Non-Muslim world has forcibly learned that Islam is divided into two sects, Shia and Sunni, but there is so little material in languages other than Arabic and Persian on the Shia side of the issue that real understanding is all but impossible. This is the consequence of the historical accident that Western contact with Islam was almost entirely with Sunni communities, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ottoman Turkey, most of Muslim India, etc. The present work corrects this imbalance in a most extraordinary way, for the case for Shi'ite Islam is argued and supported virtually entirely from orthodox Sunni sources. The political, juridical, and spiritual legitimacy of the Shi'ite position has been argued and documented in the English language, and from sources that the West has largely overlooked.
In fact, it is shown here that the most authoritative source for interpreting of the message of the Prophet Muhammad was his cousin and son-in-law, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and the eleven other designated successors after him, who constitute the Imams of the Ithna Asheri (Twelve Imam) Shias. At various times in history this fact has been more or less recognized by the Muslim world. As in 1959, for example, Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, late Rector of Al-Azhar University in Cairo and Grand Mufti of the Sunni Sect, decreed that in addition to the four Sunni schools of Muslim canon law, Hanafite, Hanbalite, Malakite, and Shafi'ite, the Ja'farite or Shia school of law was equally acceptable to Muslims. A brief account of how this came about at the instigation of Imam Mohamad Chirri, Director of the Islamic Center of North American in Detroit, Michigan, may be found in Chirri's book "The Shiites Under Attack," published by the Center.
* * *
The present work is based on the transcript of a dialogue between several Sunni divines and a 31 year-old Shi'ite scholar, al-`Abd al-Fani Muhammad al-Musawi Sultanu'l-Wa'izin, of Shiraz, Iran, held over a period of ten nights in Peshawar, India, beginning on 27 January 1927. The dialogues were a model of mutual respect, and in spite of the seriousness of the subject and the presence of an audience of some 200, there was no breach of decorum. His success is indicated by the fact that at the end of the dialogue one of his Sunni opponents and five other dignitaries in the audience publicly acknowledged their conversion to the Shia sect.
Sunni Sheikh: How is it possible that during the time of the Holy Prophet a thing was so much spoken of and commonly known to all, but after a period of thirty years, a contrary view gained credence because of a false hadith?
Shia Cleric: This was not a unique instance. Often what was accepted during the time of the Holy Prophet completely changed its form after a few years because of a forged hadith. Other religious orders and practices in force during the life of the Prophet were abandoned after some years due to the influence of the people.
MUT'A MARRIAGE AND HAJJ NISA
WERE LAWFUL UP TO ABU BAKR'S
TIME BUT MADE UNLAWFUL BY UMAR
Sunni Sheikh: Kindly cite one example of such a change.
Shia Cleric: There are many examples; two should suffice to make my point. I will discuss mut'a (temporary marriage) and hajj nisa. Both sects agree that these two practices were common during the time of the Prophet. Moreover, they were practiced during Abu Bakr's caliphate and also during part of Umar's caliphate. But Caliph Umar brought about a complete reversal of the Qur'anic order. He said, "Two mut'as were in effect during the time of the Holy Prophet. I now decree both of them unlawful and will punish those who engage in this practice."
What was made lawful by Allah was suddenly abrogated. Umar's decree was so widely promulgated and so blindly followed that the original law soon fell into oblivion. Even today many of our Sunni brothers regard mut'a as an innovation of the Shia.
If Umar's whim could overturn the clear ordinance of Allah and the historical fact that mut'a was practiced, can you doubt that Abu Talib's well known belief could also be denied?
Sunni Sheikh: Are you saying that millions of Muslims have violated the injunctions of the Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet? Remember, the whole world calls us Sunnis, i.e., followers of the sunna. The Shia are called Rafizis, i.e., those who stray from the sunna of the Prophet.
SUNNIS ARE REALLY RAFIZIS
AND SHIA ARE SUNNIS
Shia Cleric: In reality the Shias are Sunnis, that is, they follow the Holy Qur'an and the sunna of the Holy Prophet. You people are Rafizis because you violate the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and the commands of the Prophet.
Sunni Sheikh: This is strange indeed! You have transformed millions of pure Muslims into Rafizis! Can you advance any argument to support this?
Shia Cleric: I have already told you during previous nights that the Holy Prophet instructed us that after him we should follow the Holy Qur'an and his progeny. But you people deliberately abandoned the progeny of the Prophet and followed others. You rejected the practices of the Holy Prophet. You left those people by order of your two sheikhs and then call the real followers of the sunna of the Holy Prophet Rafizis.
Among such orders there is another explicit injunction in the Holy Qur'an which says, "And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Apostle and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the way fairer." (8:41) The Holy Prophet observed this order and gave khums (1/5) of the wealth acquired from the enemy to his relatives and kinsmen. But you people opposed this practice.
The practice of mut'a is another case in point. It was in accordance with Allah's command. It was sanctioned by the Prophet and his companions. The practice continued during Abu Bakr's caliphate and also during a part of Umar's caliphate. But at the command of Umar you people have made unlawful what Allah made lawful. Moreover, you have rejected the sunna of the Holy Prophet. And yet you call yourselves Sunnis and call us Rafizis.
Caliph Umar himself did not advance any reason for his revoking the divine order. The Sunni ulema have tried in vain to prove that Caliph Umar's decision was just.
ARGUMENTS FOR LAWFULNESS OF MUT'A
Sunni Sheikh: Can you prove the lawfulness of mut'a? Can you prove that Caliph Umar violated the Qur'anic injunction and the sunna of the Holy Prophet?
Shia Cleric: The strongest proof is furnished by the Holy Qur'an. In the sura of Nisa (The Women) Allah says: "...then as to those by whom you benefited (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." (4:24)
Obviously the Holy Qur'an's command is obligatory forever unless it is abrogated by the Qur'an, itself. Since it has not been abrogated, this command holds good forever.
Sunni Sheikh: How is this verse not related to permanent wedlock? It is this same verse that gives instruction about paying back dowry.
Shia Cleric: You have confused the main point. Your own prominent ulema, like Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir, part V and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, part III, have confirmed that this verse refers to mut'a.
Apart from the explicit interpretation of your ulema and commentators, you are also aware that throughout the entire sura of Nisa, several kinds of marriage and wedlock have been mentioned: nika (permanent marriage), mut'a (temporary marriage), and marriage with mulk-e-Yamin (servants). For permanent marriage the Holy Qur'an says in the sura of Nisa: "Then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then only one or what your right hands possess." (4:3)
About Mulk-e-yamin (servants), Allah says: "And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are sprung the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters and give them their dowries justly." (4:25)
The command in verse 4 of sura Nisa to the effect that: "...as to those by whom you benefitted (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." was for mut'a, or temporary marriage. It could not be for permanent wedlock, for otherwise, it would mean that in the same chapter the decree regarding permanent wedlock has been repeated twice, which is against the rule, and if it is for mut'a, then it evidently is a permanent and separate decree.
Second, not only Shias but all Muslims agree that mut'a was practiced during the early days of Islam. The distinguished companions practiced it in the time of the Holy Prophet. If this verse refers to permanent wedlock then which is the verse for mut'a? Evidently this is the verse regarding mut'a, which your own commentators have accepted. There is no verse in the Holy Qur'an which abrogates this command.
AHLE-SUNNA REGARDING LAWFULNESS OF MUT'A
It is reported in Sahih of Bukhari and the Musnad of Imam Ibn Hanbal from Abu Raja on the authority of Imran Ibn Hasin that "...the verse of mut'a was revealed in the Book of Allah. So we acted in accordance with it during the time of the Holy Prophet. No verse was revealed to make it unlawful, nor did the Holy Prophet ever prohibit it." One man decided to change this law. Bukhari says that the man was Umar.
Muslim in his Sahih, part I, in the chapter of Nikatu'l-Mut'a, says "Hasan Halwa'i reported to us that he was told by Abdu'r-Razzaq, who was informed by Ibn Jarih, who was told by 'Ata that Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari came to Mecca for the Umra and they went to him at his residence. People asked him many questions. When they came to the question of mut'a he said, 'Yes, we used to practice mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet and during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar.'" Also in the same book in part I, in the chapter of al-Mut'a Bi'l-Hajj wa'l-Umra, it is narrated on the authority of Abu Nazara that he said: "I was in the company of Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari when a man came and said, 'There is a difference of opinion between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair concerning the two mut'as, Mut'atu'n-Nisa and Mut'atu'l-Hajj.' Then Jabir said, 'We have performed both of these during the time of the Holy Prophet. Thereafter, when Umar forbade it, we could not do it.'"
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, part I, p.25, narrates Abu Nazara's report in another way. Also both narrate another report from Jabir that he said: "In the days of the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr, we used to practice mut'a for the consideration of a handful of dates and flour until Umar forbade it in the case of Amr Bin Harith."
Hamidi, in his Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain, narrates from Abdullah Ibn Abbas that he said: "We used to practice mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet. When Umar was caliph, he said that 'Allah Almighty made lawful whatever He liked for His Holy Prophet. Now he is dead, and the Qur'an takes his place. So when you begin the Hajj or the Umra, you should complete them as Allah has ordered you. You should repent of and abstain from mut'a. Bring him who has practiced mut'a to me so that I may stone him.'"
There are many such reports in your own reliable books showing that mut'a was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet. The companions practiced it until Umar made it unlawful.
Besides these reports, some of the companions, like Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Sa'id Ibn Jabir and Sa'd have recited the verse of mut'a in this way, "And as such of them you had mut'a with until such time as was fixed."
Jarullah Zamakhshari reports in his Kashshaf from Ibn Abbas and also Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, vol.III, writing about this holy verse and Imam Nuwi in his Sharh-e-Muslim, chapter I, Nikatu'l-Mut'a report from Nazari that Qazi Ayaz stated that "Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, the writer of wahi (i.e., recorder of revelations), used to recite this verse in the same way, that is, 'until such time as has been fixed.'"
Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi, after quoting the statement of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and Ibn Abbas, said: "The community did not reject their recitation of the verse in this way, so what we have said has been accepted through consensus." Again on the next page he argues in this way: "This reading evidently proves that mut'a had the sanction of religion. We have no difference of opinion that mut'a was permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet."
COMMAND PERMITTING MUT'A
WAS NOT REPEALED
Sunni Sheikh: Can you prove that it was lawful during the days of the Holy Prophet but was not repealed later?
Shia Cleric: There is plenty of proof that it was not annulled. The most convincing argument is that mut'a had been permitted from the time of the Holy Prophet until the middle of the caliphate of Umar.
Caliph Umar's own statement has been generally reported by your ulema. They have written that he went to the pulpit and said, "In the time of the Prophet two mut'as were permitted. I make both of them unlawful, and if any one does it, I will punish him."
Sunni Sheikh: What you say is correct, but my point is that there are many orders which were current earlier in the time of the Holy Prophet but were repealed later. Mut'a was also permitted in the beginning, but later it was forbidden.
Shia Cleric: Since the basis and foundation of religion is the Holy Qur'an, if any ordinance is present in the Holy Qur'an and is abrogated, its abrogation must also be present in it. Now please let me know where in the Holy Qur'an this order has been repealed.
Sunni Sheikh: In sura 23, Mu'minin (The Believers), verse 6 repeals this order. It says "Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for surely they are not blameworthy." (22:6)
This verse lays down two conditions for conjugal relations: marriage, or intercourse with slaves. So this verse proves that the ordinance of mut'a has been repealed.
Shia Cleric: This verse does not in any way prove that mut'a was repealed; it confirms it. The woman united by mut'a is the real wife of the man. Had she not been his real wife, Allah would not have ordered her mehr (dowry) to be paid. Moreover, the sura of The Believers was revealed while the Prophet was in Mecca, the sura of Women while he was in Medina. Obviously the Meccan chapters preceded the Medinan chapter. Can verse A abrogate verse B, if verse A came before B?
DISTINGUISHED COMPANIONS AND
IMAM MALIK INSIST THAT THE ORDINANCE
OF MUT'A WAS NOT ABROGATED
Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, Salama Ibn Akwa', Abu'dh-Dharr Ghifari, Subra Bin Ma'bad, Akwa' Bin Abdullah Al-Aslami and Imran Bin Hasin have stated that the ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated. Moreover, your eminent ulema have also held that it was not abrogated. For instance, Jarullah Zamakhshari, in his Tafsir-e-Kashshaf regarding Abdullah Ibn Abbas's statement that the verse of mut'a was one of the clear ordinances of the Holy Qur'an, says that this verse was not repealed. Imam Malik Bin Anas also said that the permissibility of mut'a had not been repealed.
Mulla Sa'idu'd-din Taftazani in Sharh-e-Maqasid, Burhanu'd-din Hanafi in his Hidaya, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Fathu'l-Bari and others also have reported the statement and verdict of Malik who says: "Mut'a is lawful. It is permitted by religion. Its lawfulness, as confirmed by Ibn Abbas, is quite well known and most of his companions from Yeman and Mecca have practiced it. At another place he says: "Mut'a is lawful since it has been permitted and its lawfulness and permissibility hold good unless it is repealed." You will notice that until Malik's death there was no evidence that the ordinance of mut'a had been annulled.
Moreover, your prominent commentators, like Zamakhshari, Baghawi, and Imam Tha'labi have adhered to the position of Ibn Abbas and other distinguished companions and have believed in the lawfulness of mut'a.
ALL CONDITIONS OF WEDLOCK
ARE FULFILLED BY MUT'A
Sunni Sheikh: Since there are no provisions for a woman united by mut'a, such as inheritance, divorce, after divorce (waiting period) and maintenance, as are necessary for a wife, she cannot be a real wife.
Shia Cleric: A woman joined with a man through mut'a is protected by all the provisions of any wife except those which have been reasonably excluded. Mut'a is a kind of nika (marriage), which entitles a woman to wifehood. Of course for the convenience of the community and to save them from lawlessness, some of its conditions and formalities have been waived. As for its conditions, first, it is not proved that inheritance is a necessary condition of marriage. Many women, in spite of being wives, do not receive an inheritance from their husbands. For example, disobedient wives or those who murder are deprived of inheritance.
Second, it is not definitely established whether a woman united by mut'a is deprived of her right of inheritance. The jurists differ in their opinions about it, and such differences exist among you also.
Third, the Imamiyya ulema unanimously hold the view that a woman united by mut'a must also observe 'idda (waiting period before re-marriage). Its shortest period has been fixed as 45 days. If the husband dies, she should observe the usual 'idda of four months and ten days, whether she had had sexual intercourse with her husband or not, or whether she has passed the age of menstruation or not.
Fourth, the right of maintenance is not a necessary condition attached to marriage. There are a number of wives who are not entitled to maintenance, such as those who are disobedient or who murder their husbands.
Fifth, the expiration of the agreed upon period is itself her divorce. Similarly, with the consent of her husband, she may be divorced before the expiration date.
Therefore none of the conditions that you have mentioned has any force. A renowned Shia scholar, Allama Jamalu'd-Din Hilli (Hasan Bin Yusuf Bin Ali Bin Mutahhar), has given in detail the same arguments in reply to the views of your prominent ulema. I have referred to them briefly. Anyone who wants to study it in detail, may consult Allama Hilli's Mabahithat-e-Sunniyya wa Ma'rifat-e-Nussairiyya.
WAS QUR'ANIC COMMAND FOR MUT'A
ABROGATED BY THE HOLY PROPHET?
Sunni Sheikh: Besides the holy verse there are also a large number of hadith which say that the ordinance concerning mut'a had been abrogated during the time of the Holy Prophet.
Shia Cleric: Kindly let us know about that order of abrogation.
Sunni Sheikh: It has been narrated with some variations. Some reporters say that it was decreed on the day of the conquest of Khaibar, some say it happened on the day of conquest of Mecca, some reports say that it was on the occasion of the Last Pilgrimage, and some say that it was on the day of Tabuk. Others, however, are of the opinion that the order of nullity was revealed on the occasion of Umratu'l-Qaza (The Farewell Pilgrimage).
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING ITS ABROGATION
DURING THE TIME OF THE HOLY PROPHET
Shia Cleric: The contradictory reports clearly prove that there was no such order of abrogation. And how can those reports be relied upon when, on the contrary, there are many hadith reported in Sahih-e-Sitta, Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain, Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahih-e-Sitta, Musnad, etc, from distinguished companions which prove that this verse was not abrogated until the caliphate of Umar.
The most compelling argument that your own ulema have themselves cited is the statement of Caliph Umar, who said: "I make both those two mut'as which were current in the days of the Holy Prophet, unlawful." Had there been any verse, or order of the Holy Prophet, the caliph would have said: "According to the instructions of the Holy Prophet, which is supported by the Qur'anic verse, if any one committed the unlawful act in violation of the abrogated ordinance, I will punish him." Such a statement would have been more impressive for the people. But he merely said: " Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet, I make them unlawful."
If, however, your claim is correct and the verse of mut'a was abrogated, why didn't the pupils of the Holy Prophet, like Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Imran Bin Hashim and other companions act upon it. Your own great traditionists and historians, including Bukhari and Muslim, have recorded this fact. All these things clearly prove that from the time of the Holy Prophet to the caliphate of Umar the companions followed this ordinance.
COULD CALIPH UMAR ABROGATE MUT'A?
So it is clear that mut'a shall continue to be lawful forever. Abu Isa Muhammad Bin Sawratu't-Tirmidhi in his Sunan, which is regarded as one of the six Sahih by you, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, PART II, p.95, and Ibn Athir in his Jam'u'l-Usul have reported that a Syrian man asked Abdullah Bin Umar Bin Khattab what he considered about Mut'a-e-Nisa. He said: "Of course, it is lawful." The man said again, "But your father, the caliph, forbade the people to do it." He said, "It was ordered by the Holy Prophet; so if it has been prohibited by my father that order cannot supersede the order of the Holy Prophet. I am the follower of the Holy Prophet's order."
For the reports which have been narrated, perhaps people later forged hadith in order to support Caliph Umar's statement. The matter is too clear to call for any further elucidation. The fact is that you have no real evidence for the unlawfulness of mut'a except the statement of Caliph Umar.
Sunni Sheikh: Caliph Umar's statement in itself is the strongest evidence for Muslims, and they must follow it. If he had not heard it from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said that.
Shia Cleric: Is Caliph Umar's statement so compelling that Muslims must follow it? I have not seen a single hadith in your books, in which the Holy Prophet said that Umar Bin Khattab's statement was a confirmed source or that Muslims should follow it. On the other hand your books are filled with reliable hadith saying that we should follow the descendants of the Holy Prophet, particularly Ali. I have referred to some of these hadith on previous nights. The Ahle Bait of the Holy Prophet have said that the ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated.
You said that had Caliph Umar not heard about the order of cancellation from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said what he did. But this is easily disproved. First, if Caliph Umar had heard of the cancellation of the order of mut'a from the Holy Prophet, he should have spoken about it during the life of the Holy Prophet up to the period of his own caliphate. This would have been especially important since he saw prominent companions had been practicing it, and it was his duty to tell the people that the practice of mut'a had been annulled. Why did he not perform the duty of prevention of evil?
Second, the practice, which had been current among the community by order of the Holy Prophet, could only be nullified by the Holy Prophet. There should have been no delay in this case. Does it stand to reason that if an order for the Community had been circulated and was later abrogated, would the Holy Prophet have spoken about it to no one except Umar? And would it have made sense that Umar would not have told anybody about it until late in his own caliphate? During all this period when the community continued to follow this (so-called) abrogated order, did no responsibility lie with Umar?
You say that the prohibition of "nullified and irreligious " practice could not be made known to others and therefore the community continued to follow it. Can anybody else except the Holy Prophet be held responsible for not proclaiming the abrogation of an order, having told only Umar of it? Is it not infidelity to say that the Holy Prophet neglected to perform his mission and that the community because of its ignorance, continued acting upon an abrogated order for a long time?
Third, if the order of mut'a had been annulled during the time of the Holy Prophet and Umar had heard of this from the Holy Prophet, Umar could have said when he prohibited it that he had himself heard the Holy Prophet say that the practice of mut'a had been banned. Obviously, if he had referred to the Holy Prophet's statement, the community would have been much impressed by it. But he said, "During the time of the Holy Prophet, two mut'as were permitted, but I make them unlawful. Now I will stone those who do it." Is it not the duty of the Holy Prophet to declare things lawful or unlawful? Or, can it be the right of a caliph who has been appointed by the people?
I don't understand on what basis Umar declared unlawful what Allah made lawful. How strange it is that the Holy Prophet never said that he made a certain thing lawful or unlawful. Whenever he announced any order, he said that Allah had ordered him to convey it to the people. How bold Umar is when he says: "Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet. I make both of them unlawful. I will punish those who commit those acts."
COMMAND OF ALLAH OR OF
THE HOLY PROPHET MAY NOT BE
ABROGATED BY A CALIPH
Sunni Sheikh: Certainly you are aware that some of our scholars of high learning believe that since the Holy Prophet was a mujtahid (authority) in the matter of religious orders, another mujtahid, by virtue of his own findings, may set aside the former order. It was on this basis that Umar said, "I make those two things unlawful."
Shia Cleric: In an attempt to set right one wrong, you perpetrate many others. Does ijtihad have any significance in contradicting an injunction of the Holy Qur'an. Is not your statement quite absurd and opposed to the Qur'anic verses?
Allah Almighty says in the sura of Jonah: "Say: It is not proper for me that I should change it myself. I follow naught but what is revealed to me." (10:15)
If it is true that the Holy Prophet could not make any changes in religious order unless he was ordered by Allah to do so, how could Umar, who had no knowledge of revelation, have the authority to make unlawful what Allah had made lawful?
In the sura of Najm (The Star) Allah says: "Nor does he speak out of caprice. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4)
In the sura of Ahqaf (The Sand Dunes), Allah says: "Say: I am not the first of the apostles, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you. I do not follow anything but what has been revealed to me." (46:9)
Obedience to the Holy Prophet is obligatory. No one, Umar or anyone else, has the right to interfere with divine orders and make unlawful what Allah made lawful.
EXPEDIENCY NOT GROUNDS FOR ABROGATION
Sunni Sheikh: Umar definitely thought it expedient and considered it in the best interest of the people to abrogate that order. We find these days that some people take a woman in mut'a for the sake of pleasure for an hour, a month, or a year. Later, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not, they leave her.
Shia Cleric This is ridiculous! What does the lawfulness of this Islamic command have to do with people's indulgence in illicit sexual relations? If we followed your reasoning, perhaps permanent wedlock should be made unlawful. After all, people marry noble girls for their money or their beauty and later leave them, without giving them any financial support. Since some people do this, do you think that permanent wedlock should be abrogated?
No. We should encourage people to be honest and give them proper religious instruction. If a righteous man does not find in himself the capacity to shoulder the responsibility of having a permanent wife, and if he wishes to avoid an unlawful action, he would, in compliance with the code of religion, wish to take a woman in mut'a or temporary wedlock. Accordingly, he would like to know the conditions of mut'a because he knows that for every order there are certain conditions. At the time of mutual agreement, he would provide the amount of mehr (dower) for the woman which would be sufficient for her maintenance during her 'idda, which is 45 days, after the term of the period of mut'a.
Second, after the separation, he would look after the woman during the entire period of 'idda. If she were pregnant, he would take proper care of the mother so that he might take his child after it is born. If some people fail to honor these conditions, it does not follow that a valid order of lawfulness has been abrogated.
The welfare of the community was better understood by Allah and the Holy Prophet than by Umar. And they did not prohibit mut'a. If they didn't prohibit it, no caliph or imam, or any other man, even one divinely commissioned, can of his own accord make unlawful what Allah has made lawful. So your claim, that it was in the best interest of the community that people give up mut'a, is untenable.
Mut'a was not the cause of the spread of lawlessness; rather it was the banning of it which spread lewdness. Those young men and women who cannot afford to join in permanent wedlock if they cannot control and restrain their sexual appetite, will indulge in illicit sex. And of course widespread adultery and fornication destroy the moral character of entire nations.
Imam Tha'labi and Tabari in their Tafsir and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, writing in connection with the verse of mut'a, narrate from Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali that he said: "If Umar had not put a restraint on mut'a, no one, except an unfortunate man, would have committed fornication."
Also Ibn Jarih and Amr Bin Dinar report from Abdullah Ibn Abbas who said: "Mut'a was really a mercy of Allah, which He gave to the community of Muhammad. If Umar had not banned it, no one except an unlucky man would have committed adultery."
So according to the views of the companions of the Holy Prophet, the cause of the prevalence of adultery was the prohibition of mut'a, rather than the practice of it. In fact all the divine commands regarding lawful and unlawful acts which have been transmitted to the community through the Holy Prophet were intended for the welfare of the people. They continue to benefit them today....
In short, what I have said amply proves that Ali belonged to such a distinguished family that no one of the eminent companions could match him.
...
/129