Ali (a.s.) also opposed Umar prohibition on Mut’ah

Muḥammad al-Ṭahir Ibn Ashur (d. 1972) was a Sunni Maliki from Tunisia and was the Sheikh of Zaytona, a position that is somwhat similar to Sheikh of Al-Azhar and that makes him the highest Maliki scholar of his era. In his authority work  Tafsir al-Taḥrir wa-al-Tanwir, Volume 5 page 10, we read:

وعن علي بن أبي طالب ، وعمران بن حصين ، وابن عباس ، وجماعة من التابعين والصحابة أنهم قالوا بجوازه

“And quoting Ali bin Abi Talib, Imran bin Husain, Ibn Abbas and a some of the Tabayeen and Sahaba said that it is allowed”
Tafsīr al-Taḥrir wa-al-Tanwir, Volume 5 page 10

In Tafsir Dur al-Manthur and other books we read the words of Maula Ali (as) that we cited previously as well:

Narrated Abdulrazaq and Abu Dawoud in (book) Nasikh and narrated ibn Jareer from al-Hakam that he was asked whether the verse on Mut’ah has been abrogated, he said: “No, Ali (ra) said that if it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrongdoer).”
1. Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 2 page 486
2. Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Volume 3 page 6 pt 5
3. Tafseer Tabari, Volume 4 page 10
4. Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 95
5. Tafseer al-Bahr al-Muheet by Abu Hayan al-Andulusi, Volume 3 page 226
6. Kanz ul Umaal, Hadith
7. Musanaf Abdul Razaq, Volume 7 page 500 Hadith 14029
8. Al-Muharar al-Wajiz by Ibn Atya al-Andulusi, Volume 2 page 36

Suyuti is a renowned Sunni Scholar and his virtues are expounded in detail in the book of Rijjal. In his Tafseer he states that he compiled this Tafseer with good chains he found. Suyuti’s recording of Maula Ali’s testimony is proof that Umar banned Mut’ah not Rasulullah. Maula Ali deemed this to be clear deviation and deemed Umar to have perpetuated a major sin, and was in effect responsible for people fornicating.

Let us now analyse the words carefully:

‘If it were not for Umar forbidding it’ – The word ‘If’ shows that this statement is a conditional statement. That means whatever is said; the results are based on the condition(s) specified.
‘were not for Umar forbidding it’ -is a condition.
‘no one would commit (the sin of) fornication’ – This is a statement.
‘except a wretched person’ – This statement now carries an exception to the rule, of those who ignore and disobey Allah (swt) no matter what.

The POINT here was, it is apparently clear and commonly known by every knowing and wise person that sexual needs are natural. No one has denied it and no one can deny it. To put it simply, people who were unable to find a life long commitment (Perm. Marriage) and yet it could not curb their sexual needs, had a blessing from Allah [swt] to perform Nikah Mutah (there may be other reasons also) and avoid fornication. Having that blessing no one would have committed fornication except people who flagrantly disobey Allah [swt] anyway.

In the above statement, the condition specifies that it was only because of Umar that people will commit fornication since Umar had made ‘a Lawful-Islamic-Act a-blessing from Allah [swt] unlawful. It is like you make unlawful to work, people will EAT whether they are working or not, meaning either they will work to earn their bread or they will steal. You can not put natural requirements in a box and not provide a lawful way to fulfil those requirements. That is not how nature works, and this applies to every single NATURAL URGE of Human Being.

You can not make sleeping HARAM and make Human nature to require sleep; similarly you can not make Breathing HARAM and make human Nature to require to breath, so on and so forth.

In ‘Lughaat ul Hadeeth’ Volume 4 page 9 Chapter “Meem”, Maulana Waheed uz Zaman further expands on the words of Maula ‘Ali (as):

Ali (r) said ‘Had Umar not banned Mut’ah then the only person to fornicate would have been a disgraceful person, since Mut’ah is easy, and one can attain the objective, there would have then been no need to indulge in haraam acts’.
Lughaat ul Hadeeth, alphabet ‘Meem’ page 9 (Published in Karachi)

Some Nasibi have raised the objection: ‘why didn’t Imam ‘Ali (as) mention Mut’ah in Nahj ul Balagha?’ It is indeed amusing to read the absurd claim of Dr Salamah:

“Oddly enough, ‘Ali left behind a voluminous book, Nahjul-Balaghah, wherein he presented various aspects of Islam and the Muslim state. However, not a single word in favour of Mut’ah is mentioned in it. Had ‘Umar been wrong, nothing would have prevented ‘All from condemning it in his writings.

The author clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Imam ‘Ali (as) did not “leave behind” Nahj al-Balagha. The book was compiled centuries later by Sayyid Ar-Razi. We have seen that the book does not deal with fiqh issues; nor is it a “voluminous” work. Compared to other hadeeth collections, it is one of the shortest. Salamah does not even deal with the many narration’s, found in Sunni books, where Imam ‘Ali (as) condemns ‘Umar’s ban on Mut’ah. Indeed, this hadeeth is an authentic narration. Moreover, how can the author put wordsi n Umar’s mouth while he himself has been quoted to have admitted the fact that Mutah was Halal during the time of Prophet (s)?

The increasingly favourite Nasibi author of www.ahlelbayt.com as usual did some copy paste work and pasted the same paragraph without using his own brain and hence he also came under the humiliation that Dr. Salamah had to gone through by raising the stupid objection cited above.
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text

Further Arguments of Dr. Salamah

Dr Salamah states:

As previously mentioned, Furthermore, since ‘Umar was later succeeded by ‘Uthman and then ‘Ali, had ‘Umar’s statements been contrary to the ruling of the Prophet (PBUH), at least one of them would have re-established the sanctity of Mut’ah. Again, there are no records of such abrogation.

Once again, the later coming Nasibi author on the internet namely Ibn al-Hashimi copy pasted the same pathetic arguments of Dr. Salamah without using his own brain.
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – top
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimi’s article – text

It is common sense that the false fatwa of Umar had been buried with the Khalifa, and with Umar’s death people were free to practise Mut’ah as they had done in the past. If Uthman toed the same line as Umar, then this does not mean that Umar was right – since Umar had bound himself to adhering to Umar’s decisions when offered the Khilafath – a condition that Uthman accepted, which Imam ‘Ali (as) did not. As we have already proven Imam ‘Ali (as) had openly expressed his disgust at Umar’s prohibition and his words serve as clear proof that this was a legitimate act. There are scores of Shi’a traditions wherein our Imams (starting from Imam ‘Ali (as) endorsed the practise of Mut’ah, so the people during the era of Imam ‘Ali (as) were in no doubt that this was halaal.

Categories: English