Familiarizing Muslims with objectives of extremism is a must

Secretary of the World Form for Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Thought stressed the necessity of familiarizing Muslims including Shia and Sunni people with objectives of extremist groups.

Secretary of the World Form for Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Thought, Ayatollah Mohsen Araki in an exclusive interview with Ettelaat newspaper stressed the necessity of familiarizing Muslims including Shia and Sunni people with objectives of extremist groups and events occurring in the World of Islam.

The grand Ayatollah underscored those of people who are indifferent to the news in different areas would be deceived undoubtedly in the long run.


Secretary of the World Form for Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Thought underlined it would be incumbent upon Shia and Sunni people to get familiar with the events happening in the World of Islam and be cognizant of the willful objectives and aims Takfiri and extremist groups are after.


According to Ayatollah Araki, The World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought (WFPIST) was established in 1989 following a recommendation by the Supreme Leader Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.


According to grand Ayatollah, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei issued a decree in 2012, appointing Ayatollah  Mohsen Araki as secretary general of the organization.

The grand Ayatollah went on to stress two main objectives he is after to fulfill. In his term, “the first issue is forming a United Ummah and the second objective is activating the diplomacy of Unity.”


According to Ayatollah Araki the aforementioned objectives are forwarded based on the guidance of Supreme Leader and the World Forum tries its utmost in accomplishing the set objectives in this arena.


Ayatollah Araki beckoned to set objectives the World Forum for Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Thought is after and underscored the World Forum was commissioned to promote unity among the followers of the entire Islamic schools of thought.

Needless to say, the organization has been holding the International Islamic Unity Conferences every year, during the Unity Week which marks the auspicious birth anniversary of the Prophet of Islam, based on the Shiite and the Sunni schools of thought.


The World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought was established in response to the thoughts of Islamic Unity, a revolution which is not only related to all Muslims but also all the oppressed masses of the world.

From the viewpoint of The World Forum of the Proximity of Islamic Schools of
Thought, proximity of Islamic schools of thought entails closeness of the followers of Islamic sects with the aim of getting acquainted with one another in order to attain religious brotherhood according to the principles and common goals of religion.


Muslim Unity entails cooperation among the followers of schools of thought while adopting joint approaches to reach the desired goals for the interests of the Muslim Ummah and confronting enemies of Islam.


In the here and now, Ayatollah Mohsen Araki is Head of the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought. He tries his utmost in the unity area and upholding unity and rapprochement among Muslims from different Islamic denominations and sects.

Head of the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought, Ayatollah Mohsen Araki was born in Najaf, 1334 (1955), in a well-educated family. His father was one of the well-known jurisprudents in Najaf seminary and a forerunner in the realm of religion.


Ayatollah Araki in 1369 could enter to the second round of the Assembly of Experts as the representative of Khouzestan people and in 1377 selected as their representative in the Assembly of Experts and held the position of the member of Commission research in Majles.

At this time, Ayatollah Araki is Head of the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought and also teaches at high levels of Feqh, Principles, Quran interpretation and Hadith sciences in Qom.

He is also the member of Supreme Council of Ahl al-Bayt World Assembly. Prior to the post, Ayatollah Araki was also the Secretary of the Supreme Council and head of this organization.

Taqrib News Agency

The Sahabah: How Equitable Were They?

The issue of the sahābah and the degree of their justice is one of the most contested issues and the most sensitive. The Sunnis are of the view that ALL the sahābah are fair and just and cannot be charged of any wrongdoing whatsoever. They cannot be criticized or doubted with regard to their views about the traditions of the Messenger of Allāh . Thus, Sunnis adhere to everything a sahābi narrates. According to the Sunnis, as mentioned by al-Nawawi in the Introduction to his Sharh Sahīh Muslim, the sahābi “... is any Muslim who saw the Messenger of Allāh (S)even for a moment. This is accurate, and it is the line of Ibn Hanbal, al-Bukhāri in his Sahīh, and of all traditionists.”[113] As for the Shī`ahs, they are of the view that the sahābah are not all equal in the degree of their justice and equity, and they are liable to be criticized and critiqued, relying on convincing proofs from the Glorious Book and the Purified Sunnah. As regarding the lie that the Shī`ahs consider all the sahābah as unbelievers, in addition to cursing and condemning them, it is an outrageous lie and nothing else. Criticizing a sahābi does not mean calling him unbeliever as some idiots propagate. If such a criticism is based on convincing proofs, why should anyone be angry, and why such a fuss? Among the sahābah are believers whom Allāh praised in the Holy Qur`ān saying, “Allāh was pleased with the believers when they swore fealty to you [O Muhammad!] under the tree [at Hudaybiya]: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down tranquility upon them, and He rewarded them with a speedy victory” (Qur`ān, 48:18).
As `allāma Lutfallāh al-Sāfi has stated with regard to this verse, Allāh Almighty specifically meant those who believed from among the attendants of the fealty ceremony under that tree, and [His Pleasure] was not extended to the hypocrites who also attended it such as Abdullāh ibn Ubayy and Aws ibn Khawli, etc. There is no clue in the verse that it was in reference to ALL those who swore fealty, and it does not indicate the good outcome of all believers who swore it. The verse does not convey any meaning beyond the Pleasure of Allāh with them for having sworn this fealty [to His Messenger]. That is to say, He accepted such an oath, and He rewards for it. The Pleasure of Allāh with those who swore this fealty does not obligate His Pleasure with them for eternity. The evidence for this is what He, the Almighty, said about them: “Truly those who pledge their fealty to you [O Muhammad!] do no less than pledge their fealty to Allāh: the hand of Allāh is above their hands” (Qur`ān, 48:10). Had some of those who swore fealty not renege in his oath, and had the Pleasure of Allāh been with them forever, there would have been no use for this verse of the Almighty: “... Then anyone who violates his oath does so to the harm of his own soul” (Qur`ān, 48:10).
Among the sahābah were those predicted by the Messenger of Allāh (S)to revert to pre-Islamic beliefs after the Prophet`s demise and would perish on the Day of Judgment. We know this from the following tradition which al-Bukhāri cites in his Sahīh with the isnād to Sahl ibn Sa`d who said, “I heard the Prophet (S)say, “I shall precede you at the Pool [of Kawthar]. Whoever reaches it will drink of it, and whoever drinks of it shall never taste of thirst. People whom I know and who know me shall meet me there, but a barrier shall be placed between us.” Sahl goes on to say that the statement of the Prophet (S)had additional details. The Prophet (S)would then say, “But they are my companions!” It will be said to him, “You do not know what alterations [to the creed] they did after you.” The Prophet (S)shall say, “Crushed, may anyone who makes changes (to the creed) after me be crushed.”[114] Abdullāh [ibn Abbās] is quoted as having cited the Prophet (S)saying the following to some sahābah: “I shall precede you at the Pool. Some of you, men, shall be raised to me. If I try to hand them [water], they shall not be able to reach me. I shall say, `Lord! But these are my companions!` He shall say, `You do not know what they introduced [into the creed] after you.”[115]
As a testimony to both past traditions which point out to alterations and innovations introduced into the creed, the Messenger of Allāh (S)compares some of his sahābah to Jewish and Christian nations that altered the Word of Allāh from its rightful place. Abū Sa`īd al-Khudri says that the Prophet (S)has said, “You shall follow the ways of those before you the distance of a span, the distance of a yard, [and so on]. Even if they enter the hole of a lizard, you will still follow them there.” We [the sahābah] said, “The Jews and the Christians?!” He (S)said, “Who else?!”[116] And among the sahābah are those about whom the Almighty said the following in His Glorious Book: “But when they [some sahābah] see some bargain or amusement, they disperse headlong to it and leave you standing” (Qur`ān, 62:11). This verse was revealed about the sahābah who left the Messenger of Allāh (S)delivering his Friday sermon when they heard about a trade caravan that had come from Syria, leaving with him only twelve men from among all the other thousands of sahābah. Jābir ibn Abdullāh [al-Ansāri] is quoted as having said, “A trade caravan came on a Friday while we were with the Prophet . People left save twelve men; thereupon, Allāh revealed this verse: `But when they see some bargain or amusement, they disperse headlong to it and leave you standing` (Qur`ān, 62:11).” In another narrative, he said, “While we were praying with the Prophet , a caravan came carrying foodstuffs. They turned to it, leaving with the Prophet (S)only twelve men; therefore, this verse was revealed: `But when they see some bargain or amusement, they disperse headlong to it and leave you standing` (Qur`ān, 62:11).” The same number of sahābah remained with the Messenger of Allāh (S)after all the rest had fled away in the Battle of Uhud, prompting the Messenger of Allāh (S)to dissociate himself from their action. Al-Barā` ibn `Āzib has said, “My uncle, Anas ibn al-Nadar, was absent during the battle of Badr, so he said, `O Messenger of Allāh! I was absent the first day when you fought the polytheists. If Allāh permits me to be present during the fight against the polytheists, Allāh will see what I shall do.` When the battle of Uhud approached and the Muslims dispersed, the Messenger of Allāh (S)said, `Lord! I seek Your excuse for what these have done,` meaning his sahābah.” [117]
Add to the above what happened during the battle of Hunayn. The flight of the sahābah left a more bitter taste. They numbered in the thousands. The Holy Qur`ān reprimanded them for their abominable action thus: “Assuredly Allāh did help you on many battle-fields and on the Day of Hunayn: Behold! Your great numbers elated you, but they did not avail you at all: The land, for all its vastness, constrained you and you turned back in retreat. But Allāh poured His calm upon the Prophet and upon the believers and sent down forces which you did not see: He punished the unbelievers: Thus does He reward those without faith” (Qur`ān, 9:25-26). And among the sahābah were those about whom the Almighty said, “It is not fitting for a Prophet to take prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You look on the temporal goods of this world, but Allāh looks to the Hereafter, and Allāh is Exalted in might, Wise. Had it not been for a previous ordinance from Allāh, a severe penalty would have reached you for the (ransom) that you took” (Qur`ān, 8:67-68). This verse was revealed in reference to a band of the sahābah who were of the view that they should take on the said caravan and what Abū Sufyān`s caravan was carrying, preferring it over fighting when the Messenger of Allāh (S)consulted them before the battle of Badr in order to gauge their readiness and will to fight.
And among the sahābah were those who were rebuked by the Messenger of Allāh (S)for their tribal attitude and their jāhiliyya-type attitudes. It also becomes clear from what is narrated by Jābir ibn Abdullāh [al-Ansāri] who said once, “We were invaders in a campaign. Sufyān was once in an army when a man from the Muhājirūn assaulted a man from the Ansār. The Ansāri man said, `Who supports an Ansāri man?` and the man from among the immigrants said, `Who supports a Muhājir man?` The Messenger of Allāh (S)heard about it, so he said, `What a Jāhili call?!`”[118] This jāhili call almost caused a war between both tribes of al-Aws and al-Khazraj which formed the bulk of the Ansār. `Ā`isha is quoted as having said, “... so Sa`d ibn Mu`ath stood up and said, `O Messenger of Allāh! I shall spare you having to deal with him! If he is one of the Aws, we shall strike his neck with the sword. And if he is from among our Khazraj brothers, you shall order us, and we will carry out your order.` Sa`d ibn `Abādah, master of al-Khazraj, who was before then a good man but his [tribal] zeal may have overcome him, said, `You have lied, by Allāh! We shall kill him, for you are a hypocrite trying to argue on behalf of the hypocrites.` Arguing intensified between the Aws and the Khazraj, and the Messenger of Allāh (S)was at the time on the pulpit. He descended and cooled their anger till they kept silent while he, too, became cool.”[119]
And among the sahābah were those who hated Ali (`a) hatred towards whom is a sign of hypocrisy, as we have already stated. Abū Buraydah has said, “The Prophet (S)sent Ali to Khālid [ibn al-Walīd] to receive the khums tax, and I used to hate Ali who had just had his ghusul, so I said to Khālid, `Don`t you look at this?!` When we went to the Prophets , I mentioned the same to him. He said to me, `O Buraydah! Do you hate Ali?` I said, `Yes`. He (S)said, `Do not hate him, for his share of the khums is a lot more than that.`”[120]
And among the sahābah were those who doubted the wisdom of the decisions of the Prophet (S)as it became obvious when they doubted his wisdom in selecting Usāmah ibn Zayd [as commander of an army]. Some people doubted his leadership. The Prophet , therefore, said, “Do not doubt his authority, for you all used in the past to doubt the authority of his father.”[121]
And among the sahābah were those whom the Messenger of Allāh (S)kicked out of his meeting place when they objected to his order to write his last will and who, instead, described him as hallucinating. Sa`īd ibn Jubayr quotes [Abdullāh] ibn Abbās saying, “Thursday! And what a Thursday it was!” Sa`īd went on to say that Ibn Abbās kept weeping till his tears wetted the pebbles. “So I said,” went on Sa`īd ibn Jubayr, “O Ibn Abbās! What is it with Thursday?!” Ibn Abbās said to him, “The pain [of sickness] of the Messenger of Allāh (S)intensified, so he said, `Bring me a shoulder so I may write for you something after which you shall never stray.` They disputed among themselves, and there must be no dispute in the presence of a Prophet. They said, `What is wrong with him?! Has he hallucinated?! Ask him for an explanation,` so he said, `Leave me alone, for I am better than what you attribute to me.`”[122]
And among the sahābah were those who quarreled over authority following the demise of the Messenger of Allāh , so much so that some of them went as far as asking for the appointment of two rulers, one from the Muhājirūn and one from the Ansār. This proved they did not relinquish their tribal ways of thinking which had been common during the time of jāhiliyya despite their acceptance of Islam as we explained while discussing the events of the Saqīfa.
Among the sahābah were Abū Hurayra and Mu`āwiyah for whom I dedicated special chapters in other places of this research.
Perhaps the exaggeration of the Sunnis in raising the status of a sahābi stems from the honor of his having accompanied the Prophet , but this is not more honoring than marrying his daughter, for Allāh Almighty has said the following about the women of the Prophet : “O consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allāh. But any of you who is devout in the service of Allāh and His Prophet, and does righteous deeds, to her We shall grant reward twice [as much] and We have prepared a generous sustenance for her” (Qur`ān, 33:30-31). Similarly, He has said the following about the disobedience of the Prophet (S)of `Ā`isha and Hafsa: “ If both of you turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; but if you back each other up against him, truly Allāh is his Protector, and [so is] Gabriel and the righteous among those who believe!and the angels too. It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allāh will give him consorts better than you in exchange!who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allāh in repentance, who worship (in humility), who travel (for faith) and fast, previously married or virgins. O you who believe! Save yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is men and stones, over which stern (and) strong angels are appointed, (angels) who do not flinch (from executing) the commands they receive from Allāh, but do (precisely) what they are commanded. (They will say,) O you unbelievers! Make no excuses this Day! You are only being requited for all that you did! O you who believe! Turn to Allāh with sincere repentance: In the hope that your Lord will remove your ills and admit you into gardens beneath which rivers flow!the Day that Allāh will not permit the Prophet and the believers with him to be humiliated. Their light will shine before them and on their right hands, while they say, “Lord! Perfect our light for us, and grant us forgiveness, for You have power over all things. O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell!a (truly) evil refuge. Allāh sets forth, as an example to the unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot: They were (respectively) under two of Our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands), and they benefitted nothing before Allāh on their account but were told, “Enter the Fire along with (others) who enter!” (Qur`ān, 66:4-10).
What we are trying to say is that keeping a lot of company with the Prophet (S)does not necessarily mean a higher degree of imān for such companions, in addition to the past narratives about the companions of the Prophet . What is narrated about the wives of the Prophet (S)is similar if not more perplexing and harsh. For example, Ibn Abbās is quoted as having said, “I kept for a whole year trying to ask `Umar about the couple of women who disobeyed the Prophet , but I kept fearing him. One day, he went to a house, and when he got out of it, I asked him. He said, `They were `Ā`isha and Hafsa.` Then he added saying, `During the time of jāhiliyya, we held women as worthless, but when Islam came and Allāh made references to them, we realized that we have some obligations towards them without our having to force them to do anything. My wife and I had an argument, so I became rough with her and said, `You are such and such.` She said to me, `Do you say this to me while your own daughter harms [the feelings of] the Messenger of Allāh ?!` I, therefore, went to Hafsa and said, `I warn you against disobeying Allāh and His Messenger!`”[123] `Ā`isha has also said, “The Messenger of Allāh (S)had a honey drink served to him once by Zainab daughter of Jahsh, and he stayed with her. I and Hafsa conspired that if he (S)visited either of us, he would be told that he had eaten Maghafir [plant] and that he smelled of Maghafir. When he was told, he said, `No, but I had a honey drink at the home of Zainab daughter of Jahsh, and I shall not do so again.` He (S)asked her to swear not to tell anyone about it.”[124] `Ā`isha also said, “The wives of the Prophet (S)used to form two parties. One of them included `Ā`isha (herself), Hafsa, Safiyya and Sawda, and the other included Umm Salamah and the rest of the Prophet`s wives.”[125] `Ā`isha has also said, “I used to feel jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Messenger of Allāh (S)and say, `Does a woman really offer himself?!` When the following verses were revealed: `There is no blame on you if you make an offer of marriage or hold it in your hearts. Allāh knows that you cherish them in your hearts, but do not make a secret contract with them except on honorable terms, nor should you sign the marriage contract till the prescribed term is fulfilled. And be informed that Allāh knows what is in your hearts, and take heed of Him, and be informed that Allāh is oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing` (Qur`ān, 2:235), I said (to him), `I can see how your Lord is swift in fulfilling your heart`s desires.”[126] `Ā`isha has also said, “Hāla daughter of Khuwaylid, sister of Khadīja, sought permission once to visit the Messenger of Allāh (S)who recognized how Khadīja used to seek permission, so he was quite upset about it and said, `Lord! I hope it is Hāla!` I, thereupon, felt jealous and said, `Why do you still remember one of Quraysh`s old women with red eyes who has for some time been dead since Allāh has replaced her for you with someone better than her [meaning herself]?”[127] In yet another narrative, `Ā`isha made a reference to Khadīja who distinguished herself from all other wives of the Prophet . She believed in the message of the Prophet (S)while people then called him a liar. She offered all her wealth to him when people deprived him of theirs. And he was blessed with children by her. All this explains why `Ā`isha was so jealous of her especially since the Messenger of Allāh (S)used to always mention her virtues even after her death, and this contradicts the claim of `Ā`isha that Allāh had granted the Prophet (S)a woman better than her [than Khadīja]. `Ā`isha is also quoted as having said, “I never felt jealous of the Prophet`s wives as much as I felt jealous of Khadīja. Although I never saw her, the Prophet (S)used to mention her quite often. He may slaughter a she-camel then cut the meat into pieces then send them to Khadīja`s friends. I may say to him that it was as though there was no woman in the world except Khadīja, and he would say that she was such and such, and that Allāh granted him children by her.”[128]
Those who believe in the “justice” of all the sahābah base their belief on their claim that the Messenger of Allāh (S)said, “My companions are like the stars: Whomsoever you emulate, you shall be guided.” In another such narrative, the wording states: “... If you follow the statements of any of them..., etc.” Although the Sunnis do not openly advocate that all the sahābah were infallible, yet anyone who claims the authenticity of this narrative must necessarily believe in the infallibility of all of them. This is so because it is not possible that the Messenger of Allāh (S)should order the absolute emulation, without any term or condition, as this supposed narrative claims, of someone who may disobey him.
Hence, the past traditions which call for a serious reconsideration and contemplation of the “justice” of many sahābis are mostly in reference to those who kept company with the Messenger of Allāh (S)for a long period of time; so, what would you say about the “justice” of those who were labeled as “sahābah” for merely seeing the Messenger of Allāh (S)even for one moment? And why should there be such an exaggeration anyway?! Can one acquire “justice” and “piety” by merely seeing the Messenger of Allāh (S)for one moment, or can it be acquired by obeying the Messenger of Allāh (S)and emulating him with good intentions and sincerity?
Such a contradiction, which is rejected by sound reason and by the human nature, may become gloriously obvious in the way how some Sunni “scholars”, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, preferred Mu`āwiyah ibn Abū Sufyān over the ascetic caliph `Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz for no reason except that Mu`āwiyah was a “sahābi” and `Umar was a “tābi`i” despite the fact that `Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz was very famous for his piety and justice, unlike Mu`āwiyah who was famous for creating the greatest dissension among the Muslims in Siffeen and for disobeying the Commander of the Faithful Ali (`a) as we have already stated. Add to this the fame which `Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz acquired as the fifth righteous caliph according to the Sunnis themselves, something which by itself proves that Mu`āwiyah was not a righteous caliph at all. Thus, nobody can be called “righteous” only because he was a companion of the Messenger of Allāh .
It is useful to ask in this regard: Who occupies a higher degree: those who believed in the Messenger of Allāh (S)after having witnessed scores of divine miracles with their own eyes or those who believed in Islam without seeing any of them?! The fact is that I could never see an explanation for such an exaggeration in the degree of “piety” of the sahābah and the publicity for the concept that they were all just except to close the door in the face of anyone who criticizes some sahābis who worked hard to push caliphate away from its rightful owners. Thus, many Sunnis reject all the irrefutable proofs that Ahl al-Bayt (`a) were more fit to be the Imāms of the Muslims for no reason except they believe in the “justice” of all the sahābah. They, therefore, consider anything which these “sahābis” had done as “correct.”
As regarding those who worked hard to disseminate this wrong concept, they did so because they regarded the Imāms from among Ahl al-Bayt (`a) as posing a danger to their thrones due to their knowledge that those Imāms were right in their claim. There was a need, therefore, to apply a sort of smoke-screen and confusion to such traditions and Qur`ānic verses which highlighted the status of these Imāms (`a) while raising the status of ALL the sahābah so that the Imāms from among Ahl al-Bayt (`a) would not have the distinction which qualified them to be the choice of Allāh Almighty as well as that of the majority of the Islamic nation following the demise of the Chosen One .
Hence, the wordings and meanings of the above-cited alleged tradition which says that ALL the sahābah are “stars” are modeled after a tradition of the Messenger of Allāh (S)which says, “The stars offer security for the people of the earth against drowning, while my Ahl al-Bayt (`a) offer them security against dissension [with regard to religious issues]; therefore, if an Arab tribe opposes them, they will differ and become the party of Eblis.”[129]
One of the most significant negative effects which came as the outcome of believing in the “justice” of ALL the sahābah is the existence of such a huge quantity of erroneous narratives in the books of hadīth. These include what is cited through Jewish and Christian sources and other myths which are all used to cast doubts about the Islamic creed. Such narratives have been accepted and held as being authentic merely because they were narrated by the sahābah despite all the latter`s deeds which can be criticized as we explained about many past narratives.
Notes:
[113]Sahīh Muslim as explained by al-Nawawi, Vol. 1, p. 28 (published by Dār al-Sha`b).
[114]Al-Bukhāri, Sahīh, Vol. 9, p. 144, in the book of dissensions in a chapter titled “Beware of dissension that will specifically afflict those from among you who oppressed”.
[115]Ibid.
[116]Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 315, in the book of shielding with the Book and the Sunnah in a chapter about following past nations.
[117]Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 47 in the Book of Jihād in a chapter about the verse saying, “Among the believers are men who proved truthful..., etc.”
[118]Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 397, in the book of Tafsīr in a chapter about this verse: “Whether you ask for their forgiveness or not, (their sin is unforgivable:) If you ask seventy times for their forgiveness, Allāh will not forgive them because they have rejected Allāh and His Prophet, and Allāh does not guide those who are perversely rebellious” (Qur`ān, 9:80).
[119]Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 508 in the book of testimonies.
[120]Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 447 in the book of military campaigns in a chapter about dispatching Ali (`a) and Khālid, may Allāh be pleased with both of them, to Yemen.
[121]Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 57 in the book of the virtues of the sahābah, in a chapter about Zayd`s virtues.
[122]Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 260 in the book of khums in a chapter about getting the Jews out of the Arabian Peninsula.
[123]Ibid., vo. 7 pp. 72-404 in the book about clothes
[124]Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 404 in the book of Tafsīr in a chapter about the verse saying, “O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from enjoying what] Allāh has made lawful to you?”
[125]Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 454 in the book about gifting in a chapter about one giving his friend a gift.
[126]Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 295 in the book explaining the verse “... make an offer of marriage or hold it in your hearts...” (Qur`ān, 2:235).
[127]Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 105 in the book of the virtues of al-Ansār in a chapter about the Prophet (S)marrying Khadīja and her distinctions.
[128]Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 104 in the book of the virtues of al-Ansār in a chapter about the Prophet (S)marrying Khadīja and her distinctions.
[129]Refer to Mustadrak al-Sahihayn.
Source:
Truth About Shi'ah Ithna 'Ashari Faith
By: Asad Wahid al-Qasim
Translated from the Arabic by Yasin al-Jibouri

Ref: Imam Reza Network

Why Prostration In Prayer Must Be Done on Earth

Abu Said Al Khudri narrates:
The Messenger of Allah used to practice Itikaf (in the mosque), in the middle third of Ramadan. After the twentieth night, he used to return home on the twenty-first, and those who were in Itikaf with him would return to their homes as well. In Ramadan, in which he practiced Itikaf, he would pray the night prayers on the night in which he returned home, and then address the people, instructing them as Allah commanded him. He said, "I used to practice Itikaf for these ten days (i.e. the middle third of Ramadan), but I now intend to stay in Itikaf for the last ten days. Whoever was in Itikaf with me should stay at his place of seclusion. I have certainly been shown (the date of) this Night (of Qadr), but I have forgotten it. Search for it in the odd nights of the last ten days (of Ramadan). I also saw myself (in a dream) prostrating in mud and water." On the twenty-first night, the sky was covered with clouds and it rained, and the rainwater started leaking through the roof of the mosque onto the praying place of the Prophet. With my own eyes, I saw the Prophet, upon completion of the morning prayer, leaving (the mosque) with his face covered with mud and water.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 3.235
Abu Hazim narrates:
Sahl bin Sa'd was asked about the (Prophet's) pulpit, as to what was it made of. Sahl replied: No one is still alive among the people who knows about it better than I. It was made of tamarisk forest wood. So and so, the slave of so and so, prepared it for the Messenger of Allah. When it was constructed and placed (in the mosque), the Messenger of Allah stood on it, facing the Qibla, and said, "Allahu Akbar", and the people stood behind him (in prayer). He recited and bowed, and the people behind him bowed. Then he raised his head, stepped back, descended and prostrated on the ground. He then again ascended the pulpit, recited, bowed, raised his head, stepped back, descended and prostrated on the ground. This is what I know about the pulpit.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.374
Hazrat Maimuna said:
The Messenger of Allah used to pray on a Khumra (a palm leaf mat large enough to place one's face, while in prostration).
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.378
Jabir bin Abdullah narrates:
The Messenger of Allah said: I have been given five things which were not given to any of the Prophets before me. These are:
1. Allah made me victorious by inspiring awe (and fear in my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made a place of prostration for me, and a place to perform Tayammum. Thus, my followers can pray wherever (i.e. in any lawful place) they like, when the time of prayer is due.
3. War booty has been made lawful for me.
4. Every Prophet was sent only to his own nation, but I have been sent to all mankind.
5. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 1.429
Abu Sa'eed used to relate that he had seen the Prophet prostrating on wet mud, so much so that he could see mud stains on his forehead.
Saheeh Bukhari, Part I, p. 104
Hazrat Maimuna said:
The Messenger of Allah was once praying while I was experiencing my menses and sitting beside him. Sometimes his clothing would touch me during his prostration. She added: He prayed on a Khumra (a small palm leaf mat).
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 376
The Prophet used to place his forehead on the earth while prostrating.
Saheeh Bukhari, Part 1, p. 97
The Prophet declared that the best place for prostration was the earth, or upon something that grows from the earth.
Kanz-ul-Ummal, Part 4., p. 113
(Famous Sunni book of Hadith)
The Prophet said to his wife Umm Salma, " Bring me the Khumra from the mosque." The word Khumra means a small piece of chatai made from palm leaf, on which only the head could be rested when prostrating. lbn-Athir, in his Jami-al-Usool has written, "Khumra is the Sajdagah (Persian word meaning "prostration place") upon which the Shias of our time perform their prostrations."
I (i.e. Maulana Zamankhan) maintain that by this Hadith it is Sunnat to keep a Sajdagah. Those who forbid it and call it the way of the Rafizites (Shiites) are wrong. To practice this Sunnat, I often perform my prostrations on a fan made from palm leaf, and I do not care about the criticism of the ignorant. We are concerned only with the Sunnat of the Prophet (SAA), regardless of whether they call it the way of the Rafizites or the Kharijites. Let them rave about it.
Maulana Vahidul Zamankhan (Sunni Alim),
author of 'Anwar-ul-Lughat', Chap. 7, p. 118
Why the Asr prayer may be prayed immediately after Zuhr, and the Isha prayer immediately after Maghrib
It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas, that he said that the Messenger of Allah prayed Zuhr and Asr together, and also Maghrib and Isha, although he was neither in a state of fear nor on a journey.
Saheeh Muslim, Vol. I, p.264
Ibn Abbas narrates that the Messenger of Allah recited the Zuhr and Asr prayers together, and also said the Maghrib and Isha prayers, although he was neither in a state of fear, nor was there any other cause, e.g. rain. It is related from Waki that he asked Ibn Abbas the reason (for the joint prayers). Ibn Abbas replied: So that the followers (of the Prophet) may not experience inconvenience and difficulty.
(1) Saheeh Muslim, Vol. I, p.265
(2) Jami Tirmizee, p. 54
Abdullah Bin Shaqeeq narrates that one day after the Asr prayer, Ibn Abbas began delivering a sermon which was so long that the sun set and the stars appeared. People began to shout: Salat! Salat! (as it was time for Maghrib prayer). Ibn Abbas paid no heed to them until someone from Bani Tameem stood up and shouted continously: Salat! Salat! Ibn Abbas responded: Woe unto you! You wish to teach me the Sunnat? He said: I have personally seen the Messenger of Allah pray the Zuhr and Asr prayers together, and likewise, the Maghrib and Isha prayers.
The narrator says: This statement of Ibn Abbas kept disturbing my conscience until I went and asked Abu Huraira about it, and he attested to what Ibn Abbas had said.
Saheeh Muslim, Vol. 1 p. 265
It is related from Ibn Abbas that the Prophet at one time recited seven rakats of prayers, and at another time eight rakats, i.e. he recited the Maghrib and Isha prayers together, and the Zuhr and Asr prayers together.
Saheeh Bukhari, Part I, p.72
It is narrated by Ibn Abbas that in Madina the Prophet used to recite two prayers together (Zuhr and Asr, and Maghrib and Isha), without there being any fear or rainfall. When asked about the reason for this, he said: The Prophet desired that his followers may not suffer inconvenience, and therefore the two prayers may be recited together.
Sunan Nasaee, p. 290
Reference: ImamReza.net

Debate on the Legitimacy of Mut'a

The following piece is adopted from the book "Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law," by Abul Qasim Gourji, and is presented with some modifications.

Introduction
The word Mut'a was more commonly used than other terms for temporary marriage both during the lifetime of the Prophet and afterwards. Both its proponents and opponents preferred this word and its derivatives. In books on jurisprudence the terms Mut'a, al-Nikah al-Munqati' (discontinued marriage), and al-Nikah al-Muwaqqat (temporary marriage), Istimta' (having pleasure), and the related word of tamattu' (pleasure) are all employed.
The scholars both Sunni and Shia, agree that Mut'a was permitted at the beginning of Islam. However, they disagree as to the reasons it was permitted.

The Shia View
In the chapter titled "Women", after listing those women to whom marriage is forbidden, the Quran states as follows: "Lawful for you is what is beyond all that, that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in license. So those of them whom you enjoy, give them their appointed wages; it is no fault in you in mutually agreeing after fulfillment (of the wage). God is All-Knowing, All-Wise" (4:24). All Shia scholars and many Sunni scholars hold that this verse - especially the words: "Such woman as you enjoy (Istamta'tum)" - refers to the permissibility of Mut'a. The Shia present several arguments to prove this point. (See Sharh al-Lum'a, v5, p248-253; Jawahir, v5, p163).
This verse was revealed towards the beginning of the Prophet's stay in Medina. By the revelation of this verse, the temporary marriage became a legal custom in Medina and was looked upon as one kind of marriage and was referred to by the term Istimta'a, the same word employed in the Quranic verse - even though the literal meaning of the word is "to seek benefit" or "to take enjoyment". Hence the meaning of the Quranic verse must be understood in terms of the conventional usage of the time, for as is well-known in the science of Quranic commentary and Islamic jurisprudence, the Quran follows the conventional usage of the people in all edicts and legal prescriptions. If someone wants to understand a word in the Quran in other than the conventional meaning of the time, he must supply a strong reason for doing so. Moreover if one looks up the traditions of the chapter of temporary marriage in the authentic Sunni collections such as Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, one can see that the messenger of Allah and his companions exactly used the word Istimta'a when referring to this contract, which is exactly the same word as what Quran employed.
The context of the verse also indicates that it is referring to the temporary marriage. In the previous verse, i.e. 4:23, the Quran enumerates the women who are forbidden to men. These are divided into seven kinds stemming from blood relationship and seven more stemming from other causes: "Forbidden to you are your mothers and daughters...". The next verse adds a fifteenth category of women forbidden to men: "And married women, save what your right hands own." It continues with the words quoted above: "Lawful for you is what is beyond all that." In other words, any woman not belonging to one of the fifteen categories is permitted, whether by marriage or ownership.
Next the verse states: "that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in license." Grammatically, this clause is in apposition to "what is beyond all that." It explains the legitimate mode of seeking sexual relationships with women, whether as the result of marriage or the purchase of slaves.
The next part of this same verse states as follows: "So those of them whom you enjoy, give them their appointed wages." The word "so" (fa) shows that this part of the verse is either part of the previous subject matter, or an example of it; in other words, its relation to the previous section is either that of the part which is completing the whole, or the particular example to the universal principle. And since the previous section deals with the DIFFERENT KINDS of legitimate sexual relationships, either by marriage or the purchase of slaves, we can conclude that this section of the verse is the exposition of a FURTHER KIND of marriage, not mentioned previously; a kind which also requires that the man pay the wages of his wife.
Many sayings have been related from the Companions of the Prophet and those who followed them (al-Tabi'een) confirming the Shia view that verse 24 of this chapter concerns Mut'a. Several of the companions, including Ibn-Abbas, one of the highly respected companions of the Prophet, Ibn Masud, one of the first to accept Islam, and Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab, one of the scribes of the revelation, and many others used to read the verse with three more words resulting in the sentence of the form: "So those of them whom you enjoy TO AN APPOINTED TIME (Ila Ajal Musamma)." This clearly indicates that the verse refers to Mut'a.
In Majma' al-Bayan, Abu Ali al-Fadl Ibn al-Hasan al-Tabarsi (d. 548/1153), one of the Shia commentator of the Quran summarizes the Shia arguments:
the word 'enjoy' in this verse refers to the marriage of Mut'a, i.e., a marriage for a specified dower and a determined time period. This opinion has been related from Ibn Abbas and many of the 'followers' of the Companions such as Isma'il Ibn Abdurrahman al-Suddy (d. 127/744-45) and Sa'id Ibn Jubair al-Asadi (95/713-14). In fact, this clearly must be the case, for although the words Istimta'a and Mut'a have the literal meaning of 'enjoyment', in Shari'ah (divine law) they refer to the contract of temporary marriage, especially when they are followed by the word 'women'. Hence the meaning of the verse is: 'Whenever you draw up a contract of Mut'a with a woman, you must pay her wages.'
Reference: Majma' al-Bayan, by Abu Ali al-Tabarsi, v3, p32

The Sunni View
As was indicated above, the Sunnis agree that at the beginning of Islam Mut'a was permitted. For example, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606/1209), the famous Sunni theologian, writes in his Commentary on the Quran that Mut'a was at first permitted. The Prophet made a lesser pilgrimage (Umrah) to Mecca, and the women of Mecca made themselves up especially for the occasion. Some of the Companions complained about the long separation from their wives, and the Prophet replied: "Then go and enjoy (Istamta'a) these women." (Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p286)
Those Sunnis who hold that the Quranic verse mentioned above (4:23) does indeed refer to the permissibility of Mut'a also maintain that the verse was subsequently abrogated (Naskh) by other Quranic verses. They offer three arguments to prove their point: other Quranic verses, the sermon of Umar banning Mut'a, and the Hadith transmitted by some Companions. The Shia, in turn, reject each of the arguments:

Debate on the Quranic Verse of Mut'a
Some Sunnis argue that sexual intercourse is forbidden except with one's wife or a slave by reason of the verse: "Prosperous are the believers ... who guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own." (23:14).
According to the Prophet's wife Aisha and others: 'Mut'a is forbidden and abrogated in the Quran where God says: "who guard their private parts..."
(al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Quran, by al-Qurtubi, v5, p130).
The Sunni argument continues by pointing out that without question a woman enjoyed through Mut'a is not a slave. Nor is she a wife, for several reasons: if she were a wife, she and her husband would inherit from each other, since God says: "And for you a half of what your wives leave..." (4:12). But everyone agrees that Mut'a does not involve inheritance. If she were a wife, the child would belong to the husband, since according to the Prophet: "The child belongs to the bed." But again this is not the case. And finally, if she were a wife, it would be necessary for her to maintain the waiting period, since this is commanded by God (2:234); but this also is not the case.
We have already seen that some of these arguments, taken from Fakhr al-Razi's Commentary, do not in fact apply to Mut'a as the Shia understand it. It is the Ijma' of the Shia scholars that the child born of Mut'a belongs to the husband and that the woman is obliged to observe the waiting period after the expiration date of the marriage. However, it will be useful to see how the Shia answer each of the above Sunni claims:
As for the 'abrogation' of the verse concerning Mut'a, historical considerations show that this can not be the case. The verse mentioned as abrogating Mut'a was revealed in Mecca before the migration, while the verse establishing Mut'a was revealed after the Prophet had emigrated to Medina. But a verse which abrogates another verse must have been revealed after it, not before it. It is also well-known that the Prophet allowed the companions to practice Mut'a in Medina, and if Mut'a had already been illegalized in Mecca (before Hijra) by Quran, then the Prophet would not have allowed his companions to practice it after the migration. (Tafsir al-Mizan, by al-Tabatabai, v3, p132).
As for the Sunni claim that a wife by Mut'a is not a legitimate wife because she does not fulfill the religious requirements for being a 'wife', this also is false. In the question of inheritance, the Quranic verse is a general one, and there is no reason to suppose that it may not have certain exceptions. In fact, the specific requirements of Mut'a as established by the Hadith literature show that Mut'a is an exception. Nor is it the only exception, since a non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim, nor can a murderer inherit from his victim. Also if a man is sick and marries a woman, but dies due to that sickness before consummating the marriage, the woman will not inherit from his husband. Thus being husband and wife (even in the permanent marriage) does not always necessitate the inheritance. Quran usually provides the general rules and he was the Messenger of Allah who clarified the exceptions as well as the conditions for applying the rule. In short, inheritance pertains to permanent marriage, but even in permanent marriage it has certain exceptions, so that the verse establishing it cannot be interpreted as nullifying the validity of Mut'a. Also inheritance is possible in the temporary marriage as long as it is made condition at the time of contract. (See Asl al-Shia wa Usuliha, by Kashif al-Ghita', p116; al-Bayan Fi Tafsir al-Quran, by al-Khoei, p219)
In the question of the child, there is no reason to claim that it is illegitimate. In Mut'a the "bed" is legitimate, so is the offspring. (Sharh al-Lum'a, v5, p277)
The Imam Ja'far was asked: "If the wife becomes pregnant as a result of Mut'a, to whom does the child belong?" He replied: "To the father," i.e., the child is legitimate. (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p488)
In a similar manner numerous traditions exist to prove that a wife by Mut'a must observe the waiting period of two months. Some of such traditions are even documented in the Sunni sources. For example Fakhr al-Razi himself quotes a relevant saying from Ibn Abbas that:
Ibn Abbas was asked: "Is Mut'a fornication or marriage?" He answered: 'Neither the one nor the other.' The questioner then asked: "Well then, what is it?" Ibn Abbas replied: "It is Mut'a', just as God has said." The questioner continued: "Is there a waiting period in Mut'a?" He replied: "Yes, a menstrual period." He was also asked: "Do the husband and wife inherit from each other?" He answered: "No."
Reference: Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p286
Certain Sunnis also argue that Mut'a cannot be considered a legitimate form of sexual union because it excludes such things as inheritance, divorce, sworn allegation, forswearing, and Bihar. Since these necessary concomitants of marriage do not apply to Mut'a, it cannot be considered marriage, so the woman cannot be considered a legitimate wife. If she is neither a wife nor property, sexual intercourse with her is illegitimate: "Prosperous are the believers, who... guard their private parts, save from their wives and what their right hands own. . .; but whosoever seeks after more than that, those are the transgressors" (23:1-7). Hence, people who engage in Mut'a transgress God's law.
A typical Shia answer to this argument runs as follows: First, the Quranic verse is a general statement, and there is no reason why its specific applications may not be clarified by other verses and the traditions. Second, it is not true that the above things are concomitants of marriage: there is no inheritance in the case of a non-Muslim wife, a murderer, or a slave-girl. A legitimate sexual relationship may be dissolved without divorce in the case of a wife who is the subject of a sworn allegation, a spouse who leaves Islam, or a slave-girl who is sold. Sworn allegation, forswearing, and Bihar are all concomitants of permanent marriage, not of legitimate sexual relationships in general (i.e., they do not apply to sexual relationships with a slave). Even if we suppose that these things do in fact pertain to legitimate sexual relationships, then it will be necessary to specify that there are certain exceptions. This is the only way we will be able to combine the Quranic verses and the traditions which show that these pertain to legitimate sexual relationships with those traditions which demonstrate that they do not pertain to Mut'a. (Jawahir, v5, p163).

Debate over the Sermon of Umar
In a famous sermons the second caliph Umar banned Mut'a with the following words: "Two Mut'a were practiced during the time of the Prophet: Mut'a of women and Mut'a of Hajj, but I forbid both of them and will punish anyone who practices either."
References:
Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, commentary of verse 4:24
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p52
Al-Razi summarizes the Sunni interpretation of Umar's words by saying that they were pronounced in a gathering of Companions and no one protested. Therefore, the situation must have been as follows: either
everyone knew that Mut'a was forbidden, so they remained silent; or
they all knew that it was permitted, yet they remained silent out of negligence and in order to placate Umar; or
they did not know whether it was forbidden or permitted, so they remained silent since the matter had just then been clarified for them, so they had no reason to protest.
Reference: al-Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p287
Al-Razi continues by saying that the first possibility is what he is trying to prove. If we maintain the second possibility, then we must call Umar and the companions who were with him unbelievers. For they knew that the Quran and the Prophet had permitted Mut'a, yet Umar went ahead and banned it without the Quranic verse permitting it having been abrogated. This is unbelief (Kufr); and those who knew Umar was wrong without protesting shared in his unbelief. But such a supposition requires that we call Islam a religion of unbelief, which is absurd.
The third possibility that Umar's listeners had not known whether Mut'a was permitted or forbidden is also absurd. For, if we suppose that Mut'a was permitted, then people would need to have knowledge of that fact in their everyday lives, just as they need to have knowledge about the permissibility of marriage. So the legal situation of Mut'a must have been known, just as everyone knew about marriage.
Al-Razi concludes that as soon as we see that the second and third possibilities are in absurd, then we know for certain that the companions remained silent only because they all knew that Mut'a had already been abrogated.
The Shia answer Fakhr al-Razi's arguments as follows: Umar's sermon demonstrates that during the lifetime of the Prophet Mut'a was permitted. The reason Umar attributed the banning to himself is that he wanted to show that he was expressing his own view. If the Prophet himself had prohibited Mut'a, or if its permissibility pertained only to a specific period in time, then Umar would have attributed its prohibition to the Prophet, not to himself. (Majma' al-Bayan, v3, p32).
Another saying concerning Mut'a is also attributed to Umar: "God permitted for His Prophet what He willed, and the Quran has been revealed in its entirety. So complete the Hajj and the Umrah as God has commanded you. But avoid marrying these women, and do not bring before me any man who has married a woman for a specified period, or I will stone him." (Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p885, Tradition #145. For English version see: v2, chapter CDXLII, Tradition #2801)
As for the fact that no one protested against Umar's pronouncement cannot be considered proof that the Prophet himself had forbidden Mut'a. For Umar threatened the people with stoning, and considering his fabled severity and harsh temper, no one would have dared to speak against him. If Ali had been able to protest against Umar, he would not have remained silent. But because of the circumstances he had no choice but to have patience and to bide his time. The case of Mut'a is similar. For it was Ali himself who said: "If Umar had not prohibited Mut'a, no one would commit fornication except the wretched!" (Sunni commentaries of Quran by Tabari, Tha'labi, Qurtubi, Fakhr al-Razi, Suyuti, Ibn Hayyan, Nishaboori, and Jassas. As for Shia, see al-Mut'a, by al-Dizfuli, pp 68-69).
The Shia scholars also point out that without question stoning as a punishment for having performed Mut'a could not be permissible, even if we were to accept that Mut'a is forbidden. For stoning can only be a punishment when a married man has committed fornication with a woman. Hence Umar had no right for laying down this edict. (Jawahir, v5 p161, al-Bayan, p229).
Fakhr al-Razi answers this line of reasoning by saying that perhaps Umar only mentioned stoning to intimidate his listeners and make them think more seriously about the consequences of temporary marriage. (al-Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p287).
Concerning Umar's two sayings banning Mut'a, the Shia argue as follows: If his prohibition was based on "independent judgment" (Ijtihad), then it is baseless, since all scholars agree that independent judgment can never gain or contradict the saying of the Quran or the traditions. (Sharh al-Lum'a, v5, p182-183; Jawahir, v5, p161; al-Bayan, p229).
As for the Quranic basis of Mut'a, we have already seen that as far as the Shia and certain individual Sunnis are concerned, the Quran permits it in the chapter of Women. As for its basis in the prophetic Hadith, many traditions have been related in the standard Sunni collections which proves the permissibility of Mut'a of women at the time of the Prophet.
Concerning Umar's "independent judgment", one of the contemporary Shia scholars argues as follows: Umar may have made his judgment completely on his own initiative and in direct contradiction to the words of the Prophet; or he may have based his judgment on a prohibition issued by the Prophet himself. If the first case is true, then Umar's judgment is groundless, as noted above. And the second case cannot be true, since a number of the companions have given witness to the fact that Mut'a was permitted during the lifetime of the Prophet and up until the time of his demise. (al-Bayan, p229).
In general the Shia argue that if Umar's prohibition had been based upon the words of the Prophet, then other Companions would have known about it. How is it possible for the Prophet to have forbidden Mut'a, yet, during the rest of his life, the period of Abu Bakr's caliphate and the beginning of Umar's caliphate, for prohibition to have remained unknown to everyone but Umar? Moreover, if his prohibition were based upon the words of the Prophet, why did he not attribute it to the Prophet instead of to himself?
Fakhr al-Razi answers that it might be that beside Umar, some other Companions had heard the prohibition from the Prophet, but they forgot it later. But when Umar mentioned the prohibition in a large gathering, everyone knew he was speaking the truth, so they remained silent.
The Shia reply to the argument of Fakhr al-Razi as follows: It is impossible to imagine that all of the Companions other than Umar had forgotten that Mut'a had been forbidden, considering its everyday importance. People need legitimate sexual relationships almost as much as they need food and water. They could not have forgotten when they continued practicing Mut'a after the demise of the Prophet till the time of Umar's rule.
The Shia authors also point out that Umar banned the two kinds of Mut'a together, whereas everyone, Sunnis and Shia agree that the Mut'a of al-Hajj is permissible. Hence the Mut'a pertaining to women should also be permissible. (Majma' al-Bayan, v3, p33).

Debate on the Controversial Reports
In the Sunni sources few traditions have been attributed the Prophet showing that he banned Mut'a during his lifetime. In most of the Sunni "sound" collections (Sihah), it is related from Ali that he said: "Verily the Prophet of God banned the Mut'a of temporary marriage and the eating of the meat of domesticated asses on the day of Khaibar."
Ibn Sabra relates from his father the following: I came upon the Prophet of God who was leaning against the Ka'ba. He said: "O People! I commanded you to seek enjoyment (Istimta'a) from these women, but now God has forbidden that to you until the Day of Resurrection. So if you have a temporary wife, let her go her way; and do not take back anything of what you have given her."
Another Hadith is related from Salama Ibn al-Akwa'. Through his father he reported that the Prophet of God permitted Mut'a in the year of Autas (8/629) for three days; but then he prohibited it.
Shia do not consider these three traditions of any authority. To illustrate how they reject them, we can summarize the arguments of al-Khoei. The Hadith attributed to Ali cannot be authentic, since all Muslims agree that Mut'a was permitted in the year Mecca was conquered. So how could Ali have claimed that Mut'a was banned on the Day of Khaibar (close to two years before Mecca's conquest)?! Because of this obvious discrepancy, some of the great Sunni authorities have maintained that the words "on the day of Khaibar" probably refer only to the meat of domestic asses. But this is absurd, for two reasons: First, it is counter to the rules of Arabic grammar: if the phrase referred only to asses, the verb would have to be repeated. Thus, in Arabic one says: "I honored Zaid and Amr on Friday", or one says: "I honored Zaid and I honored Amr on Friday", thus making it clear that "on Friday" refers only to Amr. If the adverbial phrase referred only to the meat, the text of the Hadith would have to read: "Verily the Prophet of God banned Mut'a, and he banned the eating of the meat of domesticated asses on the Day of Khaibar." In short, since everyone agrees that Mut'a was permitted when Mecca was conquered, the Prophet cannot have banned it three years before that. Hence the Hadith is not authentic. (al-Bayan, pp 222-224).
The second reason that the "Day of Khaibar" cannot refer only to the meat of domesticated asses is that this clearly conflicts with Hadith related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (three of the authoritative Sunni collections). For their versions of Ali's Hadith is as follows: "The Prophet banned the Mut'a of marriage on the Day of Khaibar, as well as the meat of domesticated asses."
As for the tradition related by Ibn Sabra from his father, al-Khoei points out that although his Hadith has been related by many chains of authority, they ALL go back to Ibn Sabra himself, and thus the Hadith is of the type known as Wahid, i.e., it derives from a single companion. And a Quranic verse cannot be abrogated even by the most authentic kind of Hadith, and thus by far, it can not be abrogated by a relatively weak one. Moreover the very content of the Hadith shows that it is not correct. It is hardly conceivable that the Prophet could have stood before the Ka'ba in front of a large group of Muslims and ban something until the Day of Resurrection, and that then only one person Sabra should have heard him or related his words.
Where were those Companions who recorded even the gestures and the glances of the Prophet? Certainly they should have joined Sabra in reporting the prohibition of Mut'a until the Day of Resurrection. And where was Umar himself? He certainly should have known about the prohibition so that it would not have been necessary to attribute the banning of Mut'a to himself. Finally, there are discrepancies in the various versions of the Hadith of Sabra. In some versions the prohibition is said to have occurred in the year of the victory of Mecca (8/630), in others in the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage (10/632). This discrepancy makes the Hadith even more untrustworthy.
Shahid al-Thani points out another problem concerning the Hadith of Ibn Sabra. He mentioned Ibn Sabra himself is the only source for his father's words, but no one knows anything about him. He is not mentioned in any of the books on Hadith as a transmitter, nor has any other Hadith been related from him. For this reason al-Bukhari the most famous Sunni authority, and generally considered the most reliable for the Sunnis, left the Hadith of Ibn Sabra out of his collection. (Sharh al-Lum'a, v5, pp 264-282).
As for the Hadith of Salama Ibn al-Akwa, al-Khoei remarks that again it is a saying related from only one Companion (Wahid) and cannot abrogate a Quranic verse. In addition, if it is an authentic Hadith, it is strange that it remained unknown to such important Companions as Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, and Jabir Ibn Abdillah. How is it possible for the Hadith to be authentic, while Abu Bakr did not forbid Mut'a during the whole period of his caliphate and Umar only banned it towards the end of his own? (al-Bayan, pp 222-223).
There are many sayings of the Companions which indicate that Mut'a was permitted up until the time of Umar's prohibition. Three of the most famous are those of Ali, Ibn Abbas, and Imran Ibn al-Husain. As we have already seen, Ali said: 'If Umar had not prohibited Mut'a, no one would commit fornication except the wretched.' This is the most famous form of a saying reported in numerous sources and a number of different versions.
The above version is derived from Sunni works; a Shia version is related from the fifth Imam, al-Baqir: "If it were not for that [i.e., Mut'a] with which [Umar] Ibn al-Khattab preceded me, no one would commit fornication except the wretched."
The saying related from Ibn Abbas is reported by the tenth/sixteenth century Sunni scholar al-Suyuti in this form: "God have mercy on Umar! Mut'a was naught but a mercy from God, through which He showed mercy to Muhammad's community. If Umar had not banned it, no one would need fornication except the wretched." (al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v2, p141).

More Arguments on the Hadith
The Sunni argument for the prohibition of Mut'a based upon the Hadith can be summarized as follows: The reason that the scholars have differed concerning Mut'a is that it was permitted and then banned a number of times.
Ibn al-Arabi (d. 638/1240), the famous Sufi who wrote on the meaning of the Shari'ah, calls Mut'a one of the most remarkable edicts in Islamic law, since it was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then forbidden at the Battle of Khaibar, then permitted again at the war of Autas. Finally it was forbidden and remained forbidden. No other edict in Islam was changed a number of times with the exception of the Qibla (the direction of prayer), for that was abrogated twice before being finalized.
Al-Qurtubi reports that other authorities who have studied the traditions concerning Mut'a say that its edict was changed seven times. He refers to the traditions in six Sunni collections explaining how the situation of Mut'a was changed.
As for the Hadith of Sabra, which states that the Prophet permitted Mut'a at the Farewell Pilgrimage in the year 10/632, Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi acknowledges that this is not in keeping with the other Hadith. He explains that the Prophet permitted Mut'a at the conquest of Mecca, when the men complained of separation from their wives. They could not have complained of such separation during the Farewell Pilgrimage, since all of the wives were present, and the single men could have taken permanent wives in Mecca. So the special situation that existed during the other journeys and battles was lacking. However, we can explain the situation as follows: Since the Prophet usually permitted Mut'a during journeys away from Medina, in this case also he permitted it; but then he banned it for the final time wanting all the Muslims to know about it, for all of them were present for the Farewell Pilgrimage. There is also the fact that the Meccans were in the habit of practicing Mut'a widely. Thus the Prophet banned Mut'a in Mecca so that they would understand that they could not continue in their former custom.
The Shia answer to the Sunni argument on the basis of Hadith can be summarized as follows: As has been mentioned already, if Mut'a was made forbidden in the last pilgrimage where according to al-Tahawi's argument most of the Muslims were with the Prophet, then how can only Sabra have heard of the saying of the Prophet?! Moreover, the Hadith demonstrating that Mut'a is forbidden are in conflict with those that show it is permitted. They also conflict with Hadith that show that Mut'a continued to be permitted during the times of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, and Umar, up until the time that Umar banned it. The correct course of action is to prefer those Hadith which establish its permissibility, for a number of reasons:
The Hadith indicating the permissibility of Mut'a outnumber those which show that it is banned.
Everyone agrees that the, traditions indicating that Mut'a was permitted at certain times are authentic and have been transmitted in parallel, but this is not the case concerning those which indicate that it was banned. Hence one can speak of a consensus (Ijma') in the sense that all Muslims at one time agreed that Mut'a was permitted, even though afterwards a disagreement arose. In order to choose the right course, we can not base ourselves upon opinion but must hold fast to that which we have certainty. Hence we must conclude that Mut'a is still permitted, as long as we do not have firm knowledge to the contrary.
The traditions which point to the banning of Mut'a are themselves questionable. When we realize that one of the incontestable elements of Shia as established by the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt is the permissibility of Mut'a, then no Hadith related from Ali stating that Mut'a is forbidden can be authentic. Someone who held without question that Mut'a is permissible would not relate a Hadith from the Prophet that it is forbidden. On many occasions Ali censured Umar's banning of Mut'a. His saying: 'If Umar had not banned Mut'a, no one but the wretched would practice fornication' is well-known, and no one has questioned its authenticity.
Reference: Jawahir, v5, pp 162-163.
Those who hold that Mut'a is forbidden have also claimed the consensus of the Community as one of their proofs. They say that after Umar banned Mut'a, all of the Prophet's Companions went along with him with the exception of Ibn Abbas, and perhaps he might have changed his opinion towards the end of his life.
In answer to this claim, the Shia point out that 'consensus' was never established for the banning of Mut'a; and in any case, the very fact that the Shia Imams (the Household of the Prophet) who are the very pillars of Islam, have all agreed that Mut'a is permitted shows that there was in fact no consensus. Moreover, from the first the Shia have agreed on the permissibility of Mut'a, to such an extent that this view has always been singled out as one of the specific features of Shia. Given this fact, to claim consensus is meaningless. In addition, as we have seen above, many of the Prophet's outstanding Companions and their followers held that Mut'a was permitted. Finally, the claim that Ibn Abbas changed his view on Mut'a toward the end of his life has never been substantiated. Even if it were to be proven, one could only claim consensus if we were certain that no one was opposed to the view that Mut'a is forbidden; whereas we know that in fact the number of opponents was quite large. In short, the Shia conclude, there is no real evidence to show that Mut'a is not permitted; and when the Hadith are investigated, the conclusion is likely to be reached that not only is it permitted (Mubaah), it is even recommended (Mustahabb).

The Opinion of the Four Sunni Schools of Law
The four Sunni schools of law agree that temporary marriage is invalid. That which invalidates the contract is the stipulation of a time period. If such a marriage takes place, it must be annulled, and if it is consummated before the annulment takes place, the woman must be paid the "normal dowry".
The Shafi'i school adds that even if the time period stipulated by the contract is the life-time of the husband or the wife, the contract is still invalid, since the contract of marriage requires that its effects continue after death. That is why a spouse may give his or her spouse the ritual purification of the dead before burial (otherwise, the washer of the dead must be of the same sex as the corpse). A marriage contracted with a stipulation that it comes to an end when one of the spouses dies would mean that the effects of the marriage would end at death. So such a stipulation invalidates the contract.
The Hanafis add that if the time period stipulated is so long that as a rule the spouses could not remain alive until it comes to an end (e.g., if the man were to say: "I will marry you until the hour of Resurrection"), then we can no longer call the marriage "temporary". in effect this stipulation means forever. Hence it is not considered as a stipulation of a time-period and the contract is sound. If the husband's intention in contracting the marriage is to enjoy the woman's company only for a period of time, but he does not make such a stipulation in the contract, the marriage is correct. In the same way, if a person should marry making it a condition of the contract that a divorce will take place after a certain period of time, the contract is correct but the condition is nullified, since such a condition can not limit the contract.
Reference: Fiqh Ala al-Madhahib al-Arba'a, v4, pp 90-94
In any case the four Sunni sects agree that the punishment for a person who enters into a temporary marriage is not the same as that of the fornication. In the latter case the punishment (Hadd) is 100 lashes for each party in the case of an unmarried woman, and stoning to death in the case of a married woman. But the punishment for Mut'a is defined as Ta'zeer, i.e., less than the full punishment for fornication, depending on circumstances and the opinion of the judge. The penalty for fornication is not specified by the Sunnis because certain doubts remain concerning the status of Mut'a as a result of the traditions of Ibn Abbas.

The Opinion of the Shia School of Law
The Shia have always considered Mut'a to be of special importance and have tried to keep it alive as an institution of Islamic society. The Shia law of Jurisprudence is often referred to as the "Ja'fari school of law", since in reality the sixth Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq (AS), had a golden opportunity of teaching during the clashes between the Umayad and the Abbasid. During that short period when the tyrants of both sides were busy with each other, the Imam was teaching Jurisprudence and theology in classes with as much as 5000 students. Hence it is appropriate to quote a few of his many sayings concerning the Mut'a.
Imam Ja'far Sadiq (AS) said: "Mut'a was approved by the text of the Quran and became part of the Sunnah of the Prophet." (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p437).
Imam Ja'far considered the Quranic verse referred to above (4:24) the basis for Mut'a. He said: "The verse proves the permissibility of Mut'a." (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p439).
Once Abu Hanifa, the founder of one of the four Sunni sects (who was a student of the Imam Ja'far before he starts his business), asked the Imam about Mut'a. He replied: "Which of the two Mut'a do you mean?" Abu Hanifa answered: "I have already asked you about the Mut'a of the Hajj. So tell me about the Mut'a of marriage." The Imam said, "Glory be to God! Have you not read the Quran? 'So those of them whom you enjoy, give to them their appointed wages' (4:24)." (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p437).
Someone asked Imam Ja'far (AS): "Why is it that four witnesses are necessary [for proof to be established] in cases of adultery, but two are sufficient in the case of murder?" He replied: "God made Mut'a permissible for you, but He knew that you would not approve of it. So He made the witnesses to number four as a protection for you. If it were not for that, it would be brought against you [that you are committing fornication, whereas you are in fact practicing Mut'a]. But seldom do four witnesses come together on a single matter." (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p439).
The Imam Ja'far (AS) considered Mut'a a divine mercy by means of which people were saved from the sin of fornication and delivered from God's retribution. Concerning the Quranic verse: "Whatsoever mercy God opens to men, none can withhold (35:2)," the Imam said: "Mut'a is part of that mercy." (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p439).
The Imam Ja'far said: "I do not like a man to leave this world without having married temporarily, even if only on one occasion." (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p444).
The Imam Ja'far said: "It is reprehensible in my eyes that a man dies while there yet remains a practice of the Messenger of God that he has not adopted." He was asked: "And did the Messenger of God practice Mut'a ?" He replied: "Yes." Then he recited the Quranic verse: "And when the Prophet confided to one of his wives a certain matter...(66:3-5)" (Wasa'il al-Shia, v14, p442).
Note how beautiful the Imam explains the reason why one should uphold the practice of Mut'a. The encouragement, promotion, and rewards for the Mut'a are not for the physical/sexual action, but are rather due to REVIVING the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) which has been forsaken by the majority of Muslims. If Umar would not have abolished this Sunnah of the Prophet, such reward would not have been attached to the Mut'a.
The Shia call Abu Ja'far Muhammad al-Tusi (d. 460/1068) the "Elder of the Denomination" (Shaikh al-Ta'ifa), since he was the first who organized a systematic methodology for demonstrative jurisprudence (al-Fiqh al-Istidlali). We can conclude this discussion with a summary of his views on Mut'a. He writes that the Shia reasons for considering Mut'a permissible are as follows:
The Consensus of the Twelver Shi'ites.
The words of the Quran : "Marry such women as seen good to you! (4:3)," since Mut'a is a kind of marriage, but one which men desire to perform by expending their property.
The words of the Quran: "So those of them whom you enjoy, give to them their appointed wages (4:24)." The word Istimta'a (enjoy), unless otherwise qualified, signifies temporary marriage.
Ibn Masud's version of the Quran, which adds the words "to an appointed time" to the above verse.
There is no disagreement over the fact that Mut'a was allowed at the beginning of Islam. So those who claim that the verse was abrogated must prove their assertion.
The principle from which discussion must begin is that Mut'a is permitted. That it should be forbidden should be proven.
The words of Umar concerning the two types of Mut'a. Here Umar tells us that at the time of the Prophet, Mut'a was permitted, i.e., that it was a part of the religion of Islam. Proof must be provided that it is no longer so.
Reference: al-Khilaf, v2, pp 179-180
After referring to the above reasons, al-Tusi answers the arguments of those who claim Mut'a is forbidden in much the same way that we have seen above.

References
al-Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, Istanbul, 1307/1889-90
(2)
al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin Suyuti, 1377/1957
(3)
al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Quran, by Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Abi Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi (d. 671/1273), Cairo, 1967
(4)
al-Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Published in Beirut
(5)
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Saudi Arabia, 1980
(6)
Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Saudi Arabia
(7)
al-Fiqh Ala al-Madhahib al-Arba'a,by Abd al Rahman al-Jaziri, Cairo 1969
(8)
Wasa'il al-Shia, by Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Hurr al-Amili, Tehran, 1385/1965-66
(9)
Sharh al-Lum'a (al-Rawdat al-Bahiyya fi Sharh al-Lum'at al-Dimashqiyya), by al-Shahid al-Thani (Zayn al-Din Muhammad Ibn Ali al-Jab-i al-Amili d. 965/1558), Beirut 1967.
(10)
Jawahir al-Kalam, by Shaykh Muhammad Hasan (d. 1266/1850), Tehran, 1325/1907.
(11)
al-Khilaf, by Abu jafar Ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi, Tehran 1372/1952-53
(12)
Tafsir al-Mizan, by Muhammad Husain Tabatabai (d. 1982), Beirut 1974.
(13)
Majma' al-Bayan, cited as al-Bayan, by Abu Ali al-Fadl Ibn al-Hasan al-Tabarsi (d. 548/1153) Tehran, 1339/1960
(14)
al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Quran, by Abul Qasim al-Musawi al-Khoei, Najaf, 1375/1955-56
(15)
al-Mut'a, by Murtada Ibn Muhammad Amin al-Dizfuli (1214-81/1800-64) Tehran, 1352/1973
(16)
Temporary Marriage in Islam, by Abdullatif Berry, Arabic-English, Al-Zahra International Co.
(17)
Fixed Term Marriage, by Mohammad Sharif, English, Islamic Seminary Publications.
(18)
Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law, by Abul Qasim Gourji, rendered to English by Sachiko Murata.

Reference: al-shia.org

Al-Azhar's Verdict Regarding the Shias

Al-Azhar's Verdict Regarding the Shias
What follows is the Fatwa (religious verdict/ruling) of one of the Sunni world's most revered scholars, Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot with regard to the Shia. Shaikh Shaltoot was the head of the renowned al-Azhar Theological school in Egypt, one of the main centers of Sunni scholarship in the world. It should be of interest to know that a few decades ago, a group of Sunni and Shia scholars formed a center at al-Azhar by the name of "Dar al-Taqreeb al-Madhahib al-Islamiyyah" which translates into "Center for bringing together the various Islamic schools of thought".
The aim of the effort, as the name of the center indicates, was to bridge the gap between the various schools of thought, and bring about a mutual respect, understanding and appreciation of each school's contributions to the development of Islamic Jurisprudence, among the scholars of the different schools, so that they may in turn guide their followers toward the ultimate goal of unity, and of clinging to one rope, as the well-known Quranic verse, "Hold fast to the Rope of Allah and do not diverge" clearly demands of Muslims.
This massive effort finally bore its major fruit when Shaikh Shaltoot made the declaration whose translation is appended below. It should be made unequivocally clear as well, that al-Azhar's official position, vis a vis the propriety of following any of the Madhaahib, including the Shi'ite Imami school, has remained unchanged since Shaikh Shaltoot's declaration.
Some people who follow pseudo-scholars in Hijaz may beg to differ; that notwithstanding, what you see below is the view held by the overwhelming majority of Sunni scholars, and not just those at al-Azhar. Let it be known to those who strive to divide us, that their efforts are but in vain.
For the readership's reference the phrase "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah al-Ithna 'Ashariyyah" means the Twelver Imami Shi'ite School of thought which comprises the overwhelming majority of Shi'ites today. The phrase "Twelver Shi'ites" is used interchangeably with "Ja'fari Shi'ites" and "Imami Shi'ites" in various literature. They are merely different names for the same school of thought.
"al-Shia al-Zaidiyyah" are a minority among the Shi'ites, concentrated mainly in Yemen located in the Eastern part of Arabian peninsula. For a more detailed description of the Zaidis vs. the Twelver Shi'ites, please refer to the book, "Shi'ite Islam" written by the great Shi'ite scholar, Allamah Tabataba'i, and translated by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, and published by the State University of New York Press (SUNY).
And as for Shaikh Shaltoot's declaration ...
Head Office of al-Azhar University:
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL
Text of the Verdict (Fatwa) Issued by His Excellency Shaikh al-Akbar Mahmood Shaltoot, Head of the al-Azhar University, on Permissibility of Following "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah" School of Thought
His Excellency was asked:
Some believe that, for a Muslim to have religiously correct worship and dealing, it is necessary to follow one of the four known schools of thought, whereas, "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah" school of thought is not one of them nor "al-Shia al-Zaidiyyah." Do your Excellency agree with this opinion, and prohibit following "al-Shia al-Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" school of thought, for example?
His Excellency replied:
1) Islam does not require a Muslim to follow a particular Madh'hab (school of thought). Rather, we say: every Muslim has the right to follow one of the schools of thought which has been correctly narrated and its verdicts have been compiled in its books. And, everyone who is following such Madhahib [schools of thought] can transfer to another school, and there shall be no crime on him for doing so.
2) The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al- Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought.
Muslims must know this, and ought to refrain from unjust prejudice to any particular school of thought, since the religion of Allah and His Divine Law (Shari'ah) was never restricted to a particular school of thought. Their jurists (Mujtahidoon) are accepted by Almighty Allah, and it is permissible to the "non-Mujtahid" to follow them and to accord with their teaching whether in worship (Ibadaat) or transactions (Mu'amilaat).
Mahmood Shaltoot.
The above Fatwa was announced on July 6, 1959 from the Head of al-Azhar University, and was subsequently published in many publications in the middle east which include, but are not limited to:
al-Sha'ab newspaper (Egypt), issue of July 7, 1959.
al-Kifah newspaper (Lebanon), issue of July 8, 1959.
The above segment can also be found in the book "Inquiries about Islam", by Muhammad Jawad Chirri, Director of the Islamic Center of America, 1986 Detroit, Michigan.
Reference: ImamReza.net