Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
HussainKhashab

Why Didn't Imam Ali (As) Re-Establish Mut'a

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(Salam)

What I know about mut'a is that it was first established by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) during a time of battle in order for the men alongside him to relieve their sexual desires by marrying local women. After that, Mohammed (pbuh) never condemned this practice, instead, it was the second caliph, Omar who put an end to it.

Because of this, today, the act of relieving one's desires without a mate is seen as a norm amongst teenagers even though it is a major sin. I have read a Hadith from an imam once saying that because of this, many teens will carry a large amount of sins on the day of judgement. And another hadith from Mohammed (ra) the son of Omar, saying that his dad heard something and did another. (Not 100% sure he was referring to this topic)

My question is, when Imam Ali (as) became the fourth caliph, why didn't he re-establish the practice of mut'a since he knew that it was established by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and never condemned by him?

(Salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he re-establish something that was never actually de-stablished? To reestablish it would acknowledge that Umar did indeed change Islamic Law meaning Umar had the power and ability to. Mut'ah was always there despite what Umar did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ But Ummar was presumably accepted by many/most as the rightful Caliph at the time and would have been assumed to of been the authority to those who knew no better, so if he made a fatwa forbidding muta and misleaded the community that saw him as an authority on the matter, it would make sense for Imam Ali(as) to replace his fatwa. I think the op has a legitimate question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ But Ummar was presumably accepted by many/most as the rightful Caliph at the time and would have been assumed to of been the authority to those who knew no better, so if he made a fatwa forbidding muta and misleaded the community that saw him as an authority on the matter, it would make sense for Imam Ali(as) to replace his fatwa. I think the op has a legitimate question.

 

It is Bid'ah. People should have already known what Umar said holds no ground at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ But Ummar was presumably accepted by many/most as the rightful Caliph at the time and would have been assumed to of been the authority to those who knew no better, so if he made a fatwa forbidding muta and misleaded the community that saw him as an authority on the matter, it would make sense for Imam Ali(as) to replace his fatwa. I think the op has a legitimate question.

I believe there are many narrations by Imam Ali A.S speaking of Mutah. Also your assumption is faulty due to the fact of many narrations in Sunnis own literature speaking of unjust and corrupt rulers coming after Muhammad A.S so this caliph=God's representative is false. Also let's not forget the people of the time who accepted the most outrageous and unjust method of choosing the caliph already categorized theirselves as forbearers of the same unjustice and contradictory Sunnah. Accepting any of the caliphs other than Ali A.S implies rejecting his wilayah. The Muslims who followed Ali A.S as their imam and leader and knew his Sunnah was Muhammad's A.S already knew Mutah was never made haram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he re-establish something that was never actually de-stablished? To reestablish it would acknowledge that Umar did indeed change Islamic Law meaning Umar had the power and ability to. Mut'ah was always there despite what Umar did.

(Salam)

Well yes, Omar was the caliph and thus had the power to do so. Whether he became a caliph through just means or unjust means does not change the fact that he was. However, his caliphate wasn't followed by everyone, but it was by the majority of Muslims. So, if Imam Ali (as) would've re-established it, it would be done for the sake of the masses since his Shia already know that it was never de-established.

(Salam)

Edited by HussainKhashab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Well yes, Omar was the caliph and thus had the power to do so. Whether he became a caliph through just means or unjust means does not change the fact that he was. However, his caliphate wasn't followed by everyone, but it was by the majority of Muslims. So, if Imam Ali (as) would've re-established it, it would be done for the sake of the masses since his Shia already know that it was never de-established.

(salam)

 

No one has the power to undo a law by Muhammad (saw) though. This would be bid'ah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Imam Ali (as) had to rectify all the wrongs of the previous unfit caliphs, there would be not enough time in his khilafa

(Salam)

True :D but this is a matter that still affects us until today, I am sure Imam Ali (as) would know how this would turn out. I'm also sure that he had a hikmah behind it. Maybe it's for the sake of politics at the time being. We know that if he were to re-establish it, the people who mocked him for being "Abu-Turab" will also mock him for this, thus mocking the Prophet (pbuh), thus pushing him into another war.

(Salam)

No one has the power to undo a law by Muhammad (saw) though. This would be bid'ah.

I see your point, but many Muslims were already following this bid'a believing that it was right, wouldn't Imam Ali (as) want to set them straight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was kind of busy with civil wars and stuff...

Had he been able to rule in peace for a few years then I'm sure he would have tried to undo a lot of the mistakes made by the previous Caliphs. Not so easy when you are constantly at war, and only have a few short years. Also keep in mind that this was a time of prosperity for the Ummah, with all the conquests that had been made, and all the wealth and slaves coming in. As such, getting married or owning slaves girls would probably have been within the means of most people (and if it wasn't the state could provide). Therefore, reestablishing mutah across the Islamic empire was hardly priority number one.

It's also not the case that mutah had disappeared either. The jurists of Mecca for example, continued to uphold the validity of mutah until the time of Imam as-Sadiq, I think. (I'll have to check this to be sure, but it was certainly long after the time of Imam Ali (as)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't rectify lot many other errors. His situation is perfectly demonstrated by battle of siffin where his own Muslims won't listen to him and apply their own logic and reasoning and left a battle which they almost won to treaty where they get deceived.

Imam guides and guidance comes from Allah. He guides whom he wishes, and let's go astray whom He wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't rectify lot many other errors. His situation is perfectly demonstrated by battle of siffin where his own Muslims won't listen to him and apply their own logic and reasoning and left a battle which they almost won to treaty where they get deceived.

Imam guides and guidance comes from Allah. He guides whom he wishes, and let's go astray whom He wishes.

 

 

(salam)

(bismillah)

 

Not only was Imam `Ali (as) busy with Civil Wars, even if he tried to "re-establish" mut`a, most likely they wouldn't have listened. Look at this narration of what happened when he tried to remove Taraweeh. 

 

عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ فَضَّالٍ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الْمَدَائِنِيِّ عَنْ مُصَدِّقِ بْنِ صَدَقَةَ عَنْ عَمَّارٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الصَّلَاةِ فِي رَمَضَانَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ قَالَ لَمَّا قَدِمَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع الْكُوفَةَ أَمَرَ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ ع أَنْ يُنَادِيَ فِي النَّاسِ لَا صَلَاةَ فِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَانَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ جَمَاعَةً فَنَادَى فِي النَّاسِ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ ع بِمَا أَمَرَهُ بِهِ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع فَلَمَّا سَمِعَ النَّاسُ مَقَالَةَ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ صَاحُوا وَا عُمَرَاهْ وَا عُمَرَاهْ فَلَمَّا رَجَعَ الْحَسَنُ إِلَى أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع قَالَ لَهُ مَا هَذَا الصَّوْتُ فَقَالَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ النَّاسُ يَصِيحُونَ وَا عُمَرَاهْ وَا عُمَرَاهْ فَقَالَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع قُلْ لَهُمْ صَلُّوا
From `Ammar from Abi `Abd Allah (as) said, I asked him about Salah in the (month of) Ramadan in the Masajid. He said: 'When Amir al-Mu'mineen (as) came to al-Kufa, he commanded al-Hasan b. `Ali (as) to call to the people that there is no Salah in the (month of) Ramadan in the Masaajid as Jama`ah, so al-Hasan b. `Ali called to the people with what he was commanded by Amir al-Mu'mineen (as). When the people heard the statement of al-Hasan b. `Ali, they shouted "O `Umar O `Umar", so when al-Hasan returned to Amir al-Mu'mineed, he (`Ali) said to him (al-Hasan): 'What is this sound?' so he (al-Hasan) said: 'O Amir al-Mu'mineen, the people are shouting "O `Umar, O `Umar". So Amir al-Mu'mineen said to them: Pray!

Source:

al-Tusi, Tahdheeb al-Ahkaam, vol. 3, pg. 70, hadeeth # 30

Grading:

al-Majlisi said this hadith is Muwaththaq (Reliable)

--> Milaadh al-Akhyaar, vol. 5. pg. 29

 

 

Benefits from this hadith:

1.) Based off of the statement "Qadimah Amir al-Mu'mineen al-Kufa" there are some things we can take from this. Firstly, based off of the language it would be safe to assume that Imam `Ali (as) did this when he moved the capital from Madinah to Kufa. According to historical sources, Imam `Ali (as) did this in month of Rajab in the year 36AH.

 

2.) The verbiage of the narration would indicate that this happened during the month of Ramadan in the year 36AH, so after two months of him moving the capital there, he commanded Imam al-Hasan (as) to stop them from praying Taraweeh. Basically, the first order of business was to do this. Kind of like the first 100 days in the white house for a President.

 

3.) This narration takes place in Kufa, where according to history was the most Pro-`Ali. Look at the reaction of the people in Kufa to his attempted removal of Taraweeh, what would have been the reactions of other people in other lands that aren't so "Pro-`Ali". 

 

4.) Right after this, was a string of Civil Wars, so his priorities had to shift. Not to mention, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result.

 

 

Wallaahu A`lim.

 

(salam)

 

(Salam)

 

I think your replies answer my question. Imam Ali (as) was disobeyed by his own followers in Kufa when he ordered that taraweh not be prayed in jama'a in order to stick to the sunna of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), what would've happened if he went into deeper topics then!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

 

Not only was Imam `Ali (as) busy with Civil Wars, even if he tried to "re-establish" mut`a, most likely they wouldn't have listened. Look at this narration of what happened when he tried to remove Taraweeh. 

 

عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ فَضَّالٍ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الْمَدَائِنِيِّ عَنْ مُصَدِّقِ بْنِ صَدَقَةَ عَنْ عَمَّارٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الصَّلَاةِ فِي رَمَضَانَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ قَالَ لَمَّا قَدِمَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع الْكُوفَةَ أَمَرَ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ ع أَنْ يُنَادِيَ فِي النَّاسِ لَا صَلَاةَ فِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَانَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ جَمَاعَةً فَنَادَى فِي النَّاسِ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ ع بِمَا أَمَرَهُ بِهِ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع فَلَمَّا سَمِعَ النَّاسُ مَقَالَةَ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ صَاحُوا وَا عُمَرَاهْ وَا عُمَرَاهْ فَلَمَّا رَجَعَ الْحَسَنُ إِلَى أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع قَالَ لَهُ مَا هَذَا الصَّوْتُ فَقَالَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ النَّاسُ يَصِيحُونَ وَا عُمَرَاهْ وَا عُمَرَاهْ فَقَالَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع قُلْ لَهُمْ صَلُّوا
From `Ammar from Abi `Abd Allah (as) said, I asked him about Salah in the (month of) Ramadan in the Masajid. He said: 'When Amir al-Mu'mineen (as) came to al-Kufa, he commanded al-Hasan b. `Ali (as) to call to the people that there is no Salah in the (month of) Ramadan in the Masaajid as Jama`ah, so al-Hasan b. `Ali called to the people with what he was commanded by Amir al-Mu'mineen (as). When the people heard the statement of al-Hasan b. `Ali, they shouted "O `Umar O `Umar", so when al-Hasan returned to Amir al-Mu'mineed, he (`Ali) said to him (al-Hasan): 'What is this sound?' so he (al-Hasan) said: 'O Amir al-Mu'mineen, the people are shouting "O `Umar, O `Umar". So Amir al-Mu'mineen said to them: Pray!

Source:

al-Tusi, Tahdheeb al-Ahkaam, vol. 3, pg. 70, hadeeth # 30

Grading:

al-Majlisi said this hadith is Muwaththaq (Reliable)

--> Milaadh al-Akhyaar, vol. 5. pg. 29

 

 

Benefits from this hadith:

1.) Based off of the statement "Qadimah Amir al-Mu'mineen al-Kufa" there are some things we can take from this. Firstly, based off of the language it would be safe to assume that Imam `Ali (as) did this when he moved the capital from Madinah to Kufa. According to historical sources, Imam `Ali (as) did this in month of Rajab in the year 36AH.

 

2.) The verbiage of the narration would indicate that this happened during the month of Ramadan in the year 36AH, so after two months of him moving the capital there, he commanded Imam al-Hasan (as) to stop them from praying Taraweeh. Basically, the first order of business was to do this. Kind of like the first 100 days in the white house for a President.

 

3.) This narration takes place in Kufa, where according to history was the most Pro-`Ali. Look at the reaction of the people in Kufa to his attempted removal of Taraweeh, what would have been the reactions of other people in other lands that aren't so "Pro-`Ali". 

 

4.) Right after this, was a string of Civil Wars, so his priorities had to shift. Not to mention, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result.

 

 

Wallaahu A`lim.

 

(salam)

Hi,

This hadîth is [extremely] weak

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

This hadîth is [extremely] weak

 

 

No it isn't - all of the narrators have explicit tawthīq.

 

The only reason the hadīth is not sahīh and has been graded muwathaq by Allamah al-Majlisī is because the first two narrators [Musaddaq ibn Sadaqah and Ammar ibn Musa al-Subhani] were from the fatahiyyah [they were non-Imamis].

 

How did you come to the conclusion that this narration is weak?

Edited by Ali al-Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't - all of the narrators have explicit tawthīq.

 

The only reason the hadīth is not sahīh and has been graded muwathaq by Allamah al-Majlisī is because the first two narrators [Musaddaq ibn Sadaqah and Ammar ibn Musa al-Subhani] were from the fatahiyyah [they were non-Imamis].

 

How did you come to the conclusion that this narration is weak?

 

Najashi's book is weak

What's the dalil of their tawthîq

 

Sincerely,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

No it isn't - all of the narrators have explicit tawthīq.

 

The only reason the hadīth is not sahīh and has been graded muwathaq by Allamah al-Majlisī is because the first two narrators [Musaddaq ibn Sadaqah and Ammar ibn Musa al-Subhani] were from the fatahiyyah [they were non-Imamis].

 

How did you come to the conclusion that this narration is weak?

 

Being a Fathiyya didn't mean they weren't Imami in the wider sense. 

 

ِAs for the chain itself, although al-Tusi رحمه الله is narrating it himself from the book of Ibn Faddal, the hadith seem to originate from the book of `Ammar b. Musa al-Sabati

 

Najashi mentions:

 

 له كتاب يرويه جماعة، أخبرنا محمد بن جعفر، قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن سعيد، قال: حدثنا علي بن الحسن بن فضال، قال: حدثنا عمرو بن سعيد، عن مصدق بن صدقة، عنه، بكتابه

 

al-Tusi:

 

عمار بن موسى الساباطي: وكان فطحيا، له كتاب كبير، جيد، معتمد، رويناه بالاسناد الأول، عن سعد، والحميري، عن أحمد بن الحسن بن علي بن فضال، عن عمر وبن سعيد المدائني، عن مصدق بن صدقة، عنه "

 

Saduq's Tareeq:

 

 فطريق الصدوق إليه: أبوه ومحمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد - رضي الله عنهما -، عن سعد بن عبد الله، عن أحمد بن الحسن بن علي ابن فضال، عن عمرو بن سعيد المدائني، عن مصدق بن صدقة، عن عمار بن موسى الساباطي

 

So the narration passed through his book or narrated from his book by the narrators themselves, which gives the narration greater confidence. As well as the other narrator qualities the Qudama investigated which gather in the narrators (الأمانة في الرواية والعلمية والمضامين والطرؤ كالاعتماد عليه والركون واختلاف النسخ الخ), which gives levels of i`tibar and dha`f.

 

في أمان الله

Edited by Abu Tufayl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

Being a Fathiyya didn't mean they weren't Imami in the wider sense. 

في أمان الله

 

Ok maybe I got my terms wrong. What I meant was that they believed in the Imamah of Abdullah the son of Imam al-Sadiq [as] and that's why Majlisi decided not to grade this hadīth as sahīh.

Edited by Ali al-Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is Bid'ah. People should have already known what Umar said holds no ground at all.

 

Youre not getting my point.

 

 

I believe there are many narrations by Imam Ali A.S speaking of Mutah. Also your assumption is faulty due to the fact of many narrations in Sunnis own literature speaking of unjust and corrupt rulers coming after Muhammad A.S so this caliph=God's representative is false. Also let's not forget the people of the time who accepted the most outrageous and unjust method of choosing the caliph already categorized theirselves as forbearers of the same unjustice and contradictory Sunnah. Accepting any of the caliphs other than Ali A.S implies rejecting his wilayah. The Muslims who followed Ali A.S as their imam and leader and knew his Sunnah was Muhammad's A.S already knew Mutah was never made haram.

 

The Ummah expanded a lot between the Prophets(saw) death and Imam Alis(as) caliphate. There would have been large communities of people who had only been exposed to Islam according to the first 3 caliphs and would have, through no fault of their own, understood them to be knowledgeable and rightful rulers and their fatwas to be correct. So it makes sense that, if any of them had indeed expressly forbidden something that was halal, that would need to be corrected, or at least an attempt made to put it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youre not getting my point.

 

 

 

The Ummah expanded a lot between the Prophets(saw) death and Imam Alis(as) caliphate. There would have been large communities of people who had only been exposed to Islam according to the first 3 caliphs and would have, through no fault of their own, understood them to be knowledgeable and rightful rulers and their fatwas to be correct. So it makes sense that, if any of them had indeed expressly forbidden something that was halal, that would need to be corrected, or at least an attempt made to put it right.

But that will also create the cult of the legitimacy of fatwah being linked to the throne. This is exactly what the other school is reinforcing through history and fiqh.

I am Ali on another hand was a leader of political opposition before he became a caliph. He also was religious leader for many faithful companions who understood the imam ah. When he became caliph, many accepted his political position but not his rightful religious position as spiritual leader. Imam Ali did not turned away those who accepted him politically nor he for ed himself upon the ummah. To follow him as spiritual leader should be a choice because it is part of religion.

If imam Ali was asked about mut'ah, he would answer that it is halal and he did. ( لولا أن عمر نهى عن المتعة ما زنى إلا شقي

Those who were told not to pray tarawih were among his army. Whatever that shall tell us.

The line and the community that imam Ali left behind , those who accepted him as imam and requirement of their religion , they kept the ruling as it is and they rejected the bid'ah ruling of omer.

So imam Ali in a way has correct the false forbidding without enforcing it upon the unwilling or those who are too ignorant that may think that in Islam whoever jumps on throne has the right to make his own rulings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazrat Ali (as) : People often hate those things which they do not know or cannot understand.

 

Condition of Mut'a is very much based on above Quotation. Usually people hate Mut'a because they don't even able to understand it or they got wrong information related to it. I guess at least 30 conditions should be matched which need to be suits for a women to do Mut'a with a man. Usually people think Mut'a is available for Virgin too, but it is Makrooh and not valid until his father permission. And this is an option provided in Islamic rules  not to get involved in Adultery. Adultery is biggest Sin. That is why Hazrat Ali said .. Umar open door for Adultery after Prohibiting Mut'a.

 

Please correc me if i am wrong.

Thank You

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...