Respected reader, accompany me, so that we may ask Moosa Jarullah:
Are these books not reference points of Ahle Sunnat in the science of
Quran?
Are these persons not their personalities and scholars of exegesis?
Is it not necessary for a researcher to refer to these books, before
condemning anyone or before presenting an analysis?
Are these painful and harmful statement not aimed at the like Ibne Abbas,
the speaking tongue of Quran: Ubayy Ibne Kaab, the most aware person about recitation of Quran in view of Ahle Sunnat; Abdullah bin Masud, expert of Quran
and Sunnah; Imran bin Husain, Hakam, Habib bin Thabit, Saeed bin Jubair,
Qatada and Mujahid?
Whether he considers all of them to be unaware, thoughtless and false
claimants?
Whether this is not abusing companions and holy ancestors – for which Ahle
Sunnat accuse the Shia?
Or he considered his own personalities Shia, then used sharp words against
them? Then abused them and condemned them?
If the like of Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Tabari, Muhammad bin Kaab, Abad
bin Hamid, Abu Dawood, Ibne Jarih, Jassas, Ibne Anbari, Baihaqi, Hakeem,
Baghawi, Zamakhshari, Andulusi, Qurtubi, Fakhre Razi, Nawawi, Baidhawi,
Khazin, Ibne Jauzi, Abu Hayyan, Ibne Kathir, Abu Saud, Suyuti, Shaukani and
Alusi have not value in his view; then who is his role model in religion and
academics?
Yes, we are not unaware that these falsehoods and fabrications attributing
the viewpoint about the revelation of verse to the Shia, is all of it not a preface for
speaking ill about Holy Imams: Imam Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja’far Sadiq
(a.s.), whereas he himself and every just person knows that all the four imams of
Ahle Sunnat obtained knowledge from the Holy Imams (a.s.). And if a share of
knowledge and wisdom is available with the four imams, it is due to the fact that
they have drank from the spring of knowledge of Imam Muhammad Baqir and
Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.).
Yes, Imam Muhammad Baqir and Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) are the same
Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq and Moosa Al-Washiya is also Moosa Al-Washiya.
God is Himself the judge and our complaint is only to Him.
Also, come, and ask him regarding the manners of discourse, which he has
understood, but great personalities and the prominent ones of the past have not
understood them and the disorder in the verse, in case it is revealed about Fixedtime marriage (Mutah) is noticed and he understood it and they did not. That
what it is? Where it is? Who has said it? What is its evidence and proof? From
whom has he obtained it? Why he has concealed its beginning and end?
I don’t think he would give a satisfactory reply and satisfy the intellect; and
perhaps he would aim his acidic abuses to others.
Salient features of Fixed time marriage in Islam
- Recompense
- Period
- Recitation of formula, which includes acceptance.
- Separation at the end of the period or through giving up or condoning.
- Observance of the waiting period, whether she is a free woman or a slave
- Absence of inheritance.
These are conditions and limits, which all jurists have mentioned in their
books, tradition scholars in their Saheeh and Musnad books, and exegesists have
mentioned under interpretation of the holy verse. All of them, whether they
believe in its permanent lawfulness or in its fixed time lawfulness and before its
abrogation, all have consensus that these are religious and Islamic limits and
there is no option, except to observe them.
Now, we ask: what is the basis of his statement, when he says: Mutah is
marriage of the period of Ignorance (Jahiliyya) and it was not as per the
commands of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
When was this kind of marriage, with these conditions, seen during the
period of Ignorance (Jahiliyya)?
Historians have recorded the description of all kinds of marriages and
customs of period of Ignorance (Jahiliyya); but among them we do not find any
kind of marriage, which might resemble the Fixed time marriage.
Yes, he says whatever he likes; and pays no attention to his statements.
Before this,1 we mentioned some persons, who described the limits of Fixed time
marriage.
Why Ibne Jarih committed excess in a wanton deed, which according to
Moosa was among the worst unlawful acts?
If Ibne Jarih has considered religion as unimportant and has not accorded
any significance to it; why scholars of traditions; that is the authors of six
authentic books of traditions, have all narrated from him? Their Musnad books
are full of traditions narrated on his authority. They have heard and narrated from
him 12000 traditions, which jurists are needful of.2 If his like or his reports were
corrupted, it was necessary that innumerable pages should be deleted from
collections of traditions and no more value would remain of these tradition books
(Sihah) and if Ibne Jarih is as Moosa Jarullah thinks, then why scholars of
narrators of traditions praised and accorded respect to his works. How they
named his books as the books of trust?3
Read; and laugh or cry
Qushji (d. 879 A.H.) in Sharh Tajreed,4 says in discussion of Imamate:
Umar said from pulpit:
“People, three things were lawful during period of Messenger of Allah
(s.a.w.a.) and I prohibit them; and I will penalize anyone, who practices them: Fixed time marriage, Hajje Tamatto and Hayya Alaa Khairil Amal.”
After that Qushji justifies his act and says: This act of Umar does not cast
aspersion on him, because opposition of a jurist (Mujtahid) to another jurist
(Mujtahid) in matters of jurisprudence is nothing new.
We can never think that anyone with even a little academic expertise can
regard Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) same as an ordinary human being and regard both
as jurists (Mujtahid)! Where is he and where the Prophet? But was it not that
whatever the trustworthy said is the same thing, which is recorded in Protected
Tablet (Lauhe Mahfuz):
إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْىٌۭ يُوحَىٰ (٤) عَلَّمَهُۥ شَدِيدُ ٱلْقُوَىٰ (٥)
“It is naught but revelation that is revealed, the Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,”5
What relation does this have with independent judgment (Ijtehaad), which
comprises of application of principles of jurisprudence?
Jurisprudential opposition is allowed to the extent that a jurist can oppose a
jurist like himself; and not that deduction should be opposed to the clear text of
Quran or traditions and that the jurist should issue verdicts opposing clear
commands of religion!
In addition to that, what factors and which logic made the views of this man
comparable to those of Prophet?
What is the value of the personal viewpoints of people when they are
opposed to the established statements of the holy Shariat of Islam?
But I excuse Qushji, because he has regarded necessary to refute all
arguments and reasonings of Khwaja Nasiruddin Tusi lest he should be accused
of helplessness and weakness. So he is compelled to mention everything that
comes to his mind, whether it is proof and beneficial to him or whether it makes
him culpable:
وَلَا تَقُولُوا۟ لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ ٱلْكَذِبَ هَـٰذَا حَلَـٰلٌۭ وَهَـٰذَا حَرَامٌۭ لِّتَفْتَرُوا۟ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ ٱلْكَذِبَ ۚ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ ٱلْكَذِبَ لَا يُفْلِحُونَ (١١٦)
“And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie,
(saying): This is lawful and this is unlawful, in order to forge a
lie against Allah; surely those who forge the lie against Allah
shall not prosper.”6