second kind also.

(3)   As it is necessary for a woman to observe Iddah[Waiting Period] after divorce is given to her i.e. she could not marry for a fixed period of time, similarly it is obligatory on a woman to observe Iddah for a fixed period of time after the period of Mutah is over i.e. she cannot marry another man for a fixed period.

(4)   Similarly, a woman has to observe ‘Iddah of death’ for a fixed period of time after the death of her husband in both the cases. It may be permanent or temporary marriage (Mutah).

(5)   As the man and woman become husband and wife of each other after permanent marriage and the woman cannot even think of anyone else, they become husband and wife of each other after temporary marriage also and the woman cannot even think of anyone else.

(6)   As the permanent marriage is not an evil deed due to it being in accordance with divine command, Mutah is also not an evil deed due to its performance in accordance with divine command.

(7)   As the offspring of a permanent wife is a lawful inheritor of its father, it is a lawful inheritor in Mutah also and there is no difference between them.
These were laws, which are obligatory and marriage cannot even be imagined without them. And you might have seen that Nikah and Mutah are almost same in these obligatory conditions and specialties.
 

Once again I emphasize that obligatory conditions and specialties of Nikah are only those, which are discussed above. They are same for permanent marriage and Mutah (temporary marriage).

.......For more Details , Read Part 2

Do Shias believe that the present Quran is Incomplete and fabricated one?

Note : This article is written by eminent Shia Scholar Allamah Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi in reply to RIZWAN Editor.

Tabari and Abd bin Hamid have narrated through a correct chain of narrators (each of whose narrator was a narrator of Bukhari) that Ibne Abbas used to read the verse:

“Have not yet those who believe known (Afalam yayasa) that if Allah please He would certainly guide all the people?”[1]

[1] Surah Ra’ad 13:31

as ‘Afalam yattabin’. He used to say that the scribe made a mistake since he was feeling very sleepy.

This narration is also mentioned by Allamah Suyuti in Durre Manthur, Ibne Jurair Tabari and Ibne Anbari.

It is regretful that space does not permit me to dwell further on this topic and I have to restrain my pen, otherwise, there are hundreds of narrations that could be presented on this subject.

After this long preamble, I would only like to say that even if the people having same opinion as that of the Rizwan editor express aloofness from the belief of distortion of Quran out of the fear of Shias, they will in any case have to agree that their religious leaders were of the opinion that there are additions, omissions, changes, and mistakes due to the drowsiness of calligraphists in Quran. The commentators and narrators of Ahle Sunnat have quoted so many narrations on this topic (in which the most authentic book after the book of God, Sahih Bukhari is also included) that these people cannot succeed in calling them wrong, rare, weak or incorrect. Also there is no possibility to interpret them differently because their position and identification is mentioned clearly that all these verses are of Quran and nothing else.

Now read this sentence of the Rizwan editor once again: “Muslims all over the world believe that the Quran in our hands is the one revealed by Allah. It is exactly as it was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).”

Consider this sentence of a famous Ahle Sunnat scholar, Qazi Ayaz, which he has mentioned in Shifa:

Know that one who dishonors the Quran or any of its parts, or talks ill about Quran or its part or rejects the Quran or falsifies a command of Quran or makes something permissible that Quran has prohibited or make a permissible thing prohibited or doubts the Quran or its laws or its contents, then according to the scholars, he is a disbeliever (Kafir). Allah says,

“Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One.”[1]

[1] Surah Ha Mim 41:42

Now if the Rizwan editor has any Islamic modesty remaining he should boldly declare:

“Since it is the faith of the world Muslims that the Quran in our hands is the one revealed by Allah, and it is exactly as it was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.); and according to the clarification of Qazi Ayaz one who doubts a verse or even a single alphabet of Quran or one who falsifies or disgraces it, is a disbeliever, hence all the above leaders of Islam and all those who have a similar opinion are excluded from the limits of Islam and are disbelievers according to the unanimity of the scholars.”

Now read these sentences of the Rizwan editor:

“However the Shia belief is exactly opposite; that the existing Quran is a fabricated one. It has been distorted while the real Quran is with the Hidden Imam who is hiding in a cave. He will come with the real Quran sometime before the Day of Judgment.

All right sir! So this is a forged Quran. But how sensible is this Hidden Imam that he has hidden the real Quran and does not guide the creatures of God?
 

It is narrated on page 271 of Usul al-Kafi that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (s) said, “The Quran that Jibraeel (s) brought to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) had seventeen thousand verses in it.”

On the same page of this book another tradition is narrated that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (s) brought out the Quran inscribed by Imam Ali (s) and said, “By Allah, after this day you will never see the Quran.”

In the above statements of Rizwan, some point are worthy of discussion:

Firstly, the existence of Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) is mentioned in a taunting manner. I would have proved the belief in existence of my Master (s) in the words of the Rizwan editor’s ancestors at this place itself but since some objections were made under the topic of ‘Shia and Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.)’, therefore I reserve my explanation for that section.

Secondly, Shias are blamed of such a belief, which they can never accept. The editor of Rizwan should, at first, learn to speak. Come, let me explain to him some manners of writing. Just now, I have quoted hundreds of narrations about the distortion of Quran through different sources from the books of Ahle Sunnat. If I were a sensible man like you, I would have immediately written: ‘Hence it is proved that all Ahle Sunnat are believers of distortion (of Quran).’

Ayesha believed that there is a mistake in the existing Quran.

Mother of faithful, Ayesha also believed that there is a mistake in the existing Quran. 

Read the following explanation: 

Allamah Baghavi writes in Tafsir Malimut Tanzeel regarding the verse:

“But the firm in knowledge among them and the believers believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you, and those who keep up prayers (Muqimeenas Salaat) and those who give the poor-rate and the believers in Allah and the last day, these it is whom We will give a mighty reward.”[1]

He says: ‘There is a difference of opinion in its being ‘Muqimeenas Salaat’. It is narrated from Ayesha and Aban bin Uthman that this is a mistake of the calligraphist which should be corrected and, ‘wal muqimoonas Salaat’ be written in its place. Similarly, she says that there is a mistake in the words of God:

“Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians (saabi-oon) and the Christians, whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.”[2]

And:

“These are most surely two magicians (in haadhaani…”[3]

According to her these mistakes occurred due to the calligraphists and should be changed from ‘saabi-oon’ to ‘sabi-een’ and ‘in haadhaani’ to ‘in haadhaini’, respectively.
This shows that Ayesha and Aban bin Uthman, the third caliph’s son, considered these verses incorrect. They felt that they should be corrected.

Abu Ubaid has quoted this narration in Fazailul Quran: A narrator asked Ayesha about these mistakes in Quran and she replied, “O nephew! These are the errors of the calligraphists when they inscribed the Quran.” The chain of narrators of this report is correct according to the standards of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. (On the authority of Itqan by Allamah Suyuti).

[1] Surah Nisa 4:162
[2] Surah Maidah 5:69
[3] Surah Taha 20:63

In addition to this, the following scholars have also mentioned the belief of Ayesha regarding mistakes in the above three verses:

1)  Saeed bin Mansur

2)  Ibne Abi Shayba

3)  Ibne Abi Dawood

4)  Ibne Jurair

5)  Ibne Mundhir

6)  Allamah Suyuti

7)  Raghib Isfahani

8)  Abu Amr Dani

Since the discussion is becoming prolonged I refrain from writing about other verses that Ayesha considered incorrect.

Uthman believed that there was a mistake in the existing Quran

Consider the following narration on this topic:

Uthman said that there is a mistake in the statement of God:

“These are most surely two magicians…”[1]

Someone asked him to correct this mistake. Uthman replied, “Let it be as it is, because no unlawful deed becomes lawful or vice versa due to it.”

In order to avoid making the discussion lengthy, I leave the original wordings and just give the sources. The following scholars and narrators of Ahle Sunnat have stated this saying of Uthman:

1)  Ibne Abi Dawood

2)  Akramah

3)  Qatadah

4)  Yahya bin Yamar

5)  Faqih Abul Laith Samarqandi (In Tafsir)

6)  Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti (In Itqan and Durre Manthur)

[1] Surah Taha 20:63