Nikah Al-Mut’ah, Zina or Sunnah?

7. Shi’i Ahadith Misused About Mut’ah =====================================

We have seen the Ahl al-Sunnah quoting certain ahadith from the Shi’i books in desperate efforts to “prove” mut’ah wrong. We will be examining these riwayat here, with the Grace and Help of Allah. Meanwhile, we strongly advise our brothers and sisters from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah and the Shi’ah Imamiyyah: whenever anyone – whether Sunni, Shi’i or otherwise - claims to you that a certain hadith exists in the Shi’i sources, demand adamantly that he must produce (i) its full Arabic text with its chain of narration, (ii) evidence of the reliability of its sanad, (iii) its primary source with the full citation, (iv) a declaration that it does not originate from a ḍa’if source book, (v) a declaration that it does not contradict the Qur’an as interpreted in authentic Shi’i ahadith, and (v) a declaration that it does not contradict superior Shi’i ahadith. When you do this, you have already won 2/3 of the battle to defeat deceit and trickery.

Hadith One

Shaykh al-Ṭusi (d. 460 H) records:

Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya – Abu al-Jawza – al-Husayn b. ‘Alwan – ‘Amr b. Khalid – Zayd b. ‘Ali – his fathers – ‘Ali, peace be upon them:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, forbade the meat of domestic donkey and the marriage of mut’ah.[^1]

He also documents in his Tahdhib:

Muhammad b. Yahya – Abu Ja’far – Abu al-Jawza – al-Husayn b. ‘Alwan – ‘Amr b. Khalid – Zayd b. ‘Ali – his fathers – ‘Ali, peace be upon them:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, forbade the meat of domestic donkey and the marriage of mut’ah on the Day of Khaybar.[^2]

Shaykh ‘Ali Al Muhsin comments on it:

This report has a ḍa’if chain, due to ‘Amr b. Khalid al-Wasiṭi, for there is no tawthiq (accreditation) for him in the books of al-rijal. There is also dispute about his sect. It is said that he was from the Ahl al-Sunnah. However, the widespread opinion is that he was from the leaders of the Zaydiyyah, and he narrated most of his reports from Zayd b. ‘Ali, including this report.

One of the narrators of this hadith is also al-Hasan b. ‘Alwan, and he was a Sunni by sect. As for the statement of al-Najashi in his tarjamah, it is inconclusive. It is possible that the tawthiq in it refers to him or to his brother, al-Hasan; and there is no other tawthiq for him. For this reason, we stop short about him, even those some of the great ‘ulama call him thiqah while others declare him ḍa’if.

In conclusion, this hadith has a Zaydi reporter, and another who belonged to the Sunni sect; and tawthiq is not established for both of them. As for the tawthiq that is said for them both, it is neither reliable nor trustworthy.[^3]

‘Allamah al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H) also declares about the hadith above:

Ḍa’if or Muwaththaq.[^4]

Apparently, the best that the chain of the hadith can be is muwaththaq. However, in line with the Shi’i rijali manhaj, if a muwaththaq-chained hadith contradicts a sahih-chained hadith, the former becomes munkar (rejected) and therefore very ḍa’if. Al-Ṭusi submits:

As for the ‘adalah that is required in the preference of one of two reports over another, it is: that the narrator should have the true ‘aqidah, enlightened, trustworthy in his religion, who avoids telling lies, not accused in what he narrates.

But, if he deviates in ‘aqidah from the root of the (Shi’i) sect, and narrates nonetheless from the Imams, peace be upon them, what he narrates is looked at. If there is what contradicts it from the routes of trusted narrators, it becomes obligatory to throw away his report.[^5]

As our esteemed reader can clearly see, the report of al-Husayn b. ‘Alwan and ‘Amr b. Khalid above contradicts – not one or two, but – several sahih Shi’i ahadith that explicitly establish the unbroken legitimacy of mut’ah! This makes it severely unreliable, ḍa’if jiddan. Meanwhile, an additional argument against this hadith of al-Husayn and ‘Amr is that it further contradicts the Qur’an – specifically, the Verse of al-Mut’ah and several dual-purpose ayahs, which have declared the purity of temporary marriage till the Last Hour. This makes it mawḍu’ (a fabrication) without a doubt. No wonder, after mentioning that the chain of the riwayah of Husayn and ‘Amr is either “ḍa’if or muwaththaq”, al-Majlisi immediately proceeds to proclaim:

The most apparent is that it is from the FABRICATIONS of the Zaydiyyah, as obvious from most of their reports.[^6]

So, the hadith is mawḍu’.

Hadith Two

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Ash’ari is also said to have documented:

Muhammad b. Abi ‘Umayr – ‘Abd Allah b. Sinan:

I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, about mu’tah. So, he said, “Do not desecrate yourself with it.”[^7]

The first problem with this report is that it is from a ḍa’if book. While it is true that Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa did write a Nawadir, it has not reached us through authentic means, and there is not enough evidence to establish that what we have today is a true copy of his original book. Rather, ‘Allamah al-Muhsini declares about al-Nawadir as we have it in our hands:

The truth is the UNRELIABILITY of its ahadith which are quoted in al-Bihar, al-Wasail and al-Mustadrak, and whatever is found in the published manuscript from it.[^8]

Whoever seeks the detailed arguments about the unreliability of the book’s transmission to al-Majlisi (d. 1111 H), al-Hurr al-‘Amili (d. 1104 H)and to us is strongly referred to the academic research of al-Muhsini on it[^9].

Mirza al-Nuri (d. 1320 H) also submits:

And thirdly, as for his statement, may Allah be merciful to him {this is why al-Hurr in al-Wasail did not quote from it}, what is there is: how did he know that the book was with him and he did not rely upon it and so did not quote from it? Rather, what is undoubtably certain is that it, like other authentic books, was not with him. If it had been, he would certainly have quoted from it, because he quoted from books that are inferior to it by degrees in terms of (the unreliability of) the author, or due to the unreliability of its (i.e. the book’s) attribution to him, or the weakness of the chain (of the book) to him, like Faḍl al-Shi’ah of al-Saduq, Tuhaf al-‘Uqul, Tafsir al-Furat, Irshad of al-Daylami, Nawadir of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa, and al-Ikhtisas of al-Mufid.[^10]

He lists al-Nawadir among the ḍa’if books which al-Hurr al-‘Amili relies upon in his Wasail. So, whatever is quoted from it – in al-Bihar, al-Wasail or its published editions – is ḍa’if by default.

Meanwhile, the hadith is equally mawḍu’ on account of its opposition to the Verse of al-Mut’ah and several sahih ahadith.

Hadith Three

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Ash’ari is further said to have recorded:

Ibn Abi ‘Umayr – Hisham b. al-Hakam – Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:

None does it, in our view, except the unchaste.[^11]

It comes from a ḍa’if book. Therefore, it is ḍa’if. But then, it is also obscure. What exactly is it that is done by the unchaste? It is not mentioned. So, it is not known. However, if it is were a reference to mut’ah, then the hadith would become mawḍu’ due to its contradiction with the Verse of al-Mut’ah and numerous sahih ahadith.

Hadith Four

Shaykh al-Kulayni (d. 329 H) records:

A number of our companions – Sahl b. Ziyad – ‘Ali b. Asbaṭ AND Muhammad b. al-Husayn – al-Hakam b. Miskin – ‘Ammar:

Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, said to me and Sulayman bl Khalid, “I have made mut’ah (temporary marriage) haram upon you both as long as you are in al-Madinah, because you frequently visit me and I fear that you might be arrested, and it would be said, ‘These are companions of Ja’far.’”[^12]

‘Allamah al-Majlisi comments:

Ḍa’if upon the mainstream (standards).[^13]

Al-Jawahiri also states about one of its narrators:

Sahl b. Ziyad, Abu Sa’id al-Adami al-Razi ...: decidedly ḍa’if or his trustworthiness is not established.[^14]

About another narrator, he further declares:

Al-Hakam b. Miskin al-Thaqafi ...: Majhul.[^15]

So, it is genuinely ḍa’if.

Those who quote it seek to prove that mut’ah is haram through it. However, it actually establishes the opposite of that! According to the ḍa’if hadith, both ‘Ammar and Sulayman were forbidden to do temporary marriage in Madinah but free to practise it elsewhere. Moreover, the prohibition covered only both of them, and did not extend generally to all Shi’is. Besides, it was done to protect both ‘Ammar and Sulayman from arrest and possible persecution or even execution. The Ahl al-Sunnah had declared mut’ah a form of zina. Therefore, the Sunni government in al-Madinah could arrest the two Shi’is and accuse them of fornication or adultery. They both could be stoned to death, or lashed, depending on their marital status, as a result of their mut’ah; and that could soil the name of Imam Ja’far – with whom they were known – among the general Sunni public. From the look of it, in line with the ḍa’if report, the Madinah governorate was stricter against temporary marriage than other Sunni provinces.

In any case, the hadith is ḍa’if. Therefore, it is of no probative value.

Hadith Five

Al-Kulayni documents:

‘Ali b. Muhammad – Salih b. Abi Hammad – Ibn Sinan – al-Mufaḍḍal b. ‘Umar:

I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, saying about mut’ah: “Abandon it. Would any of you be ashamed to be seen at the place of blemish, and that is placed upon his righteous brothers and companions?”[^16]

Al-Majlisi says:

Ḍa’if.[^17]

Then, he adds:

His statement, peace be upon him (to be seen at the place of blemish) meaning, the people see him at a place where whosoever they find there is condemned, due to their abhorrence of mut’ah, hence that becomes a cause of harm to him and to his brothers.^18

This seems to be a conditional ban imposed to curb the harm which accrues to righteous Shi’is from ignorant Sunnis. Wherever the practice of mut’ah would not put the Shee’ah in danger, then the prohibition would not apply. In any case, the hadith is ḍa’if. Meanwhile, if its texts does question the legitimacy of mut’ah, then it is in contradiction to the Verse of al-Mut’ah, and therefore mawḍu’.

Hadith Six

Al-Kulayni reports:

‘Ali b. Ibrahim – his father – Ibn Abi ‘Umayr – one of our companions – Zurarah:

I said to Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, “May I be sacrificed for you. The man marries in mut’ah and its term expires. Then, another man marries her until she separates from him. Then, the first (man) re-marries her until she separates from him three times; and she married three husbands. Is it permissible for the first (man) to re-marry her (again)?” He said, “Yes, any number of times he wishes. This one is not like the free woman. This one is rented, and she is of the status of the slave woman.”[^19]

Al-Majlisi declares:

Hasan, and upon it are the companions (i.e. the scholars).[^20]

However, it is actually mursal and therefore ḍa’if. Al-Majlisi grades it hasan, apparently because he belongs to the camp of Shi’i scholars who accept the marasil of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr – as in this case. Our great leader, ‘Allamah al-Khui (d. 1411 H), traces the origin of this practice:

I say: The root of this claim was Shaykh, may Allah sanctify his secret, for he had said at the end of his research concerning the solitary report in Kitab al-‘Uddah:

“... It is for this reason that the ṭaifah have equated the reports of Muhammad b. Abi ‘Umayr, Safwan b. Yahya, and other thiqah narrators - whom they know that they did not narrate or do irsal except from those that were trusted - with what others narrated in musnad (fully connected) manners....”[^21]

Then, he adds:

From what is certain is that the origin of this claim (of Shaykh al-Ṭusi) was the claim of al-Kashi that there was ijma’ (consensus) upon the authentication of whatsoever is authentically transmitted from these people. The Shaykh had claimed that the origin of the ijma’ was that these people did not narrate except from thiqah narrators, and the fallacy of that has just been mentioned.^22

So, there was a claim of ijma’ by al-Kashi upon the acceptance of whatsoever Ibn Abi ‘Umayr and a few other people narrated. From this claim of al-Kashi, al-Ṭusi concluded that Ibn Abi ‘Umayr never narrated except from thiqah narrators. His conclusion became accepted among many ‘ulama; and, as such, they accepted all his ahadith indiscriminately, including even where he has not given the name of his source. However, as al-Khui demonstrates, both the ‘ijma itself and the conclusion from it were made in error. He first declares:

But, this claim (i.e. that they narrated from thiqah narrators only) is fallacious.^23

Then, with specific reference to Ibn Abi ‘Umayr, he debunks the myth surrounding him:

:And this is Ibn Abi ‘Umayr. He narrated from ‘Ali b. Abi Hamzah al-Baṭaini his book. Al-Najashi and Shaykh mentioned it. Muhammad b. Ya’qub also narrated with a sahih chain from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr from ‘Ali b. Abi Hamzah; and he also narrated with a sahih chain from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr from al-Husayn b. Ahmad al-Munqiri, and al-Husayn b. Ahmad al-Munqiri was declared ḍa’if by al-Najashi and Shaykh. Shaykh too narrated with a sahih chain from Ibn Abi ‘Umayr from ‘Ali b. Hadid, and ‘Ali b. Hadid was declared ḍa’if by Shaykh at many places in his two books, and he was extremely emphatic in declaring him ḍa’if. His report from Yunus b. Ẓabyan has been previously mentioned. As for his reports from majhul narrators who are not mentioned in the rijal books, then they are several.[^24]

Basically, Ibn Abi ‘Umayr used to narrate from ḍa’if narrators, and even from al-Baṭaini who was a liar! There are sahih chains reaching up to him confirming these crucial facts. As such, the basis for accepting his narrations without question, including his marasil, is defeated by this reality. Worse still, Ibn Abi ‘Umayr himself never claimed that he narrated from reliable narrators only. It was just some ‘ulama who made the apparently erronoeous claim about him. Writing about Ibn Abi ‘Umayr and his colleagues, and the claim that they never narrated except from thiqah narrators, al-Khui further states:

** **

ومن الظاهر أنه لم ينسب إلى أحد هؤلاء إخباره وتصريحه بذلك، وليس لنا طريق آخر لكشفه

.

From what is apparent is that it is not attributed to any of these people his information or declaration of that, and there is no other way for us to discover it.[^25]

The bottomline then is that the marasil of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr are ḍa’if like the other marasil. This is what al-Khui concludes as well:

We have earlier quoted al-Najashi saying that the companions (i.e. scholars) relied upon the marasil of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr, and Shaykh mentioned the like of that in Kitab al-‘Uddah. However, we have indicated in the Introduction that this statement has no basis, and that there is no difference between his marasil and the marasil of other thiqah narrators.[^26]

Therefore, the hadith of Zurarah above is ḍa’if, as it is a mursal report of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr. Those who quote it seek to prove:

(i) the mut’ah wife is “rented” for sex in the marriage; and

(ii) she is like a slave woman.

Well, the comparison of the temporary wife to the slave woman is strictly relative:

(a) a man may have as many slave women with whom he enjoys sexual relations as he wants;

(b) in the same manner, the husband may have mut’ah relationships with as many women as he wants at the same time;

(c) the master of a slave woman needs no wali or witnesses in order to enjoy a concubinage with her;

(d) the husband of a temporary wife needs no wali (except in the case of a virgin) and no witnesses (except where he voluntarily chooses to have them) in order to formalize the mut’ah with her;

(e) the slave woman exits the concubinage without divorce;

(f) the temporary wife separates from the husband without a divorce.

These are the only areas of similarity between the mut’ah wife and the slave concubine. In everything else, they are different. This hasan or sahih hadith of al-Kulayni, which we have already quoted in full in this book, testifies to this:

There is no specific length or any (maximum) number (of the wives) in it. They are only of the status of slave women: he marries any number of them as he wishes, and the husband of four women (also) marries from them whatever he wishes, with no wali or witnesses. When the (agreed) term expires, she separates from him without divorce, and he gives her the small thing.

As for the claim that she is “rented” for sex in the mut’ah, we will have more to say about this. But, first, let us examine the other ahadith which also described her as “rented”. Al-Kulayni gives us the second report, as well:

Muhammad b. Yahya – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa – al-Husayn b. Sa’id AND Muhammad b. Khalid al-Barqi – al-Qasim b. ‘Urwah – ‘Abd al-Hamid – Muhammad b. Muslim:

Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, said concerning mut’ah: “She is not from the four (permanent wives), because she is not divorced and she does not inherit. She is only a rented woman.”[^27]

Al-Majlisi states:

Majhul.[^28]

And al-Jawahiri declares concerning one of its narrators:

Al-Qasim b. ‘Urwah, Abu Muhammad, freed slave of Abu Ayyub al-Khawzi: Majhul.[^29]

Meanwhile, al-Barqi is equally said to have documented this hadith:

And from him – al-‘Abbas b. Ma’ruf – al-Qasim b. ‘Urwah – ‘Abd al-Hamid al-Ṭai – Muhammad b. Muslim:

I said to Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, “Why does the woman not inherit the one who does mut’ah with her?” He said, “It is because she is a rented woman, and her ‘iddah is forty-five days.”[^30]

This is from al-Qasim b. ‘Urwah, the same majhul narrator, and it is therefore also ḍa’if. Besides, Kitab al-Mahasin is also a ḍa’if book, as it has not reached us through authentic means.[^31] That compounds the unreliability of the hadith.

And, here is al-Kulayni with the final hadith on this matter:

Al-Husayn b. Muhammad – Ahmad b. Ishaq – Sa’dan b. Muslim – ‘Ubayd b. Zurarah – his father:

I mentioned mut’ah to him, “Is she from the four?” So, he said, “Marry a thousand of them, for they are rented women.”[^32]

And, al-Majlisi submits:

Majhul.[^33]

This basically establishes that there is NO authentic basis for referring to mut’ah wives as rented women.

But then, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that she is rented. Is it really for sex? There are two possibilities here:

(i) The woman is rented for sex in mut’ah. Therefore, there can be no mut’ah without intercourse.

(ii) The woman is not rented for sex in mut’ah. As such, there can be mut’ah without intercourse.

There is no third way to this. If mut’ah is only a “rental” of the woman for sex, then any mut’ah without sex is no mut’ah. However, as al-Kulayni has reported, mut’ah can be without sex, and still be mut’ah:

Muhammad b. Yahya – Ahmad and ‘Abd Allah, sons of Muhammad b. ‘Isa – ‘Ali b. al-Hakam – Ziyad b. Abi al-Hilal:

I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, saying: “There is no problem in doing mut’ah with the virgin as long as he does not have sex with her, for fear of the disgust of the blemish upon her family.”[^34]

Al-Majlisi declares:

Sahih.[^35]

Even the locus classicus in this matter, the mursal hadith of Ibn Abi ‘Umayr, affirms the same truth. Al-Ṭusi documents:

Muhammad b. Ya’qub - ‘Ali b. Ibrahim – his father – Ibn Abi ‘Umayr – one of our companions – Zurarah:

I said to Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, “May I be sacrificed for you. Mut’ah was contracted and its term expires. Then, another man marries her when she separates from him. Then, the first man re-marries her when she separates from him, three times; and she married three husbands. Is it permissible for the first (man) to re-marry her (again)?” He said, “Yes, any number of times he wishes. This one is not like the free woman. This one is rented, and she is of the status of the slave woman. And when the man marries a woman in mut’ah**, and she imposes a condition upon him that he shall not have sexual intercourse with her, then there is nothing for him except whatever is stipulated as a condition**.”[^36]

So, then, how exactly is mut’ah a “rental” of the woman for sex?

Hadith Seven

Shaykh al-Ṭusi records:

Ahmad b. Muhammad – Abu al-Hasan – one of our companions – Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:

Do not do mut’ah with a muminah (believing woman), thereby humiliating her.[^37]

Then, al-Ṭusi himself declares:

This report has a disconnected chain, mursal.^38

So, it is ḍa’if; and that basically deals with it.

Hadith Eight

Al-Ṭusi reports:

Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya – Ahmad b. Muhammad – ‘Ali b. Hadid – Jamil – Zurarah:

‘Ammar asked, while I was with him, about the man who marries the prostitute in mut’ah. He said, “There is no problem. But, if it were the other marriage, then he must fortify his door.”[^39]

And, in his Istibsar, he proclaims:

As for the report of Zurarah, the route to him is ‘Ali b. Hadid and he is ḍa’if jiddan. Whatever he alone narrates is not relied upon.[^40]

Therefore, the report is ḍa’if jiddan in its sanad.

Al-Majlisi too says about the hadith:

Ḍa’if.[^41]

Meanwhile, it also directly contradicts this ayah of the Qur’an:

The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater: and that is made haram for the believers.[^42]

On this account alone, the hadith is mawḍu’.

Hadith Nine

Al-Ṭusi documents:

From him (i.e. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya) – Sa’dan – ‘Ali b. Yaqṭin:

I said to Abu al-Hasan, peace be upon him, “The women of al-Madinah.” He said, “Unchaste.” I said, “So, can I marry from them?” He said, “Yes. And when the man intends to contract mut’ah, he does not have to do investigation about her. Rather, he should trust her in her statement.”[^43]

Al-Majlisi says:

Majhul.[^44]

As such, this hadith of ‘Ali b. Yaqṭin is ḍa’if. It also contradicts the Book of Allah, and that makes it mawḍu’.

Hadith Ten

Al-Ṭusi records:

Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya – ‘Ali b. al-Sindi – ‘Uthman b. ‘Isa – Ishaq b. ‘Ammar – Faḍl, freed slave of Muhammad b. Rashid:

I said, “I married a woman in mut’ah. But, it occurred in my mind that she had a husband. So, I investigated that and discovered that she had a husband.” Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Why did you investigate?!”[^45]

Al-Jawahiri says about one of the narrators:

‘Ali b. al-Sindi: he narrated 84 reports, and he also narrated under the name ‘Ali b. al-Sanadi al-Qummi: his trustworthiness is NOT established.[^46]

This makes him majhul and ḍa’if. Al-Jawahiri also states about another narrator:

Al-Faḍl, freed slave of Muhammad b. Rashid: Majhul.[^47]

Apparently, the report has a ḍa’if chain. It also contradicts this authentic hadith of al-Kulayni:

Muhammad b. Yahya – Ahmad b. Muhammad – Ibn Mahbub – Aban – Abu Maryam:

Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, was asked about mut’ah. So, he said, “Verily, mut’ah today is not as it used to be in the past. They (i.e. the women) used to be faithful. But, today, they are not faithful. Therefore, investigate about them (i.e. the women).[^48]

Al-Majlisi says:

Muwaththaq ka al-Sahih[^49]

Therefore, the man must thoroughly investigate about the woman – including concerning her marital status – before contracting mut’ah with her. Besides, even during their marriage, he must still carry out fresh investigations if he has any suspicions. The Imam, ‘alaihi al-salam, has not placed any time limitations on the obligation to investigate.

Hadith Eleven

Al-Ṭusi reports:

And from him (Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya) – Ayyub b. Nuh – Mihran b. Muhammad – one of our companions:

It was said to Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, “So-and-so married a woman in mut’ah. Then, he was informed that she had a husband. Therefore, he asked her.” So, Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, said, “And why did he ask her?”[^50]

Al-Jawahiri says about one of the narrators:

Mihran b. Muhammad: Majhul.[^51]

As such, the hadith is ḍa’if. But, it is also mursal, as our esteemed reader can see. Al-Majlisi too confirms this when he declares concerning it:

Mursal.[^52]

Therefore, its suffers from compounded unreliability.

Hadith Twelve

Al-Ṭusi documents:

And from him (i.e. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya) – al-Haytham b. Abi Masruq al-Hindi – Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr AND Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ash’ari – Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ash’ari:

I said to al-Riḍa, peace be upon him, “The man marries the woman. Then, it occurs in his mind that she has a husband.” He said, “It is not upon him. Have you seen: if he asks her for proof, there will be someone who will testify that she has no husband?”[^53]

Al-Majlisi states about the hadith:

Majhul.[^54]

Al-Jawahiri also submits about one of the narrators:

Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ash’ari: Majhul.[^55]

Therefore, the hadith is ḍa’if.

Hadith Thirteen

Al-Ṭusi records:

Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya – al-‘Abbas b. Ma’ruf – Sa’dan b. Muslim – a man – Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:

There is no problem in marrying the virgin when she consents, without the consent of her parents.[^56]

Al-Majlisi declares:

Majhul Mursal.[^57]

Thus, it is very weak. It equally contradicts this authentic hadith of the same al-Ṭusi:

Ahmad b. Muhammad – Muhammad b. Isma’il – Abu al-Hasan Zarif – Aban – Abu Maryam – Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:

The virgin who has a father cannot be married in mut’ah except with the permission of her father.[^58]

Al-Majlisi comments:

Muwaththaq ka al-Sahih[^59]

Al-Ruhani also states:

Sahih[^60]

That then delivers the fatal blow to it.

Hadith Fourteen

Al-Ṭusi says:

And from him from Musa b. ‘Umar b. Yazid – Muhammad b. Sinan – Abu Sa’id al-Qimaṭ – from the one who narrated it:

I said to Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him: “A virgin girl who is still with her parents invites me to herself secretly without the knowledge of her parents. Should I do that?” He said, “Yes, and avoid the place of the vulva.” I said, “So, if she consents to that?” He said, “Even if she consents to that, for it is a shame upon the virgins.”[^61]

Al-Majlisi comments:

Ḍa’if ‘ala al-Mashhur.[^62]

Al-Jawahiri too states about one of the narrators:

Musa b. ‘Umar b. Yazid Dhibyan al-Sayqal: Majhul.[^63]

And, about another narrator, Shaykh al-Najashi (d. 450 H) submits:

Muhammad b. Sinan ... he is a man who is ḍa’if jiddan (very weak). He is not relied upon, and no attention is paid to whatever he narrated without corroboration.[^64]

As such, the hadith is ḍa’if jiddan. Worse still, it is equally mursal, as its main narrator is unknown.

With that same ḍa’if jiddan chain, al-Tusi proceeds with this further riwayah:

And with this chain from Abu Sa’id:

Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, was asked about mut’ah with virgins who are still with their parents. So, he said, “There is no problem (with it), and I do not say as these scoundrels say.”[^65]

Al-Majlisi says:

Ḍa’if.[^66]

We already know of the severe weakness of the sanad, anyway.

Then, al-Ṭusi proceeds to narrate one more hadith through that same chain:

Abu Sa’id from al-Halabi:

I asked him about mut’ah with the virgin who is still with her parents without the consent of her parents. He said, “There is no problem as long as one does not consummate what is there, so that she could be chaste by that.”[^67]

Al-Majlisi declares:

Ḍa’if ‘ala al-Mashhur.[^68]

And it is actually ḍa’if jiddan due to Muhammad b. Sinan. Of course, it equally contradicts the sahih hadith of Abu Maryam, quoted above – a fact that makes its case even more hopeless.

Hadith Fifteen

Al-Tusi records:

Al-Hasan b. Mahbub – Ishaq b. Jarir:

I said to Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, “With us in Kufah, there is a woman who is famous for prostitution. Is it halal to marry her in mut’ah**?**” He said, “Did she raise a flag (i.e. openly practises prostitution)?” I said, “No. If she raised a flag, the ruler would arrest her.” So, he said, “Yes. Marry her in mut’ah.” Then, he listened to one of his slaves and confided something to him. As a result, something entered my heart concerning that. Therefore, I met his slave and said to him, “What did Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, say to you?” So, he said to me, “It is not something you dislike.” Then I said, “In that case, inform me of it.” Then he said, “He only said to me: even if she raised a flag, there would not be anything against his marriage of her. He only takes her out of a haram to a halal.”[^69]

Al-Majlisi says:

Muwaththaq.[^70]

Al-Ruhani agrees:

Muwaththaq.[^71]

The last part of the hadith is mursal and therefore ḍa’if, as it is narrated to Ishaq by an unnamed, unknown slave. As for the first part, it is muwaththaq.

A muwaththaq hadith is only conditionally authentic, and is inferior to a sahih hadith. This is why, in the case of a conflict between a muwaththaq hadith and a sahih hadith, the former becomes shadh and ḍa’if. Meanwhile, al-Ṭusi himself gives some further information on the muwaththaq hadith:

As for the ‘adalah that is required in the preference of one of two reports over another, it is: that the narrator should have the true ‘aqidah, enlightened, trustworthy in his religion, who avoids telling lies, not accused in what he narrates.

But, if he deviates in ‘aqidah from the root of the (Shi’i) sect, and narrates nonetheless from the Imams, peace be upon them, what he narrates is looked at. If there is what contradicts it from the routes of trusted narrators, it becomes obligatory to throw away his report. However, if there is nothing that necessitates throwing away his report, and there is what agrees with it, it becomes obligatory to follow it.

Meanwhile, if there is no report from the saved sect (i.e. Shi’is) which agrees with that, and no report which contradicts it, and no opinion is known from them concerning it, it is equally obligatory to follow it.[^72]

In other words, a muwaththaq hadith – which is what a non-Imami Muslim narrates from the Ahl al-Bayt – is authentic only if there is nothing sahih that contradicts it. Al-Ṭusi also adds:

And if there is nothing that contradicts what he narrated, and the ṭaifah (i.e. Shi’is) are not known to have acted contrary to it, it is obligatory to follow it as well, if he is restrained (from telling lies) in his report, trustworthy in his honesty, even if he deviates in the root of ‘aqidah.[^73]

So, what saves a muwaththaq hadith is the complete absence of any sahih Shi’i hadith that contradicts it. If there is, the muwaththaq hadith becomes matruk (rejected) and thrown away.

With that in mind, we ask: is there any sahih Shi’i hadith which contradicts the muwaththaq hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir above?

First, it directly opposes this ayah of Allah:

The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater: and that is made HARAM for the believers.[^74]

This explicitly forbids marriage with fornicators and fornicatresses. The instruction is also general, and the Ahl al-Bayt have applied the verse to both permanent marriage and mut’ah.

It also contradicts this ayah:

Today, the good things are made halal to you; and the food of those who were given the Book is halal for you, and your food is halal for them; **and also (**halal to you are) the CHASTE ONES from the believing women and the CHASTE ONES from those who were given the Book before you, when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating (with them), nor taking them as girlfriends.[^75]

Only chaste Muslim and Kitabi women are halal for marriage. All others are therefore haram. Of course, there is absolutely no doubt that fornicatresses and prostitutes are NOT chaste women. As such, mut’ah with any unchaste woman – in particular, with a fornicatress or prostitute – is haram in Islam, according to the Book of our Lord.

The third ayah which the muwaththaq hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir contradicts is this:

And whoever of you is not able to afford to marry free believing women, let him marry from the believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess, and Allah has full knowledge about your faith. You are one from another. Marry them with the consent of their masters and give them their dowries justly: they being CHASTE, not fornicating, nor taking boyfriends.[^76]

So, even a slave girl must be chaste before she can qualify for marriage – whether permanently or in mut’ah. Alhamdulillah, there are hardly any slaves in the world today. Meanwhile, the significance of this verse to our research is in the fact that Allah generally sets lower standards for slaves and higher for free believers[^77]. Since chastity is strictly required from slave girls before they can qualify for nikah, then the standard is even higher for free Muslimahs! Apparently, the average Muslim woman must indeed be very chaste in order to be suitable for mut’ah.

Thus, what happens to the muwaththaq hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir which opposes these verses? Al-Khui has a clear answer for this:

The mutawatir reports have proved that it is obligatory to compare reports with the Book and the Sunnah, and that whatsoever contradicts the Book from them must be thrown away and discarded.[^78]

Shaykh al-Saduq (d. 381 H) too declares:

Every hadith that does not agree with the Book of Allah is a fabrication.[^79]

Therefore, the hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir is mawḍu’, a fabrication.

Then, al-Saduq has this hadith too:

Dawud b. Sarhan – Zurarah:

I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, about the Statement of Allah, the Almighty {The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater}. He said, “They are women who are famous for zina, and men who are famous for zina. They became famous for zina and became known with it; and the people today are of that status. Whoever is judicially punished for zina or is famous for it, it is NOT appropriate for anyone to marry them until repentance is known from them.”[^80]

The annotator, Prof. ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari, comments:

The chain is sahih.[^81]

Al-Ruhani agrees with him:

Sahih.[^82]

Al-Ṭusi also reports this:

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa – Abu al-Mua’za – al-Halabi – Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him:

“Do NOT marry the woman who overtly commits zina, and do NOT marry the man who overtly commits zina, EXCEPT when repentance is known from them both.”[^83]

Al-Ruhani comments:

Sahih.[^84]

Al-Kulayni is not left out either:

‘Ali b. Ibrahim – Muhammad b. ‘Isa – Yunus – Muhammad b. al-Fuḍayl:

I asked Abu al-Hasan, peace be upon him, about the beautiful woman who is a prostitute: is it permissible for the man to do mut’ah with her for a day or more?” He said: “If she is famous for zina**, then he must NOT do** mut’ah with her and also must NOT marry her (permanently).”[^85]

Al-Majlisi comments:

Muwaththaq (Reliable)[^86]

Al-Ruhani says:

Sahih.[^87]

Then, al-Kulayni reports this too:

Humayd b. Ziyad – al-Hasan b. Muhammad b. Sama’ah – Ahmad b. al-Hasan al-Maythami – Aban – Hakam b. Hakim – Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, concerning His Statement, the Almighty {and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater}:

“That is only in the publicity (of the fornication)”. Then, he (Abu ‘Abd Allah) said, “If a person commits zina**, and then repents, they can marry wherever they wish (in the** halal categories).”[^88]

Al-Majlisi comments:

Muwaththaq.[^89]

And, of course, we must not forget this hadith of al-Ṭusi:

Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa – Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Bazi’:

A man asked al-Riḍa, peace be upon him, while I was listening, about the man who marries the woman in mut’ah and he imposes a condition upon her that he will not seek her child. But, she later comes with a child and he severely denies the child. So, he (al-Riḍa) said, “Does he deny? How can he deny primarily because of that?” Then, the man said, “What if he accuses her (of fornication)?” He (al-Riḍa) said, “It is not appropriate for you to marry except a faithful woman. Verily, Allah the Almighty says: {The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater: and that is made haram for the believers}.[^90]

Al-Majlisi states:

Sahih.[^91]

Al-Ruhani concurs:

Sahih.[^92]

Meanwhile, al-Kulayni still has more:

‘Ali b. Ibrahim – his father – Hammad b. ‘Isa – Hariz b. ‘Abd Allah – Muhammad b. Muslim:

I asked Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, about the fornicatress, “Can I marry her?” He said, “No.”[^93]

Al-Majlisi declares:

Hasan.[^94]

Let us then cap everything with this additional hadith of al-Kulayni:

Muhammad b. Yahya – Ahmad b. Muhammad – ‘Ali b. al-Hakam – al-‘Ala b. Zarin – Muhammad b. Muslim:

I asked Abu Ja’far about the fornicatress, “Can the man marry her?” He said, “No.” And he (further) said, “If he has a slave woman, he should have intercourse with her (instead), and he should not take her as the mother of his child.”[^95]

And, al-Majlisi states:

Sahih.[^96]

The bottom-line of all this is that the hadith of Ishaq b. Jarir fails the full conditions of authenticity. It contradicts the Book of Allah as well as several sahih, muwaththaq and hasan ahadith. As a result, it is *mawḍu’*¸ thrown out and discarded.

Hadith Sixteen

Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 413 H) records:

Narrated al-Hasan b. Jarir:

I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, about the woman upon whom zina is committed. Can I do mut’ah with her?” He said, “Did you see that?” I said, “No. But, she is accused of it.” He said, “Yes. Do mut’ah with her, upon (the condition) that you leave and lock your door.”[^97]

This one is mursal and therefore ḍa’if, as it has no chain of narration. Moreover, its only narrator, al-Hasan b. Jarir, is muhmal (untraceable). Therefore, the hadith is very weak.

Hadith Seventeen

Al-Himyari (d. 300 H), in the book attributed to him, has this hadith:

‘Ali b. Riab said:

I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, concerning with the prostitute: “Does the Muslim man marry her?” He said, “Yes. And what prevents him? If he does, he must fortify his door, for fear of the child.”[^98]

Ayatullah al-Muhsini declares it ḍa’if.[^99] In particular, it is from Qurb al-Isnad, a ḍa’if book[^100], which has not reached us through any reliable means; and there is also dispute over its exact authorship.

Moreover, the hadith is not about mut’ah specifically. Rather, it addresses marriage generally. Meanwhile, despite that it is intrinsically ḍa’if, it nonetheless also contradicts sahih and muwaththaq reports. This significantly worsens its unreliability. Most importantly, it opposes the Book of Allah, and that makes it mawḍu’.

[^1]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, al-Istibṣar (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 3, p. 142, Ch. 92, # 5 (511)

[^2]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 251, Ch. 24, # 10 (1085)

[^3]: ‘Ali Al Muhsin, Lillah wa li al-Haqiqah (2nd edition, 1425 H), vol. 1, p. 209

[^4]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 32, # 10

[^5]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, al-‘Uddah fi Uṣul al-Fiqh (Qum: Muasassat al-Ba’thah; 1st edition, 1417 H) [annotator: Muhammad Riḍa al-Anṣari al-Qummi], vol. 1, pp. 148-149

[^6]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 32, # 10

[^7]: Abu Ja’far Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Ash’ari al-Qummi, Kitab al-Nawadir (Qum: Muasassat al-Imam al-Mahdi; 1st edition, 1408 H), p. 87, # 198

[^8]: Muhammad Aṣif al-Muhsini, Buhuth fi ‘Ilm al-Rijal (Markaz al-Muṣtafa al-‘Alami li Tarjamah wa al-Nashr), p. 422, # 3

[^9]: Ibid, pp. 421-424, # 3

[^10]: Mirza Husayn b. Muhammad Taqi al-Nuri al-Ṭabarsi, Khatimah Mustadrak al-Wasail (Qum: Muasassat Al al-Bayt ‘Alaihim al-Salam li Ihya al-Turath; 1st edition, 1415 H), vol. 1, pp. 30-31

[^11]: Abu Ja’far Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Ash’ari al-Qummi, Kitab al-Nawadir (Qum: Muasassat al-Imam al-Mahdi; 1st edition, 1408 H), p. 87, # 200

[^12]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 467, # 10

[^13]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 226

[^14]: Muhammad al-Jawahiri, al-Mufid min Mu’jam al-Rijal al-Hadith (Qum: Manshurat Maktabah al-Mahalati; 2nd edition, 1424 H), p. 273, # 5630

[^15]: Ibid, p. 191, # 3879

[^16]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 453, # 4

[^17]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 234

[^19]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 460, # 1

[^20]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 247

[^21]: Abu al-Qasim al-Musawi al-Khui, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith wa Tafṣil Ṭabaqat al-Ruwat (5th edition, 1413 H), vol. 1, p. 61

[^24]: Ibid, vol. 1, p. 64

[^25]: Ibid, vol. 1, p. 63

[^26]: Ibid, vol. 15, p. 297, # 10043

[^27]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 451, # 5

[^28]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 232

[^29]: Muhammad al-Jawahiri, al-Mufid min Mu’jam al-Rijal al-Hadith (Qum: Manshurat Maktabah al-Mahalati; 2nd edition, 1424 H), p. 464, # 9521

[^30]: Abu Ja’far Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid al-Barqi, Kitab al-Mahasin (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah; 1st edition), vol. 2, p. 330, # 90

[^31]: See Muhammad Aṣif al-Muhsini, Buhuth fi ‘Ilm al-Rijal (Markaz al-Muṣtafa al-‘Alami li Tarjamah wa al-Nashr), pp. 424-425, # 4; Muhammad Aṣif al-Muhsini, Mashra’ah Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut: Muasassat al-‘Arif li al-Maṭbu’at; 2nd edition, 1426 H), vol. 1, p. 14

[^32]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 452, # 7

[^33]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 233

[^34]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 462, # 2

[^35]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 251

[^36]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 270, Ch. 24, # 84 (1159)

[^37]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, al-Istibṣar (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 3, p. 143, Ch. 93, # 4 (515)

[^39]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 253, Ch. 24, # 15 (1090)

[^40]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, al-Istibṣar (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 3, p. 95, Ch. 62, # 9 (325)

[^41]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 35, # 15

[^42]: Qur’an 24:3

[^43]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 253, Ch. 24, # 16 (1091)

[^44]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 36, # 16

[^45]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 253, Ch. 24, # 17 (1092)

[^46]: Muhammad al-Jawahiri, al-Mufid min Mu’jam al-Rijal al-Hadith (Qum: Manshurat Maktabah al-Mahalati; 2nd edition, 1424 H), p. 398, # 8183

[^47]: Ibid, p. 458, # 9403

[^48]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 453, # 1

[^49]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 235

[^50]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 253, Ch. 24, # 18 (1093)

[^51]: Muhammad al-Jawahiri, al-Mufid min Mu’jam al-Rijal al-Hadith (Qum: Manshurat Maktabah al-Mahalati; 2nd edition, 1424 H), p. 632, # 12903

[^52]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 36, # 18

[^53]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, pp. 253-254, Ch. 24, # 19 (1094)

[^54]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 37, # 19

[^55]: Muhammad al-Jawahiri, al-Mufid min Mu’jam al-Rijal al-Hadith (Qum: Manshurat Maktabah al-Mahalati; 2nd edition, 1424 H), p. 543, # 11077

[^56]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 254, Ch.24, # 20 (1095)

[^57]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 37, # 20

[^58]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 254-255, Ch. 24, # 24 (1099)

[^59]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 39, # 24

[^60]: Muhammad Ṣadiq al-Husayni al-Ruhani, Fiqh al-Ṣadiq (Qum: Muasassat Dar al-Kitab; 3rd edition, 1414 H), vol. 21, p. 155

[^61]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 254, Ch. 24, # 21 (1096)

[^62]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 38, # 21

[^63]: Muhammad al-Jawahiri, al-Mufid min Mu’jam al-Rijal al-Hadith (Qum: Manshurat Maktabah al-Mahalati; 2nd edition, 1424 H), p. 628, # 12817

[^64]: Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Ahmad b. al-‘Abbas al-Najashi al-Asadi al-Kufi, Fihrist Asma Muṣannafay al-Shi’ah (Qum: Muasassat al-Nashr al-Islami; 5th edition, 1416 H) [annotator: Sayyid Musa al-Shubayri al-Zanjani], p. 328, # 888

[^65]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 254, Ch. 24, # 22 (1097)

[^66]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 39, # 22

[^67]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 254, Ch. 24, # 23 (1098)

[^68]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 39, # 23

[^69]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 485, Ch. 41, # 157 (1949)

[^70]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 507, # 155

[^71]: Muhammad Ṣadiq al-Husayni al-Ruhani, Fiqh al-Ṣadiq (Qum: Muasassat Dar al-Kitab; 3rd edition, 1414 H), vol. 21, p. 320

[^72]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, al-‘Uddah fi Uṣul al-Fiqh (Qum: Muasassat al-Ba’thah; 1st edition, 1417 H) [annotator: Muhammad Riḍa al-Anṣari al-Qummi], vol. 1, pp. 148-149

[^73]: Ibid, vol. 1, p. 150

[^74]: Qur’an 24:3

[^75]: Qur’an 5:5

[^76]: Qur’an 4:25

[^77]: See for instance Qur’an 4:25, 2:178 and 16:75.

[^78]: Abu al-Qasim al-Musawi al-Khui, al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Zahra li al-Ṭaba’ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 4th edition, 1395 H), p. 231

[^79]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. ‘Ali b. Husayn b. Babuyah al-Qummi, al-I’tiqadat (Dar al-Mufid; 2nd edition, 1414 H) [annotator: ‘Iṣam ‘Abd al-Sayyid], Ch. 1, p. 22

[^80]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. ‘Ali b. al-Husayn b. Babuyah al-Qummi, Man La Yahduruh al-Faqih (Qum: Manshurat Jama’ah al-Mudarisin fi al-Hawzah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1404 H) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 3, pp. 405-406, # 4417

[^81]: Ibid, vol. 3, p. 406, # 4417, footnote # 1

[^82]: Muhammad Ṣadiq al-Husayni al-Ruhani, Fiqh al-Ṣadiq (Qum: Muasassat Dar al-Kitab; 3rd edition, 1414 H), vol. 21, p. 319

[^83]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, al-Istibṣar (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 3, p. 168, Ch. 109, # 1 (613)

[^84]: Muhammad Ṣadiq al-Husayni al-Ruhani, Fiqh al-Ṣadiq (Qum: Muasassat Dar al-Kitab; 3rd edition, 1414 H), vol. 21, p. 319

[^85]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 454, # 6

[^86]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 237

[^87]: Muhammad Ṣadiq al-Husayni al-Ruhani, Fiqh al-Ṣadiq (Qum: Muasassat Dar al-Kitab; 3rd edition, 1414 H), vol. 21, p. 320

[^88]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 355, # 6

[^89]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 62

[^90]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Ṭusi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Hasan al-Musawi al-Khurasan], vol. 7, p. 269, Ch. 24, # 82 (1157)

[^91]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Maladh al-Akhyar fi Fahm Tahdhib al-Akhbar (Qum: Maktabah Ayatullah al-Mar’ashi; 1407 H), vol. 12, p. 69, # 81

[^92]: Muhammad Ṣadiq al-Husayni al-Ruhani, Fiqh al-Ṣadiq (Qum: Muasassat Dar al-Kitab; 3rd edition, 1414 H), vol. 22, p. 43

[^93]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 353, # 1

[^94]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 56

[^95]: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, al-Furu’ min al-Kafi (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: ‘Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari], vol. 5, p. 353, # 4

[^96]: Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Mir-at al-‘Uqul fi Sharh Akhbar Al al-Rasul (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muhsin al-Husayni al-Amini], vol. 20, p. 57

[^97]: Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Muhammad b. al-Nu’man al-Ukbari al-Baghdadi, Risalah al-Mut’ah (Beirut: Dar al-Mufid li al-Ṭaba’ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 2nd edition, 1414 H), p. 12, # 29

[^98]: Abu al-‘Abbas ‘Abd Allah b. Ja’far al-Himyari, Qurb al-Isnad (Qum: Muasassat Al al-Bayt ‘Alaihim al-Salam li Ihya al-Turath; 1st edition, 1413 H), p. 166, # 609

[^99]: Muhammad Aṣif al-Muhsini, Mashra’ah Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut: Muasassat al-‘Arif li al-Maṭbu’at; 2nd edition, 1426 H), vol. 2, p. 487

[^100]: See Muhammad Aṣif al-Muhsini, Buhuth fi ‘Ilm al-Rijal (Markaz al-Muṣtafa al-‘Alami li Tarjamah wa al-Nashr), pp. 427-428, # 6; Muhammad Aṣif al-Muhsini, Mashra’ah Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut: Muasassat al-‘Arif li al-Maṭbu’at; 2nd edition, 1426 H), vol. 1, p. 14 and 405