The belief in and practice of temporary marriage is one of the major differences between Sunni and Shi’a traditions.
According to Shi’a customs, temporary marriage entails that a Muslim man may marry a Muslim woman or non-Muslim woman (from amongst the people of the book) for a pre-determined period of time.
The man is required to give the woman an agreed dowry. The marriage is conducted by reciting an oral contract, which is recited by both parties entering into the marriage.
Apart from the length of the marriage, the main difference between a temporary marriage and permanent marriage is that no divorce is necessary to dissolve the relationship and the wife in a temporary marriage doesn’t have the same inheritance rights granted to a wife in a permanent marriage.
One practice for which the Shi’a are often criticised for is the belief in temporary marriage. This entry aims to clarify the nature of temporary marriage, its history and scope.
The Definition and Nature of the Practice of Temporary Marriage
Temporary marriage is practiced by Shi’a, and is referred to in Arabic most frequently as either Zawaj al-Muwaqqat (literally, marriage for a set period of time) or Mu’tah (derived from the Arabic word for pleasure).
Entire volumes of work have been written by Jurists about the conditions of temporary marriage and the philosophy behind it.
Temporary marriage entails that a Muslim man may marry a Muslim or non-Muslim woman (from amongst the people of the book) who is mature, independent or has permission from her guardian (should this be the first marriage she enters) and that the two individuals in question are not in any way related to one another according to the injunctions laid out by Islam.
Should the woman entering into the marriage be a divorcee or a widow, she must observe the Iddah period which is obligated by Islam prior to entering into the marriage contract.
The man then gives the woman an agreed upon dowry which is a gift of a financial or material nature. The couple involved can stipulate the fixed period of how long they wish to be married for, and after that has been verified, the marriage is conducted through the recitation of an oral contract which takes the form of the following Arabic formula recited by the woman entering into the marriage:
“I marry you with the dowry of (X amount) for the time period of (X amount)”
To which the man should recite:
“I accept”
The marriage is thereafter immediate in effect and the bride and groom remain married for the agreed period of time, and then separate without the need for a divorce.
Should the husband wish to end the marriage early, it can be achieved with a mutual agreement. Just like in a permanent marriage, if the couple separates, the woman must observe the Iddah period if the marriage was consummated.
If any children are born from the marriage, then like a permanent marriage contract, the father has a legal obligation to provide financially and morally for his child.
The key difference between Mu’tah and a permanent marriage is that the wife of a Mu’tah marriage does not possess the right to inherit from her husband due to the temporary nature of the relationship.
Amongst the numerous practices and beliefs of the Shi’a which are often misunderstood for is the practice known as Mu’tah or temporary marriage as it is referred to in English. This practice is often misunderstood and consequently attacked and criticised by both Muslims of other schools as well as non-Muslims.
This entry aims to clarify the nature of temporary marriage, its history and scope. It will also address the misconceptions which have been propagated in regard to the practice.
The Definition and Nature of the Practice of Temporary Marriage
Temporary marriage is a practice which is still practiced by Muslims adhering to the Shi’a Ithna Ashari School of Jurisprudence. It is most frequently referred to in Arabic as Zawaj al-Muwaqqat (literally meaning marriage for a set period of time) or Mu’tah (derived from the Arabic word for pleasure).
There are entire volumes dedicated to the jurisprudential nature of the practice of Mu’tah, however, it shall suffice to summarise a brief definition of this form of marriage and how it differs from permanent marriage.
Temporary marriage entails that a Muslim man may marry a Muslim or non-Muslim woman (from amongst the people of the book) who is mature, independent or has permission from her guardian (should this be the first marriage she enters) and that the two individuals in question are not in any way related to one another according to the injunctions laid out by Islam.
Should the woman entering into the marriage be a divorcee or a widow, she must observe the Iddah period, which is obligated by Islam prior to entering into the marriage contract.
The man then gives the woman an agreed upon dowry of financial or material nature. The couple involved must stipulate the fixed period of how long they wish to be married for, and after that has been verified, the marriage is conducted through the recitation of an oral contract which takes the form of the following Arabic formula recited by the woman entering into the marriage:
“I marry you with the dowry of (X amount) for the time period of (X amount)”
To which the man should recite:
“I accept”
The marriage is thereafter immediately in effect and the bride and groom remain married for the agreed period of time, and then separate without the need for a divorce.
Should the husband wish to end the marriage early, it can be achieved with a mutual agreement. Just like in a permanent marriage, if the couple separates, the woman must observe the Iddah period if the marriage was consummated.
If any children are born from the marriage, then like a permanent marriage contract, the father has a legal obligation to provide financially and morally for his child, ensuring that neglect does not occur once the marriage comes to an end.
One of the key differences between Mu’tah and a permanent marriage is that the wife of a Mu’tah marriage does not possess the right to inherit from her husband due to the temporary nature of the relationship.
The Nature of Temporary Marriage
It is universally recognised that the Prophet Muhammad during the Medinan phase of Islam (the duration of his Prophethood in the city of Madinah), had given permission for his companions and the early Muslims to practice temporary marriage whilst away from their families. This was due to the long periods of time away while engaging in military expeditions.
Under these circumstances, men were given permission to engage in marriages of a stipulated limited time period.
While the original reason for the granting of temporary marriages arose during periods of unrest, the custom endured and the practice continues today.
To cite but one example:
A narration can be found in the Musnad of Abi Dawood al-Tayalsi, the Sunni traditionalist which records the response of Asma’a b. Abi Bakr, the daughter of the first Caliph, to a question regarding the permissibility of temporary marriage in which she states:
“'We performed this during the lifetime of the messenger of God (Muhammad) (s)”
Justification of Temporary Marriage from the Qur’an
“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them (with a dowry) from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have done mu’tah with, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise”
Quran [4:24]
The above cited verse of the Qur’an outlines those who are permitted and forbidden for one to enter in marriage with, in the underlying passage which has been translated as “whom you have done Mu’tah with.” The specific Arabic word used is ''Istamta'tum'' derived from the same root word as ''Mu’tah''. What is even more curious about the verse for those who deny its revelation in the context of temporary marriage is that the verse is either introducing Mu’tah marriage and the need to give a dowry, or is repeating itself in the space of one verse (in regards to providing dowry to a permanent wife) which seems improbable and aimless.
The renowned Jurist Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi (d. 1377/1957) in his work “Masa’il al-Fiqhi” (Questions of Jurisprudence) notes that according to the Imams of the Ahlulbayt as well as numerous other companions of the Prophet (s.a.w) including Ubayy b. Ka’ab, Abdullah b. Abbas and Sa’id b. Jubayr, the above highlighted verse was revealed in regard to Mu’tah.
It is therefore established belief of the Shia that Mu’tah was indeed practiced by the early generation of Muslims and that it was legislated whilst in the city of Madinh al-Munawarrah. The Shia further state that the above verse demonstrates this fact It is therefore necessary to discuss whether or not the practice was ever abolished during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) as is the jurisprudential position of the Sunnis on that.
Debates Over Whether Mu’tah was Abolished
Non-Shi’a schools of Islam believe that Mu’tah was abolished. The discussion pertaining to its abolishment are however slightly complicated, and for the sake of clarity, this entry shall look at different claims put forward by those who maintain the practice was ended.
Those opposing the practice of Mu’tah have put forward four divergent opinions about the date on which it was banned.
These dates are purported to be as follows:
- During the day that Khaybar was conquered
- On the day of the conquest of Makkah
- The battle of Tabuk
- The final pilgrimage of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w).
It is worthy to note that if the practice had actually been abolished, there most likely would not be a disagreement as to when it was practiced since the life of the Prophet (s.a.w) has been so heavily documented by Muslims. Some may respond that the first cited occasion has been generally held to be the most plausible during which the practice was finally abolished; however an analysis of the narrations would certainly not indicate as such.
One of the often cited narrations which is highlighted for the banning of Mu’tah marriage is the following narration ascribed to Abdullah b. ‘Umar.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 526:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
On the day of Khaiber, Allah's Apostle forbade the eating of garlic and the meat of donkeys.
What is unique about this particular narration extracted from the most authentic Hadith compilation of the Sunni school of thought is that on the day of Khaybar, not only was Mu’tah forbidden but also forbidden was the eating of garlic. This begs the question as to why garlic is therefore no longer viewed as forbidden by the Sunni schools of Jurisprudence, if indeed it ever was, and opens up the possibility to investigating whether or not the prohibition according to such a Hadith was merely one that lasted a day.
Another reason why Muslims would be correct in rejecting these narrations is the principle that the clear Qur’anic injunctions cannot be over-ruled or abolished by solitary Hadith reports (some Jurists even argue that widely transmitted reports cannot over-rule the Qur’an). Hence in the absence of any Qur’an verse to ban the practice, it cannot be accepted at face value that it was ever banned during the life of the Prophet (s.a.w).
This view can be supported by analysing the statements of the second Caliph, who during his speeches announcing the ban, certainly makes manifest that he is introducing a new enforcement which did not earlier take place.
Qur’anic Verses Abolish Mu’tah?
Some claim that the Qur’an itself has banned the practice of temporary marriage by citing the following verse:
“And they who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed.”
(Qur’an, 23:5-6)
Such a claim is problematic, however, for two particular reasons, primarily because the chapter in question was revealed in Makkah while the verse which was revealed in the context of the permissibility of Mu’tah was revealed in Madinah.
This fact alone makes it impossible for Mu’tah to have been prohibited by the Qu’ran. Further, in light of the fact that many of the companions of the Prophet (s.a.w) were still practicing Mu’tah prior to the abolition of the practice by Ibn Umar demonstrates that the verse was not understood to have over-ridden the other.
The second claim put forth is that the verse calls upon the believers to abstain from relations outside of marriage and concubines, however, the response is extremely simple; a temporary wife is still a wife none the less.
Common Objections Levelled at the Practice of Mu’tah
Whilst it is not the aim of this short entry to comprehensively analyse and respond to all objections levelled at the practice of temporary marriage, it is necessary to address at least a few of these objections in order to clarify the view of Shi’a and demonstrate that they have not merely overlooked these objections.
The Argument that Temporary Marriage is Immoral
Some have argued that temporary marriage is immoral in light of Islamic morality, and that Islam promotes permanent marriage as an alternative. In response to this argument, Imami Jurists point out that the Prophet (s.a.w) at one point had introduced temporary marriage as a viable solution and practice for all Muslims. Therefore, this accusation would be suggesting that the Prophet (s.a.w) and therefore God would have legislated something immoral for the Muslims to practice, something which every Muslim would disagree with.
The Argument that Temporary Marriage Existed as a Jahiliyyah Form of Marriage yet was Gradually Abolished
Some will try and argue against this response by acknowledging that the practice was once allowed by the Prophet (s.a.w), however, it was a pre-Islamic practice which was continued for a period of time (like the gradual phasing out of drinking alcohol) in order to make life easier for the early Muslims, thus rendering the practice as still being immoral by Islamic standards.
In response to these claims, it would suffice to quote Aisha, the wife of the Prophet (s.a.w), citing in a Hadith the numerous types of marriage which had previously existed in Arabia at the time:
“Aisha the wife of the Prophet told him that there were four types of marriage during the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance.
One type was similar to that of the present day, i.e. a man used to ask somebody else for the hand of a girl under his guardianship or for his daughter's hand, and give her a dowry and then marry her.
The second was that a man would say to his wife after she had become clean from her period, "Send for so-and-so and have sexual relations with him." Her husband would then keep away from her and would never sleep with her till she gets pregnant from the other man with whom she was sleeping. When her pregnancy became evident, her husband would sleep with her if he wished. Her husband did so (i.e. let his wife sleep with some other man) so that he might have a child of noble breed. Such marriage was called Al-Istibda.
Another type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relations with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them and none of them would refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her, she would say to them, "You (all) know what you have done, and now I have given birth to a child. So, it is your child, O so-and-so!" naming whoever she liked, and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him.
The fourth type of marriage was that many people would enter upon a lady and she would never refuse anyone who came to her. Those were the prostitutes who used to fix red flags at their doors as signs, and he who wished, could have sexual intercourse with them. If anyone of them got pregnant and delivered a child, then all those men would be gathered for her and they would call the Qaifs (persons skilled in recognizing the likeness of a child to his father) to them and would let her child follow the man (whom they recognized as his father) and she would let him adhere to him and will be called his son. The man could not refuse all that.
But when Muhammad (s) was sent with the Truth, he abolished all the types of marriages observed in the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance except the type of marriage the people recognize today”
(Sahih al-Bukhari)
This narration categorically shows that the types of marriage that occurred during the era of Jahiliyyah did not include temporary marriage, and hence it was an area which was newly legislated by Islam and therefore cannot be considered to be immoral, since God is considered by all Muslims to be the standard of morality.
The Argument that Temporary Marriage was a Special Dispensation Allowed by the Prophet (s.a.w) for the Ease of his Companions then was Abolished
Some have also argued against the Shi’a practice of temporary marriage by stating that the practice, whilst not necessarily immoral, was a practice that was legislated out of mercy for the companions who moaned out of frustration due to their extremely heavy desires whilst travelling away from their spouses. This extreme tension felt by the companions was responded to by the legislation of temporary marriage as a mercy to cater for their needs, yet was later abolished by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w).
Shi’a scholars would respond to this accusation by arguing that God and the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) showed mercy to all of mankind and not just the first generation, namely the Prophet’s (s.a.w) companions. As a result, their mercy if it extended to the companions for such a reason would not have a basis to be terminated with the rest of the Muslims who suffer from the same needs and desires.
Conclusion
It has been demonstrated that the practice of temporary marriage was legislated by God and this is evident from the statements of the early Muslims, the Qur’an and numerous prophetic statements.
Whilst some have claimed this was abolished, there is not sufficient or concrete evidence to suggest that this was so.
The Qur’an Ayah legislating the acceptance of Mu’tah marriage is not accompanied by any other verse which overrules its original meaning. Separately, the vast majority of narrations used to argue that it was banned at some point in history all stem from isolated chains of transmission which are mutually contradictory.
In light of this, Shi’a Jurists have argued based upon the teachings of the Imams of the Ahlulbayt that the marriage is still legal and will remain so until the day of judgement.
This view is supported by the Prophetic Hadith “Halal of Muhammad is Halal until the Day of Judgement.”
The day of Ashura is a day which highlights one of the greatest contentions between the Sunni and the Shi’a schools of Islam.
It also serves as an event in which many view the Shia as a rebellious group who seek to contradict the established practices of Islam. It is with great difficulty that many have attempted to clarify just how drastically different the Shi’a view the day of Ashura from their Sunni counterparts.
Whilst some Sunnis have traditionally viewed the day as a day of fasting and celebration, associating it with a miraculous day in history through which God had saved numerous Prophets and nations from disaster, the Shi’a view the day as perhaps the saddest day of mourning throughout the entire Islamic year.
Shi’a have traditionally rejected the accounts in Sunni narrations regarding the day of Ashura as a day of celebration by focusing on internal and external contradictions in the Hadith themselves, whilst citing other narrations which show that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) prophesied what would happen to Imam al-Husayn (a.s) at Karbala.
For Shi’as, the day serves as a day which the believers reflect over the massacre that befell Imam al-Husayn (a.s) and his companions at Karbala, and which the believer can attempt to awaken the spirit of justice and dedication to the path of Allah (s.w.t) by remembering what happened to Imam al-Husayn (a.s) through re-enactments and oral eulogies.
The day of Ashura is unfortunately a day upon which the differences between the Sunni and the Shi’a become magnified.
This entry hopes to clarify the key differences and explain why the Shi’a have observed the day of Ashura differently to their Sunni brothers.
What is Ashura?
Ashura marks the tenth day of the Islamic month of Muharram. For Shi’a it represents the day in which the Third Imam al-Husayn b. Ali (a.s) was brutally murdered and his camp of about one hundred men massacred by the 30 thousand strong army of Yazid b. Mu’awiya in the city of Karbala (Iraq), during the year 61 A.H. (See Imam al-Husayn (a.s) advanced entry for more details).
A minority of Sunnis have however tended to view Ashura as a day of happiness and celebration.
Sunni Interpretation of Ashura
According to Sunni Muslims, the day of Ashura is a unique day of celebration, a day on which to fast. One of the primary sources used to substantiate this can be found in the collection of Sahih Muslim, one of the two canonical Hadith compilations for the Sunnis:
Narrated: Abdullah Ibn Abbas: The Prophet came to Madinah and saw the Jews fasting on the day of Ashura. He asked them about that. They replied, "This is a good day, the day on which Allah rescued Bani Israel from their enemy. So, Moses fasted this day." The Prophet said, "We have more claim over Moses than you." So, the Prophet fasted on that day and ordered (the Muslims) to fast (on that day).
This Hadith alone has been used as the explanation for why the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) had introduced fasting on this day for the Muslim Ummah and has become a source for why some Sunni Muslims believe that Ashura should be a day of happiness and fasting.
In challenging the narrative provided by Sunni Muslims, Shi’a scholars have rejected the Hadith for numerous reasons on the basis of the content of the Hadith.
One particular reason given for the rejection of this Hadith is the entire circumstance through which the Prophet (s.a.w) is said to have established the Sunnah of fasting. It is claimed that he had been completely oblivious to the practice of fasting on the day of Ashura and that he had not even been aware of the blessings that were bestowed by God upon previous Prophets on this day until he came across a group of Jews who explained this to him.
This account is not befitting of the Prophet (s.a.w) and inferior to the Islamic understanding of the level of knowledge a Prophet is supposed to possess.
Mourning for Husayn as Part of the Prophetic Sunnah
According to many narratives found within the authentic narrations of both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, the event of Ashura was something which the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) had been made well aware of by the Angel Gabriel who had brought him clay from the land and informed him of what would befall Imam al-Husayn (a.s) in the future. In one Hadith, the Prophet (s.a.w) is recognised to have expressed his grief and sorrow at the events which would occur. This account has been used by numerous Shi’a Jurists as a basis for the Prophetic Sunnah commemorating Ashura as a day of mourning.
Shi’a have argued that the expression of grief can be demonstrated in numerous ways, though one of the cultural practices of Arabs in expressing grief is clearly chest beating, an act which had been practiced by many of the Prophet’s (s.a.w) companions without rebuke.
According to a Sunni narrative which can be found in the History of Tabari:
Narrated by ‘Abbas:
"I heard Ayesha saying "The Messenger of God died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of God died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women."
The Philosophy Behind Mourning for Imam al-Husayn (a.s) on Ashura
For the Shia, the philosophical viewpoint of participating in the mourning rituals of Ashura is to serve as a reminder of the sacrifice which Imam al-Husayn (a.s) made for the religion of Islam, by rising up and fighting tyranny.
Bibliography and Further Reading
Mutahhari, M, The Truth about al-Hussain’s revolt, 2003, Dar al-Hadi, London
Rizvi, S. M, Islam, Faith, Practice and History, 2004, Ansariyan, Qom, Iran.
One of the factors which has created a distinct Shi’a and Sunni identity is the divergent opinions of the two schools as to how one should observe the day known in Islam as Ashura, which falls upon the tenth day of the first Islamic month namely Muharram.
This entry hopes to clarify the differences and explain why the Shi’a have tended to observe the day of Ashura differently to their Sunni brothers.
For anyone familiar with Islamic history and indeed the practices of Shi’a Muslims, it shall be abundantly clear that the day of Ashura is not a day of celebration, rather it is a day of mourning and sorrow. For Shi’a it represents the anniversary of the day in which the Third Imam al-Husayn b. Ali (a.s) was brutally murdered and his camp of less than one hundred men massacred by the 30 thousand strong army of Yazid b. Mu’awiya in the city of Karbala (Iraq), during the year 61 A.H. (See Imam al-Husayn advanced entry for more details)
Sunni Interpretation of Ashura
According to many Sunni Muslims, the day of Ashura is a unique day of celebration in which it is recommended that Muslims fast for two subsequent days. This stems from the belief that this day was a unique day in the history of mankind through which God on several occasions intervened and granted mankind several blessings.
One of the primary sources utilised for such a belief can be found in the collection of Sahih Muslim, one of the two canonical Hadith compilations for the Sunnis:
It is related that Ibn 'Abbas said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, came to Madinah and saw the Jews fasting the day of Ashura and said, 'What is this?' They said, 'This is a holy day. This is the day when Allah rescued the Children of Israel from their enemy and so Musa fasted it.' He said, 'We have more right to Musa than you.' So he fasted it and commanded that it be fasted. "
This Hadith alone has been used as the explanation for why the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) had introduced the fasting on this day for the Muslim Ummah, and has become a source for why the day of Ashura should be a day of happiness and fasting according to Sunni Muslims.
Shi’a Interpretation of Ashura
In challenging the narrative given by Sunni Muslims, Shi’a scholars have rejected the Hadith cited above for numerous reasons due to the content of the Hadith.
One particular reason given for the rejection of this Hadith is the circumstances in which the Prophet (s.a.w) is said to have established the Sunnah of fasting.
It is claimed that he had been completely oblivious to the practice of fasting on the day of Ashura and that he had not even been aware of the blessing that were bestowed by God upon previous Prophets on this day until he came across a group of Jews who explained this to him. Shi’a theologians and Jurists would reject the concept of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) introducing Sunnah based upon the practices of the previous religions which have been distorted and dissolved according to Islamic theology.
This view is supported by the Qur’an:
“Has not the time arrived for the believers that their hearts in all humility should engage in the remembrance of Allah and of the truth which has been revealed (to them) and that they should not become like those to whom was given the Book aforetime? But long ages passed over them and their hearts grew hard, for many among them are rebellious transgressors.”
Qur’an 57:16
“Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The guidance of Allah that is the (only) guidance." Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge which has reached you then would find neither protector nor helper against Allah.”
Qur’an 2:120
Therefore, according to the Qur’anic guidelines given to the Prophet (s.a.w), this Hadith can clearly be rejected as a fabrication which contradicts the Qur’anic message and portrays the Prophet (s.a.w) to be someone who arbitrarily introduces new practices based upon his whims and information provided by others.
It must also be pointed out that according to religious scholars from other denominations, there has never been a recorded group of Jews who actually fasted upon the day of Ashura, and no record of such an occasion has been recorded amongst known sects of Judaism. This seems to indicate that the narration is historically anachronistic in addition to contradicting the Qur’an.
Mourning for Husayn as Part of the Prophetic Sunnah
According to many narratives found within the authentic narrations of both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, the event of Ashura was something which the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) had been made well aware of by the Angel Gabriel who had brought him clay from the land and informed him of what would transpire to Imam al-Husayn (a.s) in the future.
This caused the Prophet (s.a.w) immense grief, a grief which he shared with his wife Umm Salma, who held onto this clay after the Prophet’s (s.a.w) death. Based on this account alone it is perfectly acceptable, according to the Prophetic Sunnah, to mourn for Imam al-Husayn (a.s). Shi’a have argued that the expression of grief can be demonstrated in numerous ways, though one of the cultural practices of Arabs in expressing grief is clearly chest beating, an act which had been practiced by many of the Prophet’s (s.a.w) companions without rebuke.
Some individuals have, however, raised objections to the practice of chest-beating, a symbolic act which is practiced to instill grief into the believer, which is practiced by Shi’a on the 10th of Muharram.
What has not been taken into account by those who criticise the Shi’a for such a practice is that it actually originates as a cultural practice amongst the Arabs as a means of showing grief, one which was never abolished and was even practiced by the Prophet’s (s.a.w) wives upon his death.
The Philosophy Behind Mourning for Imam al-Husayn (a.s) on Ashura
From the philosophical view point of Shi’a, participating in the mourning rituals of Ashura serve as a reminder of the sacrifice which Imam al-Husayn (a.s) made for the religion of Islam, by rising up and fighting tyranny, despite knowing the chances of survival were slim.
This has earned the Imam (a.s) the title of “The Saviour of Islam,” because according to traditional Shi’a accounts of the Imam’s devotion to the religion, he sacrificed everything, including the sanctity of his family’s blood, in order to revive and awaken the consciousness of the Muslims.
Through remembering the sacrifice of the Imam (a.s), Shi’a are hoping to instil in their hearts, the willingness to sacrifice everything, and more importantly, abandon everything in this world when injustice reaches an intolerable level. It reminds them to fight, even if the odds seem extremely unfavourable.
Bibliography and Further Reading
The Collection of Muhammad b. Isma’il al-Bukhari, the Book of Fasting, Hadith no. 1900 (Tr. A’isha Bewley) – http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0002P0035.aspx - Accessed 28/11/2011- 14:33 PM (GMT)
Mutahhari, M, The Truth about al-Hussain’s revolt, Dar al-Hadi, London, 2003.
Rizvi, S. M, Islam, Faith, Practice and History, Ansariyan, Qom, Iran, 2004.
There are small but contentious differences in how the Shi’a and Sunni Muslims pray.
The prayer rituals of the Shi’a are distinct, and have drawn criticism from non-Shi’a schools.
The first major misunderstanding regarding the prayer of the Shi’a is the misconception that Shi’a perform the five daily prayers on three occasions as opposed to five like the Sunnis.
The Shi’a believe that Islam allows one to combine the prayers of Dhuhr and Asr and the prayers of Maghrib and Isha.
Another misconception is that Shi’a worship a stone idol. This criticism is based on a lack of understanding of Shi’a Jurisprudence which stipulates that prostration during prayers must not be performed on anything other than natural elements from the earth which can neither be eaten nor worn.
This interpretation has prompted many Shi’a to adopt the convenience of praying on clay tablets.
Shi’a and Sunni Muslims are often easily distinguishable merely from the way that they each conduct their prayers. While there are small differences in the prayer rituals of each school, these differences have often been overstated due to misconceptions about the origin and meaning of these traditions.
The Number of Prayer Units
Shi’a are often criticised for performing the five daily prayers on three occasions as opposed to five like the Sunnis.
According to all Muslims, regardless of the school, there are certain circumstances which have allowed for prayers to be combined. For most Sunnis such circumstances include travelling and even occasions such as the weather, according to the Sunni jurist Imam Malik. If it rains, it is permissible to combine the Dhuhr prayers and the Asr prayers and likewise the Maghrib and Isha prayers.
The Jurists of the Shi’a school have followed the explanation of the Prophet (s.a.w) and the Twelve Imams (a.s), who all state that combining the prayers is not contingent on a specific set of circumstances. Therefore, whilst the number of times a day during which the Shi’a might pray is recognised as being either five or three distinct timings, the number of prayers, like all other Muslims, is actually five.
The Turbah of the Shi’a
Another misconception is that Shi’a worship a stone idol. This criticism is based on a lack of understanding of Shi’a Jurisprudence which stipulates that prostration during prayers must not be performed on anything other than natural elements from the earth which can neither be consumed nor worn, as such symbolism would reflect the worship of materialism.
The tradition has prompted mass production of clay stones, created for convenience by Shi’a, and designed to allow Shi’a to pray en masse without the need to find something natural to prostrate upon. Generally Shi’a prefer to prostrate upon clay from Karbala, due to the numerous traditions regarding the sacred and spiritual value of the soil.
Qunut
During the Prayer, in the second unit of each of the daily prayers, it is recommended for Shi’a to raise their hands in supplication after the recitation of the two chapters of the Qur’an. This particular practice is known as Qunut. Whilst it may seem like an unfamiliar practice to some Muslims, several of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence also share this practice, which they restrict to only the Fajr prayer.
Sadl al-Yadayn
Sadl al-Yadayn is a practice which most obviously distinguishes the Shi’a prayers from those of most other Muslims. It refers to a movement performed during the prayer in the Qiyyam (standing) position in which Shi’a place their hands to the sides of their body, as opposed to raising them and folding them at their chest in the Qabd al-Yadayn position as other Muslims do.
It is worth highlighting that Shi’a are not the only Muslims who pray in the form of Sadl al-Yadayn, but rather a large majority of the Maliki school of Sunni jurisprudence (primarily concentrated in North Africa) have also traditionally prayed in such a way. Crossing the arms in prayer was initiated by the second Caliph who observed Persian prisoners crossing their arms as a sign of respect and decided to implement it in Salat.
The Three Takabir
Whilst not technically a part of the prayer which ends upon the recitation of the Taslim at the end of the Tashahud, Shi’a are recommended to raise ones hands up from their knees three times and recite the Takbir or “Allahu Akbar” three times.
Sadly, this has caused some confusion for some non- Shi’a who have suspected that the Shi’a are reciting something else. However anyone who observes the Shi’a daily prayers will notice that the recited formula during this practice is nothing more than to testify to the greatness of God, three times.
Conclusion
There are a few observable differences between the prayers of the Shi’a and the prayers of other schools of Jurisprudence. However, it is crucial to note that despite the above, the differences which distinguish the Shi’a prayer from other schools of jurisprudence are in no way larger than the differences between the four Sunni schools of Jurisprudence.
It is also crucial to highlight the fact that the differences in these prayers are due to scholarly differences in attempting to retain the pristine Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). Shi’a prayers have been taught to the Shi’a via the Prophet (s.a.w) and the Twelve Imams (a.s), whom the Shi’a believe would naturally be the best people to make recourse to in explaining the authentic Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w).
Bibliography and Further Reading
Shomali, M.A, Shi’i Islam, Origins, Faith and Practices, 2003, ICAS Press, London
Mughniyyah, M.J, The Five Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, 2002, Ansariyan Publications, Qom, Iran.
Nasab, R.H, The Shi’ite Apologetics, 2005, Ansariyan Publications, Qom, Iran.
Shi’a and Sunni Muslims are often easily distinguishable merely from the way that they each conduct their prayers. While there are small differences in the prayer rituals of each school, these differences have often been overstated due to misconceptions about the origin and meaning of these traditions.
This entry will seek clarify and explain some of these differences.
The Number of Prayer Units
Shi’a are regularly criticised for praying on three occasions per day as opposed to the usual five occasions observed by other Muslims.
According to all Muslims, regardless of the school, there are certain circumstances which have allowed for prayers to be combined during the day. For most Sunnis such circumstances include travelling and even occasions such as the weather.
According to the Sunni jurist Imam Malik, if it rains, it is permissible to combine the Dhuhr and Asr prayers, and the Maghrib prayers with Isha prayers.
The Jurists of the Shi’a school have followed the explanation of the Prophet (s.a.w) and the Twelve Imams (s.a.w), who all state that combining the prayers is not contingent on a specific set of circumstances.
Therefore, whilst the number of times a day during which the Shi’a might pray is recognised as being either five or three distinct timings, the number of prayers, like all other Muslims, is actually five.
It must be stated, however, that to combine these prayers and recite them immediately after each other (in the case of Dhuhr and Asr and then Maghrib and Isha) is by no means an obligatory act for the Shi’a. Rather it is viewed as one’s own personal choice, whether an individual prefers to combine the prayers or perform them separately.
The Turbah of the Shi’a
Another misconception is that Shi’a worship a stone idol. This criticism is based on a lack of understanding of Shi’a Jurisprudence which stipulates that prostration during prayers must not be performed on anything other than natural elements from the earth which can neither be consumed nor worn, as such symbolism would reflect the worship of materialism.
This interpretation has prompted many Shi’a to adopt the convenience of praying to clay tablets, or Turbah (a clay tablet produced normally but not exclusively from the soil of the land of Karbala).
In the absence of the Turbah, Shi’a prostrate upon leaves or other natural objects.
The philosophy of prostrating on objects which are made from earth/clay is symbolic of mankind’s origin being from clay, the substance we were created from, and the substance we will return to once our bodies are buries after death.
It must be highlighted that the sole reason why most Turbahs are produced from the soil of Karbala, is the belief that this soil has immense spiritual value reminding one of the sacrifice of the Imam (a.s) at Karbala in the way of God, a dedication which the believer himself would hope to emulate in his prayers.
Qunut
Qunut literally means "being obedient" or "the act of standing" in Arabic. The word is usually used in reference to special supplications made in certain prayers while in the standing posture. During the second unit of every prayer, it is recommended for Shi’a to raise their hands in supplication after the recitation of the two chapters of the Qur’an. Whilst it may seem like an unfamiliar practice to some Muslims, several of the Sunni schools of Jurisprudence also share this practice which they restrict to only the Fajr prayer.
Sadl al-Yadayn
Sadl al-Yadayn is a practice which most obviously distinguishes the Shi’a prayers from those of most other Muslims. It refers to a movement performed during the prayer in the Qiyyam (standing up) position in which Shi’a place their hands to the sides of their body, as opposed to raising them and folding them at their chest in the Qabd al-Yadayn position as other Muslims do.
It is worth highlighting that Shi’a are not the only Muslims who pray in the form of Sadl al-Yadayn, but rather a large majority of the Maliki school of Sunni jurisprudence (primarily concentrated in North Africa) have also traditionally prayed in such a way. Crossing the arms in prayer was initiated by the second Caliph who observed Persian prisoners crossing their arms as a sign of respect when brought before him and decided to implement it in Salat.
For the adherents of the Ja’fari school of thought, they justify such actions by stating that all of the above practises can be traced back to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) and the Imams (a.s).
These rituals are also endorsed by Sunni jurist Malik b. Anas, who points out that the people of the Holy City of Madinah, where the Prophet (s.a.w) established the first Islamic Capital, used to pray in this way. Hence, according to his logic, this was the most original form of prayer as the inhabitants were taught by their parents who were contemporaries of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w).
The Three Takabir
Whilst not technically a part of the prayer, which ends upon the recitation of the Taslim at the end of the Tashahud, Shi’a are recommended to raise ones hands up from their knees three times and recite the Takbir or “Allahu Akbar” three times.
Sadly, this has caused some confusion for some non-Shi’a who have suspected that the Shi’a are reciting something else. However anyone who observes the Shi’a daily prayers will notice that the recited formula during this practice is nothing more than to testify to the greatness of God, three times.
This practice is recommended in numerous narrations of the Imams and has become a recommended ritual which immediately follows the daily prayers.
Conclusion
There are numerous observable differences between the prayers of the Shi’a and the prayers of other schools of Jurisprudence. However, it is crucial to note that despite the above, the difference which distinguish the Shi’a prayer from other schools of jurisprudence are in no way larger than the difference which occur between the four Sunni schools of Jurisprudence themselves.
It is also crucial to highlight the fact that the differences in these prayers are due to scholarly differences in attempting to return to the pristine Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). Shi’a prayers have been taught to the Shi’a via the Twelve Imams (a.s), whom the Shi’a believe would naturally be the best people to make recourse to in uncovering the authentic Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w).
Bibliography and Further Reading
Shomali, M.A, Shi’i Islam, Origins, Faith and Practices, ICAS Press, London, 2003.
Mughniyyah, M.J, The Five Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, Ansariyan Publications, Qom, Iran. 2002.
Nasab, R.H, The Shi’ite Apologetics, Ansariyan Publications, Qom, Iran, 2005.
al-Taqiyyah literally refers to the practice of hiding one’s faith when one’s life is in danger from others who may wish to harm them for what they believe. This concession is one of the most misunderstood practices of the Shi’a and the source of much criticism about Shi’a beliefs.
If you examine the Hadith referring to Taqiyyah more closely, it specifies that in certain situations, Muslims should employ the practise of Taqiyyah in matters of life and death. In reality the Shia have found themselves in that very situation on numerous occasions throughout Islamic history.
The practice is legitimised during times of danger by the Holy Qur’an in Surah 16: Ayah 106:
“Whoever renounces faith in Allah after {affirming} his faith—barring someone who is compelled while his heart is at rest in faith—but those who open up their breasts to unfaith, upon such shall be Allah’s wrath, and there is a great punishment for them.”
This verse was revealed in relation to the Prophet’s (s.a.w) companion ‘Ammar b. Yasir, after he was forced to use renounce his faith in order to save his life from the Qurayshi pagans who were torturing and killing Muslims for refusing to outwardly profess disbelief.
There are many conditions set by the scholars of Islam pertaining to the practice of Taqiyyah and it is generally not advised to adopt it when one is not in danger. In fact in some cases, it is not even permissible to use the practice of Taqiyyah. It should, therefore, only be used as a last resort.
Bibliography and Further Reading
Aqa’id al-Imamiyyah, M.R al-Mudhaffar, Ansariyan, Iran, 2003
Shi’a. M.H al-Tabataba’i, Ansariyan Publications, Iran, 1999
There are many misconceptions which have been spread about the Shi’a and their beliefs, but perhaps one of the most unfortunate relates to the concept of Taqiyyah.
Taqiyyah literally refers to the practice of hiding one’s faith when in danger from others who may wish to harm them for what they believe. It is often falsely claimed that the Shi’a are obligated and commanded by their religion to lie about their beliefs to anyone who may discuss religion with them.
This misconception creates further problems for the Shi’a with non-Shi’a who are suspicious that in clarifying the misconceptions, Shi’a are simply lying about their beliefs. Such a misconception is uninformed, and indeed dangerous. Shi’a scholars and jurists are clear about the wisdom behind the concept of Taqiyyah, and like other concepts in Islam it has several rules and conditions which govern the practice and its scope.
It also derives its legitimacy from the Qur’an which no single Muslim would reject as a source of legislation.
Two Qur’an verses can be cited pertaining to the dispensation of Taqiyyah:
Surah Aal ‘Imran, verse 28 (3:28)
“The faithful should not take the faithless for allies instead of the faithful, and whoever does that Allah will have nothing to do with him, except when you are wary of them out of caution.”
Surah al-Nahl, verse 106 (16:106)
“Whoever renounces faith in Allah after {affirming} his faith—barring someone who is compelled while his heart is at rest in faith—but those who open up their breasts to unfaith, upon such shall be Allah’s wrath, and there is a great punishment for them.”
Both verses are unanimously clear and unambiguous in regard to the legitimacy of outwardly concealing truth in the face of danger. The second verse in particular was revealed after the case of the Prophet’s (s.a.w) companion Ammar b. Yassir who used Taqiyyah and pretended to leave the faith of Islam in order to save his own life.
In the important works on the beliefs of the Shi’a, namely “The Beliefs of the Shi’a,” Allamah al-Mudhaffar (d. 1964AD) articulates the correct Shi’a position on Taqiyyah namely that it is conditional and certainly by no means an absolute obligation:
“Taqiyyah has rules and observations which indicate whether it is obligatory (wajib) or not, and these are mentioned in the relevant chapters of the books of those learned in jurisprudence (fiqh). It is not obligatory at all times, but is sometimes optional; and sometimes it is obligatory not to do it, as when it is necessary to proclaim the truth publicly, to protect Islam and save it, or to fight in the cause of Islam.”
The summary of Taqiyyah provided by the Allamah clearly clarifies the often misunderstood concept. Non-Shi’a’ who remain confused about this practise would be advised to consult the summary provided by the Allamah.
Bibliography and Further Reading
Tasheeh al-‘Itiqadat al-Imamiyyah, Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Mu’tamar al-‘Ilmi li alfiyat Shaykh al-Mufid, Iran, 1993
Shi’a. M.H al-Tabataba’i, Ansariyan Publications, Iran, 1999
Taqiyyah fi al-Mujtama’ al-Islami Adlah wa Athar, Muhammad Jawad Fadhil al-Musawi, Dar Mustafa al-‘Ilmi, Iran, 1430 A.H
Aqa’id al-Imamiyyah, M.R al-Mudhaffar, Ansariyan, Iran, 2003
Taqiyyah literally refers to the practice of hiding one’s faith when in danger from others who may wish to harm them for what they believe. This concession is one of the most misunderstood practices of the Shi’a and the source of much criticism about Shi’a beliefs.
The most widely spread misconception regarding the Shi’a understanding of the concept of Taqiyyah is that it is not only permissible but compulsory for every Shi’a to employ the tactic of blatantly lying about their beliefs when discussing their views on religion with others.
In order to understand Taqiyyah as it is utilised and understood by the mainstream Shi’a community, it is necessary to analyse the concept from several different dimensions so as to give an elaborate and nuanced image of the concept in its appropriate context.
- Taqiyyah in the Holy Qur’an and according to Muslim scholars.
- Taqiyyah as utilised in Islamic History.
- Narrations pertaining to Taqiyyah.
- Incidents where Taqiyyah has not been adopted due to an absence of necessity.
- Taqiyyah as has been defined and categorised by Islamic theologians.
1) Taqiyyah from the Qur’an viewpoint
The Qur’an is recognised as having referred to Taqiyyah in several verses. Several of these verses shall be cited and analysed in this entry.
Surah Aal Imran, verse 28 (3:28)
“The faithful should not take the faithless for allies instead of the faithful, and whoever does that Allah will have nothing to do with him, except when you are wary of them out of caution.”
The verse above from Surah Aal ‘Imran clearly pertains to Taqiyyah. The last part of the verse contains a unique clause and exception that it is permissible to conceal one’s beliefs when one fears for his life or other forms of danger.
Surah al-Nahl, verse 106 (16:106)
“Whoever renounces faith in Allah after {affirming} his faith—barring someone who is compelled while his heart is at rest in faith—but those who open up their breasts to unfaith, upon such shall be Allah’s wrath, and there is a great punishment for them.”
The verse in Surah al-Nahl has a very clear context; that those who accept the faith in Islam, then renounce the religion shall be subject to Allah’s wrath. However, the verse also contains an exception, in cases during which a believer’s life is threatened and in danger. Indeed at times a whole community may be under threat; Allah permits the denial of beliefs to avoid the shedding of blood.
The above mentioned verse has a unique context which is recognised unanimously by all Muslim scholars. It was revealed to the faithful companion of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w), ‘Ammar b. Yassir.
He will be covered in more detail in the following section on history.
The permission for the practice of Taqiyyah is firmly in line with the Qur’anic ethos for God's mercy for the believer:
“Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear…”
(Qur’an 2:286)
2) Taqiyyah in Islamic History
There are several examples of Taqiyyah in Islamic history during which the practice has been utilised to the benefit of the Muslim Ummah and for the prevention of the loss of life of key Islamic individuals.
Below are some key examples during which the concept of Taqiyyah has been utilised.
a) Ammar b. Yassir
The foremost example of God giving permission for Taqiyyah in order to avoid danger occurred during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). One of the Prophet’s (s.a.w) righteous companions, namely Ammar b. Yassir, was forced to deny his faith to avoid being killed in an incident in which his parents were martyred.
‘Ammar was one of the earliest converts to Islam, and was even born within the same year as the Holy Prophet. After Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) went public with Islam in Makkah the Pagans from the Quraysh had captured ‘Ammar’s father, namely Yassir b. ‘Amir, and his mother Sumayyah b. Khayyat, who had also converted to Islam.
Despite being submitted to heavy forms of physical and psychological torture they both refused to renounce their faith. Subsequently, his father and mother were killed, becoming the first martyrs for Islam. Immediately after witnessing the brutality of his parents’ murder for refusing to renounce Islam, ‘Ammar outwardly renounced his faith.
After all the martyrs were killed, Hamza, the uncle of the Prophet (s.a.w) and others arrived to find ‘Ammar as the sole survivor. After recounting what had happened to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w), an ayah was immediately revealed confirming the acceptance of the practise of Taqiyyah by all Muslims (16:106).
The example of Ammar b. Yassir highlights that God had recognised that at times when there is a choice as to whether or not one should sacrifice their life for the sake of truth, it would be wiser to temporarily compromise and outwardly submit to disbelief in order for survival.
b) Sunni Jurists employing the concept of Taqiyyah in Islamic History
It would be extremely unfair and certainly historically incorrect to imply that only the Shi’a have historically employed the practice of Taqiyyah. On the contrary, certain groups have utilised the need to practice Taqiyyah based upon the historical circumstances they themselves faced.
A few clear cut examples shall be cited in order to substantiate the above claim:
i) Imam Malik b. Anas (d. 179AH/795AD) the founder of the Maliki school of Jurisprudence purposely avoided narrating from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (a.s) during the rule of Bani Umayyah:
Narrated by Mus’ab b. ‘Abd Allah al-Zubayri:
I heard al-Darawardi say: Malik never narrated from Ja’far (al-Sadiq) until the advent of the Abbasid rule.
ii) Imam al-Awza’i (d. 774AH) and IbnShihab al-Zuhri (d. 741ah) two prominent individuals from the developmental period of Islamic jurisprudence avoided narrating anything about Imam Ali (a.s) during the rule of BaniUmayyah.
It was said about al-Awza’i, that he never narrated anything of the merits of Imam Ali (a.s) other than this one narration, and likewise al-ZuhrI he never narrated anything about him other than one hadith. The two were both afraid of BaniUmayyah.
3) An Analysis of some narrations pertaining to Taqiyyah
Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s):
- “Taqiyyah is my religion and the religion of my forefathers, whoever has no Taqiyyah has no religion”
- “The practicing of Taqiyyah is always necessary in a desperate situation. The person, whom is intending to practice Taqiyyah, knows best to decide on how to do that.”
- “What else can make me more happy than the practicing of Taqiyyah. Verily Taqiyyah is the shield of the believer.”
- “Solely in order to avoid bloodshed, Taqiyyah was established. However, once bloodshed has already occurred there can be no Taqiyyah anymore.”
- The Sixth Imam, Imam al-Sadiq (a.s) narrates: “The closer this affair (hadha al-amr) approaches, the more persistent one must be in their practice of Taqiyyah”
Such narrations may seem confusing to one who is unfamiliar with the historical context during which the Imams and their followers found themselves, however, it is clear that the Imams were doing their best to avoid bloodshed amongst their followers. The narrations are insightful in that several of them limit the scope of Taqiyyah, particularly Hadith number ii and iv.
It is crucial to recognise the historical circumstances surrounding these narrations and attempt to reconstruct a context for these narrations surrounding the practice of Taqiyyah. Since it can be substantiated that even non-Imami jurists feared narrating traditions which would elude to sympathy towards the Ahlulbayt, it is clear that the Imamiyyah faced even greater danger in doing so.
To the extent that there is one narration showing the absolute severity of the situation in which the community found themselves, Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (a.s) commanded the community not to mention Imam Ali (a.s) and Sayyeda Fatimah.
“Oh people, be careful of mentioning Al and Fatimah for there is nothing more disdained/despised to the people than the mention of Ali and Fatimah”
In a modern day context, no Shī’ā would ever have to avoid mentioning either Imām ‘Alī or Sayyeda Fatima, however, it clearly denotes that there was a historical context during the Imāmate of Imām al-Ṣādiq whereby even the mention of these two most beloved figures to the community was something that could endanger the lives of believers.
4) Incidents during which Taqiyyah was not adopted due to absence of necessity.
i) Salman al-Farsi the Great companion of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w)
One historical example from the Hadith literature of the Imamiyyah in which Taqiyyah was not utilised is a case in which one of the great companions of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w), namely Salman al-Farsi, underwent extreme torture at the hands of a group of Jews who were hostile to Islam.
The incident is recounted in the Tafseer attributed to Imam Hassan al-Askari (a.s):
“Thereafter they started hitting Salman for the third time. But Salman continued to recite the same supplication, that is, ‘Oh Allah! Grant me patience to bear this oppression due to my love for your selected friend Muhammad’. The Jews said ‘Woe unto you. Did Muhammad not allow you to speak something against your belief by way of dissimulation during hard times?’ Salman replied: ‘Indeed Allah has given me such permission, but it is not obligatory.”
This incident illustrates that a Muslim oppressed at times may choose not to practice Taqiyya even though he/she may be allowed to do so.
ii) The Case of Maytham al-Tammar (d. 61AH/679AD)
Maytham al-Tammar was one of the loyal companions of Imam Ali (a.s), the first Imam, and indeed was known for extreme devotion to Imam Ali (a.s). His story is one that is frequently recounted in sermons pertaining to sacrifice and the danger that was once faced in openly affiliating with Imam Ali (a.s).
Originally an Iranian, as is reflected from his name of non-Arab origins, Maytham lived in Kufa and was a date-seller by profession, hence his title “al-Tammar” (coming from the Arabic name for dates).
Imam Ali (a.s) had informed Maytham that a day would come in which Maytham would be asked to denounce Imam Ali (a.s) and his love for him publically, that his tongue would be cut out and that he would be crucified in Kufa. After showing Maytham the tree on which he would be crucified, Maytham would tend to the tree daily by supplying it with water and would constantly say: “You are here to fulfil my ends and I am here for yours.”
Under the reign of Mu’awiya as Caliph, the governor of Kufa was known as Ziyad ibn Abih, he was from amongst Mu’awiya’s close inner-circle and of course was known for his persecution of Shi’a. It was under his reign that Maytham was taken into custody and imprisoned for his reluctance to distance himself from Imam Ali (a.s).
It was not until the reign of Yazid, the Son of Mu’awiya, as the Caliph that Maytham would be killed. During this time ‘Ubaydullah b. Ziyad, the son of Ziyad the previous governor, summoned Maytham and again asked him to separate himself from Imam Ali (a.s) and to condemn Imam Ali (a.s).
Refusing to do so, Maytham was told he would be killed by Ubaydullah, to which he responded that such was foretold to him by Imam Ali (a.s). He then described what Imam Ali (a.s) had told him, that:
His hands and feet would be cut, he would be crucified and finally his tongue cut out.
Out of stubbornness and a reluctance to allow Ali’s prediction to be manifested, ‘Ubaydullah proceeded with all actions except the cutting of the tongue, solely in order to mock and disprove Maytham’s initial predictions, telling him:
“You’re Imam was a Liar!”
Eventually crowds gathered around Maytham as he was being crucified. He continued to recount the sayings of Imam Ali (a.s) and his merits recounted by the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w). He did this until eventually the soldiers were ordered to cut out his tongue and stab him, thus proving that Imam’s foresight was correct.
The case of Maytham has confused some as to why he did not employ the concept of Taqiyyah.
Muhammad Husayn al-Mudhaffar gives several possible reasons as to why Maytham did not employ the practice of Taqiyyah including the following:
A) Maytham believed that by not practicing Taqiyyah, he was protecting the honor of Imam Ali (a.s) through his devotion and sacrifice.
B) Imam ‘Alī had warned Maytham that the only way to escape death at the hands of ‘Ubaydullah b. Ziyad was not only to distance himself from Imam Ali (a.s) but to curse him, which Maytham could not do.
C) Taqiyyah is only required in certain conditions (see the traditions mentioned previously) which Maytham may have felt were not in place.
Taqiyyah as defined by Islamic Theologians and Jurists:
There have been many books written on the subject of Taqiyyah, from the multifaceted approaches of Jurists, theologians and Qur’an scholars. Such works have expanded into numerous volumes and hence justice could not be adequately done in mentioning all the facets in this entry. However, it shall suffice to give a brief summary of the discussions pertaining to Taqiyyah from several key figures in Islamic history namely:
- Shaykh al-Saduq
- Shaykh al-Mufīd
- Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita
- Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Mudhaffar
- Allamah al-Sayyed Muhammad Husayn al-Tabataba’i
a) Shaykh al-Saduq
Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ali b. Babuwayh al-Qummi (d. 381 A.H) has some remarks on the concept of Taqiyyah within his works on Imami theological creeds, namely “The Shi’a Creed.”
Within this book, Saduq elaborates heavily on his understanding of the concept of Taqiyyah and states:
“Says the Shaykh, may the mercy of Allah be on him: Our belief concerning Taqiyyah (permissible dissimulation) is that it is obligatory, and he who forsakes it is in the same position as he who forsakes prayer.”
This is perhaps the most extreme position adopted by any of the Imami theologians regarding the concept of Taqiyyah. However, there are clearly differences of opinion in this regard, with other Imami theologians, namely Shaykh al-Saduq, who reinforces the severity of this obligation in his work where he states:
“Now until the Imam al-Qa'im appears, Taqiyyah is obligatory and it is not permissible to dispense with it. He, who abandons it before the appearance of the Qa'im, has verily gone out of the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, and the religion of the Imams.”
The comments allude to the seriousness of maintaining the practice of Taqiyyah. Shaykh al-Saduq, seems to have held that it was completely obligatory and that the abandoning of Taqiyyah would be tantamount to committing a major sin. Such a view seems to have been based on some of the hadith quoted earlier which have been transmitted from Imam al-Baqir (a.s). Al-Saduq’s attitude reflects a very extreme position, which was by no means the sole position at his time.
b) Shaykh al-Mufīd
Shaykh Mufid (d. 413AH), a very prominent theologian and figurehead within the history of the ShI’a School, and a near contemporary of Shaykh al-Saduq, has a slightly different understanding of the concept of Taqiyyah and the scope of which the concept must be given.
In his work “The Rectification of the Shi’ite Creed,” which has also been entitled “A Commentary on the Shi’a Creed of Shaykh al-Saduq,” Al-Mufīd critiques al-Saduq’s slightly restricted understanding of Taqiyyah:
“ash-Shaykh al-Mufīd adds: Dissimulation is disguising the truth and concealing belief therein, reticence in the face of one's opponents and refraining from divulging to them that which might result in injury to one's religious or worldly welfare. It is obligatory only when injury is absolutely certain, or the presumption of it is very strong. But if it was not certain or obvious that harm would result from disclosing the truth, nor was the presumption strong, then dissimulation is not obligatory.”
In his commentary of al-Saduq’s views on Taqiyyah, al-Mufid elaborates on the scope of Taqiyyah explicitly highlighting the fact that if no harm is said to stem from revealing the truth then Taqiyyah is not obligatory on an individual. Al-Mufid therefore can be seen as having adopted the precepts of Taqiyyah has given in the varying narrations and deriving contextual injunctions from them.
“The truthful ones, (the Imams), peace be upon them, have ordered a certain group of their followers not only to refrain and cease from demonstrating the truth, but also to veil and conceal it from the enemies of the religion, and to appear to them in such a way as to dispel their doubts during their disputation with them, since this was in their best interest; whereas they commanded another group of their followers to dispute with their opponents and divulge their true doctrine to them, and invite them to embrace the truth, since they knew that no harm would befall them. Hence, dissimulation is obligatory in the cases we have put forward; whereas the obligation is removed.”
Al-Mufid explicitly demonstrates that unlike al-Saduq, who worked on isolated traditions from the Imams, he took a more holistic approach which took into account the historical practices of the Imams as well as the traditions, demonstrating a slightly more nuanced view of the injunction of Taqiyyah.
c) Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita
Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif al-Ghita (d. 1954AD), represents one of the more prominent jurists who lived during the first half of the twentieth century and therefore operated within a modern framework. He had the duty to respond to critiques against the Shi’a from non-Shi’as as well as anti-religious critiques. In his major work, “The Roots of the Shi’a and their Principles” he gives a brief articulation of Taqiyyah.
As one would expect from the modern context from which Shaykh Kashif al-Ghita observed Taqiyyah, he begins his articulation with a comment demonstrating his displeasure at the amount of confusion that the concept seems to have caused others in regards to the Shi’a:
“In the matter of Taqiyyah [….] the Shi'a are very much defamed and the reason for that is that ordinary people are quite ignorant of its reality. A careful consideration will show that the Taqiyyah in which the Shi’a believe is not peculiar to them alone. Rather, it is a logical necessity and a natural demand. There is no commandment of the Shar’iah which is inconsistent with wisdom and learning. In every problem, knowledge and wisdom appear together.”
Kashif al-Ghita continues on a similar note elaborating on the wisdom of the Shar’iah prior to explaining the conditions of Taqiyyah as he derives them:
“There are of course rules for Taqiyyah. They are three:
- If life will be lost for no purpose, then it is an obligation,
- If expressing the truth would serve some useful purpose, then it is optional
- If kufr is gaining the upperhand, people are being led astray, and there is danger of cruelty and oppression, then Taqiyyah is forbidden.”
Kashif al-Ghita does provide several more elaborate cases in Islamic history during which several prominent figures in Shi’a willingly sacrificed their lives in pursuit of spreading the truth, however, such examples would be too long for the scope of this entry.
d) Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Mudhaffar
Another extremely prominent figurehead for the Shi’a during the early twentieth century is the great intellectual Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Mudhaffar (d.1383/1964), who is best known for his work on Usul al-Fiqh as well as his work on philosophy and theology. Within his most popular work “The Faith of Shi’a Islam,” al-Mudhaffar gives a brief articulation of his understanding of Taqiyyah which differs very little from that of Kashf al-Ghita’s, however, at times in response to the polemical attacks against the Shi’a, one can detect the defensive position which was adopted by the Shaykh.
“The purpose of Taqiyyah, in the view of the Shi’a, is not to form a secret organisation dedicated to destruction and subversion, as some of their enemies, who are not able to see things in their true light, have imagined, for such people have made no effort to really understand what we say. The point is not to make Islam and its rules a secret which cannot be divulged to those who do not believe. No, the books of Shi’a and their writings in the fields of jurisprudence (Fiqh), law (Ahkam) and theological studies, as also their beliefs, are in great abundance in the world, more than any other sect that is sure of its way.”
Like his predecessors, al-Mufid as well as Kashif al-Ghita and al-Mudhaffar also stipulate the conditions surrounding Taqiyyah:
“Taqiyyah has rules and observations which indicate whether it is obligatory (Wajib) or not, and these are mentioned in the relevant chapters of the books of those learned in jurisprudence (Fiqh). It is not obligatory at all times, but is sometimes optional; and sometimes it is obligatory not to do it, as when it is necessary to proclaim the truth publicly, to protect Islam and save it, or to fight in the cause of Islam.”
e) Sayyed Muhammad Husayn al-Tabataba’i
One of the most prominent scholars of the twentieth century, Sayyed Muhammad Husayn al-Tabataba’i (d. 1981AD), known for being a very multi-dimensional and capable scholar in very divergent fields such as philosophy, mysticism and Fiqh, is perhaps most famous for his work on interpretations of the Qur’an, namely "Tafseer al-Mizan."
Whilst his thoughts on the concept of Taqiyyah do not greatly differ from those of the other two twentieth century scholars mentioned earlier, it is insightful to read his articulations on this issue.
In order to avoid the repetition of ideas, below is a brief citation of the Sayyed in response to the critique of others regarding the concept of Taqiyyah in Shi’a Islam:
“Some have criticized Shi’a by saying that to employ the practice of Taqiyyah in religion is opposed to the virtues of courage and bravery. The least amount of thought about this accusation will bring to light its invalidity, for Taqiyyah must be practiced in a situation where man faces a danger which he cannot resist and against which he cannot fight. Resistance to such a danger and failure to practice Taqiyyah in such circumstances shows rashness and foolhardiness, not courage and bravery. The qualifications of courage and bravery can be applied only when there is at least the possibility of success in man’s efforts. But before a definite or probable danger against which there is no possibility of victory- such as drinking water in which there is probably poison or throwing oneself before a cannon that is being fired or lying down on the tracks before an onrushing train- any action of this kind is nothing but a form of madness contrary to logic and common sense. Therefore, we can summarise by saying that Taqiyyah must be practiced only where there is a definite danger which cannot be avoided and against which there is no hope of a successful struggle and victory.”
The key area of insight from the Sayyed’s quote is that, the Sayyed turns the accusation on its head and produces evidence that rationally proves to those who refuse in all circumstances to practice Taqiyyah are in reality those who are in the wrong from the perspective of Islamic ethics.
Conclusion
While it can be observed that there have been many misconceptions about Taqiyyah, they have primarily been based upon a shallow analysis of several traditions. However, once the concept is analysed from a holistic perspective, it is clear that there is a very elaborate context surrounding the concept of Taqiyyah.
At the very least, one must take into account that the scholars have always stipulated strict conditions in regard to adopting and implementing Taqiyyah and that there is little reason to believe that whenever a Shi’a discusses his religious views with anyone who is non-Shi’a that he is using Taqiyyah, as in most cases there would be absolutely no reason to do so.
Bibliography and Further Reading
S.A Rizvi, The Tafseer, Ansariyan Publications, Iran, 2009
Shaykh al-Mufid, Tasheeh al-‘Itiqadat al-Imamiyyah, al-Mu’tamar al-‘Ilmi li alfiyat Shaykh al-Mufid, Iran, 1993
M.H al-Tabataba’i, Shī’ā, Ansariyan Publications, Iran, 1999
Muhammad JawadFadhil al-Musawi, Taqīyyah fi al-Mujtama’ al-Islami Adlahwa Athar, Dar Mustafa al-‘Ilmi, Iran, 1430 A.H
M.R al-Mudhaffar, Aqa’id al-Imamiyyah, Ansariyan, Iran, 2003
Find out more:
