Muti Sayyid: With regard to Umar (RA), it is generally said that he did not favor frequent narration, yet the number of his narrations is greater than that of Abu Bakr. Is the reason for this that he lived for a longer period after the Prophet?
Ammar Nasir: Yes, that is correct. He lived for fourteen to fifteen years, and during his period of caliphate many such matters came before him in which he had to search for and verify the hadiths of the Prophet (PBUH), or he had to relate many hadiths that were already known to him. Therefore, quite naturally, the number of his narrations is greater.
Muti Sayyid: There are some hadiths of which Umar was unaware, even though they were well known among the Companions. For example, he heard from Abu Musa al-Ashari (RA) the hadith that when one goes to someone’s house, permission should be sought three times, and if no response is received, one should return. Upon this, Umar said to him: “Bring a witness for this, otherwise I will punish you” (Tirmidhi, No. 2690). This was a hadith related to everyday manners of life—how could Umar have been unaware of it? He was with the Prophet (PBUH) all the time.
Ammar Nasir: Such a thing is not improbable. Sometimes even people with very close relationships remain unaware of an important matter. In any case, during the lifetime of the Prophet (PBUH), Umar did make arrangements to ensure that important statements made by the Prophet in his absence would reach him. He had divided turns with one of his companions: one day Umar would attend to trade and other matters, while his companion would stay with the Prophet in the Prophet’s Mosque. The next day, the companion would attend to trade, and Umar would stay with the Prophet. Then both of them would inform each other of important matters (Bukhari, No. 89). Even despite this, if some important matters did not reach his knowledge, that is not beyond possibility.
Muti Sayyid: Some people came from Syria and said to Umar that they had horses and slaves and that they wanted to pay zakah on them. Umar said that the Prophet (PBUH) and Abu Bakr had not done this, so he would consult the Companions regarding it. Then Ali advised that if this were not made a permanent obligation upon them—one that would continue to be taken from them even after him—then zakah could be taken from them (No. 82). From this it appears that the Companions temporarily collected zakah from them but were not in favor of imposing zakah on them permanently. What was the reason for this? Did they consider the ruling of zakah to be restricted to certain specific types of wealth?
Ammar Nasir: This is a good question, and it helps in understanding how the process of ijtihad and qiyas developed in the ummah. If you look at the words of the Quran, they are general:خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً — “Take charity from their wealth” (Surah At-Tawbah 9:103). No specific type of wealth is identified here. From the perspective of analogy as well, zakah should be due on every type of wealth. However, our juristic tradition did not reach this conclusion all at once; rather, it adopted this position after passing through several stages of ijtihad.
The reality is that during the time of the Prophet (PBUH), the zakah that he collected was from those forms of wealth that the Arabs generally possessed at that time. He collected zakah on gold and silver, agricultural produce, and livestock—camels, cows, and goats. However, regarding horses and slaves, he said that he had exempted them from zakah. Even in agricultural produce, he did not take zakah on vegetables and greens; rather, he took zakah only on dates, wheat, barley, and the like.
Against this background, the general tendency among the Companions and the Successors was that zakah was originally imposed only on these specific categories of wealth. The same tendency is reflected in this dialogue between Umar and Ali. The reports state that they did accept the zakah of horses and slaves from the people of Syria upon their insistence, but in return they also allocated stipends from the public treasury for their slaves (Al- Amwal by Abu ʿUbayd, Nos. 1365, 1366). Later, when new types of agricultural produce appeared, the Companions and Successors differed over whether zakah should be taken from them or not. Some jurists held the view that zakah should be taken only from those categories from which the Prophet (PBUH) took zakah, while other jurists considered it permissible to take zakah from other crops as well, such as maize, olives, rice, lentils, and the like. In the early period, this difference of opinion generally remained among the jurists. A large group held this view, and if you look at Imam Abu ʿUbayd, the author of Kitab al-Amwal in the third century, you will see that his inclination was also that zakah is only on those specific forms of wealth from which the Prophet (PBUH) took zakah, and that there is no zakah on other forms of wealth.
Muti Sayyid: According to analogy, it does seem that zakah should be due on every type of wealth. Those jurists who were of the view that zakah is only on specific forms of wealth—did they not consider qiyas valid? If they accepted qiyas, then on what basis did they hold this opinion?
Ammar Nasir: No, the reason for their view was not a rejection of qiyas. They did accept qiyas, but their disagreement in this particular issue was over the point of what the fundamental effective cause (ʿillah) for the obligation of zakah is in the view of the Shariʿah. If it is merely the existence of wealth, then zakah should be due on every type of wealth. However, they believed that when the Prophet (PBUH) took zakah from certain specific types of wealth and not from others, and even explicitly stated that he exempted some from zakah, this indicates that the Shariʿah intends to restrict zakah to those specific forms of wealth.
Imam Abu ʿUbayd has transmitted from some scholars an explanation to the effect that the purpose of the Shariʿah is actually to fulfill the dietary needs of the poor and needy. Therefore, it prescribed zakah only on wheat, barley, and dates among food crops, and only on camels, cows, and goats among animals, so that the poor may eat these food items and drink the milk of the animals to satisfy their hunger. Thus, these scholars were not deniers of qiyas; rather, they differed in their understanding of what the underlying cause of this ruling is.
In any case, as civilization continued to change and other forms of wealth became more useful and important, this tendency became more widespread among jurists as well—that zakah is obligatory on every type of wealth. Among contemporary scholars, there is almost consensus on the obligation of zakah on all forms of wealth. You can see this discussion in Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s Fiqh al-Zakah.
Muti Sayyid: A Christian from Banu Taghlib accepted Islam and entered into a combined ihram for hajj and Umrah. Someone called him foolish for doing so. Disturbed by this, he went to Umar. Umar said: “There is nothing to worry about; you have acted exactly according to the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH)” (No. 83). But on the other hand, it is also reported about him that he used to prohibit hajj tamattuʿ. On the one hand he is recognizing this as Sunnah, and on the other hand he is prohibiting it—how is that?
Ammar Nasir: No, this was not tamattuʿ; it was qiran. In qiran, Umrah and hajj are performed with a single ihram, and the ihram is not removed after Umrah. In tamattuʿ, during the same journey one first performs Umrah, then removes the ihram, and later enters into a separate ihram for hajj. Umar used to prohibit hajj tamattuʿ so that people would not remove the ihram in between.
Muti Sayyid: During hajj, Umar departed from Muzdalifah towards Mina before sunrise and explained that the polytheists used to depart after sunrise, whereas the Prophet (PBUH) opposed them and departed from Muzdalifah before sunrise (No. 84). If the Prophet did this temporarily to oppose the polytheists, then why was Umar later observing this practice so carefully?
Ammar Nasir: No, in this matter the opposition to the polytheists was not merely to establish distinction from them. The decision to depart from Muzdalifah before sunrise was actually made to correct a self-imposed restriction from the pre-Islamic period. The polytheists had imposed upon themselves the rule that they would remain in Muzdalifah until sunrise. The Prophet (PBUH) corrected this by clarifying that it was not necessary to wait; one could depart even before sunrise. That is why Umar, following the Prophet, also chose the same time.
Muti Sayyid: In some matters, one sees in Umar a tendency to follow the Prophet (PBUH) exactly as he did, even if the original reason no longer remained. For example, regarding performing ramal (brisk walking) in the first three circuits of ṭawaf, he said that although Allah has granted strength to Islam, we will continue this practice because we have been doing it since the time of the Prophet (PBUH) (No. 317). But on many other occasions, Umar’s stance appears different. For example, regarding the muʾallafah al-qulub, he said that there was no longer a need to give them zakah because Islam had now become strong. On what basis, then, do we see that in many matters he insists on continuing the same practice, while in several others he adopts a different approach?
Ammar Nasir: In my view, Umar’s inclination was that in matters where there was no compelling reason to abandon the Prophet’s practice, it should be maintained as it was, even if the Prophet had done it due to some temporary consideration. For example, although brisk walking in the first three circuits of ṭawaf was done in a specific context, there was no particular reason to abandon it. Even if that specific reason no longer remained, the Prophet had performed the act and Muslims had continued doing it, so there was no reason to discontinue it. In contrast, where a religious interest or necessity required abandoning a particular practice, he would give preference to ijtihad. For example, suspending the allocation for the muʾallafah al-qulub due to the absence of need was a religious consideration. Similarly, in the matter of compiling the Quran into a single mushaf, you see that Abu Bakr was hesitant, saying that since the Prophet (PBUH) had not done this, how could they do it? But Umar insisted that it was a necessary task and should be carried out.
Muti Sayyid: On a journey, Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) saw Saad ibn Abi Waqqas (RA) wiping over his leather socks and expressed surprise. After returning to Madinah, he sought confirmation from Umar. Umar said: “When Saad narrates a hadith to you, do not ask anyone else about it” (No. 88). One question here is that we hear that the hadiths regarding wiping over leather socks are mutawatir. But from this report it appears that even a Companion like Abdullah ibn Umar was unaware of this concession. How is that?
Ammar Nasir: The statement that hadiths are mutawatir was made later by the hadith scholars, and their concept of tawatur is different. For example, when we say that the Quran is mutawatir, or that fundamental religious obligations like prayer and hajj are mutawatir, tawatur here means that the entire ummah is transmitting and is aware of these matters. But when hadith scholars say that a matter is mutawatir, they mean that it has been reported in many narrations, and when all these narrations are gathered and examined, certainty is achieved that the matter is correct and that no mistake occurred in its transmission. In this sense, hadith scholars call the narration of wiping over leather socks—and similar reports—mutawatir. You can understand it another way: among jurists, tawatur applies to that which the entire community of Muslims has been aware of since the time of the Prophet (PBUH). If a matter was not known and widespread in this way during the time of the Prophet or the Companions, then it is not mutawatir, even if it later becomes very well known. For such reports, the Hanafi jurists coined a separate term, khabar mashhur—that is, a report which was not mutawatir from the time of the Prophet, but became well known through investigation and verification during the time of the Companions or the Successors. The terminology of the hadith scholars is different. Even if, in the third or fourth century, collecting many chains of a report leads to confidence that the event is authentic, hadith scholars may still call it mutawatir from the perspective of transmission.
Muti Sayyid: The second question is whether the Prophet (PBUH) practiced this only occasionally, which is why some Companions knew of it while others did not.
Ammar Nasir: Most reports state that the Prophet (PBUH) wiped over leather socks while traveling. Reports of wiping while resident are very few. Then even during travel, obviously not all Companions were close to the Prophet at all times. Therefore, those Companions who happened to be near him during travel and had the opportunity to observe this practice were aware of it, while others were not. That is why, when ʿAʾishah was asked about the duration of wiping over leather socks, she said: “Ask Ali, because he used to be with the Prophet during travel” (Muslim, No. 276). A position is also reported from Imam Malik that he did not hold wiping over leather socks to be valid while resident. The likely reason for this, too, was that the reports establishing it are far fewer compared to those related to travel.
Muti Sayyid: It is generally reported about Imam Abu Hanifah that he described one sign of Ahl al-Sunnah as wiping over leather socks. How, then, could he declare as a sign of Ahl al-Sunnah something that even all the Companions were not aware of?
Ammar Nasir: The background of this is different. In fact, when sectarian divisions emerged among Muslims, certain specific issues became markers of religious identity for different groups. For example, the Rafidis dissociated themselves from Abu Bakr and Umar. The Kharijites dissociated themselves from both Uthman and Ali, and they also denied many rulings that came through hadith in addition to the Quran, such as stoning (rajm), wiping over leather socks, and the prohibition of combining two sisters in marriage. In this context, Imam Abu Hanifah said that considering Abu Bakr and Umar superior to the rest of the Companions, loving both Uthman and Ali, and wiping over leather socks—this is the position of Ahl al-Sunnah.
Muti Sayyid: A report states that a man killed his son with a sword blow, and Umar said: “Had the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) not said that retaliation (qisas) is not taken from a father, I would have had you executed” (No. 98). In the study of the Sihah Sittah, you mentioned the distinction that if a father is beating his child and, during that, the child receives such a severe injury that he dies, then qisas is not taken; but if the father intentionally kills his son, then qisas is taken. Here, however, the wording is quite clear that the father killed the son with a sword strike, and yet Umar is applying the same rule that qisas is not taken from a father.
Ammar Nasir: As you may recall, we clarified there that this distinction is the position of the Malikis. They say that the scope of this hadith is where the son is killed by the father without intent to kill, in which case qisas is not taken; but if the father kills intentionally and deliberately, then this ruling does not apply, rather qisas is taken. The rest of the jurists do not hold this view; they maintain that qisas is not taken in both cases. Now, when the Prophet (PBUH) stated this ruling, what exactly was the occasion—this has not been mentioned in the report, so both interpretations are possible. In the incident of Umar as well, the full details are not mentioned as to the nature of the killing. From the apparent wording, it seems as though the father threw the sword from some distance towards the son and he died as a result of a fatal blow. It is not necessary that there was an intention to kill; this could also be accidental killing. If that is the case, then perhaps Umar said this by way of threat and admonition for his negligence, meaning that if this hadith did not exist, he would have had him executed. But if the situation was one of deliberate killing, then it can be said that Umar’s understanding was also in line with the majority of jurists. The Malikis, however, can say that instead of agreeing with a Companion’s understanding and explanation, they prefer to determine the scope of the hadith through analogy (qiyas). In matters of ijtihad, there is considerable room for disagreement.
Muti Sayyid: Umar says: “I heard the Prophet (PBUH) say: ‘I have given a slave to my maternal aunt. I hope that Allah will make him a source of blessing for her, and I have forbidden her from making him a cupper, a butcher, or a goldsmith’” (No. 102). The reason for forbidding this is not clear to me; there does not seem to be anything wrong with these professions.
Ammar Nasir: Regarding cupping (hijamah), there appears to be an apparent contradiction in the hadiths, which is discussed by the hadith scholars. The Prophet (PBUH) expressed dislike for the profession of cupping and forbade becoming a cupper, yet he himself had cupping done and also paid the cupper his wages. Generally, hadith scholars reconcile this by saying that, from a legal perspective, there is no prohibition or unlawfulness in this profession. However, since the work involved drawing blood from the body by sucking with the mouth, the Prophet (PBUH) felt a natural aversion to it. A refined person feels repulsion in this regard, so from this angle he expressed dislike. Otherwise, he did not declare the profession unlawful, which is why he himself underwent cupping and paid its wages.
Muti Sayyid: And why did he forbid the other two professions?
Ammar Nasir: It is the same in their case as well. The Prophet (PBUH) was not issuing a general ruling that the profession of a butcher is unlawful. He was saying specifically about this slave that he should not be made a butcher. A butcher’s work involves cutting meat all the time, so perhaps there was an expression of natural dislike on the Prophet’s part. It is also possible that, in that environment, certain undesirable aspects were associated with the profession of butchery. Similarly, one can reason about the profession of a goldsmith. Commentators say that while making jewelry, a goldsmith may have to mix alloys, and there are many opportunities for shortchanging or deception. From this angle, the Prophet (PBUH) forbade it as a precaution, not to declare these professions unlawful in and of themselves.
Muti Sayyid: When Umar received news of the plague in Syria, he said: “If my time comes and Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah is alive, I will appoint him as my successor.” People did not like this and said: “What will happen to the major clans of Quraysh, that is, Banu Fihr?” (No. 108). Who were Banu Fihr, and what was their status within Quraysh?
Ammar Nasir: Fihr was actually the name of Quraysh itself, and Banu Fihr refers to the entire tribe of Quraysh. Within Quraysh there were various clans, and among them some clans—such as Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah—were more prominent and distinguished in terms of numbers and political standing. Other clans— such as Banu Adi, Banu Jumah, and Banu Taym—were smaller clans. The first two caliphs belonged to these smaller clans: Abu Bakr belonged to Banu Taym, and Umar belonged to Banu Adi. Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah belonged to Banu Jumah. Since he was among the leading Emigrants and among the earliest to accept Islam, Umar expressed his intention that if he were to nominate someone as caliph, it would be Abu Ubaydah. His name had also been proposed by Abu Bakr at Saqifah Bani Saʿidah, when he said: “Choose either Abu Ubaydah or Umar as caliph.” Now, when Umar, for the third caliph as well, mentioned the name of a Companion belonging to a smaller clan of Quraysh, it was natural that people—especially within Quraysh—raised the question as to why the larger clans, namely Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah, were being kept away from the caliphate.
Muti Syed: In the same report it is stated that Umar also said about Muadh ibn Jabal that he would like to appoint him as caliph (No. 108). Similarly, a statement of his is also reported regarding Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah—who had been freed by Hudhayfah—that if he had been alive, he would have appointed him as caliph after himself (Fada’il al-Sahabah, Ibn Hanbal 2/742). But Muʿadh was from the Ansar, not from Quraysh. In response to the position of the Ansar at Saqifah Bani Saidah, the very argument presented was that the Arabs would not accept the leadership of anyone other than Quraysh. Then how is it that Umar was mentioning the name of an Ansari Companion or a freed slave to be appointed as caliph? Would Quraysh or the Arabs have accepted their leadership?
Ammar Nasir: This is actually a way of expressing a person’s eligibility—that if the opportunity arose and there were no impediments, I would nominate these people as caliphs, because they are qualified to carry out the responsibility of the caliphate. When individuals are praised, there are different contexts for it. It is not necessary that Umar was speaking about the practical possibility or feasibility of formally appointing them as caliphs. Generally, commentators have explained these statements of Umar in this very sense. However, it seems to me that Umar did not view the relationship between the caliphate and Quraysh as something inseparable or as something that must always remain that way. At Saqifah Bani Saidah too, the point of the caliph being from Quraysh was stated from the angle of political expediency, as far as I recall, by Abu Bakr and some Ansari Companions. Umar himself did not present this argument there. His argument was actually in reference to the personality of Abu Bakr—that while he was present, the caliphate of anyone else would not be acceptable in the sight of Allah and His Messenger. But after that phase had passed and stability and consolidation had been achieved in governance, when Umar reflected on future possibilities, it seems to me that his inclination became that the office of the caliphate should be connected to individual competence rather than political tribalism. That is, if capable and qualified individuals exist among the Ansar or other tribes besides Quraysh, then they should be given this responsibility. You may call this, in a sense, his “loud thinking.” It is not necessary that he wanted or was able to act upon this intention in practical circumstances, but he was certainly thinking along these lines.
Muti Syed: Umar delivered a sermon to the people and said that Allah Almighty granted His Messenger the concession that He was to grant. But the Prophet of Allah has now departed from this world, so you should complete both Hajj and Umrah as Allah has commanded, and also safeguard the private parts of your women (No. 104). What is Umar saying here, and which concession is he referring to?
Ammar Nasir: Here he is referring to Hajj Tamattu and temporary marriage with women, i.e., mut‘ah. What he wants to say is that Allah Almighty, during the lifetime of the Prophet (PBUH), granted this concession under a particular expediency—that people could marry women for a limited period and could combine Umrah with Hajj in the same journey—but this is not the original or permanent ruling of the Shariah. The original ruling is that there should be a separate journey for Umrah and a separate journey for Hajj; they should not be combined in one journey. Similarly, when marriage is contracted with women, it should be with the intention of a permanent relationship, not a temporary or provisional marriage. There is another very well-known report in which he says that there were two mutahs during the time of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), but I prohibit them: one is Hajj Tamattu and the other is Mut‘at al-Nisa’ (Mustakhraj Abi ‘Awanah, No. 3349).
Muti Sayyid: From this it appears that Umar regarded Hajj Tamattu, like Mutat al-Nisa’, as a temporary ruling. But in another report it is stated that he said that Hajj Tamattu is also the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), but I do not like that people have intercourse with their wives under the pilu trees and then get up in the morning and make the intention for Hajj (No. 342). That is, personally he did not like it and did not want people to take advantage of it. This may be his personal inclination, but on what basis was he preventing people on that account? This position is somewhat difficult to understand.
Ammar Nasir: In fact, different kinds of reasoning are reported from Umar in the narrations. In some of them it is stated that he did not like pilgrims establishing marital relations within the Haram during the journey of Hajj, and he thought that when people reach the Haram for Hajj, they should refrain from intercourse and the like before completing the Hajj. At the time of Hajjat al-Wada, when the Prophet (PBUH) instructed the Companions who had entered ihram for Hajj to perform Umrah and then remove their ihram, the Companions were also hesitant for this very reason and said that if we remove the ihram, then when the days of Hajj arrive, shall we go towards Mina in a state that we have just had intercourse with our wives? (Muslim, No. 1216). Some other narrations report that Umar said that he wanted people to come frequently to visit the House of Allah (Al- Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhaqi, No. 8877). Perhaps he feared that if people started performing Umrah together with Hajj, then they would not come to the House of Allah except for Hajj, and the flow of people during the rest of the year would decrease. And some narrations state that he regarded it as a temporary concession granted during the time of the Prophet (PBUH), as mentioned in the report you cited.
Now it is possible that his actual position was indeed that Hajj Tamattu‘ was a temporary concession, whereas the Shariah fundamentally intends that Hajj and Umrah be performed through separate journeys. But a major question arises here: this concession has been explicitly stated by Allah Almighty in the Quran, even though along with it the command of sacrificing an animal or fasting has also been given (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:196). That is, calling this concession temporary or provisional is very difficult. It seems to me that his real concern was that within the boundaries of the Haram, after removing the ihram of Umrah, people would be having intercourse with their wives under trees or wherever they found space, and this was not a good sight. At that time, obviously, not all pilgrims had enclosed accommodations, and most had to stay in open areas, so in such conditions it was not possible to maintain the necessary privacy required for intercourse. To avoid this situation, Umar wanted to prevent people, and then perhaps as supporting evidence or incidentally he argued that this was a temporary concession granted during the time of the Prophet (PBUH), whereas Allah Almighty’s original requirement is that people perform Umrah and Hajj through separate journeys. He was interpreting ‘وَأَتمُّوا َّالْحَج َوَالْعمْرَة ٰ لِلہ’ in this sense.
Muti Sayyid: But Ali and other Companions used to criticize Umar for this position, didn’t they?
Ammar Nasir: Yes. Very strong criticism was directed at Umar, to the effect that who was he to prohibit something when Allah and His Messenger (PBUH) had permitted it.
Muti Sayyid: Regarding Mutat al-Nisa’, the Shia say that the Prophet (PBUH) did not prohibit it; rather, Umar prohibited it. Do the Ahl al-Sunnah also accept that it was Umar who prohibited it, or do they hold that the Prophet (PBUH) himself prohibited it?
Ammar Nasir: If you look at it from the Shia perspective, they say that Umar was a bold person who enforced his own opinion even in the face of the commands of the Prophet (PBUH). They cite all these examples. Husayn Musawi is a major Shia scholar from Iraq. In his book Al-Nass wa al-Ijtihad, he has compiled all such examples regarding the caliphs, where on one side there was an explicit text—the command of Allah and His Messenger (PBUH)—while on the other side the caliphs formed their own opinions. However, with regard to Mut‘at al- Nisa’, the Shia objection does not actually stand, because Ali’s position on this issue was also that the Prophet (PBUH) permitted it on certain specific occasions, but then later prohibited it (Bukhari, No. 6560). As for Hajj Tamattu‘, Ali did not agree with Umar and criticized him for placing restrictions on the permission granted by the Prophet (PBUH). The general view of Ahl al-Sunnah is also that its prohibition was enacted by the Prophet (PBUH) himself. That is the original source. However, if some Companions continued to regard it as permissible, or did so due to lack of knowledge about its abrogation, then when it came to Umar’s knowledge, he strictly prevented it.
Muti Sayyid: But from the narrations it does not seem that Umar was saying that the Prophet (PBUH) had prohibited it.
Ammar Nasir: Yes, that is correct. His reasoning was not textual; his reasoning was based on the objectives of the Shariah.
Muti Sayyid: After Umar, did anyone else consider it permissible?
Ammar Nasir: Even after Umar’s decision, the disagreement did not end. It remained for two to two-and-a-half centuries, and among Ahl al-Sunnah there were groups holding both opinions. Imam al-Shafi‘i also mentioned it as a disputed issue. Since Abdullah ibn ʿAbbas held the view of permissibility, this position remained prevalent among the people of Makkah for a long time. Then gradually, by the time of the formation of the juristic schools, a general consensus emerged among Ahl al-Sunnah on its prohibition, while the permissive position was adopted by the Imami school.
Muti Sayyid: What were the reasons for this consensus forming among Ahl al-Sunnah?
Ammar Nasir: In my view, the major reason was the same reasoning based on the objectives of the Shariah that Umar articulated. It is clear that the Prophet (PBUH) granted this concession only in an emergency situation; he did not grant a general permission. But in such matters, concessions do not take long to turn into general permissions—that is, the chances of misuse are very high. That is why when Abdullah ibn ʿAbbas, who used to issue formal legal opinions permitting it, came to know how people were actually using this concession, he did not retract his opinion, but he stopped issuing legal verdicts to people. He said that he was not telling people to make general use of it; rather, he understood it in the same way as eating carrion becomes permissible in a state of necessity. So it seems to me that Sunni scholars also basically saw that if this concession were left in place, its misuse would be very widespread. Umar also fundamentally took this into consideration; that is why he did not present any textual proof claiming that it had been abrogated. He was seeing that if this practice became common, it would be very difficult to prevent its harms.
Muti Sayyid: In the Shia tradition, its permissibility is present, and in their society it is also practically practiced. What harms have arisen from it in their social life?
Ammar Nasir: The Shia also regard it as theoretically permissible, but along with that they impose specific conditions and, depending on circumstances, practically restrict its use as well. When their jurists see that it is not being practiced properly, they do not grant permission. It is reported that in Iran it was legally permissible before Imam Khomeini, but when Imam Khomeini came, he put a stop to it. So they also consider its practical aspects, but when they discuss it at a principled and theoretical level, their position remains that it has not been abrogated.
[To be continued…]