Fakhrudeen Razi’s attempts to defend Umar

We shall now present the detailed defence of Umar that was presented by his chief advocate, Fakhrudeen Razi in his authority work Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 96:

The second Proof: It has been narrated that Umar (ra) said in his speech: ‘Two types of Mut’ah existed during the life time of Allah’s messenger (pbuh) and I am prohibiting them and will punish one for doing it’. He said this in the presence of a large gathering of Sahaba and at that time no Sahabi objected to his comment. There are possible reasons for this.
They were aware of the prohibition of Mut’ah , that’s why they remained silent.
Or they were aware that Mut’ah was permitted but they adopted hypocrisy by maintaining silence.
Or they didn’t know if it was lawful or forbidden, thus they remained silent and they needed to look into the matter.

The first one (possibility) is the better one, while the second (possibility) makes Umar and other Sahaba infidels (Kafir), because whoever knows that the prophet (pbuh) made Mut’ah permissible, and deems it impermissible without providing the proof of abrogation, is certainly a kafir, and whoever believed him even though he knew that he was mistaken and was a kafir, is also a kafir. This leads us to declare takfir against the whole nation, that contradicts (Allah’s) statement ‘{you are the best of the nations}’.

Reply

The idea that the Companions would have been committing kufr by not openly renouncing Umar at that moment is entirely invalid. Umar was known for his anger and violence towards his opponents: this was the man who had threatened to murder the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s) and all those Sahaba who were in her house. If the Companions present chose not to speak at that moment, then this would have been more than permissible. It is logical that people will take steps by assessing the environment and situation wherein they live. They were living during an era wherein the Head of State had the audacity to sanctify a Bidah and was threatening those that violated this Order with the death penalty, as such they had to take decisions on how best to react in the situation.

It was logical that when Umar was prepared to impose the most severe penalty available against those that practiced Mut’ah, the same penalty would be meted out against those that propagated the legitimacy of this practice through Hadith, for they were in effect through their words inciting, aiding and abetting others to partake in an act that he had outlawed, that made them guilty if not more guilty than those that practiced Mut’ah. A dictatorial regime that had suppressed the Hadith on the permissibility on Mut’ah to such an extent that those that knew that it was the unabrogated Sunnah of Muhammad (s) were reluctant to convey it to the people, fearing the repercussions that they would face. Umar had in effect successfully outlawed Mut’ah via a two pronged approach, namely punishing those that practsed it or propogated its legitimacy. The propagation of traditions that evidenced the legitimacy of Mut’ah via the eye witness testimony of men of repute would have posed a far greater threat to Umar, after aall if people were to know that Umar was seeking to ban a practice that the Prophet (s) allowed, not only would that damage his political credibility, it would risk public opposition to his directive. That is why faced with this harsh reality the Sahaba were in effect forced to conceal their own eye witness testimonies about the legitimacy of Mut’ah from the masses, to the extent that they feared any Hadith on the permissibility of Mut’ah being attributed to them. We can corroborate our stance via this tradition from Sahih Muslim Book 007, Number 2828:

Mutarrif reported: ‘Imran b. Husain sent for me during his illness of which he died, and said: I am narrating to you some ahadith which may benefit you after me. If I live you conceal (the fact that these have been transmitted by me), and if I die, then you narrate them if you like (and these are): I am blessed, and bear in mind that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) combined Hajj and Umra. Then no verse was revealed in regard to it in the Book of Allah (which abrogated it) and the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) did not forbid (from doing it). And whatever a person (, Umar) said was out of his personal opinion.

We read in Musnad al-Rawyani, Volume 2 pages 259-260:

Reported Ubada bin al-Walid bin Ubada al-Samet who was one of the pious Ansar and from a pious family, that once Hassan bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib said: ‘My family insist that this Mut’ah is permissibe and Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) allowed it, but you offer a contradicting view, let us go to Salama bin al-Akwa to ask him about it, surely he is one of the pious companions of the Prophet (pbuh).’
(Ubada said): ‘We then approached him, and met him in Marwan’s palace when he had lost his eye sight’. Hassan said: ‘Wait until my friend and I ask you about some hadith’. Salama said: ‘Who are you?’ He (Hassan) replied: ‘I am son of Muhammad son of Ali son of Abi Talib’. He (Salama) replied: ‘The son of my brother, well, who is the fellow with you and what do you want to ask me about?’ Hassan replied: ‘Mut’ah al-Nisa’.
(Salama) said: ‘Yes, yes my nephew, you two should keep my statement secret as long I am alive, if I die, then you can disclose it, if they (the people) wish to stone me, they would then (only be able to) stone my grave. Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) allowed it and we used to perform it until he passed away, Allah didn’t reveal anything to abrogate it, furthermore Allah’s Messenger didn’t prohibit us’.

These are two significant statements made by two recognized Sahaba. If anything they prove how successful Umar had been in altering public attitides towards Mut’ah, to mirror his own thinking. When Umar first banned Mut’ah, he proudly stated that he was doing so of his own accord and was essentially overruling the Sunnah of Muhammad (s). By suppressing talk about the legitimacy of Mut’ah, Umar had successfully altered public thinking about Mut’ah to such an extent that as time went by and the Sahaba died out and were followed by the Tabayeen and their children the public consensus was that Mut’ah was an abominable act outlawed by the Prophet (s). This can clearly be evidenced by the testimonies of the two esteemed Sahaba. Umar’s reign was from 13 Hijri until 23 Hijri. His legacy was such that his directive continued to have an influence over the people, and they began to in effect assume the the Prophet (s) banned Mut’ah as Caliph Umar outlawed it. That is why we see these two Sahaba living in fear of a public backlash, reluctant to disclose the truth about both types of Mut’ah decades after the death of Umar. Imran died in 52 Hijri while Salamah died in 74 Hijri, each attested to the legitimacy of the Mut’ah of Hajj and Mut’ah with women respectively, saying it was part of the Sunnah of Muhammad, but said this on the caveat that this reality be attributed to them after their deaths. These guarded comments are a testament to the success of Umar’s policy, one that quashed the practice of Mut’ah, the Sunnah of Muhammad (s), a policy that was so imbedded in the consciousness of the people that they eventually assumed that it was a haram act, to the extent that two Sahaba that knew the truth was the exact opposite, remained silent and made it clear that their eye witness testimonies be disclosed after their deaths.

The fact is Umar himself outlawed Mut’ah, and Sahaba such as Imran and Salamah remained silent because it was not appropriate to speak out openly. If these narration’s are true, then there is every indication that the situation at the time could have made many Companions fear for their lives. Furthermore, their silence could also be understood as a type of passive resistance: they did not speak out to his face, but we know from many hadeeths that many Companions (such as Ibn ‘Abbas) continued to uphold the practice Mut’ah in spite of Umar’s fatwa. Shah Abdul Aziz in Tahufa Ithna Ashari, part 7 Bab Imamate writes:

“Opposing ijma is permissible, silent opposition is also permissible.”

Sunni scholars have even acknowledged that Prophets can even recite kufr when a hostile environment requires it. According to Razi himself, Prophet Ibrahim (as) recited Kufr in a state of Taqiyyah. We read in Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 6 page 347 that when at night Ibrahim (as) saw the stars and said: ‘This is my lord’ (6:76):

“He peace be upon him was ordered to do Dawah for Allah, his status was of one who is forced to say kufr and it is known that when someone is forced it is permissible to say kufr, Allah almighty said ‘{not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith}’ if it is permissible to say kufr for saving one person, surely it is worthier to say kufr to save a group of rational people”.

Certainly, many Companions would have reason to be concerned about Umar. We read in Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3 page 96 (Commentary of Al Nisa verse 24):

“Umar said whenever someone does Mut’ah send him to me and I shall stone him to death”.

Umar was clearly a ruthless leader, firm on his leadership, he would not tolerate voices of opposition. When Abu Bakr declared Umar his successor, the Sahaba were so fearful of the consequences they ran to Abu Bakr and said ‘What response will you give to Allah for placing Umar over us?’

According to Ahl as-Sunnah Prophets can practise kufr under duress, and by the same token the Companions could have also adopted Taqiyyah before Umar when he threatened to kill them.

The concept that silence constitutes acceptance (the principle of taqreer) is only true in respect of the Infallibles. We read in the authoritative Sunni work Fatah al-Bari, Volume 13 pages 324-325:

وقد اتفقوا على أن تقرير النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم لما يفعل بحضرته أو يقال ويطلع عليه بغير إنكار دال على الجواز لأن العصمة تنفي عنه ما يحتمل في حق غيره مما يترتب على الإنكار فلا يقر على باطل

“It has been accepted that the silence of the Prophet (s) towards what is happening in his presence or whatever has been shown or said to him without condemnation, constitutes its permissibility, because his infallibility prevents him (s) from endorsing falsehood”

After this the author, Ibn Hajar Asqalani, states that if a claim contravenes the Quran and Sunna, then such a claim is false. One should follow the Quran and Sunnah only, and reject personal opinions. Now, the claim that Umar declared Mut’ah to be Haram contradicted the Quran and Sunnah without any doubt. We have proven that Mut’ah is Halaal from the two sources of Shari’ah, and it is the duty of Muslims to leave the words of Umar and bow their heads before the words of Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s). We have seen that many companions voiced their opposition to Mut’ah being made Haram, so the claim that the companions were silent is contradicted by vast hadeeth literature:

Categories: English