The Four Pillars Of Mut'a
dictionaries define mut'a as 'enjoyment, pleasure, delight'. The
root form, m-t: signifies, 'to carry away, to take away'. A
'marriage of mut'a' is a marriage which the contract stipulates
will last for a fixed period of time. This 'marriage of mut'a' is
referred to both in the hadith literature and, in much more detail,
in the books on jurisprudence (fiqh). In the hadith and in
other sayings related from early Muslims the word 'mut'a' itself is
usually employed. The Shi'is hold that this particular term is the
preferred name for temporary marriage because the Qur'an itself refers to
this kind of marriage employing a term derived from the same root. In the
following verse, the word istimta', the tenth verbal form of the
root m-t-', is translated as 'enjoy': 'So those of them [women]
whom you enjoy, give to them their appointed wages' (4:24).
In general the
word mut'a was more commonly used than other terms for temporary
marriage both during the lifetime of the Prophet and afterwards during the
time of the Shi'i Imams and other Muslim leaders. Both its proponents and
opponents preferred this word and its derivatives. In Wasa'il al-shi'a,
the comprehensive and definitive reference work for Shi'i hadith
concerning all branches of jurisprudence, the word mut'a is
employed in the headings of all sections on temporary marriage.
In books on
jurisprudence the terms mut'a, al-nikah al-munqati' ('discontinued
marriage'), and al-nikah al-muwaqqat ('temporary marriage') are all
employed. Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli 
still employs the term 'discontinued marriage' in his writings,
hence his commentators use the same expression, although in sections of
the statutes relating to this kind of marriage they also employ the terms
istimta' and the related word tamattu'. Al-Shahid al Thani
employs the same term as al-Hilli  ,
but others, such as al-Shahid al-Awwal, 
al-'Allama al-Hilli  and
al-Shaykh al-Ansari 
prefer the term mut'a.
jurisprudents there is a discussion concerning whether or not the marriage
of mut'a is the same as 'temporary marriage'. Most of them have
agreed that they are synonymous.
In some works
a special term is applied to women who participate in mut'a:
musta'jara, or 'rented woman'. Mut'a is considered a kind of
'rental' because in general a man's basic aim in this kind of marriage is
the sexual enjoyment of a woman, and in return for his enjoyment the woman
receives a certain amount of money or property. In defining 'rental' the
jurisprudents say: 'It is to gain possession of a benefit in exchange for
a specified sum.' 
This definition applies equally to temporary marriage. In this connection
a number of hadith have been recorded in which the word
musta'jara is employed.
jurisprudence discusses temporary marriage with all the care it bestows
upon permanent marriage. Like permanent marriage, mut'a has
'pillars' and 'statutes'. To the two pillars of permanent marriage-the
formula and the persons-are added the time period and the dower .
I. The Formula
Since it is a
contract, mut'a requires a declaration and an acceptance. As in
permanent marriage, the declaration is the prerequisite of the woman. It
must consist of one of three Arabic formulas, the same three which are
employed by the Shi'is in permanent marriage. Al-Sayyid al-Murtada
is said to have added that a slave girl may employ the formula 'I have
allowed you' (abahtu-ka) or 'I have considered you lawful'
but his words have not been confirmed by others. Al-Shahid al Thani
writes: 'To me it seems more correct to limit ourselves to the first three
phrases.'  Apparently there is no disagreement on the point that the woman
may not employ expressions like: 'I have given you possession', 'I have
given to you as a gift', 'I have rented to you', 'I have lent to you',
'acceptance' is made by the man after the woman has made her declaration.
His words must demonstrate that he is satisfied with the declaration. For
example, he may say: 'I will accept the marriage', or 'I accept the
mut'a.' If he should say only: 'I accept' or 'I am satisfied', the
contract is valid.
declaration should precede the acceptance is not a condition of the
contract, since a contract consists of a declaration and an acceptance, in
whatever order the two may occur. It is claimed that there is a consensus
on this point. 
Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli states explicitly that if the man says: 'I have
married you', and then the woman says the same thing to him, the contract
al-'Allama al-Hilli, the formula of the contract must be recited in the
perfect tense. 
But the majority of the 'ulama' hold that it is permissible for it
to be recited in the imperfect tense, as long as there is the intention of
contracting the marriage. 
Many hadith have been related showing that the imperfect tense is
acceptable. For example, the Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq was once asked what
formula should be recited when a mut'a is contracted. He replied:
'I marry thee in mut'a according to the Book of God and His
prophet's sunna without inheritance from me to thee or vice versa,
for so many days, for so many dirhams. .....'
discussions of contracts assert that the persons who make the declaration
and acceptance must be 'worthy of the contract' (ahl al 'aqd). In
the question of mut'a this means that those who conclude the
contract must be the man and woman themselves, or their representatives
(wakil), or their fathers. Hence, for example, it is permissible for
the father to say: 'I give my daughter in mut'a with her
agreement.' If anyone other than the above persons should conclude the
contract, it is 'uncommissioned' (fuduli) and therefore invalid.
A man can
conclude a contract of mut'a only with a Muslim or one of the
'People of the Book'. It is not permissible to engage in temporary
marriage with an unbeliever or an enemy of the Household of the Prophet
(ah! a!-hayt, i.e., the Imams), such as a follower of the Khawarij. A
Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim.
If the man has
a free, permanent wife, he cannot contract a mut'a with a slave
without his wife's permission. Should he do so, the contract is invalid or
in abeyance pending her permission. If the slave should belong to someone
else, a mut'a cannot be contracted without her master's permission.
Several hadith have been recorded on this point, For example, the
Imam Ja'far says: 'There is nothing wrong with marrying a slave
[temporarily] with the permission of her master.'
A man is not
permitted to marry the daughter of his sister-in-Iaw or brother-in-law
without his wife's permission. Should a contract be concluded without her
permission it is invalid or in abeyance until she gives her permission.
With these two exceptions, the relatives to whom marriage is not permitted
are the same as in permanent marriage.
recommended that a Muslim man conclude a temporary marriage only with a
chaste Muslim woman. Here by 'chaste' (afifa) the classical authors
have in mind someone who has never committed fornication and who follows
the shari'a in her activities. More specifically, the adjective
denotes a woman who has observed the shar'i laws concerning
marriage and in general is honest and upright. The two attributes 'Muslim'
and 'chaste' are derived from sayings by two of the Imams: the Imam
al-Rida was asked: 'Is it possible for a man to conclude a temporary
marriage with a Jew or a Christian?' He answered: 'I would prefer that he
engage in mut'a with a free Muslim woman.'
To a question about performing mut'a, the Imam Ja'far replied: 'It
is permissible. So marry none but a chaste woman, for God says, " And
those who guard their private parts" (23:5). Hence you should not put your
private parts where you do not feel safe with your dirhams.'
makes an accusation against a woman, it is recommended that before
concluding the contract of mut'a with her the man inquire from her
about her situation, i.e., as to whether or not she has a husband and
whether or not she is chaste. But asking is not a condition of the
contract.  According to the 'Principles of Jurisprudence',
the principle of 'correctness' as applied to the acts of a Muslim
demands that one consider the act of a woman who has declared herself
ready to enter into mut'a as correct. According to this principle,
whenever we are in doubt concerning the correctness of the act of a
Muslim, we preserve the social and legal order by judging that his act was
correct. For example, if we are in doubt concerning the legality of a
couple's marriage, we judge that it was legal. Otherwise we would also
have to doubt the legitimacy of their children, the application of the
laws of inheritance, etc. In a different area of the law, the canonical
prayer provides a good example: If, after finishing his prayer, a person
doubts as to whether or not he said the correct number of cycles, he
assumes the number was correct, Otherwise he would spend a good deal of
his time repeating acts of worship he has already performed. The slightest
doubt would be sufficient to cause him to repeat the same act.
On the basis
of this principle, one must dismiss the possibility that a potential wife
might be unchaste, so it is unnecessary to ask her. Several hadith
are related which demonstrate the reprehensibility of asking about the
woman's situation after the contract has been concluded. For
example, a man once said to the Imam Ja'far: 'I married a woman
temporarily, and then it came to my mind that she might already have a
husband. I investigated the matter and found out that it was so.' The Imam
said: 'And why did you investigate?'
reprehensible for a man to conclude a marriage of mut'a with a
fornicatress, by reason of the Qur'anic verse: 'The fornicator shall marry
not but a fornicatress or an idolatress, and the fornicatress-none shall
marry her but a fornicator or an idolator; that is forbidden to the
believers' (24:3). If a man should contract a temporary marriage with a
fornicatress, it is his duty to command her not to perform adultery. But
this is not a necessary condition of the marriage, by reason of the
'principle of correctness' as applied to the Muslim's act.
It is also
reprehensible, without any exceptions, to contract a temporary marriage
with a virgin, by reason of the words of the Imam Ja'far: 'It is
reprehensible, because it is a stain upon her family.'
If a contract should nevertheless be concluded, it is not permissible for
the man to consummate the marriage, unless the marriage took place with
the permission of her father-a condition almost impossible to imagine in
Muslim society. 'A virgin may not be married temporarily without her
father's permission' (the Imam al-Rida).
III. The Time
period of a temporary marriage must be delineated in a manner which allows
no possibility of increase or decrease. According to the Imam al-Rida, '.
..(mut'a must) be a stipulated thing for a stipulated period.'
In addition, the Imam was once asked if it is possible to conclude a
contact of mut'a for 'one or two hours'. He replied, 'No time limit
is understood from "one or two" hours.'
al-Shaykh al-Ansari, all of the hadith indicate that it is
permissible for the agreed upon time period either to be joined to the
moment of concluding the contract or to be postponed.
The situation here is the same as with a contract concluded for purposes
of rental, since-as was pointed out above-the woman takes on certain legal
characteristics of rented property.
In the case of
a temporary marriage which begins after a period of postponement, there
arises the question of whether or not the woman may marry a second man in
the period between the conclusion of the contract and the beginning of the
marriage period. Here there are two possibilities: that it is not
permitted, because the woman already has a husband; or that it is
permitted, because of the existence of all the 'requisites of a contract'
and the absence of an impediment. Apparently the ruling here is that a
second temporary marriage would be permissible provided that the woman has
enough time before the beginning of the first marriage to conclude a
second marriage and then to observe her waiting period.
As for the
possibility of postponing the beginning of mut'a, this is
conditional upon the stipulation of the day and the month in which it is
to begin. For example, if the man should state that the contract will be
for one month but fail to stipulate exactly when that month is to begin,
the contract is invalid because the time is not stated. In contracts of
rental, such instances are always invalid. 
But if the contract should be nonconditional, without any mention of a
postponement, then the marriage begins as soon as the contract is
concluded, since, according to the accepted standard, when a contract has
been concluded, the transaction has taken place. 
The most authoritative view holds that if the stipulated period is not
mentioned in the text of the contract, the marriage cannot take place and
the contract is invalid. 
The consensus of the community has established that one of the two pillars
that differentiate mut'a from permanent marriage is mention of the
time period; whenever this pillar is not present, everything that depends
on it is invalidated. In addition, a contract follows the intentions of
those who conclude it, Thus, if the time period is not mentioned, the
marriage cannot be transformed into a permanent one, since that was not
the intention. In this connection a hadith has been related from
the Imam Ja'far: 'There will be no mut'a without two things: a
stipulated period and a stated dowry.'
In spite of
this opinion, the majority of the 'ulama' hold that if the time
period is not mentioned, the contract is not invalidated; rather, the
marriage becomes a permanent one. These scholars argue that a marriage
contract is concluded either for temporary or permanent marriage. If a
time period is mentioned, the contract is for mut'a; but if it is
not mentioned, the contract is for permanent marriage. Hence, whenever the
contract of mut'a is invalidated because the time period has not
yet been stipulated, the contract will be one of permanent marriage. Here
they cite the principle of 'correctness' in relation to the contract, In
order to corroborate their argument, they mention a hadith of the
Imam Ja'far: 'If a time period is stated, the marriage is mut'a; if
it is not stated, it is permanent,'
to those who hold that a temporary marriage is transformed into a
permanent marriage if the time period is not mentioned, al-Shaykh
al-Ansari writes that temporary marriage and permanent marriage are two
different realities. Although the word 'marriage' is employed for both,
this does not make them share in the same nature. The difference between
the two does not lie in saying that one is an unconditional marriage and
the other conditional. No, the relationship between them is like that
between purchasing something and receiving a gift. In both cases,
'ownership' is the result. But the fact that purchasing an object and
receiving a gift have a common measure does not mean that they have the
same nature. We cannot say that the only difference between the two is
that receiving a gift entails 'unconditional ownership' and purchasing
entails 'ownership conditional on payment'. No one would ever claim that
when someone says: 'I have transferred ownership' and forgets to mention a
price, the purchase is immediately transformed into a gift. The
relationship between temporary and permanent marriage is similar.
al-Ium'a al-Shahid al Thani adds that the hadith which is
quoted from the Imam Ja'far in support of the position of the majority of
the 'ulama' does not state explicitly that the desire of the two
parties to the contract is to conclude a marriage of mut'a, but then
they fail to mention the time period. On the contrary, the purport of the
hadith is that marriage with a stated period is muta,
while marriage without a stated period is permanent marriage.
There is no
upper or lower limit to the duration of the time period. It makes no
difference if the period is extremely long, so that one doubts whether the
parties will survive its duration; or if it is extremely short, so that
there is no possibility of consummation. In other words, any time period
is permissible, so long as both sides are aware of the situation and are
contract is concluded the wife receives the whole dowry, whether or not
the husband consummates the marriage before the time period expires. The
wife is entitled to the dowry as long as she places herself at her
husband's disposal and does not present him with any obstacles to
consummating the marriage. The situation is exactly the same as renting a
house, but then choosing not to take up residence before the rental period
has expired. When the time period is over, the wife is freed from the
obligations of the contract.
It is not
permissible for the parties to stipulate in the contract 'one act of
intercourse' or the like without mentioning a time period, since such an
expression cannot take the place of a stipulated period of time. In the
view of most of the 'u!ama', if such a contract were to be
concluded, it would not be transformed into that of a permanent marriage,
since the time period has been mentioned incorrectly. The fact that the
contract has been concluded in an improper manner and is thus invalid as a
contract carries more weight than the failure to mention the stipulated
the time period is mentioned along with the condition that the marriage
will entail only a certain number of sexual acts, the contract is correct,
Here the juridical principle that comes into play is enunciated in the
Prophet's saying: 'The believers hold fast to their conditions [when they
stipulate them in agreements]. ' 
In such a situation, as soon as the man has performed the agreed number of
sexual acts, further sexual intercourse with the woman is forbidden, even
if the time period has not elapsed. There is no contradiction between the
continuation of the marriage and the interdiction of sexual relations.
would arise in the above situation if, after the woman has been forbidden
to the man, she gives him permission to engage in further acts of sexual
intercourse. Is the man allowed to have intercourse or not? Here there are
two opinions. According to the first, there is a definite obstacle to
sexual relations. For the contract does not allow any further sexual acts,
so the permission of the woman is immaterial, since it is not sufficient
to override the stipulations of the contract and legitimize relations.
According to the second opinion, intercourse is permitted. Since in
mut'a-in contrast to permanent marriage-a woman does not have the
right to initiate a sexual act, the obstacle to sexual relations in the
present situation is the woman's unwillingness to permit anything more
than what was agreed upon in the contract, But the contract itself
establishes the permissibility of intercourse. So if the obstacle is
removed, the result will be that the contract as such will come into play.
If the role of
the time period is to contain a stipulated number of sexual acts, whenever
the number is finished, the woman is free of any further obligation to the
man. It goes without saying that if the stipulated number of sexual acts
is not performed by the end of the time period, the marriage still comes
to an end.
IV. The Dower
must mention a dower of known property, whether in cash or kind, whose
amount is safe from increase or decrease. In order to gain knowledge of
the property, it is sufficient for the woman to see it, but it is not
necessary that it actually be weighed, measured, or counted-whatever the
case may require. The contract of mut'a is not simply an exchange
of goods, but a marriage. Even if it is defined as a 'rental', that also
is different from an exchange. Hence it is sufficient that any possibility
of misunderstanding which might arise from not seeing the dower be
removed. As for goods which are not present, it is sufficient that the
dower be described in such a manner that the woman's ignorance will be
removed, i.e., that it be described exactly as it is.
There is no
condition or requirement concerning the amount of the dower except that
the two sides come to an agreement over articles which may properly be
exchanged, even if they are no more than a few grains of wheat.
On this point there are specified hadith as well as the general
hadith which state that a woman who enters into mut'a is
'rented'.  If the dower is not mentioned, the contract is unanimously held
to be invalid, On this point also there are a number of hadith.
The woman may
ask for the whole amount of the dower at the beginning of the marriage. In
this case, the man may not take back any of the dower under any
circumstances, unless for some reason the contract should have been
invalid from the beginning (see below). Several hadith are recorded
which establish this point without question.
In a situation
where a contract is concluded, but before the beginning of the time period
the man decides not to go through with the marriage but to 'give back' to
the woman the contracted time, she is entitled to one-half the dower. The
situation is similar to divorce before consummation in permanent marriage.
But if the man
should give only part of the time period back to the woman before
consummation, there is a difference of opinion as to the dower. According
to al-Shaykh al-Ansari and al-Shahid al Thani, the situation cannot be the
same as in the first case--where the whole time period was given
back-since in this second case the essential point is that mut'a
demands a full dower.
between the first and second cases is explained in more detail by
al-Shahid al Thani. He poses the question: 'What is it that requires
one-half of the dower to be held back from the woman? Is it two things
together, i.e., not consummating the marriage and giving back the whole of
the time period? Or does the problem revolve around whether or not the
marriage was consummated?' He states that there are two possibilities: On
the one hand, the hadith are explicit concerning the matter of
consummation. The situation is exactly the same as in divorce after
permanent marriage: one-half of the dower must be paid if the marriage has
not been consummated, but the whole dower must be paid if it has been
consummated. So in this respect, the reason that one-half the dower is
held back is that the marriage was not consummated. On the other hand,
there is the question of what exactly necessitates that the dower be paid.
In permanent marriage the key element is consummation. But temporary
marriage is different from permanent marriage because of the time period.
Therefore the time period also must be taken into account.
Thani remarks that the difference between these two possible
interpretations becomes obvious in a situation where the husband should
return more than one-half of the time period to the wife, not having
consummated the marriage. According to the first interpretation, the wife
must receive the whole dower; but according to the second, she is only
entitled to one-half of it, He concludes that the second interpretation
would seem to be the correct one, so long as we accept the authenticity of
the hadith attributed to the Imam al-Hasan: When asked about a man
who gave the remaining time period back to his temporary wife before the
consummation of the marriage, he replied in a general sense, 'The woman
must return one-half the dower to the man.'
Muhammad al-Hasan holds that whether the full dower or only one-half is to
be paid depends totally upon the question of consummation. 'Giving back
the time period' is equivalent to using it up completely. In other words,
when the man returns the remaining time period to the woman, he has
already taken possession of conjugal rights with her for the elapsed time.
But this does not require that the woman relinquish one-half of the dower.
In this respect the situation resembles the woman's 'giving back the
dower' in permanent marriage. If the woman thus relinquishes her claim to
it, this does not mean that her husband is no longer her husband in the
full sense. Therefore, giving back the time period has no relationship
with the dower being reduced to one-half. The only question to consider is
whether or not the marriage has been consummated. If it has been
consummated and then the husband returns some or all of the remaining
time, the wife is entitled to the whole dower, since without question the
dower becomes necessary as soon as consummation takes place.
time period is given back with or without consummation, the wife's consent
is unnecessary, since giving back the period is equivalent to the erasing
of a debt owed by the woman.
If of her own
free will a woman who has concluded a contract of mut'a should
separate from her husband before the end of the time period, whether
before or after consummation, the man reduces the dower in proportion to
the amount of time by which the time period of the mut'a has been
reduced-provided, that is, that he has not already paid her the full
dower.  Thus, for example, if the woman's dower is 3000 rials and the
time period 30 days; and if the woman should separate from her husband
after 20 days, her husband would reduce the dower by one-third. Hence, if
the woman should fail to fulfill any of the conditions of the marriage for
the whole time period, she forfeits the whole dower. The reason she
forfeits part or all of it is that first, the contract of mut'a by
definition entails an exchange, such that the woman is in the position of
a 'rented' object, Second, numerous hadith have been recorded
concerning this particular point, For example, the Imam Ja'far was asked
if it is permissible to hold back part of the dower if the woman fails to
put herself at her husband's disposal. He replied: 'It is permissible for
you to hold back what you can [i.e., what you have not already given her].
So if she goes back on her word, take from her [in proportion to] the
amount she has broken the contract.'
the woman should fail to provide the man with conjugal rights because of
an excuse sanctioned by the sharia, such as menstruation or 'fear
of an oppressor', then the dower may not be reduced. A man came to the
Imam Ja'far and said: 
'I concluded a contract of mut'a with a woman for one month for a
given amount, But the woman only came to me for part of the month, and
part she stayed away.' The Imam replied: 'An amount should be held back
from her dower equivalent to the amount she stayed from you, except for
the days of her menstruation, for those belong to her.'
If it should
become apparent that the contract is invalid because the woman already has
a husband, or because she should be maintaining a waiting period as the
result of a previous marriage, or because she is forbidden to the man by
family relationship, or because of some other reason, then one of the
following courses of action should be taken:
marriage has already been consummated and if the woman was ignorant of the
fact that the contract was invalid at the time of sexual intercourse, then
she should be given the 'normal dower'. Here the reasoning is that the
fact of intercourse has to be honored and compensation given. Since the
contract is invalid, the 'specified dower' is nullified; hence the normal
dower must be paid.
As for whether
the normal dower is the same as that for permanent marriage or is to be
adjusted according to the time period of the mut'a, the most
authoritative opinion is voiced by al-Shaykh al-Ansari and al-Shaykh
Muhammad al-Hasan. They hold that the normal dower is the same as for
permanent marriage. AI Tabataba'i argues that here the normal dower is
compensation for 'mistaken intercourse'. Since the contract was invalid
without the knowledge of the husband and wife, their intercourse is
'mistaken'. Therefore the man must pay the normal dowry of permanent
marriage, which is demanded in any instance of 'mistaken intercourse'.
The time period for which the woman was at the man's disposal is
irrelevant, just as there is no difference between one act of sexual
intercourse and several acts as long as the mistake remains in force.
If it should
become apparent that the contract is invalid before the marriage is
consummated, the woman receives no dower. Only a valid contract or the
fact of intercourse warrants the dower's payment. Al-Shahid al Thani
claims that on this point there is consensus among the ulama.
marriage has been consummated and the woman was aware of the contract's
invalidity, she can have no claim to a dower, since she is a fornicatress,
and there is no dower for fornication.
In all three
of the above cases, if the man has already given the woman the whole
dower, she must return part or all of it as soon as the invalidity of the
contract becomes apparent. If she no longer possesses the amount which
must be returned, she is liable for it, no matter how it may have left her
hands-whether, for example, she has spent it or it was stolen.
If the woman
should die during the period of the mut'a, even if it be before
consummation, her dower may in no way be lessened, exactly as in permanent
. Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn
Sa'id (602-76/1205-77), author of Shara'i' al-islam, a standard
textbook of Shi'i fiqh and the subject of many commentaries.
. Shara'i', Beirut,
. Zayn al-Din Muhammad ibn
'Ali al-'A.mili (911-65/1505-58), author of Sharh al-lum'a (al-Rawdat
al-bahiyya fi sharh al-lum'a al-dimashqiyya), a commentary on
al-Iuma al-dimashqiyya by al-Shahid al-Awwal.
. Sharh al-lum'a, v,
. Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn
Makki al-'Amili (d. 782/1380).
. Jamal al-Din Hasan ibn Yusuf
ibn Zayn al-Din 'Ali ibn al-Mutahhar (648-726/1250-1326), author of
lrshad al-adhhan ila ahkam al-iman.
. Murtada b. Muhammad Amin
al-Dizfuli (1214-81/1800-64). His works al-Matajir on fiqh
and al-Rasa'il on us'ul al-fiqh are considered the most
complete textbooks on these sciences.
. Sharh al-lum'a, v,
245; al-Matajir, Tehran 1352/1973, the book on muta (which
is a commentary on al-'Allama's lrshad).
. Fiqh,IV, 90.
. Shara'i, I,233.
. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan
al-Hurr al-'Amili (1033-1104/1624-93), Wasa'il al-shia, Tehran,
1385/1965-66, XIV, 446.
. 'Ali ibn al-Husayn
al-Musawi (355-436/965-1044), leading Shi'i scholar and author of many
works. His brother, al-Sharif al-Radi (d. 406/1015), was also a famous
scholar and compiled 'Ali's Nahj al-balagha.
. Riyad, II, 113;
Mukhtasar-i nafi' (an 18th/14th century Persian summary of al-Muhaqqiq
al-Hilli's Shara'i' by an unknown author), ed. M.T. Daneshpazhuh,
. Al-Shahid al Thani,
Masalik al-ajham (a commentary on Shara'i'), Tehran,
. Sharh al-lum'a, v,
. Shara'i',II, 24.
. Riyad, II,113.
. Wasa'il, XIV, 466.
. Shaykh Muhammad Hasan (d.
1266/1850), Jawahir al-kalam (a commentary
Shara'i'), Tehran, 1325/1907, V, 165.
. Wasa'il, XIV, 452.
. Jawahir, v, 165.
. Usul al-fiqh, the
science that discusses the arts and techniques for making juridical
. Wasail, XIV, 458,
. Jawahir, V, 166,
.Wasail, XIV, 459,
. Ibid., 458, hadith
. Ibid., 479, hadith
. Ibid., hadith 2.
. Ibid., 446, hadith 2
. Matajir, II, 300.
. Matajir, II, 299;
Sharh al-lum'a, V, 287; Jawahir, V, 169.
. Wasa'ill, XIV,
. Ibid., 469, hadith
. Matajir, II, 299.
. Sharh al-lum'a, V,
. Matajir, II, 300;
Jawahir, V, 170.
. Sahih al-Bukhari, n.p.,
1378/1958, III, 120.
. Matajir, II, 300.
. Matajir, II, 300;
Sharh al-lum'a, V, 284.
. Wasa'il, XIV, 467,
. Matajir, II. 300;
Masalik, l, 538.
. Wasa'il, XIV,
465-66, hadith 1-3.
. Ibid., 482, hadith
1-2; 483, hadith I.
. Sharh al-lum'a, v,
285; Shara'i, II, 24; Matajir, II, 300; Masalik,
. Matajir, II, 301;
Sharh al-lum'a, V, 285; Masalik, 1,538.
. Masalik, I, 538.
. Wasa'il, XIV, 483,
. Jawahir, V, 168.
. Sharh al-lum'a, v,
285; Masalik, I,538.
. Sharh al-lum'a,v,285.
. Wasail, XIV, 481,
. Ibid., hadith 4.
. Masalik, l,539;
Matajir, lI,301; Riyad,II,114.
. Riyad, II ,115.
. Matajir, II, 301.
. Masalik, I, 538.
. Matajir, II, 301;
Sharh al-lum'a, v, 287-88.
. Sharh al-lum'a, v,