…

I am not particularly fond of this my username but unfortunately, I got the ban. Seun probably hates me because I did nothing wrong so I dunno why my posting priviledges have not been restored. In any case, please take my posts serious. Don't let the name affect how you read them.

this is an old topic.i would refer you to other threads shortly.in summary i would like to tell you that mut'a marriage has its own conditions and rules and is supported in the Holy Quran in 4:24.it was not made forbidden later on by the Prophet (sa) as Sunnis claim and there is evidence to prove that.it was Umar Ibn al-Khattab who prohibited it.also,the misdeeds of men in mut'a marriage should not be used as argument against mut'a because it is equally beneficially for both males and females in the right time and circumstances,and also even permanent marriage can be abused and therefore should not be seen as something bad.


https://www.nairaland.com/737027/im-now-contractual-muslim-sexy#8937675

https://www.nairaland.com/828391/mutah-pimps

https://www.nairaland.com/828259/mutah-pimps-quran

https://www.nairaland.com/828367/plea-muslim-sister

ShiaLagos: mut'a is supported in the Holy Quran in 4:24.

What I saw:
Holy Quran in 4:24
"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those(captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr prescribed, but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more) there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-knowing, All-wise."
I don't see anything regarding Mut'a in the verse. It talked about Mahr largely, and the latter part which mentioned paying Mahr after sexual intercourse was to correct the attitudes of the Arabs towards dowry, which they used to take lightly and fail to accord much importance to.
I'm guessing the Shia interpretation of the verse is different that was why you mentioned it to me.....even if your interpretation is different, what about the earlier verse I quoted? Are you saying they are contradictory?

E_monkey:
What I saw:
Holy Quran in 4:24
"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those(captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr prescribed, but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more) there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-knowing, All-wise."
I don't see anything regarding Mut'a in the verse. It talked about Mahr largely, and the latter part which mentioned paying Mahr after sexual intercourse was to correct the attitudes of the Arabs towards dowry, which they used to take lightly and fail to accord much importance to.
I'm guessing the Shia interpretation of the verse is different that was why you mentioned it to me.....even if your interpretation is different, what about the earlier verse I quoted? Are you saying they are contradictory?

let me first quote the verse 4:24 in both arabic and english.



"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] [/b]from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise".


the word in the verse is [b]IS-TAM-TA'-TUM.translated in english as "whatever you enjoy of marriage.

Is-Tam-Ta'-Tum is the verb.

Mut'a is the noun/adjective.

i hope you get the picture clearer.

if im not mistake this has already being explained in one of those previous threads on mut'ah.

there is no different or exclusive Shia interpretation for verse 4:24.both Sunni and Shia sources refer to this verse as "the verse of mut'ah".

the earlier verse you quoted is not contradictory.one can have a wife that is based on mut'ah marriage as also on permanent marriage and also from among the female prisoners of war translated as "slave girls".

LagosShia, you keep telling me about the links you put there and trying to send me there whenever I ask a question.
I don't want to go to those sites because I want an interactive session . I want to talk to you. I want to be able to ask questions, not just read.
Please don't assume I'm just trying to make you look bad. I'm simply curious.

LagosShia:
the word in the verse is IS-TAM-TA'-TUM.translated in english as "whatever you enjoy of marriage.

Is-Tam-Ta'-Tum is the verb.

Mut'a is the noun/adjective.

i hope you get the picture clearer.

No not really.
But when I looked the word up (Istamta'tum) I found that its meaning has the same roots as the word Mut'a, ie m-t-'a, the word Istamta'tum means, like you said, to derive pleasure from, so I am assuming that you are saying the two words are gotten from the same roots, therefore the Qur'an is talking about Mut'a.
But if Istamta'tum means "to derive pleasure from", (like you said) doesn't it also imply that the verse could be translated as,
". . . .other women are lawful for you, provided you seek them with your wealth (ie dowry), so for the enjoyment/pleasure you have already had from them, give them their dowry, as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you mutually agree upon (regarding the dowry) after fulfilling the duty".

It should be clear from the above translation that the verse was reffered to those who had gotten conjugal pleasures from their wives and neglected to pay the Mahr.

LagosShia:
there is no different or exclusive Shia interpretation for verse 4:24.both Sunni and Shia sources refer to this verse as "the verse of mut'ah".

I don't belong to any of those sects and so I can't decide to regard the verse as the verse of muta because the members of the sects unanimously agreed to do so.

LagosShia: the earlier verse you quoted is not contradictory.one can have a wife that is based on mut'ah marriage as also on permanent marriage and also from among the female prisoners of war translated as "slave girls".

How can they not be contradictory? Q70;29-31 talks about those who engage in relations with women other than their wives and what their right hands possess as transgressors. If Muta marriages were valid, I'm sure it would also be included in that verse.

Also, if muta is to be an accepted part of the social setup of Islam, the Qur'an would not have used a verb that can be loosely translated (istamta'tum) to teach people about something which was being introduced for the first time. Detailed guidance should have been given in the Qur'an about it. There ought to have been detailed laws regarding this newly introduced concept of man/woman relationships, the way it was detailed for Nikah.

following..

E_monkey: LagosShia, you keep telling me about the links you put there and trying to send me there whenever I ask a question.
I don't want to go to those sites because I want an interactive session . I want to talk to you. I want to be able to ask questions, not just read.
Please don't assume I'm just trying to make you look bad. I'm simply curious.

it is not like i do not want to talk or i am sending you to those threads.the fact is the topic is somewhat boring for me and spending more time over the same thing over and over,i find a waste of time.when the topic of mut'a marriage is concerned,most people discuss whether it is permitted or not permitted,and whether the Prophet (sa) later prohibited it or did not prohibit it.

i have only come across you who is questioning the meaning and interpretation of the verse of mut'a.

insha'Allah i shall clarify your questions.

No not really.
But when I looked the word up (Istamta'tum) I found that its meaning has the same roots as the word Mut'a, ie m-t-'a, the word Istamta'tum means, like you said, to derive pleasure from, so I am assuming that you are saying the two words are gotten from the same roots, therefore the Qur'an is talking about Mut'a.

good.

when you have "Is-Tam-Ta'-Tum",it means you're performing mut'a.

But if Istamta'tum means "to derive pleasure from", (like you said) doesn't it also imply that the verse could be translated as,
". . . .other women are lawful for you, provided you seek them with your wealth (ie dowry), so for the enjoyment/pleasure you have already had from them, give them their dowry, as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you mutually agree upon (regarding the dowry) after fulfilling the duty".

It should be clear from the above translation that the verse was reffered to those who had gotten conjugal pleasures from their wives and neglected to pay the Mahr.

first,if the verse was referring to permanent marriage or telling us to give our wives their dowries,there are many verses with the exception of 4:24 that state that.check the immediate verse after 4:24 which is 4:25 and also 5:5,33:50,and 60:10.these verse use the word "NA-KAH-TUM" or refers to "NI-KAH" which can be translated as "marriage".verse 4:24 specifically uses the word "IS-TAM-TA'TUM" which means marriage to "derive pleasure" or temporary marriage.that is the first point.

notice very carefully the choice of words in verse 4:24.then compare with earlier verse in 4:3-4 talking about dowry and permanent marriage.Verse 4:24 speaks of a specified and agree upon agreement with an appoited time and compensation agree upon.

the second point is to examine the verse.

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful intimate intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise".

all women can be married either in permanent or temporary marriage,except married women.that is the condition the verse makes.

insha'Allah,furthermore i will provide Tafsir of the verse and state hadiths that support the fact that 4:24 is the verse of mut'a.actually this is common knowledge.but for your sake,i will still expend time to bring the evidence to you.

I don't belong to any of those sects and so I can't decide to regard the verse as the verse of muta because the members of the sects unanimously agreed to do so.

firstly being a "SHIA Muslim" is not belonging to a sect.from my view,it is actually being a "Sunni" or anything except being Shia that amounts to belonging to a sect and that is forbidden in the Quran.i do not want to change the topic or divert,so i would refer you to the thread where this has being discussed:
https://www.nairaland.com/1001212/why-it-bidah-forbidden-sinful

as for you stating you dont belong to either side and therefore cannot regard verse 4:24 as "the verse of mut'a",i must refer you to any Tafsir of the Quran you make use of.if you use the Sunni Tafsir of al-Tabari or of Al-Suyuthi,you will find what i am telling you about verse 4:24.if you use a Shia Tafsir like Tafsir al-Mizan or any other,it is the same gist on verse 4:24.

Mujahid (RA) said: "The phrase 'So for whatever you have had of pleasure (Istamta'tum) with them by the contract [4:24]' means the Temporary Marriage(Nikah al-Mut'a)."
Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Tabari, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the verse 4:24, v8, p176, Tradition #9034.

Sunni Tafsir do acknowledge that Verse 4:24 is the verse of mut'a.in fact they go further to state that mut'a was later prohibited and even mention that it was prohibited by Umar!!!

second reference:
Imran Ibn Husain narrated: "The verse of Mut'a (4:24) was revealed in Allah's Book, and there did NOT came any other verse after that to abrogate it; and the Prophet ORDERED US to do it, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle, and he did not forbade us from it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."

Sunni reference:

Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran
Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, pp 200,202, under the verse 4:24
Tafsir Ibn Hayyan, v3, p218, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran
Tafsir Nisaboori, by al-Nisaboori (8th century)

there are many more references,but i will contain myself this much

How can they not be contradictory? Q70;29-31 talks about those who engage in relations with women other than their wives and what their right hands possess as transgressors. If Muta marriages were valid, I'm sure it would also be included in that verse.

when you're in a mut'ah marriage,the woman is your wife.so if the verse 70:30 says "except their wives",then when you are in mut'ah the woman is your wife.the word "Nikah" is general".when you say "mut'a" it is specific and the short form of "Nikah Mut'a" which means "mut'ah marriage".

Also, if muta is to be an accepted part of the social setup of Islam, the Qur'an would not have used a verb that can be loosely translated (istamta'tum) to teach people about something which was being introduced for the first time. Detailed guidance should have been given in the Qur'an about it. There ought to have been detailed laws regarding this newly introduced concept of man/woman relationships, the way it was detailed for Nikah.

the Quran was not introducing it.the Quran was putting the conditions to be observed by prohibiting seeking marriage women and also telling us to pay the women their dues (U-JU-RU-HUNNA) which is different from "dowry",as "appointed" or "fixed".the marriage was already permitted by the Prophet (sa) for the companions.

the Quran likewise keeps telling us to "offer salat" without going into details that you should recite al-fatiha,and then a surah,and then do rukoo and then sujood and do shahada in the middle and in the end of certain obligatory prayers.but we are taught by the Prophet (sa) of how to implement the Quranic injunctions and more details can be found in the authentic hadiths.


Abu Nadhra said: I asked Ibn Abbas about temporary marriage (Mut'a of women). Ibn Abbas (RA) said: "Do you not read 'For whatever you enjoyed (Istamta'tum) them by the contract to an appointed time'?" I said: "If I would have read it this way, I wouldn't ask you (about temporary marriage)!" He replied: "Certainly the verse is about it."

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the commentary of verse 4:24, v8, p177, Traditions #9036-9037

deols: following..

interesting....

LagosShia:
i have only come across you who is questioning the meaning and interpretation of the verse of mut'a.

Are you serious? I am only just seeing that people actually refer to that verse as the verse of muta.

LagosShia:
insha'Allah i shall clarify your questions.
good.
when you have "Is-Tam-Ta'-Tum",it means you're performing mut'a.

No.
Like I said before, the word Istamta'tum also means 'to derive pleasure from', the fact that muta and istamta'tum have the same alphabetical roots does not mean that it is talking about muta. You, being Shia, will choose to believe that it is talking about muta

LagosShia: .
first,if the verse was referring to permanent marriage or telling us t give our wives their dowries,there are many verses with the exception of 4:24 that state that.check the immediate verse after 4:24 which is 4:25 and also 5:5,33:50,and 60:10.these verse use the word "NA-KAH-TUM" or refers to "NI-KAH" which can be translated as "marriage".verse 4:24 specifically uses the word "IS-TAM-TA'TUM" which means marriage to "derive pleasure" [size=18pt]or[/size] temporary marriage.that is the first point.
notice very carefully the choice of words in verse 4:24.then compare with earlier verse in 4:3-4 talking about dowry and permanent marriage.Verse 4:24 speaks of a specified and agree upon agreement with an appoited time and compensation agree upon.
the second point is to examine the verse.
all women can be married either in permanent or temporary marriage,except married women.that is the condition the verse makes

How does the verse make that condition? Why are you comparing Nakatum to istamta'tum? The latter talks about the pleasure derived from women who have not had their Mahr paid and hence were not legally married to the men. That verse is for a very specific group of women, it doesn't deal generally with marriage like the other verses.

LagosShia:
firstly being a "SHIA Muslim" is not belonging to a sect.from my view, and so on and so forth

Give it up man, I am not going to become Shia. If you like preach from now till thy kingdom come.

LagosShia:
as for you stating you dont belong to either side and therefore cannot regard verse 4:24 as "the verse of mut'a",i must refer you to any Tafsir of the Quran you make use of.if you use the Sunni Tafsir of al-Tabari or of Al-Suyuthi,you will find what i am telling you about verse 4:24.if you use a Shia Tafsir like Tafsir al-Mizan or any other,it is the same gist on verse 4:24.

To be honest, I have never seen any of those tafseer you put there that support muta. But one thing you should know about tafseer (or probably already know) is that they are not universal among the authors. Tafseer Ibn Kathir has a different interpretation for that verse. His account states that the men who went to war with the prophet captured some women who were already married and they disliked having sex[i]u[/i]al relations with them because they already had husbands so they asked the prophet about the matter and the verse was revealed to clarify the issue. Those sunni tafseer you wrote of are probably associated with the funny sub-sects of Sunni Muslims who believe that women should not eat food that are shaped like phalluses and that cooking with tomatoes is haraam because they have a cross shaped internal pattern.

LagosShia:
the Quran was not introducing it.the Quran was putting the conditions

Are you kidding me? No, really, are you serious? What condition did you see there other than to 'pay them their dues?'
How can you possibly think that Islam endorses muta? The same religion that is so strict with the inter gender relationships to the point of prohibiting handshakes between non related Muslims? The same religion where men sometimes had to talk to women from behind a veil in order to avoid looking at their faces? Where women cannot make music or call Adhan in order to avoid tempting the men? You believe that that same Islam endorses the marriage of a man to as many women as possible as long as it is temporary or the marriage of a woman to different men, having different children by these different men as long as the marriage is temporary and not long term?
So LagosShia, what you are telling me is that Islam is ok with my marrying as many boys in my school as possible and terminating my marriage to them over and over untill I finally decide to get married to my final husband?
Lmao, maybe I need to reconsider becoming a Shia Muslim.

E_monkey:

No.
Like I said before, the word Istamta'tum also means 'to derive pleasure from', the fact that muta and istamta'tum have the same alphabetical roots does not mean that it is talking about muta. You, being Shia, will choose to believe that it is talking about muta

so is it talking about pro$titution? no!

"mut'ah marriage" is also described as "pleasure marriage" which is done legally and within the bounds of Islamic laws.the only difference being that it is limited by time,and after the appointed time,the marriage dissolves and amount to a case of divorce,except if it is further renewed or the couple agree to get permanently married.

How does the verse make that condition? Why are you comparing Nakatum to istamta'tum? The latter talks about the pleasure derived from women who have not had their Mahr paid and hence were not legally married to the men. That verse is for a very specific group of women, it doesn't deal generally with marriage like the other verses.

that is wrong and a lie.and that is a very serious allegation against Allah (swt) and the Quran for which you should seek forgiveness from Him.

if Muslim men illicitly had $ex with women,God first of all would have rebuked them.He wouldn't have given them a blank cheque that "whatever pleasure you derive pay them their dues".that would defenitely amount to God in the Quran promoting pro$titution/ra.pe where Muslim men pay for $ex and for "whatever pleasure they derive".

ofcourse i expect you to ask,what is the difference(s) between mut'a and prostitution? in mut'a even though you derive pleasure consensually ,all the rules of permanent marriage apply in temporary marriage,except that the temporary marriage expires on a stipulated time as if divorce has taken place.but you're are interpreting the verse that God is simply talking about a group of women who are no better than "pro$titutes" based on your description,and encouraging muslim men to "buy and sell".

i voluteered with my time to clarify matters but now you want to turn over the table and argue with me over something you do not know.and sadly another blind person is "liking" your post with conclusions based on ignorant assumptions and the will to argue than to reason.

Give it up man, I am not going to become Shia. If you like preach from now till thy kingdom come.

man,you should have some shame in this.i was not the one who invited you into this thread and sought after your attention.you did.so even if i am wrong in your perspective,why would you claim i am trying to make you become Shia in your own thread you started?

To be honest, I have never seen any of those tafseer you put there that support muta. But one thing you should know about tafseer (or probably already know) is that they are not universal among the authors. Tafseer Ibn Kathir has a different interpretation for that verse. His account states that the men who went to war with the prophet captured some women who were already married and they disliked having sex[i]u[/i]al relations with them because they already had husbands so they asked the prophet about the matter and the verse was revealed to clarify the issue.

that is wrong conclusion.im not honestly sure whether to laugh or cry!

you are referring to Ibn Kathir's tafseer.it is stated that the verse 4:24 is about mut'a marriage in Ibn Kathir's tafseer; Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Volume 1 page 84.and also in al-Suyuthi's Tafseer Durr al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 140.

tafseer is based on hadiths from the Prophet (sa).there are many hadiths which point to the practice of mut'ah marriage and call it with that name in the time of the Prophet (sa) and up till the time of abu bakr.so any tafseer especially ones that deal with the "asbabul nuzul" or "reasons for revelation" must be based on hadiths which are authentic.

secondly,the tafseer itself you're refering to from Ibn Kathir does not negate the fact that those women were taken for pleasure in the context of temporary marriage,and also if they agree.you cannot force her to have $ex or any form of marriage if she refuses even if she is a captured prisoner of war.

if it is not within the framework of (temporary) marriage that the verse 4:24 is talking for men to have intimate affair with those women even based on Ibn Kathir's tafsir,then you are either promoting ra.pe or pro$titution.otherwise,what is the meaning of "whatever pleasure you derive,give them their dues"?what does that mean?based on what framework? casual $ex? i think that is not allowed in Islam and it is shameful for you to attribute such understanding to verse 4:24 because it stands against illicit $ex.it is actually funny that you would oppose mut'ah marriage which is established in Sunni hadiths,and you support muslim men casually sleeping with captured women and paying them without any defined framework of marriage or union and believe God is promoting that.

Those sunni tafseer you wrote of are probably associated with the funny sub-sects of Sunni Muslims who believe that women should not eat food that are shaped like phalluses and that cooking with tomatoes is haraam because they have a cross shaped internal pattern.

i feel sorry for myself.i am realizing now what Imam Ali (as) says is true.i cannot argue with someone ignorant and win.

those tafseer of al-tabari and al-razi are classical Sunni tafseer.these authors are classical Sunni scholars.they are not wahhabis/salafists who issue ridiculous fatwas like the ones you cited about tomatoes and food.these scholars are referred to by all Sunnis and held in high respect regardless of what political or religious movement Sunnis designate themselves.

Are you kidding me? No, really, are you serious? What condition did you see there other than to 'pay them their dues?'
How can you possibly think that Islam endorses muta? The same religion that is so strict with the inter gender relationships to the point of prohibiting handshakes between non related Muslims? The same religion where men sometimes had to talk to women from behind a veil in order to avoid looking at their faces? Where women cannot make music or call Adhan in order to avoid tempting the men? You believe that that same Islam endorses the marriage of a man to as many women as possible as long as it is temporary or the marriage of a woman to different men, having different children by these different men as long as the marriage is temporary and not long term?
So LagosShia, what you are telling me is that Islam is ok with my marrying as many boys in my school as possible and terminating my marriage to them over and over untill I finally decide to get married to my final husband?
Lmao, maybe I need to reconsider becoming a Shia Muslim.

what you are promoting either is un-Islamic and sinful.instead of God rebuking men for illicit $ex you believe God is promoting it according to your own personal "tafseer".

mut'ah have conditions.all the conditions that permanent marriage have including iddah.for instance if as a you woman want to get married temporarily to cover your shame and satisfy your physical desires in an acceptable legal union,you must either be divorced or a widow.if you're a girl and virgin,you cannot do mut'ah except with the consent of your male guardian who in that case would be your father;and that is almost certain that consent would not be granted.when you're done with one man and the marriage dissolves,you have to observe the Iddah (3 months and 10 days) before going into another marriage.ofcourse you should keep in mind that society and family are watching you too even if you're a widow or divorced.

you have perverted concepts and perceptions that is why you want to attribute things that do not exist in mut'a to mut'a.it doesn't work like that.all the conditions of permanent marriage apply to temporary marriage because when those conditions like "iddah" or "waiting period" were revealed in the Quran,they were simply stipulated without distinction.so they apply to all marriages.additionally,there are exceptional rules for mut'a for the sake of purifying the soul and society.


Please check out:
www.mutah.com

I wonder who those mysterious 5 people that 'liked' your post are. Or why they don't come into the thread to assist you instead of just standing on the sidelines to 'like' anything you write.
Very curious.

LagosShia:
so is it talking about pro$titution? no!

"mut'ah marriage" is also described as "pleasure marriage" which is done legally and within the bounds of Islamic laws.the only difference being that it is limited by time,and after the appointed time,the marriage dissolves and amount to a case of divorce,except if it is further renewed or the couple agree to get permanently married.

LMAO,I never mentioned prostitution in any of my posts. Why is the thought of prost[i]i[/i]tution hovering around your mind, LagosShia? hm? You are the one subconciously associating Mut'a with prost[i]i[/i]tution, not me.

LagosShia:
that is wrong and a lie.and that is a very serious allegation against Allah (swt) and the Quran for which you should seek forgiveness from Him.
if Muslim men illicitly had $ex with women,God first of all would have rebuked them.He wouldn't have given them a blank cheque that "whatever pleasure you derive pay them their dues".that would defenitely amount to God in the Quran promoting pro$titution/ra.pe where Muslim men pay for $ex and for "whatever pleasure they derive".

@bold, who are you to say what Allah would do or wht he wouldn't do? He revealed that verse in the way that pleased him, he knows why he did not add a rebuke to the verse, although ny own opinion is that it was because the companions were ignorant of what they were doing. They didn't know if it was wrong or right, so they asked the Prophet and the verse was revealed.
You should seek forgiveness from Allah, LagosShia, for deciding that you know what action Allah would take in a particular situation.

LagosShia:

ofcourse i expect you to ask,what is the difference(s) between mut'a and prostitution? in mut'a even though you derive pleasure consensually ,all the rules of permanent marriage apply in temporary marriage,except that the temporary marriage expires on a stipulated time as if divorce has taken place.but you're are interpreting the verse that God is simply talking about a group of women who are no better than "pro$titutes" based on your description,and encouraging muslim men to "buy and sell".

Again, you use that word prostitution. Why is it stuck on your mind? And stop putting words in my mouth, I never said the actions of the women was equivalent to prostitut[i]i[/i]on.

LagosShia:

if it is not within the framework of (temporary) marriage that the verse 4:24 is talking for men to have intimate affair with those women even based on Ibn Kathir's tafsir,then you are either promoting ra.pe or pro$titution.otherwise,what is the meaning of "whatever pleasure you derive,give them their dues"?what does that mean?based on what framework? casual $ex? i think that is not allowed in Islam and it is shameful for you to attribute such understanding to verse 4:24 because it stands against illicit $ex.

What is your problem ?
Why are you implying that that was what I meant? I never mentioned ra[i]p[/i]e or casual sex, why are so many filthy words flying around your mind this evening?

LagosShia:
I said it is actually funny that you would oppose mut'ah marriage which is established in Sunni hadiths,and you support muslim men casually sleeping with captured women and paying them without any defined framework of marriage or union and believe God is promoting that.

Is this how you discuss? By telling lies? Where have I ever supported what you accuse me of supporting? Don't force me to lose the last shred of respect I have for you LagosShia, if you have nothing meaningful to support your opinions then keep quiet. Don't tell lies against me.

The thing about that tafseer I wrote of before, I never saw anything regarding Muta marriage in the first reference to the tafseer that I read up but after reading your post, I did go back to check up on the same tafseer form different sites and found that some sources actually link that verse to Muta, like you said. The first reference I looked up mentioned nothing about Muta, it simply said that the verse was revealed to companions after they inquired about the women they had had relations with, so I am guessing that there are different explanations for that tafseer.
In any case, regardless of whatever explanation you choose to accept, the Prophet did forbid Muta before he died as stated in the Hadith below;

Muslim recorded that Ar-Rabi` bin Sabrah bin Ma`bad Al-Juhani said that his father said that he accompanied the Messenger of Allah during the conquest of Makkah, and that the Prophet said,

«يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي كُنْتُ أَذِنْتُ لَكُمْ فِي الاسْتِمْتَاعِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ، وَإنَّ اللهَ قَدْ حَرَّمَ ذَلِكَ إِلى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ، فَمَنْ كَانَ عِنَدَهُ مِنْهُنَّ شَيْءٌ فَلْيُخَلِّ سَبِيلَهُ، وَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شيئًا»
(O people! I allowed you the Mut`ah marriage with women before. Now, Allah has prohibited it until the Day of Resurrection. Therefore, anyone who has any women in Mut`ah, let him let them go, and do not take anything from what you have given them.)

And please save me the long talk about how all the Hadith about prohibiting Muta during the battle of Khaybar are concocted. That will be your opinion and not mine. Islam doesn't endorse anything as disgusting as Muta.

LagosShia:

what you are promoting either is un-Islamic and sinful.instead of God rebuking men for illicit $ex you believe God is promoting it according to your own personal "tafseer".

mut'ah have conditions.all the conditions that permanent marriage have including iddah.for instance if as a you woman want to get married temporarily to cover your shame and satisfy your physical desires in an acceptable legal union,you must either be divorced or a widow.if you're a girl and virgin,you cannot do mut'ah except with the consent of your male guardian who in that case would be your father;and that is almost certain that consent would not be granted.when you're done with one man and the marriage dissolves,you have to observe the Iddah (3 months and 10 days) before going into another marriage.ofcourse you should keep in mind that society and family are watching you too even if you're a widow or divorced.

you have perverted concepts and perceptions that is why you want to attribute things that do not exist in mut'a to mut'a.it doesn't work like that.all the conditions of permanent marriage apply to temporary marriage because when those conditions like "iddah" or "waiting period" were revealed in the Quran,they were simply stipulated without distinction.so they apply to all marriages.additionally,there are exceptional rules for mut'a for the sake of purifying the soul and society.

@bold, I am sick of you claining that I support these disgusting things. If you can't argue without making false implications in your posts, then don't argue at all.
All the things you wrote doesn't change the fact that a person can engage in Muta for as long as many times as they like does it?
And by the way, thank you for pointing out the conditiond surrounding Muta to me, I asked for them in the original post and you didn't reply.
By your explanation, a person can carry out Muta over and over as long as they wait the Iddah. Interesting.
Also interesting is how there is absolutely no mention of the conditions surrounding something as serious as Muta in the Quran, and you are so sure that the Islam endorses it.

E_monkey: I wonder who those mysterious 5 people that 'liked' your post are. Or why they don't come into the thread to assist you instead of just standing on the sidelines to 'like' anything you write.
Very curious.



LMAO,I never mentioned prostitution in any of my posts. Why is the thought of prost[i]i[/i]tution hovering around your mind, LagosShia? hm? You are the one subconciously associating Mut'a with prost[i]i[/i]tution, not me.



@bold, who are you to say what Allah would do or wht he wouldn't do? He revealed that verse in the way that pleased him, he knows why he did not add a rebuke to the verse, although ny own opinion is that it was because the companions were ignorant of what they were doing. They didn't know if it was wrong or right, so they asked the Prophet and the verse was revealed.
You should seek forgiveness from Allah, LagosShia, for deciding that you know what action Allah would take in a particular situation.


Again, you use that word prostitution. Why is it stuck on your mind? And stop putting words in my mouth, I never said the actions of the women was equivalent to prostitut[i]i[/i]on.




What is your problem ?
Why are you implying that that was what I meant? I never mentioned ra[i]p[/i]e or casual sex, why are so many filthy words flying around your mind this evening?

Is this how you discuss? By telling lies? Where have I ever supported what you accuse me of supporting? Don't force me to lose the last shred of respect I have for you LagosShia, if you have nothing meaningful to support your opinions then keep quiet. Don't tell lies against me.

The thing about that tafseer I wrote of before, I never saw anything regarding Muta marriage in the first reference to the tafseer that I read up but after reading your post, I did go back to check up on the same tafseer form different sites and found that some sources actually link that verse to Muta, like you said. The first reference I looked up mentioned nothing about Muta, it simply said that the verse was revealed to companions after they inquired about the women they had had relations with, so I am guessing that there are different explanations for that tafseer.
In any case, regardless of whatever explanation you choose to accept, the Prophet did forbid Muta before he died as stated in the Hadith below;




And please save me the long talk about how all the Hadith about prohibiting Muta during the battle of Khaybar are concocted. That will be your opinion and not mine. Islam doesn't endorse anything as disgusting as Muta.


@bold, I am sick of you claining that I support these disgusting things. If you can't argue without making false implications in your posts, then don't argue at all.
All the things you wrote doesn't change the fact that a person can engage in Muta for as long as many times as they like does it?
And by the way, thank you for pointing out the conditiond surrounding Muta to me, I asked for them in the original post and you didn't reply.
By your explanation, a person can carry out Muta over and over as long as they wait the Iddah. Interesting.
Also interesting is how there is absolutely no mention of the conditions surrounding something as serious as Muta in the Quran, and you are so sure that the Islam endorses it.

SALAM!

Guide us to the straight path -

Qur'an 1 verse 6

The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray

Quran 1 verse 7

@E_MONKEY , PEACE!!


Please review the follow: http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/more/family/marriage/temporarymarriage.html

May God protect us from attributing lies to God (like advocating temporary marriage).[url]

www.submission.org[/url]
www.miracleof19.org
www.masjidtucson.org
www.quranalone.com

siddiq202:
Qur'an 1 verse 6

Quran 1 verse 7

What point are you trying to make?

usisky: @E_MONKEY , PEACE!!


Please review the follow: http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/more/family/marriage/temporarymarriage.html

May God protect us from attributing lies to God (like advocating temporary marriage).[url]

www.submission.org[/url]
www.miracleof19.org
www.masjidtucson.org
www.quranalone.com

I would have preferred for you to give me the gist of what is on those sites. I don't think I have the time to go through them individually.

E_monkey:
What point are you trying to make?

It's obvious that I'm supplicating to Allah...

E_monkey:
I would have preferred for you to give me the gist of what is on those sites. I don't think I have the time to go through them individually.

It is nonsense, a waste of time..

Here's the link again: http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/more/family/marriage/temporarymarriage.html

tbaba1234:

It is nonsense, a waste of time..

What is on the site and how is it nonsense? Don't just make accusations like that. Back what you say up with proof.

E_monkey:
What is on the site and how is it nonsense? Don't just make accusations like that. Back what you say up with proof.

^^^^Thank you Mr. Sir. Hope you went through the link? PEACE!!

usisky:


^^^^Thank you Mr. Sir. Hope you went through the link? PEACE!!

I did.
I find it baffling that people actually believe that muta is Islamic.

E_monkey:
I did.
I find it baffling that people actually believe that muta is Islamic.

Where else my brother, where else? of course the Hadiths. The same source where the derive their evil sharia Laws from instead of the Perfect,fully detailed, very clear and complete FURQAAN(Statute book: Book of Law).

>>Killing apostates
>>Stoning Married adulterers to death
>>Cutting the thief's hand(misinterpretation of the verse)
>>Forcing women to dress like masquerades(their personalities are taken away from them)
>>Preventing women from fasting, praying, Touching quran etc during their menstrual cycle.
the List is endless.


Muhammad was not a tyrant. Islam promotes freedom of opinion, religion and expression. Muslims cannot use violence against even those who insult God (2:256; 4.140; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21,22).


>>Dallying with prostitutes

The Shiah Ayatollahs say that men can even marry women temporarily for an agreed period of time like one day or for a few hours at a time. They call this mutaa. In truth this is nothing more than prostitution.

This is not surprising at all because according to the hadith writers the Prophet even allowed mingling with prostitutes. Here is the false hadith:

Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139:
Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet ). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which GOD has made lawful for you."

This false hadith says that during ‘holy wars’ the Prophet allowed his men to ‘marry a woman temporarily by giving her even a garment’ ! This is a terrible slander and lie against the Prophet and his men. This false hadith attempts to portray them as having other things on their mind other than the struggle alongside the Prophet. This evil hadith accuses the Prophet of setting the price of dallying with a woman at just one piece of garment.

The Prophet’s true teachings in the Quran tells the men to control their lusts and keep chaste. Here is the verse:

[24:33] Those who cannot afford to get married shall maintain morality until GOD provides for them from His grace. Those among your servants who wish to be freed in order to marry, you shall grant them their wish, once you realize that they are honest. And give them from GOD's money that He has bestowed upon you. You shall not force your girls to commit prostitution, seeking the materials of this world, if they wish to be chaste. If anyone forces them, then GOD, seeing that they are forced, is Forgiver, Merciful.


The Prophet taught us from GOD that we should keep chaste until we get married. We also cannot compel the slave girls into prostitution. How then could the Prophet allow his men to seek the company of prostitutes "even for the price of a garment" ?. This is an obvious slander and evil lie against the Prophet by the ulema like Bukhari. If the ulema refuse to acknowledge this verse from the Quran, here is another verse from the Quran which says the same thing:

[24:30] Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. GOD is fully Cognizant of everything they do.

This is what the Prophet taught us in the Quran. Muslims are to lower their gaze and control their lusts. But as usual the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah and Shiah will reject this Quranic teaching. They like to preach that the Prophet told his men to go after prostitutes for the price of a piece of garment. They prefer to follow their own books of false hadith which they have written with their own hands.

May God open the eyes of the sincere ones among the "muslims" before a day comes where there's neither trade nor nepotism.


www.submission.org
www.miracleof19.org
www.masjidtucson.org
www.quranalone.com

usisky:

Where else my brother, where else? of course the Hadiths. The same source where the derive their evil sharia Laws from instead of the Perfect,fully detailed, very clear and complete FURQAAN(Statute book: Book of Law).

>>Killing apostates
>>Stoning Married adulterers to death
>>Cutting the thief's hand(misinterpretation of the verse)
>>Forcing women to dress like masquerades(their personalities are taken away from them)
>>Preventing women from fasting, praying, Touching quran etc during their menstrual cycle.
the List is endless.


Muhammad was not a tyrant. Islam promotes freedom of opinion, religion and expression. Muslims cannot use violence against even those who insult God (2:256; 4.140; 10:99; 18:29; 88:21,22).


>>Dallying with prostitutes

The Shiah Ayatollahs say that men can even marry women temporarily for an agreed period of time like one day or for a few hours at a time. They call this mutaa. In truth this is nothing more than prostitution.

This is not surprising at all because according to the hadith writers the Prophet even allowed mingling with prostitutes. Here is the false hadith:

Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139:
Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet ). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which GOD has made lawful for you."

This false hadith says that during ‘holy wars’ the Prophet allowed his men to ‘marry a woman temporarily by giving her even a garment’ ! This is a terrible slander and lie against the Prophet and his men. This false hadith attempts to portray them as having other things on their mind other than the struggle alongside the Prophet. This evil hadith accuses the Prophet of setting the price of dallying with a woman at just one piece of garment.

The Prophet’s true teachings in the Quran tells the men to control their lusts and keep chaste. Here is the verse:

[24:33] Those who cannot afford to get married shall maintain morality until GOD provides for them from His grace. Those among your servants who wish to be freed in order to marry, you shall grant them their wish, once you realize that they are honest. And give them from GOD's money that He has bestowed upon you. You shall not force your girls to commit prostitution, seeking the materials of this world, if they wish to be chaste. If anyone forces them, then GOD, seeing that they are forced, is Forgiver, Merciful.


The Prophet taught us from GOD that we should keep chaste until we get married. We also cannot compel the slave girls into prostitution. How then could the Prophet allow his men to seek the company of prostitutes "even for the price of a garment" ?. This is an obvious slander and evil lie against the Prophet by the ulema like Bukhari. If the ulema refuse to acknowledge this verse from the Quran, here is another verse from the Quran which says the same thing:

[24:30] Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. GOD is fully Cognizant of everything they do.

This is what the Prophet taught us in the Quran. Muslims are to lower their gaze and control their lusts. But as usual the ulema of Ahlul Sunnah and Shiah will reject this Quranic teaching. They like to preach that the Prophet told his men to go after prostitutes for the price of a piece of garment. They prefer to follow their own books of false hadith which they have written with their own hands.

Usisky! Your own is another case entirely.
Anyway I have read your threads before and I was not surprised to see how you spoke of hadiths in your post.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

E_monkey: What is on the site and how is it nonsense? Don't just make accusations like that. Back what you say up with proof.

I wouldn't make accusations if i can not back it with proof or if there is not enough reason to say so... Do i come across as such a person?

The basis of the submitter ideology is inherently flawed and does not show any respect to the classical arabic of the Quran or the context of its revelation... To interprete the Quran without this shows an incredibly shallow understanding of it.

It is a display of intellectual arrogance to suggest that the incredible amount of work by the Quranic scholars over thousands of years are irrelevant and then form an ideology that was not present during the early years and in contrast with everything Islam stands for.

An ideology that does not regard the ways and the life of the prophet even when it has been instructed explicitly in the book is not worthy of anyone's time...

Usisky has shown an incredible amount of ignorance in many of his posts and it is the duty of people who know about this to tell those who are unaware of such a flawed ideology or just gullible.

The man behind his ideology, rashad khalifa claims to be a messenger of God.... In the very introduction of the Quran (Surah baqarah), we are told to believe in only the message of the prophet and the ones that came before him... Not to talk of the most flawed 19 miracle, using numbers, the way it suits them...

There are so many other things that make his ideology, one, every right thinking person should stay away from. I hope i am clear enough..

Assalam Aleikum

Walaikum salam.
Tbaba are you shia?

threads with Usisky and his "submitter" cult of the fraudster,Rashad Khalifa:

https://www.nairaland.com/997077/how-muslim-submitter

https://www.nairaland.com/909544/scriptural-mistranslation-lagoshia-et-al

https://www.nairaland.com/960432/origin-hadith-reason-behind-muslims

https://www.nairaland.com/962083/which-hadith-believe-besides-quran

https://www.nairaland.com/1012629/quranist-jesus-passed-away#11771826

E_monkey: Walaikum salam.
Tbaba are you shia?

No, I am muslim... (You could say sunni but i do not usually use those terms in describing myself)

^

Tbaba i would say is more of confused.he has so far refused my request we hold a discussion on this to bring him to the path of Muhammad (sa) and his Ahlul-Bayt (as) and away from the path of their enemies disguised under the banner of La Ilaha Ilallah Muhammad Rasulullah.

i find tbaba reasonable and straightforward.i have the feeling he would be doing his research silently on his own using both Shia and Sunni sources to compare and reach at a conclusion that appeals to him.

may Allah (swt) guide us all.

^ Ameen

I am not confused... Like i have always said, I have many problems with the shi'a ideology and I disagree with it on many fronts, I am comfortable and convinced of my stance.. However, i do not make takfir on shi'a, that is not my place. I do not like getting into debates with them because it always degenerates to insults on people, i rever. Also, debates only serve to massage egos most of the time. There is no way, i can agree with the shi'a, so it is a waste of time and energy. And i have done my research...

The majority of the world's muslims are sunni whether they use the tag or not.

The submitters on the other hand are heretics... It is as simple as that...

tbaba1234: ^ Ameen

I am not confused... Like i have always said, I have many problems with the shi'a ideology and I disagree with it on many fronts, I am comfortable and convinced of my stance.. However, i do not make takfir on shi'a, that is not my place. I do not like getting into debates with them because it always degenerates to insults on people, i rever. Also, debates only serve to massage egos most of the time. There is no way, i can agree with the shi'a, so it is a waste of time and energy. And i have done my research...

The majority of the world's muslims are sunni whether they use the tag or not.

The submitters on the other hand are heretics... It is as simple as that...

i can understand you have a problem with the Shia position on the sahaba-which does not allow the Shia to label all the sahaba as righteous men who cannot hurt a fly.i also understand the Sunni position to love the sahaba "for the sake of the Prophet".but it is also for the sake of the Prophet (sa) that we expose the facts regarding some of them we dislike.if those few bad eggs among them did not have regards for the Prophet (sa) and they disobeyed him and hurt his Ahlul-Bayt (as),whom the Quran makes obligatory for every Muslim to love,then i do not see a problem in saying it as it is.i am saying all this because you stated that you do not want those you revere to be insulted.so i understand you mean those among the companions exclusively revered by Sunnis and disliked by the Shia and regarded by the Shia as "the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt(as)".

besides,i would really not use offensive words with the aim to insult; so long as you're courteous and have not offended me,i would not seek to do/say what you would not like.