A spiritual Ishmaelite

This is a complex and nuanced question that requires analysis through several layers of Zaydi Usuli thought. Let’s first clarify the key terms and then analyze the purported narration.

Clarification of Key Terms

1. Hedonic: Pertaining to pleasure. In this context, it suggests a modern, individualistic pursuit of pleasure, potentially detached from religious or social responsibilities.
2. Permanent Polygamy (Tāddud al-Zawjāt): The classical Islamic institution of a man having up to four wives simultaneously with full marital rights and responsibilities.
3. Mut’ah (Temporary Marriage): A time-bound marriage contract with specified dowry. It is a point of theological difference between the Twelver Shia (who consider it permissible) and the Sunni majority (who consider it abrogated). The Zaydi position is crucial here.
4. Zaydi Usuli Thought: The Zaydi school (particularly the Hadawi and later Usuli traditions) employs independent reasoning (ijtihād) but within a framework that historically aligns closely with Sunni methodological sources (Qur’an, Sunnah, consensus, analogy) while maintaining distinct theological and legal positions, especially from the Jarudi and Sulaimani sub-schools. They do not follow the Twelver Imami chain of Imams after Zayd ibn Ali, and thus do not grant the same epistemic authority to the narrations from Twelver Imams like Imam al-Ridha.

Analysis of the Narration through a Zaydi Usuli Lens

1. Authenticity and Source Criticism (Naqd al-Isnad):
The primary Zaydi Usuli step would be to examine the chain of transmission (isnād) of this narration. Since this is attributed to Imam Ali al-Ridha (the 8th Twelver Imam), it is not found in the primary canonical hadith collections of the Zaydiyya (e.g., Amali of Ahmad al-Hadi, Majmu’ al-Hadith of al-Hadi ila’l-Haqq). For a Zaydi jurist (mujtahid), this narration would be considered an āḥād (solitary) report from a non-Zaydi source. Its acceptance would require rigorous verification. Most Zaydi classical scholars historically rejected the permissibility of Mut’ah, aligning with the Sunni position that it was abrogated. Therefore, the narration’s premise would likely be questioned at the source level.

2. Conceptual Analysis (Fiqhī & ‘Aqīdī):

• “One who understands it” vs. “One who is ignorant of it”: A Zaydi Usuli scholar would analyze the key operative terms (ḥukm). “Understanding” (al-fāhim) here could be interpreted as:
  • Understanding its legal rulings (aḥkām): Knowing it is a contract with pillars (arkān) and conditions (shurūṭ), not mere licentiousness.
  • Understanding its spiritual and social purpose: This is where the analysis intersects with the question’s premise. A Zaydi scholar might argue that true “understanding” means recognizing it as a legal dispensation (rukhṣah) for a specific need under constrained circumstances, not a tool for hedonism. The modern “hedonic” use would be seen as a corruption of its intended purpose, falling under “ignorance” of its true place in the law.
• The Dichotomy Presented (Laity vs. Mujtahid): The question sets up a contrast:
  • Laity under Modern Influence: A Zaydi Usuli analysis would be cautious about generalizations but would acknowledge that secular modernity can promote hedonism. The law’s role is to provide a moral framework that elevates human conduct, not merely to satisfy base desires. If Mut’ah were permissible (which it generally isn’t in Zaydi fiqh), its misuse for hedonism would be condemned as falling under “ignorance.”
  • Mujtahid and Permanent Polygamy: A mujtahid is trained to understand the objectives of the Law (maqāṣid al-sharī’ah). Permanent polygamy, in classical jurisprudence, is not framed as a pursuit of happiness per se, but as an institution with grave responsibilities (strict justice between wives, financial upkeep, social welfare). A mujtahid’s “happiness” with it would be understood as satisfaction in fulfilling a complex divine law with wisdom and justice, not in mere sensual gratification. The comparison is somewhat flawed from a Zaydi perspective, as one (Mut’ah) is largely prohibited and the other (polygamy) is a highly regulated permission.

3. Ruling (Ḥukm) and Maqāṣid (Objectives):
From the dominant Zaydi perspective:

• Mut’ah is prohibited (ḥarām). Therefore, the entire narration discusses the conditions for something they deem unlawful. A Zaydi Usuli might reinterpret the narration allegorically or dismiss it due to its weak standing in their sources.
• If hypothetically analyzed, they would apply the principle of blocking the means (sadd al-dharā’i). A permission that easily leads to licentiousness and the degradation of women (as they might view the modern hedonistic use) can be restricted or prohibited to preserve higher objectives: the dignity of women, the sanctity of lineage, and stable family structure.
• The objective of marriage in Zaydi thought is companionship, progeny, and chastity. Permanent polygamy, when practiced with justice, can serve these ends within a social framework. A hedonistic interpretation of Mut’ah would undermine these maqāṣid.

Conclusion

Through a Zaydi Usuli lens:

1. The narration is weak or irrelevant to mainstream Zaydi law, as Mut’ah is not considered lawful. Their legal sources point to its abrogation.
2. The dichotomy is analyzed conceptually: “Understanding” Mut’ah would mean seeing it as a specific legal provision, not a license for hedonism. The modern “hedonic” approach is the epitome of the “ignorance” the narration warns against.
3. The contrast with the mujtahid’s view of polygamy is telling. Zaydi Usuli thought emphasizes that a mujtahid appreciates the regulated, responsibility-laden nature of permanent polygamy within the maqāṣid al-sharī’ah. His “happiness” is with the wisdom and balance of the law, not with unbridled desire.
4. Ultimately, the Zaydi position would likely uphold permanent polygamy (with its strict conditions) as the lawful, socially responsible institution, while viewing the hypothetical promotion of Mut’ah—especially in a modern hedonistic context—as a potential dharī’ah (avenue) to societal harm, thus requiring prohibition or strict restraint.

Therefore, the narration, even if considered, would be interpreted not as an endorsement of Mut’ah for pleasure, but as a severe warning that only those who grasp its serious legal and ethical constraints (making it virtually distinct from hedonism) could potentially engage in it—a condition that, in the Zaydi view, is moot due to its abrogation. The modern hedonistic influence is precisely what Zaydi Usuli thought, with its emphasis on reason, public welfare (maṣlaḥah), and moral elevation, would seek to regulate and resist through its legal rulings.