This is a very vast topic, but I will allude to some aspects thereof.
The Shia live with the Muslims and carry a Muslim identity and there is no difference between them and the rest. And the default ruling in the relationships within Muslims is love, affection, mutual care and preference.
Islam has grounded the foundations of love between a Muslim and his brother, and the generation of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum set the highest precedent of love, loyalty, and adherence to the Qur’an and the Sunnah. There is no doubt that this type of unity and mutual respect was always one of the targets of the enemy wanting to destroy the Ummah.
Hence the ploys of the enemy in destroying this firm Islamic structure have been many, one among them being their entrance into Shi’ism thereby deploying it as an instrumental tool to eliminate this firm and solid foundation of the Muslim society.
Hence it is very common and well-known that the relationship of a Shia with others is based upon his desire to harm the next person in whichever way possible considering that to be a means of drawing closer to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.
Bearing hatred and malice discreetly is from their characteristics, disloyalty and the discarding of rights is within their disposition and deception, breaching of trusts, cunningness and misrepresentation are from their well-known actions, which at times even reach the extent of murder.
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions:
وأما الرافضي فلا يعاشر أحدا إلا استعمل معه النفاق. فإن دينه الذي في قلبه دين فاسد يحمله على الكذب والخيانة وغش الناس وإرادة السوء بهم. فهو لا يألوهم خبالا ولا يترك شرا يقدر عليه إلا فعله بهم. وهو ممقوت عند من لا يعرفه، وإن لم يعرف أنه رافضي تظهر على وجهه سيما النفاق وفي لحن القول، ولهذا تجده ينافق ضعفاء الناس ومن لا حاجة به إليه لما في قلبه من النفاق الذي يضعف قلبه
As for the Shia, he does not deal with anyone but by deploying hypocrisy with him. Because the false religion which is in his heart propels him to lie, breach trusts, deceive people and intend evil for them. Hence he does not fall short of causing them ruination and does not leave any evil which is within his reach but perpetrates it against them. He is despised even by those who do not know him due to the signs of hypocrisy being evident on his face and in his speech. Hence you will find that he always practices hypocrisy with the weak people and those who do not have any need for him due to the hypocrisy in his heart which weakens it.
Similarly, Al Shawkani has presented a few personal experiences which he experienced during his stay with the Shia in Yemen. He has revealed some very strange matters and has emphasised that:
لاأمانة لرافضي قط على من يخالفه في مذهبه ويدين بغير الرفض، بل يستحل ماله ودمه عند أدنى فرصة تلوح له، لأنه عنده مباح الدم والمال وكل ما يظهره من المودة فهو تقية يذهب أثره بمجرد إمكان الفرصة
A Shia cannot be trusted at all regarding a person who opposes him in his beliefs and adheres to a creed other than the creed of the Shia. He will violate his blood and wealth at the occurrence of the slightest opportunity due to his blood and wealth being violable according to him. All the love that he expresses is owing to Taqiyyah which fades away as soon as the possibility of an opportunity comes about.
Whilst discussing the factuality of this, he mentions the experiences he has had with this cult:
وقد جربنا هذا كثيرا فلم نجد رافضيا يخلص المودة لغير رافضي وإن آثره بجميع ما يملكه، وكان له بمنزلة الخول، وتودد إليه بكل ممكن، ولم نجد في مذهب من المذاهب المبتدعة ولا غيرها ما نجده عند هؤلاء من العداوة لمن خالفهم، فإنه يلعن أقبح اللعن ويسب أفظع السب كل من تجري بينه وبينه أدنى خصومة وأحقر جدال، وأقل اختلاف، ولعل سبب هذا والله أعلم أنهم لما تجروا على سب السلف الصالح هان عليهم سب من عداهم، ولا جرم فكل شديد ذنب يهون ما دونه
We have experienced this a lot and did not find any Shia who sincerely loves anyone besides a Shia, even if he (the non-Shia) give preference to him in everything that he owns, becomes to him like a slave (to his master), and tries to win his admiration in every possible way. We have not found the type of hatred we saw in them in any of the other heterodox sects or in any other group for that matter. Likewise the boldness to defame respected and prominent people which we have witnessed in them, we have not seen in anyone else. Hence a Shia will curse in the worst of ways and swear abhorrently any person with who he happens to have the smallest of disputes and the most insignificant of quarrels. Probably the reason for this is, Allah knows best, that when they became bold in reviling the pious predecessors it became trivial for them to revile those besides them. And why not, because every severe sin trivialises those lighter than it.
Al Shawkani also alludes to the fact that they do not hesitate in committing any crime in an Islamic society and do not steer clear of any impermissible act. He says:
وقد جربنا وجرب من قبلنا فلم يجدوا رجلا رافضيا يتنزه عن محرمات الدين كائنا ما كان ولاتغتر بالظواهر، فإن الرجل قد يترك المعصية في الملأ ويكون أعف الناس عنها في الظواهر وهو إذا أمكنته فرصة انتهزها انتهاز من لا يخاف نارا ولا يرجوا جنة.
We have experienced and those before us also experienced. We have not found one Shia person who steers clear of the impermissible acts of Din however severe they may be. Do not be deceived by the external, because a person might at times leave a sin in the presence of people and seem as if he is the most chaste and pure of people, but when the opportunity strikes he seizes it like a person who has no fear of hell-fire and no hope of Jannat.
He then goes onto mention some of his personal experiences. He says:
وقد رأيت منهم من كان مؤذنا ملازما للجماعات فانكشف سارقا، وآخر كان يؤم الناس في بعض مساجد صنعاء، وله سمت حسن وهدى عجيب وملازمة للطاعة، وكنت أكثر التعجب منه كيف يكون مثله رافضيا ثم سمعت بعد ذلك عنه بأمور تقشعر لها الجلود وترجف منها القلوب.
I saw a Mu’adhdhin who was punctual in his congregational prayers but was later exposed and found to be a thief. Likewise there was another person who was an Imam in one of the Masjids of San’a’ and had very good conduct, a unique way and was always engaged in obedience. I would muse at the fact that how can such a person be a Shia, but thereafter I heard such things about him as make the hair stand and the hearts tremor.
He then makes mention of a third person who had slight leanings toward Shi’ism. Those leanings soon progressed and eventually resulted in him writing a book regarding the demerits of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Al Shawkani says:
وكنت أعرف عنه في مبادئ أمر ه صلابة وعفة، فقلت: إذا كان ولا بد من رافضي عفيف فهذا. ثم سمعت منه بفواقر نسأل الله الستر والسلامة
In his initial stages I knew him to have firmness in faith and chastity, and I would thus say that if there is a Shia who is pure than it is this person. But subsequently I heard some back-breaking (grave) matters from him. We ask Allah for concealment and safety.
He thereafter says:
وأما وثوب هذه الطائفة على أموال اليتامى والمستضعفين ومن يقدرون على ظلمه كائنا من كان فلا يحتاج إلى برهان، بل يكفي مدعيه إحالة منكرة على الإستقرار والتتبع فإنه سيظفر عند ذلك بصحة ما ذكرناه
As for the capturing of this cult of the wealth of the orphans and the weak and whoever they can oppress, it does not require evidence. Rather it is sufficient for the one who claims this to direct the denier thereof to do a survey and study in this regard, for he will surely find that which attests to the veracity of what we have mentioned.
These are important testimonies which al Shawkani has enlisted and in them he has illustrated what Shi’ism does to a person and how it impacts on his relationship with the Muslims. They are crucial because he stayed with this cult of the Shia in Yemen who progressed from the confines of the Zaidi sect and eventually embraced Rafd, as is known regarding the Jarudiyyah.
Someone might object that this testification of al Shawkani is a testification of an opponent of the Shia and hence cannot be held against them. But the reality is that the Ahlus Sunnah are much more just, impartial, and pious than can slip into oppressing these sects and lying against them, as is established in history. In fact the Ahlus Sunnah are better for the Shia and are much more just to them than they are to each other. This is what they acknowledge themselves. They say, “Your justice for us is more than our justice for each other.”
Furthermore, I came across a very important narration in al Kafi of al Kulayni which confirms the statements of al Shawkani and acknowledges the veracity of what he has said and acknowledgement is the chief of all evidence. This narration talks of the propensity of a Shia when he deals with people. It states that a Shia by the name ‘Abdullah ibn Kaysan asked their Imam:
إني… نشأت في أرض فارس وإنني أخالط الناس في التجارات وغير ذلك فأخالط الرجل فأرى له حسن السمت، وحسن الخلق، وكثرة أمانة، ثم أفتشه فأتبينه من عداوتكم (يعني أهل السنة). وأخالط الرجل فأرى منه سوء الخلق وقلة أمانة وزعارة ثم أفتشه فأتبينه عن ولايتكم
I grew up in the lands of Persia and I mix with the people in business transactions and other interactions. I at times deal with a person and see that he has good conduct, good character, and immense trustworthiness. Subsequently when I investigate regarding him I discover that he is from your enemies (i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah). And at other times I deal with a person and see that he has bad conduct, lack of trust, and evil character. Subsequently when I investigate regarding him I discover that he is from your friends…
This narration acknowledges that the Ahlus Sunnah have good character, immense trustworthiness, and sublime conduct and conversely it describes the Shia with the opposite of these traits.
In another narration of al Kafi a person complains to his Imam that he discerns rashness, sharpness, and anger in his fellow Shia and that he is deeply saddened because of that, whereas on the other hand he discerns in their opponents the Ahlus Sunnah good conduct. The Imam tells him:
لا تقل حسن السمت ولكن قل حسن السيما، فأن الله عز وجل يقول سِيْماهم فِي وُجَوْهِهِم مِنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُوْد.
Do not say Hassan al Samt because Samt refers to a path, but rather say Hassan al Sima because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says: Their mark, i.e. sign, is one their faces, i.e. foreheads, from the trace of prostration.
The narrator continues, “So I said, “I see him as having good Sima, signs, and dignity and am deeply saddened because of that…
Likewise we have a third Shia by the name ‘Abdullah ibn Abu Ya’fur who cannot stop musing at the vast difference between the character of the Ahlus Sunnah and the character of the Shia. He raises the issue to his Imam and says:
إني أخالط الناس فيكثر عجبي من أقوام لا يتولونكم ويتولون فلانا فلانا لهم أمانة وصدق ووفاء، وأقوام يتولونكم (يعني الرافضة) ليس لهم تلك الأمانة ولا الوفاء والصدق قال: فاستوى أبو عبد الله جالسا فأقبل علي كالغضبان، ثم قال: لا دين لمن دان الله بولاية إمام جائر ليس من الله، ولا عتب على من دان بولاية إمام عادل من الله. قلت: لا دين لأولئك ولا عتب على هؤلاء. قال نعم
“I intermingle with the people and my amazement increases regarding those who do not associate with you and associate with so and so and so and so due to them having trustworthiness, truthfulness, and loyalty; and regarding those who associate with you (i.e. the Shia) but do not have that level of trustworthiness, loyalty and truthfulness.” He said, “The Imam sat upright and faced me as though angry and said, “There is no Din for a person who worships Allah by acknowledging the rulership of a tyrant ruler who is not from Allah and there is no blame upon the one who is devoted to him by acknowledging the rulership of a just ruler who is from Allah.” I then asked, “There is thus no religion for those people and there is no blame upon these people?” He said, “Yes.”
This answer of the Imam which rejects any blame and reprimand which is directed to them even though they commit major sins is what has led them to this deep abyss of undermining and trivialising the perpetration of crimes. Because Din according to them is only acknowledging the Imam and the love of ‘Ali, in the presence of which no sin is harmful. Therefore, as long as this false premise is not reformed this phenomenon will remain in them.
It should likewise be noted that their books acknowledge kidnapping and eliminating the enemy therewith, and only consider the safety of the Shia to be prerequisite. The books of the Shia narrate from Dawood ibn Farqad that he asked Abu ‘Abdullah the following:
ما تقول في قتل الناصب؟ فقال: حلال الدم، ولكني أتقي عليك فإن قدرت أن تقلب عليه حائطا أو تغرقه في ماء كيلا يشهد عليك فافعل
“What do you say regarding killing a Nasibi?”
He replied, “His blood is permissible to claim. But I fear for you. Hence if you can drop a wall on him or drown him in water so that he does not testify against you then do so.”
Likewise in Rijal al Kashshi it is reported that one of the Shia informs his Imam how he managed to kill a group of his opponents. He says:
منهم من كنت أصعد سطحه بسلم حتى أقتله، ومنهم من دعوته بالليل على بابه فإذا خرج علي قتلته، ومنهم من كنت أصحبه في الطريق فإذا خلا لي قتلته
Among them was a person whose roof I climbed with a ladder and thereafter killed him. Among them was a person who I would called out to at his door at night and when came out I killed him. And another person I would accompany on the street and when the streets would be empty I killed him.
He goes on to tell the Imam that he killed thirteen Muslims in this way because he assumed that they disassociate themselves from ‘Ali.
Similarly, their scholar Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri states that the following appears in their traditions:
إن علي بن يقطين وهو وزير الرشيد قد اجتمع في حبسه حماعة من المخالفين، فأمر غلمانه وهدموا أسقف المحبس على المحبوسين فماتوا كلهم وكانوا خمسمائة رجل تقريبا، فأراد الخلاص من تبعات دمائهم، فأرسل إلى الإمام مولانا الكاظم (ع) فكتب إليه جواب كتابه بأنك لو كنت تقدمت إلي قبل قتلهم لما كان عليك شيء من دمائهم وحيث إنك لم تتقدم إلي فكفر عن كل رجل قتلت منهم بتيس والتيس خير منه
In the prison of the Minister of al Rashid ‘Ali ibn Yaqtهn a group of the opponents ended up together. Hence he ordered his slaves who demolished the roof of his prison upon the prisoners as a result of which they all died. They were five hundred in number. Thereafter, wanting to exonerate himself from their murder he sends a letter to the Imam our master al Kazim who wrote back to him saying, “Had you come to me before you killed them you would not have been responsible. But because you did not come to me atone for each of them with one goat. And even a goat is better than them.”
See how they stay amidst the Muslims and wait for any opportunity to kill. These are their confessions which attest to their evil effects. Their Imam here sanctions the killing of five hundred Muslims just because they are not Shia and orders the killer to atone for their murder with goats due to him not seeking permission in advance. This implies that if a Shia seeks permission from the Imam or his jurist representative he can do whatever he wants, and if he does not seek permission then he should atone by giving a goat.
Commenting upon the goat as a blood penalty al Jaza’iri says:
فانظر إلى هذه الدية الجزيلة التي لا تعادل دية أخيهم الأصغر وهو كلب الصيد فإن ديته عشرون درهما، ولا دية أخيهم الأكبر وهو اليهودي أو المجوسي فإنها ثمانمائة-كذا- درهم وحالهم في الآخرة أخس وأبخس
Look at this big blood penalty which is not equal to the blood penalty of their small brother, the hunting dog, which is twenty Dirhams. Nor is it equal to the blood penalty of their elder brother, a Jew or a fire worshipper, which is eight hundred Dirhams. Their condition in the afterlife will be worse and more insignificant.
The reprehensibility of this statement speaks for itself and does not require any comment. It tells us of the amount of hatred they hold for the Ahlus Sunnah and that they consider them to be more steeped in disbelief then even the fire-worshippers.
These are the conflicts which they instigate due to reviling the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in their yearly mourning ceremonies. Hence since the era of the Buwayhids, from the fourth century in Baghdad, mourning ceremonies are organized in order to revive the martyrdom of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. In these ceremonies the Shia instigate problems and conflicts which know no limits. As a result vehement conflicts break out between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia due to them boldly swearing and cursing the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The first conflict which occurred in the history of Baghdad was in the year 338 A.H. and ever since these conflicts continue. In these conflicts many Muslims were killed and up to the present day the effects of this innovation still plague the Muslim world.
How many lives were lost, how much of hatred was planted, and how much of disunity and conflict were engendered. But despite this a leading scholar of the Shia Khomeini worsens the problem and says on the Iranian television in one sentence:
إن شعار الفرقة الناجية وعلامتهم الخاصة من أول الإسلام إلى يومنا هذا إقامة المآتم
The distinctive symbol of the group which will attain salvation and their unique feature is establishing the ceremonies of mourning.
He also says:
إن البكاء على سيد الشهداء (ع) وإقامة المجالس الحسينية هي التى حفظت الإسلام منذ أربعة عشر قرنا
Crying over the Leader of the Martyrs and establishing the Hussaini gatherings is what kept Islam alive for fourteen centuries.
Likewise, the statement of one of their scholars regarding these mourning ceremonies being from the sanctified symbols of Allah has passed already.
Nonetheless, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had blessed Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu with martyrdom on that day. In those who were martyred before him these was an ideal example for him. His murder was indeed a great calamity, and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has made Istirja’, saying Inna Lillah wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un, lawful at the time of a calamity. But what the Shia do has nothing to do with Islam. The only motive of those who invented it is keeping the Muslim Ummah busy within itself so that it does not find space to spread the Din of Allah upon the earth.
Part of the influence they have had on the social level is the libertinism which they espouse, whose means they facilitate and which they practice in the Muslim society in the name of lending sexual rights, or what they otherwise call Mut’ah under the pretext of which they commit adultery. This is because their Mut’ah entails a secretive agreement upon cohabiting with any woman who consents even though she be a prostitute or a married woman. It is okay for him to agree with her for a day or for one or two times.
Some have even confessed to Sheikh Muhammad Nasif that the Shia often engage in Mut’ah Dawriyyah as well due to a plan which some of their scholars have devised for them.
Al Alusi therefore says:
من نظر إلى أحوال الرافضة في المتعة في هذا الزمان لا يحتاج في حكمه عليهم بالزنا إلى برهان، فإن المرأة الواحدة تزني بعشرين رجلا في يوم وليلة وتقول إنها متمتعة، وقد هيأت عندهم أسواق عديدة للمتعة توقف فيها النساء ولها قوادون يأتون بالرجال إلى النساء وبالنساء إلى الرجال فيختارون ما يرضون ويعينون أجرة الزنا ويأخذون بأيديهن إلى لعنة الله تعالى وغضبه
A person who considers the condition of the Shia in these times will not require any evidence to conclude that what they indulge in is prostitution. At times one woman commits fornication with twenty men in a day and night averring that she is doing Mut’ah. Likewise, there are several markets which have been prepared in which women are kept. These markets have managers who bring men to women and women to men. As a result they choose what they like and stipulate a fee for the fornication. They hold the hands of these ladies and take them toward the curse of Allah and his anger.
He then goes onto mention the details and tales of what happens there.
Furthermore, they drive men and women toward this act with threats and with temptations due to it being the best of deeds according to them and due to destruction awaiting the one who does not engage in it on the Day of Judgment.
Their scholars likewise sanction anal sex. Their scholar Khomeini states:
والأقوى والأظهر جواز وطء الزوجة في الدبر
The stronger and more apparent view is that it is permissible to cohabit with a woman anally.
Now compare this with the verdict of Ibn Nujaym which states that considering anal sex with the wife to be permissible is Kufr, disbelief, according to majority of the scholars.
All these various types of indulgence are not any different than the liberal tendencies of the Kharamiyyah, the followers of Mazdak and Babak, and probably are not lesser than the liberal tendencies of the west as well.
The Shia have taken advantage of the widespread ethical chaos to entice students with affordable Mut’ah so to embrace their faith, as has passed already.
In fact some of their narrations clearly legalise adultery if it is done in lieu of a compensation:
عن عبد الرحمن بن كثير عن أبي عبد الله قال: حاءت امرأة إلى عمر فقالت إني زنيت فطهرني فأمر بها أن ترجم فأخبر بذلك أمير المؤمنين (ع) فقال: كيف زنيت. قال: مررت بالبادية فأصابني عطش شديد فاستسقيت أعرابيا فأبى أن يسقيني إلا إن أمكنه من نفسي فلما أجهدني العطش وخفت على نفسي سقاني فأمكنته من نفسي فقال أمير المؤمنين: تزويج ورب الكعبة
‘Abdul Rahman ibn Kathir narrates from Abu ‘Abdullah, “A woman came to ‘Umar and said, “I have committed adultery so purify me.” Hence he ordered that she be lapidated.
Thereafter Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam was informed and he asked, “How did you commit adultery?”
She said, “I was passing through the desert and was experiencing severe thirst. I thus sought water from a Bedouin, but he refused to give me water unless I gave him authority over myself. Hence when the thirst exhausted me and I feared upon myself he gave me water subsequent to which I gave him authority over myself.”
Amir al Mu’minin replied, “A marriage by the Lord of the Ka’bah.”
Similarly, they do not confine their libertinism to their people, rather their Imam advises that they offer Mut’ah marriages to the women of the Ahlus Sunnah and even the woman of the Jews and the Christians.
Hence their libertinism is comprehensive. It has not left any society but that it has corrupted it. They are, therefore, adulterers who live amidst the Muslims and carry a Muslim identity, but cause mischief in the lands, to which their verdicts and traditions abundantly attest.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/260.
 Talab al ‘Ilm p. 70-71.
 Ibid. p. 71.
 Talab al ‘Ilm p. 73.
 Ibid. 74.
 The Zaidi Jarudiyyah, even though they have named themselves the Zaidiyyah, they are Rafidah in that they excommunicate the Sahabah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Hence the leading scholar of the Twelvers al Mufid has deemed the Zaidiyyah not to be part of the Shia in his book Awa’il al Maqalat but has excluded the Jarudiyyah due to them being on his dogma. Refer to: https://mahajjah.com/the-technical-meaning-of-the-word-shiah-a-as-defined-by-the-books-of-the-ithna-ashariyyah/#section-the-second-definition
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/39.
 Za’arah means evil character. And in some manuscripts the word is Da’arah which translates as corruption, sinning and defilement.
 Usul al Kafi 2/4; Tafsir Nur al Thaqalayn 4/47.
 It is a known fact in language that Samt is used in the meaning of dignity and conduct just as it is used in the meaning of path. The author of al Misbah says, “Samt means path, moderation, serenity, dignity and conduct.
 Surah al Fath: 29.
 Usul al Kafi 2/11. The answer of their Imam to these complaints was acknowledging them and assigning them to the nature of the essential soil wherefrom each group was created. Hence he confirms the matter and does not deny it. Also refer to what has passed regarding their doctrine of al Tinah Click Here
 The people meant are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, as stated by the commentators of al Kafi. Hence this is an indication to the Ahlus Sunnah
 Usul al Kafi 1/375.
 Ibn Babawayh: ‘Ilal al Shara’i’ p. 200; al Hurr al ‘Amili: Wasa’il al Shia 18/463; al Majlisi: Bihar al Anwar 27/231.
 Rijal al Kashshi p. 342-343.
 Al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 2/308.
 Al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 2/308.
 ‘Abdul Razzaq al Hassan: al Mahdi wa al Mahdawiyyah p. 74.
 See for examples the incidents of the years: 406, 408, 421, 422, 425, 439, 443, 444, 445, 447, 478, 481, 482, 486, etc. in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah and the other books of history.
 This was reported by the Iranian Sunni scholar Muhammad Diya’i in the al Mujtama’ magazine, edition no. 589, published on the 18th of Dhu al Hijjah 1402 A.H.
 The al Ittila’at magazine, edition no. 15901, published on the 16th of Sha’ban 1399 A.H. (taken from the book Iqna’ al La’im ‘ala Iqamat al Ma’atim, cover page).
 Majmu’ Fatawa Shaikh al Islam 4/511.
 In their narrations it appears that al Hassan al ‘Attar says, “I asked Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam regarding the lending of sexual rights and he said, “There is nothing wrong.” (Wasa’il al Shia 7/536-537; Tahdhib al Ahkam 2/185; al Istibsar 3/141.
 Al Tusi says, “It is permissible for him to do Mut’ah with her without the permission of her parents and without any announcement…” (See: al Nihayah p. 490).
 Al Tusi says, “It is okay for a man to do Mut’ah with a prostitute (al Nihayah p. 490). And Khomeini says, “It is permissible to do Mut’ah with a prostitute (Tahrir al Wasilah 2/292). The following narration also appears in their books:
عن إسحاق بن جرير قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: إن عندنا بالكوفة امرأة معروفة بالفجور أيحل أن أتزوجها متعة؟ قال: فقال: رفعت راية؟ قلت: لا لو رفعت راية أخذها السلطان. قال نعم تزوجها متعة قال: ثم أصغى إلى بعض مواليه فأسر إليه شيئا، فلقيت مولاه فقلت له: ما قال لك؟ فقال إنما قال لي: ولو رفعت راية ما كان عليه في تزويجها شيء. إنما يخرجها من حرام إلى حلال.
Ishaq ibn Jarir says, “I asked Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam, “In Kufah there is a woman who is well known for prostitution, would it be permissible for me to contract a Mut’ah marriage with her?” He asked, “Has she raised a banner?” I said, “No, if she raises a banner the ruler will take it.” He thus replied, “Yes contract a Mut’ah marriage with her.” He then turned toward one of his slaves and whispered something to him. Later when I met his slave I asked him, “What did he say to you?” He said, “He told me that even if she raised a banner there wouldn’t be any problem for him in marrying her. Because he would be taking her out from the unlawful to the lawful.” (Wasa’il al Shia 14/455; Tahdhib al Ahkam 2/249).
 The following appears in their narrations:
عن محمد بن عبد الله الأشعري قال: قلت للرضا (ع) الرجل يتزوج بالمرأة فيقع في قلبه أن لها زوجا. فقال: وما عليه
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah al Ash’ari mentions, “I asked al Rida ‘alayh al Salam, “At times a person marries a woman and then it occurs to him that she is married.” He said, “There is no blame upon him.” (Wasa’il al Shia 14/457; Tahdhib al Ahkam 2/187).
Likewise Jafar was asked, as they allege:
إن فلانا تزوج امرأة متعة فقيل له إن لها زوجا فسالها فقال أبو عبد الله (ع): ولم سألها
So and so contracted a Mut’ah marriage with a woman. Later he was told that she has a husband. He thus asked her. Abu ‘Abdullah said, “Why did he ask her?” (Previous two references).
And their scholar al Tusi says that a person does not have to ask a lady whether she has a husband or not. (Al Nihayah p. 490).
 See: al Nihayah p. 491; al Khumaini: Tahrir al Wasilah 2/290. It is recorded in their narrations that:
عن خلف بن حماد قال: أرسلت إلى أبي الحسن (ع) كم أدنى أجل المتعة؟ هل يجوز أن يتمتع الرجل بشرط مرة واحدة؟ فقال: نعم
Khalaf ibn Hammad says, “I sent a message to Abu al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam asking him, what the minimum period of Mut’ah is? Is it ok for a person do to Mut’ah with her with the condition of just one time?” He said, “Yes.” (Furu’ al Kafi 2/46; Wasa’il al Shia 14/479).
 Mut’ah Dawriyyah is when a group of people all do Mut’ah with one woman one after the other (Mukhtasar al Tuhfah al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah p. 227). Also see what Sheikh al ‘Ani has mentioned regarding its proliferation in some seminaries of Najaf (al Dhari’ah Li Izalah Shubah Kuttab al Shia 45-46).
Sheikh Muhammad al Nasif was able to bring forth a confession from one of their scholars who goes by the name Ahmed Sarhan regarding Mut’ah Dawriyyah. Nasif asked the Shia, “According to the Ahlus Sunnah the abrogation of Mut’ah is confirmed, not so according to the Shia. But I do not know what evidence you advance regarding Mut’ah Dawriyyah.” To which the Shia responded:
بأن المتمتع بالمرأة يعقد عليها بعد نهاية متعته منها عقد زواج دائم ثم يطلقها قبل الدخول فتصبح لا عدة عليها، فيتمع بها آخر ويفعل كالأول… فتدور المرأة على مجموعة من الرجال بهذه الطريقة بلا عدة
A person who contracts a Mut’ah marriage with a woman contracts a permanent marriage with her after the duration of the Mut’ah and thereafter divorces her before consummating the (permanent) marriage with her owing to which she is not required to sit in ‘Iddah (the waiting period). Subsequently another person then contracts a Mut’ah marriage with her and does exactly what the first person did. In this way one woman goes through different men without having to sit in ‘Iddah (the waiting period). (See: The al Fath magazine, edition no. 845, published in Rajab 1366 A.H.)
 Kashf ‘Ayahib al Jahalat p. 3 (manuscript).
 There are many Shia traditions which suggest that Mut’ah is the best of deed according to them. To the extent that in a fabricated narration which they attribute to Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam the following appears:
من تمتع مرة فدرجته كدرجة الحسين، ومن تمتع مرتين فدرجته كدرجة الحسن، ومن تمتع ثلاث مرات فدرجته كدرجة علي، ومن تمتع أربع مرات فدرجته كدرجتي
He who does Mut’ah once, his rank is like the rank of Husain. He who does it twice, his rank is like the rank of Hassan. He who does it thrice his rank is like the rank of ‘Ali. And he who does it four times, his rank is the like my rank. (Tafsir Minhaj al Sadiqin p. 356).
They have left no door which leads to enticing people to commit adultery except that they have opened it. A person who reads their narrations in this regard will conclude that the fabricators thereof were liberals who desired to satisfy their lustful desires with Muslim women. Hence their narrations also state:
إذا تزوجها متعة لم يكلمها كلمة إلا كتب الله له بها حسنة، ولم يمد يده إليها إلا كتب الله له حسنة… فإذا اغتسل غفر الله له… بعدد الشعر
If he contracts a Mut’ah marriage with her, he will not speak a word to her but that Allah will record one good deed for him. He will likewise not extend his hand toward her but that Allah will write a virtue for him. Thereafter when he will bath Allah will forgive him as much as the hair on his body. (Wasa’il al Shia 14/442; Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih 2/151).
They also allege that a woman would turn down all those who proposed to her due to her not having any inclination toward marriage, but she later sent a message to her cousin inviting him to marry her through Mut’ah in order to disobey ‘Umar, as the narration suggests. Hence she gave preference to adultery over the constitution of marriage. (Refer to their narrations regarding the alleged virtues of Mut’ah in the book Wasa’il al Shia: chapter regarding the desirability of Mut’ah 14/442, onwards).
 One of their narrations state that a person who leaves the world without doing Mut’ah will appear on the Day of Judgement with his nose and ears cut. (See: Tafsir Minhaj al Sadiqin p. 356).
 Tahrir al Wasilah 2/241.
 Al Ashbah wa al Naza’ir p. 191.
 Furu’ al Kafi 2/48; Wasa’il al Shia 14/471-472.
 Wasa’il al Shia 14/452; Furu’ al Kafi 2/44.
 Wasa’il al Shia 14/452; Furu’ al Kafi 2/188; Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih 2/148.Back to top