sino:


My posts on Misyar are not sanctions for misyar, they are meant for educational purposes only

1. Misyar is not like mut'ah, one is permanent Nikah, while the other is temporary Nikah, hence it's validity if all the conditions of Nikah are met.

No Misyar is not permanent. It is called "al-Zawaj Bi Niyyah al-Talaq (marriage with the intention of divorce)"

sino:

2. Misyar is not given a pass mark by scholars, there is no consensus and it is peculiar to certain region, the prevalence is as a result of some issues bordering around finances, widows and divorced women.

No there is consensus, and the excuses^ are not what scholars say.

Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq declares:
"The Jurists unanimously agree that whoever marries a woman without (openly disclosing) any time limit as a condition, and his intention is to divorce her after a period of time, or after the fulfillment of his need in the town where he resides, then the marriage is valid. But, al-Awzai disagreed and called it a mut'ah"
~Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, vol. 2 p. 45

NB: That's a wrong conclusion from al-Awzai. There is agreement of terms of condition as per intentions in Mut'a.

al-Hafiz ibn Hajar:
'Iyad said: "They unanimously agreed that the condition of invalidity is to openly disclose the condition (of time limit). So, if he intends, during the 'aqd (i.e the formalization of the marriage) to separate after a period, his marriage is correct. Only al-Awza'i disagreed, and he declared it invalid."
~Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9 p. 150.

Sheik Ibn Taymiyyah:
"The correct opinion is that it is not a mut'ah marriage, and it is not haram. And that is: he intends marriage and is desirous of it, as opposed to the practioner of al-tahlil. However, he does not want the permanency of the woman with him; and this is not a condition, as the permanency of the woman with him is not obligatory. Rather, he has the right to divorce her. So, when he intends to divorce her after a period, he has intended a permissible affair."
~Majmu al-Fatawa, vol. 32 p. 106 - 107

Imam al-Nawawi writes:
Al-Qadi said, "They unanimously agreed that whoever contracts an (outwardly) permanent marriage while his (real) intention is to stay with her for only a period of time which he intends, then his marriage is correct and halal, and is not a mut'ah marriage. The mut'ah marriage is only that which occurs with the (previously) mentioned condition. However, Malik said, 'It is not from the manners of the people.' As for al-Awza'i, he disagreed and said, 'It is a mut'ah marriage, and there is no good in it." And Allah knows best.
~Sahih Muslim bi Sharh al-Nawawi, vol. 9 p. 182
**************

What sort of Marriage is this if not 'pretension' and heart-break marriage?

AlBaqir:


No matter how hard anybody try to curry-flavored Misyar Nikkah, it is still what it is - a Bid'ah never known in the Shariah. What is known in that 'concept' is Mut'ah.

Part of what you don't know about this weird misyar wedding is that a man can marry a woman with an intention of divorce at so so time. Knowing or not known to the woman doesn't matter. Sheik Ibn Baz ruled.

When a scholar like Sheik Nasir deen al-Albani says : "It is legal but immoral", I find it insincere on his part. These are the people who boast of following nothing but the sunnah. Trying to prove the legality of Misyar nikkah is just like twisting the shariah to suit their emotional need.
*********************

Judgement is based on what is apparent, if someone decides to marry, but his intention is to divorce after a particular period, then we are to judge on what is apparent, did he do nikah? yes, do we know his intention? No, only Allah (SWT) knows that. I do not see any complexity in regards to this.

See, if you called it bid'ah, you may be right, that is not the issue, is the Nikah valid? yes if it conforms with the requirements of Nikah, an example is going to the registry, in the Nigerian constitution, your marriage is valid, but it can be immoral or deficient, it is as simple as that.

AlBaqir:
On the other hand, one thing is crystal clear about
Mut'ah. There is ijma (consensus) that it was practised during the lifetime of the holy prophet (peace be on him and his household) but Ummah till date divided on its legality till the day of judgment - Sahabah, tabi'in, tabi-tabi'in, ulamas alike.
********************

There is Ijma' amongst the sunni, Nikkah mut'ah was permitted, and then prohibited forever by the Prophet (SAW), to my knowledge, it is only the shi'a that still believe it is still permissible, as i have said earlier, i respect your views.

AlBaqir:
As per Ibn Zubairs! A sincere mind doesn't based his research rigidly on Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslims only. Young muslims have been trained today to see bukhari and muslim's sahih as par of the holy Quran.

While Sahih Bukhari is trying to convince muslims that Abdullah and Ur'wah ibn Zubair were born long before Mut'a was in existence which it dated to be 7th of Hijrah at khaibar or conquest of makkah at 8th Hijri (just for 3days), other books like sahih Muslim and vast majority of others were saying these personalities of the Sunni were born out of Mut'ah wedlock which suggested that mut'ah was in existence long before that time. Those among the sahaba, tabi'in etc who believe Q.4:24 legalizes mut'a are on the point because these verse is early madina sura.

While you quoted some ahadith in this regard, dubiously, the word "mut'ah" was used alone in some of these hadith thereby the commentators said it is not clear whether it is of hajj or women.

"Muslim al-Qurri said: I asked Ibn Abbas about Mut'a and he permitted it, whereas Ibn Zubair had forbidden it. So Ibn Abbas said: "This is the mother of Ibn Zubair who states that Allah's messenger had permitted it, so you better go to her and ask her about it. He (Muslim al-Qurri) said: So we went to her and she was a bulky blind lady. She said: Verily Allah's Messenger permitted it."
~~Sahih Muslim, Arabic version 1980 Edition pub in Saudi Arabia, vol.2 p.909, hadith #194-195.

NB: In tradition #195, the sub-narrator said: "The narrator used the word 'Mut'a' alone, and I do not know if it was Mut'a of Hajj or Mut'a of women". It is crystal clear that what Ibn Zubair used to forbade was Mut'a of women as it is clear from other hadith.

Interestingly, Ibn Zubair kept on insulting Ibn Abbas by saying his heart is blind simply because he believed in the validity of Mut'a. Ibn Zubair forgot he himself was born out of Mut'a! (Sahih Muslim vol. 1 p.354; al-Iqd al-Fareed vol.2 p.139).

In fact, according to Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid vol. 4 p. 489 - 490, Ibn Abbas said:

"O Ibn Zubair! As for the blindness, verily Allah said in Quran that: 'For indeed it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts, which are within the bosoms, that grow blind.'(Q.22:46)
'And as for my religious verdicts, there are reasons behind them that neither you nor your companions comprehend them....As for mut'a, you better ask your mother Asma'!...

When Ibn Zubair came back to his mother and ask her about mut'a, she replied: Did I not warn you from facing Ibn Abbas and facing Bani Hashim (the clan of the prophet), because they have answer for everything. O my son! Avoid this blind man for neither human nor unseen creatures (Jinn) can corner him."
*******************

There is nothing bad in looking at other sources, but the issue is how authentic are what is found in them? Sahih Bukhari and Muslim have undergone extensive analysis especially in the area of rijal, even though there may be errors, it doesn't in anyway take away the efforts put into it as well as other books of kutubu sitah.
A number of traditionists made efforts specifically for the gathering of information about the reporters of the five famous collections of hadith, those of al-Bukhari (d. 256), Muslim (d. 261), Abu Dawud (d. 275), al- Tirmidhi (d. 279) and al-Nasa'i (d. 303), giving authenticating and disparaging remarks in detail. The first major such work to include also the reporters of Ibn Majah (d. 273) is the ten-volume collection of al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi (d. 600), known as Al-Kamal fi Asma' al-Rijal. Later, Jamal al-Din Abu 'l-Hajjaj Yusuf b. 'Abd al-Rahman al-Mizzi (d. 742) prepared an edited and abridged version of this work, punctuated by places and countries of origin of the reporters; he named it Tahdhib al- Kamal fi Asma' al-Rijal and produced it in twelve volumes. Further, one of al-Mizzi's gifted pupils, Shams al-Din Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. 'Uthman b. Qa'imaz al- Dhahabi (d. 748), summarised his shaikh's work and produced two abridgements: a longer one called Tadhhib al-Tahdhib and a shorter one called Al-Kashif fi Asma' Rijal al-Kutub al- Sittah.

Narrations from books authored by deviants, known people of desires and bid'ah are not accepted, for example, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, is reported to be an extremist shia or mutazilite (either one or both),
Ibn Kathir describes him as follows in al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82):
" Ibn Abil Hadid al-‘Iraqi: the poet ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, ‘Izz ad-Din al-Mada’ini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shi‘i. He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Mada’in in the year 586. Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al-‘Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi‘ism in common."
On wiki, he is described as a mutazilite, as such, quoting from him would not be accepted.

AlBaqir:
This is where I will sign off on mut'a issue. I hope those who ignorantly accused shi'a of practicing 'fornication' have learnt that once they do that, they've accused their prophet, notable sahaba whom they adore, of sanctioning and practicing 'fornication'.

@sino, I'd like to send you some books in pdf, they are interesting research books written recently. I hope you will in sha Allah, find it very interesting.
Here's my mail: seeabdwasi@gloworld.blackberry.com

Thanks a lot brother for your time. Wa salam alaykum.

Okay, no qualms, i would send you a mail, i hope i find it interesting too in sha Allah.
you are welcome brother, wa alaykum salam.

@sino, dear brother you are very wrong in rejecting ahadith compiled or narrated by the 'heretics' - shi'a or mutazili or Rafida'. Those who used to reject based on Madhhab do that in accordance with their emotional hatred or feeling.

Madhahab is not a criteria of scrutiny. The (Only) criteria are trustworthiness and sound of memory.

If according to your findings, Ibn kathir could label Ibn Abi 'l-Hadeed as a man of letters and eloquent poet, the question is: was he trustworthy and sound in memory?

'Allamah al-Albani writes:

@sino, dear brother you are very wrong in rejecting ahadith compiled or narrated by the 'heretics' - shi'a or mutazili or Rafida'.

Madhahab is not a criteria of scrutiny. The (Only) criteria are trustworthiness and sound of memory.

If according to your findings, Ibn kathir could label Ibn Abi 'l-Hadeed as a man of letters and eloquent poet, the question is: was he trustworthy and sound in memory?

'Allamah al-Albani writes:
"If someone says: 'The narrator of this...was a Shi'a, and also in the chain of the main hadith, there is another Shi'a...Does this not justify attack on the hadith and constitute a fault in it?

So, I answer: "Not at all, because the requirements in the transmission of hadith are ONLY truthfulness and sound memory. As for the madhhab (of the narrator), that is between him and his Lord, and He is sufficient for him."

~Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah wa Shayhun min Fiqhihah wa Fawaidihah, vol.5 p.262, #2223

Interestingly, even the 'almighty' Imam Bukhari reported MANY (tens of hundreds) from Shi'a in his prestigious Sahih.

And to put the record straight, Ibn Abil Hadid is not a Shi'a but a Mutazilite. Try to read about Mu'tazili belief.

Wa salam.

AlBaqir:
@sino, dear brother you are very wrong in rejecting ahadith compiled or narrated by the 'heretics' - shi'a or mutazili or Rafida'. Those who used to reject based on Madhhab do that in accordance with their emotional hatred or feeling.

Madhahab is not a criteria of scrutiny. The (Only) criteria are trustworthiness and sound of memory.

If according to your findings, Ibn kathir could label Ibn Abi 'l-Hadeed as a man of letters and eloquent poet, the question is: was he trustworthy and sound in memory?

'Allamah al-Albani writes:

@sino, dear brother you are very wrong in rejecting ahadith compiled or narrated by the 'heretics' - shi'a or mutazili or Rafida'.

Madhahab is not a criteria of scrutiny. The (Only) criteria are trustworthiness and sound of memory.

If according to your findings, Ibn kathir could label Ibn Abi 'l-Hadeed as a man of letters and eloquent poet, the question is: was he trustworthy and sound in memory?

'Allamah al-Albani writes:
"If someone says: 'The narrator of this...was a Shi'a, and also in the chain of the main hadith, there is another Shi'a...Does this not justify attack on the hadith and constitute a fault in it?

So, I answer: "Not at all, because the requirements in the transmission of hadith are ONLY truthfulness and sound memory. As for the madhhab (of the narrator), that is between him and his Lord, and He is sufficient for him."

~Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah wa Shayhun min Fiqhihah wa Fawaidihah, vol.5 p.262, #2223

Interestingly, even the 'almighty' Imam Bukhari reported MANY (tens of hundreds) from Shi'a in his prestigious Sahih.

And to put the record straight, Ibn Abil Hadid is not a Shi'a but a Mutazilite. Try to read about Mu'tazili belief.

Wa salam.

You are correct on the fact that trustworthiness and strength of memory are the major yardstick for analyzing narrators, but my statement is based on the following:

While stating the reasons for fabrication, and the need for authentication, in the introduction of the book, “An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith” by Suhaib Hasan, he states

“...The other more important reason was the deliberate fabrication of ahadith by various sects which appeared amongst the Muslims, in order to support their views (see later, under discussion of maudu' ahadith). Ibn Sirin (d. 110), a Successor, said, "They would not ask about the isnad. But when the fitnah (trouble, turmoil, esp. civil war) happened, they said: Name to us your men. So the narrations of the Ahl al-Sunnah (Adherents to the Sunnah) would be accepted, while those of the Ahl al-Bid'ah (Adherents to Innovation) would not be accepted."

In the section C of the book, while discussing on maudu' ahadith (fabricated hadith) and the factors that influences them, the author stated:

“The author, in his Criticism of Hadith among Muslims with reference to Sunan Ibn Majah, has given more examples of fabricated ahadith under the following eight categories of causes of fabrication:

1. political differences;
2. factions based on issues of creed;
3. fabrications by zanadiqah (enemies-within spreading heretical beliefs);
4. fabrications by story-tellers;
5. fabrications by ignorant ascetics;
6. prejudice in favour of town, race or a particular imam;
7. inventions for personal motives;
8. proverbs turned into ahadith.

Similar to the last category above is the case of Isra'iliyat ("Israelite traditions", narrations from the Jews and the Christians which were wrongly attributed to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).”

I do not intend to discuss science of hadith and I'm not sure of having the book of Sheikh Albany to confirm what you have written. But, on Sahih Bukhari, I had posted a quote, showing the extensive work done on these books of ahadith (6 in total), establishing the sahih, hasan, da'if, and maudu', and that is why they take precedence over other books of ahadith...

And Allah knows best.

wa salam brother.

sino:



There is Ijma' amongst the sunni, Nikkah mut'ah was permitted, and then prohibited forever by the Prophet (SAW), to my knowledge, it is only the shi'a that still believe it is still permissible, as i have said earlier, i respect your views.

Absolutely, there's no Ijma from the Salaf whom Sunni claimed to be following and derived their laws from, that Mut'a is Haram or forbidden.

I have explore various sahih ahadith from Ibn Abbas, Jabir ibn Abdullah, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Amr ibn Ash'ath, Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan, Asma bint Abu Bakr et al. These sahaba permitted Mut'a, they reported and argued Mut'a was practiced during the lifetime of the prophet, reign of Abu Bakr and initial reign of 'Umar before the later forbid it due to 'Amr ibn Ash'ath, who contracted Mut'a with a slave girl.

Yet, when Umar forbade it (later during his reign), personalities like Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Ibn Mas'ud et al do not give a dime.

Imam Muslim reported Abdullah ibn Mas'ud's reply apparently to Umar's ban of Mut'a or whoever argued mut'a was banned:
Qays: "I heard 'Abd Allah saying, "We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be on him, and we had no women with us. So, we said "Should we castrate ourselves?" But he forbade us to do that. Then, he permitted us to do nikkah with women for a stipulated period, giving her a garment (as the dowry)."
Then, 'Abd Allah recited, {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you; and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits}[5:87]
~Sahih Muslim, vol. 2 p. 1022, #1404 (11).
~Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1 p. 432, #4113 (sheik shu'aib al-Ar'naut declared it Sahih in the footnote)

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani comment on this hadith:
"Apparently, Ibn Mas'ud's use of this verse here as evidence shows that he considered mut'ah to be permissible"
~Fath al-Bari sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9 p. 102.

* Ample evidences had already been provided that Abdullah ibn Abbas uphold Mut'ah to be halal throughout his lifetime, and hadith which hinted he later admitted his mistake on Mut'a have been proven to be daif. And Ibn Abbas is the most knowledgeable as far as Sunni fiqh and Tafsir is concern.

* Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, during his reign (long after demise of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Hassan) continued to practice Mut'a.

Imam Abd al-Razzaq in his Sahih al-Musannaf reported 'Ata:
"The person from whom I first heard about mut'ah was Safwan b. Ya'la. He narrated to me from Ya'la that Mu'awiyyah did mut'ah with a woman at Taif. So, I denied that upon him. Then, we entered upon Ibn Abbas, and one of us mentioned (mut'ah) to him, and he said, "Yes". But, it did not settle well in me, until when Jabir b. 'Abd Allah arrived. So, we went to him at his house, and people asked him about various things. Then, they mentioned mut'ah, and he said, "Yes". We (companions) did mut'ah during the time of the messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and 'Umar UNTIL at the last part of the Umar's caliphate..."

'Ata said:
I heard Ibn Abbas saying: "May Allah show mercy to Umar. Mut'ah was nothing except a PERMISSION from Allah the Almighty. He showed MERCY through it to the Ummah of Muhammad, peace be upon him. If he (Umar) had not forbidden it, none would have needed to commit zina except a wretched person."

He - 'Ata - said: By Allah, it is like I am still hearing his statements "except a wretched person".

'Ata said: It is that which is in Surah al-Nisa{Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah} till such-and-such period, for such-and-such.
~Imam Abu Bakr 'Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Sa'nani, al-Musannaf vol. 7 p. 496-497, #14021.

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar states:
'Abd al-Razzaq recorded it with the chain of Safwan b. Ya'la b. Umayyah: Ya'la narrated to me that Muawiyyah did mut'ah with a woman at Taif. And its chain is Sahih.
~Fath al-Bari Sharh al-Bukhari vol. 9 p. 151.

* It is suicidal to reason these above mentioned sahaba who upheld Mut'ah discredit and disregard or lied against the alleged order of the Prophet that Mut'ah is forbidden. Could ALL of them (including Abu Bakar and Umar) forgot the order or were not present at the alleged place where the Prophet was said to have forbidden Mut'ah?

* Apparently, the reports of these Sahabas which were graded sahih (authentic) contradicted other reports which were equally graded sahih which says Mut'ah was forbidden by the Prophet.

I have exposed the weird report of al-Juhani who claimed that Prophet forbid Mut'a at the conquest of Makkah. ONLY him narrated that fatwa of the Prophet while 10s of thousands of Sahaba were present at the conquest of Makkah (9th Hijra).

So where's the so-called 'Ijma (consensus)? The ijma of the Sunni on Mut'a is either based on the verdict of Umar or hypocrisy in conclusion.

sino:


My posts on Misyar are not sanctions for misyar, they are meant for educational purposes only

1. Misyar is not like mut'ah, one is permanent Nikah, while the other is temporary Nikah, hence it's validity if all the conditions of Nikah are met.

No Misyar is not permanent. It is called "al-Zawaj Bi Niyyah al-Talaq (marriage with the intention of divorce)"

sino:

2. Misyar is not given a pass mark by scholars, there is no consensus and it is peculiar to certain region, the prevalence is as a result of some issues bordering around finances, widows and divorced women.

No there is consensus, and the excuses^ are not what scholars say.

Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq declares:
"The Jurists unanimously agree that whoever marries a woman without (openly disclosing) any time limit as a condition, and his intention is to divorce her after a period of time, or after the fulfillment of his need in the town where he resides, then the marriage is valid. But, al-Awzai disagreed and called it a mut'ah"
~Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, vol. 2 p. 45

NB: That's a wrong conclusion from al-Awzai. There is agreement of terms of condition as per intentions in Mut'a.

al-Hafiz ibn Hajar:
'Iyad said: "They unanimously agreed that the condition of invalidity is to openly disclose the condition (of time limit). So, if he intends, during the 'aqd (i.e the formalization of the marriage) to separate after a period, his marriage is correct. Only al-Awza'i disagreed, and he declared it invalid."
~Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9 p. 150.

Sheik Ibn Taymiyyah:
"The correct opinion is that it is not a mut'ah marriage, and it is not haram. And that is: he intends marriage and is desirous of it, as opposed to the practioner of al-tahlil. However, he does not want the permanency of the woman with him; and this is not a condition, as the permanency of the woman with him is not obligatory. Rather, he has the right to divorce her. So, when he intends to divorce her after a period, he has intended a permissible affair."
~Majmu al-Fatawa, vol. 32 p. 106 - 107

Imam al-Nawawi writes:
Al-Qadi said, "They unanimously agreed that whoever contracts an (outwardly) permanent marriage while his (real) intention is to stay with her for only a period of time which he intends, then his marriage is correct and halal, and is not a mut'ah marriage. The mut'ah marriage is only that which occurs with the (previously) mentioned condition. However, Malik said, 'It is not from the manners of the people.' As for al-Awza'i, he disagreed and said, 'It is a mut'ah marriage, and there is no good in it." And Allah knows best.
~Sahih Muslim bi Sharh al-Nawawi, vol. 9 p. 182

sino:


3. As rightly stated by Mufti Muhammad Ibn Adam, it is not found in the Qur'an, Sunnah or classical works of Islamic Jurisprudence, thus, it is a matter not explicitly sanctioned by the shari'ah, and can only be based on Ijtihad, hence the conclusion to seek counsel from a reputable scholar based on individual's peculiarity.

And Allah (SWT) Knows best

Then it is nothing but a [size=28pt]BLATANT BID'AH[/size]
**************


What sort of Marriage is this if not 'pretension' and heart-break marriage You have the right to pretend and deceive a woman that you love and willed to spend the rest of your life with her while your intention is to divorce her after an x period of time. Surprisingly, you owe nobody esp the woman any explanation why you divorce her.

^You think sino have time for this ?. He rarely frequent nl lately. He only comes to drop "time bomb" and disappears. I know you keep doing research to satisfy to thirst for ilm. That's good by the way.

Empiree:
^You think sino have time for this ?. He rarely frequent nl lately. He only comes to drop time bomb and disappears. I know you keep doing research to satisfy to thirst for ilm. That's good by the way.

Trust me I don't border my head if he or anyone else respond. My intention and job is to give accurate information. A wrong or deceit information can misguide and that's a burden upon the shoulder of the writer. That's why I revisit and modify thread and correct my fault where there's. I never stops researching.

AlBaqir:


Trust me I don't border my head if he or anyone else respond. My intention and job is to give accurate information. A wrong or deceit information can misguide and that's a burden upon the shoulder of the writer. That's why I revisit and modify thread and correct my fault where there's. I never stops researching.

i understand. You never sleep? Isn't around 2Am there now?

Empiree:
i understand. You never sleep? Isn't around 2Am there now?

Its 1AM here. You don't wanna see my life's activities time table

Empiree:
^You think sino have time for this ?. He rarely frequent nl lately. He only comes to drop[b] "time bomb"[/b] and disappears. I know you keep doing research to satisfy to thirst for ilm. That's good by the way.

@ bold you remind me of "you know who" and his friday pipe bombs

Actually, i am supposed to be in guest mode, i got a lot on my plate for now...May Allah (SWT) grant us His Tawfeeq ameen.

@Albaqir, i see you, but this topic is a done deal in my books, i see no new information....

AlBaqir:


Its 1AM here. You don't wanna see my life's activities time table

Man...your timetable must be weird

sino:

@ bold you remind me of "you know who" and his friday pipe bombs

Actually, i am supposed to be in guest mode, i got a lot on my plate for now...May Allah (SWT) grant us His Tawfeeq ameen.

@Albaqir, i see you, but this topic is a done deal in my books, i see no new information....

i supposed many have been in this mode while snitching. Daris God ooo

Empiree:
i supposed many have been in this mode while snitching. Daris God ooo

nobody dey snitch o, na just solo levels some people dey...

@sino, what do you have to say about these many narrations showing the Sahabas practiced muta'h well after the holy prophet's demise. This is not to slight u, i'm just eager to hear your own ( or anybody's else for that matter) explanation(s) for those narrations.

kazlaw2000:
@sino, what do you have to say about these many narrations showing the Sahabas practiced muta'h well after the holy prophet's demise. This is not to slight u, i'm just eager to hear your own ( or anybody's else for that matter) explanation(s) for those narrations.

There are many more my dear brother. Sunni or whosoever condemned Mut'ah are usually at the cross road when faced with a sahih hadith or athar that proved prophet never forbid mut'ah. They usually tender silly excuse that "those sahaba might perhaps not gotten the information of prohibitions". Seriously

Sunni are again in great dilemma with Sahih narration of Ibn Abbas that Allah revealed these words "illah ajalin musama (except for a specified period)" with the verse of Mut'ah (Q.4:24).

* Few Sunni scholars who believed in Mut'ah are yet in great confusion with these wording of Ibn Abbas as the word cannot be found in the present Qur'an.

* As majority of sahaba and Sunni scholars believed Q. 4:24 was revealed to validate Mut'a, all their effort were abortive in bringing several other verses of the Qur'an as evidence that ayah of Mut'ah is abrogated by those verses. Makkan sura or verses revealed earlier can never abrogate Madinan sura that came late. Those are Sunni standards as per which verse abrogate which.

* Equally all efforts to bring inconsistent "sahih" ahadith to prove that Mut'a was forbidden also prove abortive for the seeker of truth. They are in the dilemma for one sahaba claimed it has been forbidden and the other (of more weight) said never. Then, Allah says in His book that only ayah can abrogate another ayah NEVER hadith.

* Sunni, Salafi are in desperate need to Mut'ah; hence, the creation of a bogey Bid'ah - "Marriage with intention of divorce ".

kazlaw2000:
@sino, what do you have to say about these many narrations showing the Sahabas practiced muta'h well after the holy prophet's demise. This is not to slight u, i'm just eager to hear your own ( or anybody's else for that matter) explanation(s) for those narrations.

Brother, there is an authentic hadith that states the Prophet (SAW) made mut'ah forbidden, no Sunni scholar i know have faulted this narration, even such narration (the one by Ali (ra)) is also found in Shi'a books, even though they tagged it daef, i had presented them, and i had also addressed some of the misconceptions of notable sahabas who held on to the permisibity of mut'ah after the demise of the Prophet (SAW), i had also proven from books of tafsir that Qur'an 4:24 is not about mut'ah. These are what the Sunni believe, any other story is either the sahabah did not know about the ruling, it is a distorted story or a fabrication.

sino:


Brother, there is an authentic hadith that states the Prophet (SAW) made mut'ah forbidden,

Sino, didn't you get it? There are other Sahih ahadith by heavyweight Sahaba that proved the validity of Mut'a.

The "prohibition" was said to take place FOREVER on three different occasions viz: Khaybar, Conquest of Makkah and Prophet's last Hajj.

How is it possible for heavyweights sahaba like Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Asma bint Abi Bakr, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud et al to completely miss out on these alleged three occasions? Then how is it possible the information of "prohibition" on these three different occasions did not reach them as Sunni Ulama alleged?

Sinoooooooo please I need your sincerity and fear of Allah here!
Imam Muslim documents:
"Abu al-Zubayr: I heard Jabir b. Abd 'Allah saying, "We used to contract mut'ah by giving a handful of dates and flour (as the dowry) during the eras of the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr UNTIL 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Hurayth."
~Sahih Muslim, vol. 2 p. 1022, #1405 (16)

Imam Abd al-Razzaq documented:

Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - Abu al-Zubayr - Jabir Ibn Abd'Allah:
"We, the sahabah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, did mut'ah UNTIL the prohibition of 'Amr b. Hurayth (from it)."
NB: 'Amr b. Hurayth was another Sahabi.

The same chain above continues:
"'Amr b. Hurayth arrived from kufah and did mut'a with a slave woman. Then, she was brought to 'Umar when she became pregnant, and he interrogated her. So, she said, " 'Amr b. Hurayth did mut'ah with me". Then, he interrogated him, and he informed him through that of an apparent matter." He said, "So, why not other than her?" That was the moment when he (Umar) forbade it."
~al-Musannaf, vol. 7, p. 500, #14029

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib vol. 2, p. 132, #6310, declared all the narrators in the chains above to be SADUQ (very truthful).

Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456H) could not hide it any longer. He declares:
"A group of the Salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, were FIRM in declaring it halal AFTER the Messenger of Allah. Those of them from the Sahaba were Asma bint Abi Bakr, Jabir b. Abd Allah, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, Amr b. Hurayth, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and Salamah and Ma'bad - sons of Umayyah b. Khalaf.

Jabir b. Abd 'Allah also reported it (i.e declaration of mut'ah as halal) from the Sahabah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and during the time of Abu Bakr and 'Umar until near the end of the caliphate of 'Umar. Ibn al-Zubayr had contradictory opinions on its permissibility, while 'Ali expressed no opinion concerning it. It is narrated that 'Umar b. al-Khattab only denied it if two just people did not act as its witnesses, and he considered it permissible of two just people acted as witnesses to it.

And among the Tabi'in were: Tawus, 'Ata, Sa'id b. Jubayr, and the rest of the Jurists of Makkah, may Allah honor it.
~Ibn Hazm in "al-Muhalla, vol. 9 p. 519 - 520

Sino, are these Sahaba and Tabi'in Herectic, forgers, adulterers?

sino:

no Sunni scholar i know have faulted this narration,

Yes no Sunni scholars faulted those narration because their chain is "Sahih". So the dilemma for these scholars come when there are equally "Sahih" ahadith and athar that proved it is not forbidden by the Prophet but 'Umar. Yet, many sahaba continued to be practicing it and validate it for people.

So its a matter of following Umar's fatwa on the premise. That he was among the "khulafau Rahidun". That's one possibility! Another one is that of making meat of one "sahih" hadith and fish of the other "sahih". So the opinion of any scholar is of no probative value where there's evidence in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Dishonesty galore!

sino:

even such narration (the one by Ali (ra)) is also found in Shi'a books, even though they tagged it daef, i had presented them,

Again, you need to be prudent and respect opinion of others. If Shi'a declared it Daeef, there's nothing you can do about that other than to bring further argument.

sino:

and i had also addressed some of the [size=28pt]misconceptions of notable sahabas[/size] who held on to the permisibity of mut'ah after the demise of the Prophet (SAW),

Did I hear you well, sino?
Sino, again I am disappointed brother. I proved it to you the so-called hadith you rely on is Daeef as far as Sunni grading is concern. Yet you are here telling the world "Misconception".

Here's 'Allamah Nasir deen al-Albani:
"The summary is: three opinions are narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, about mut'ah:

The one: he permitted it unconditionally

The second: he permitted it in case of necessity.

The last: he forbade it unconditionally, but this is from what is NOT authentically transmitted from him, unlike the first two opinions which are authentically transmitted from him."
~Irwa al-Ghali fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil, vol. 6 p. 319, #1903

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani too concur:
"As for Ibn Abbas, it is narrated concerning him that he permitted it, and it is also narrated concerning him that he withdrew from that. Ibn Battal said: The people of Makkah and Yemen narrated that Ibn Abbas permitted mut'ah, and it is (also) narrated concerning him with DA'IF chains that he withdrew. That he permitted mut'ah (till death) is more authentically transmitted, and it is the madhhab of the Shi'ah"
~Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, p. 150

sino:

i had also proven from books of tafsir that Qur'an 4:24 is not about mut'ah.

Here you are again brother. This is weird all in the name of protecting your Aqeedah at all cost! Here's the verse again:

"Those of them with whom you contract MUT'AH, give them their prescribed dowries; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is prescribed. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise."

1. Imam al-Hakim (d. 403H) records:
"Abu Nadrah: I read to Ibn Abbas: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah, give them their prescribed dowries}[4:24]. He said: "{Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD}". Abu Nadrah said: I said, "We do not recite it like that!" Ibn Abbas replied, "I swear by Allah, Allah certainly revealed it like that."

* Al-Hakim comments: This hadith is Sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.
* Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748H) concurs:
Upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim
~al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn vol. 2, p. 334, #3192.

2. Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310H) also document the same as Imam al-Hakim above in his 'Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Quran vol. 5, p. 19 with the following extra:
"... I swear by Allah, Allah certainly revealed it like that. He said it three times."

al-Hafiz ibn Hajar (d. 852H) declared the narrators as Thiqah (trustworthy) and thabt (accurate).
~Taqrib al-Tahdhib, vol. 2 p. 129, #6283.

3. Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774H) gave some relevant info:
"Ibn Abbas, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Sa'id b. Jubayr and al-Suddi used to recite: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah for a specified period, give them their prescribed dowries}[4:24].."
~Tafsir al-Quran al-'Azim, vol. 2, p. 259

4. Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari also documents:
Muhammad b. al-Muthanna - Muhammad b. Ja'far - Shu'bah:
I asked al-Hakam concerning this verse{Also [forbidden for marriage are] women already married, except those whom your right hands possess} up till {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah}, Is it abrogated? He said,""NO".
~Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Quran, vol. 5 p. 19

*Ibn Hajar declared all the narrators Thiqah.

@Sino, here you are telling me Q. 4:24 is not about Mut'a. For you to convince the world its not about Mut'a, you need to present hadith from a Sahabi NOT contradictory opinions of Sunni ulama.

Are you in dilemma how those "Heretic" sahaba above recited "for a specified period" and claimed it was revealed alongside 4:24? Please indicate!

ABROGATION OF A VERSE
Qur'an:
"Whatever a verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or one similar to it."

"And When We change a verse in place of another verse, and Allah knows best of what He sends down..."

Imam al-Shafi'i (d. 204H) says:
The Book of Allah cannot be abrogated except by His Book, due to the Statement of Allah...So, it is very clear that the abrogation of (a verse of) the Qur'an cannot occur except through (another verse of) the Qur'an.
~Muhammad b. Idris al-Shafi'i, kitab Ikhtilaf al-Hadith, p. 483 - 484.

Here, it is worth mentioning that ALL the "SAHIH" hadith that says Mut'a was later forbidden are nothing but forgery of highest order {Imam Jafar Sadiq (as): ...EVERY hadith that does not agree with the Book of Allah is a vanity for ONLY a verse of the Qur'an can abrogate another verse, and in that case also the rule is previous verse (Makkan verses) cannot abrogate later verse (Madina verse).
*********************

ANOTHER AYAH THAT VALIDATE MUT'AH
"O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you, and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
~al-Maidah: 87

Prophet call Mut'ah "Good Thing"
Imam al-Bukhari records:
Ibn Mas'ud: "We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and we had nothing with us. So, we said, "Should we castrate ourselves?" But, he forbade us to do that. Then, he permitted us to do nikah (marriage) with the woman, giving her a garment (as the dowry). Then,he recited to us {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you, and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits}"
~sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 1953, #4787
~Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, p. 450, #4302.

*Imam Ahmad in his Musnad vol. 6,p. 188, #25588[annotated by sheik al-Arnaut] reported 'Aisha to have confirmed that sura al-Maida was the last surah revealed so whatever it declared halal is halal; and whatever it declared Haram is haram till Qiyam.

This is one of the reasons why Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud continued to be practicing and validate Mut'ah

sino:

These are what the Sunni believe, any other story is either the sahabah did not know about the ruling, it is a distorted story or a fabrication.

Very dishonest and disappointing! Again are you telling the world that ALL those listed sahaba did not know the ruling? Three different occasions (Khaybar, Fath Makkah and Hijjat al-wadah) sino.

If you do not fancy mut'a, that doesn't mean you cannot be transparent in your assessment.

AlBaqir:


Sino, didn't you get it? There are other Sahih ahadith by heavyweight Sahaba that proved the validity of Mut'a.

The "prohibition" was said to take place FOREVER on three different occasions viz: Khaybar, Conquest of Makkah and Prophet's last Hajj.

How is it possible for heavyweights sahaba like Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Asma bint Abi Bakr, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud et al to completely miss out on these alleged three occasions? Then how is it possible the information of "prohibition" on these three different occasions did not reach them as Sunni Ulama alleged?

Sinoooooooo please I need your sincerity and fear of Allah here!
Imam Muslim documents:
"Abu al-Zubayr: I heard Jabir b. Abd 'Allah saying, "We used to contract mut'ah by giving a handful of dates and flour (as the dowry) during the eras of the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr UNTIL 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Hurayth."
~Sahih Muslim, vol. 2 p. 1022, #1405 (16)

Imam Abd al-Razzaq documented:

Abd al-Razzaq - Ibn Jurayj - Abu al-Zubayr - Jabir Ibn Abd'Allah:
"We, the sahabah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, did mut'ah UNTIL the prohibition of 'Amr b. Hurayth (from it)."
NB: 'Amr b. Hurayth was another Sahabi.

The same chain above continues:
"'Amr b. Hurayth arrived from kufah and did mut'a with a slave woman. Then, she was brought to 'Umar when she became pregnant, and he interrogated her. So, she said, " 'Amr b. Hurayth did mut'ah with me". Then, he interrogated him, and he informed him through that of an apparent matter." He said, "So, why not other than her?" That was the moment when he (Umar) forbade it."
~al-Musannaf, vol. 7, p. 500, #14029

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib vol. 2, p. 132, #6310, declared all the narrators in the chains above to be SADUQ (very truthful).

Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456H) could not hide it any longer. He declares:
"A group of the Salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, were FIRM in declaring it halal AFTER the Messenger of Allah. Those of them from the Sahaba were Asma bint Abi Bakr, Jabir b. Abd Allah, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, Amr b. Hurayth, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and Salamah and Ma'bad - sons of Umayyah b. Khalaf.

Jabir b. Abd 'Allah also reported it (i.e declaration of mut'ah as halal) from the Sahabah during the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and during the time of Abu Bakr and 'Umar until near the end of the caliphate of 'Umar. Ibn al-Zubayr had contradictory opinions on its permissibility, while 'Ali expressed no opinion concerning it. It is narrated that 'Umar b. al-Khattab only denied it if two just people did not act as its witnesses, and he considered it permissible of two just people acted as witnesses to it.

And among the Tabi'in were: Tawus, 'Ata, Sa'id b. Jubayr, and the rest of the Jurists of Makkah, may Allah honor it.
~Ibn Hazm in "al-Muhalla, vol. 9 p. 519 - 520

Sino, are these Sahaba and Tabi'in Herectic, forgers, adulterers?

LOL AlBaqiruuuu, please we do not need to be going in circles, i had addressed these issues, and did you ever read any post from me saying the Sahabahs are heretics, forgers or adulterers?!

I had said it is true that Mut'ah was permissible during the life time of Prophet (SAW) and i had also said that in authentic narrations, he (SAW) forbade it. repeating these narrations is just you trying hard to force me to accept your views, i had said earlier, i respect your shi'a views...Something reminds me about being rigid, fanatical and what have you...

AlBaqir:

Yes no Sunni scholars faulted those narration because their chain is "Sahih". So the dilemma for these scholars come when there are equally "Sahih" ahadith and athar that proved it is not forbidden by the Prophet but 'Umar. Yet, many sahaba continued to be practicing it and validate it for people.

So its a matter of following Umar's fatwa on the premise. That he was among the "khulafau Rahidun". That's one possibility! Another one is that of making meat of one "sahih" hadith and fish of the other "sahih". So the opinion of any scholar is of no probative value where there's evidence in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Dishonesty galore!

True Islamic Scholars (Sunni) do not base their verdicts on dishonesty and lies, they work with what can be found in the Quran, Hadiths by weighing each narrations, the consensus, coupled with logical reasoning. all these are done with ijtihad...when their verdicts come to me as a Muslim, i also use my intellect, looking at the evidences put forward...Our Ulamah had based forbidden of Mut'ah with the above, i simply follow cos my intellect concurs with their submissions...

AlBaqir:

Again, you need to be prudent and respect opinion of others. If Shi'a declared it Daeef, there's nothing you can do about that other than to bring further argument.

Haven't i been polite? I brought same narrations found in your books with sahih chain, but it was classified as daef by Shia Scholars based on the following

1. it is Shaadh: A shaadh hadith has been explained as: What is narrated by a trustworthy narrator that goes against the narrations of the majority, and it was called shaadh because it is the opposite of mashhoor (popular). or Shaadh narrations as those that were not applied by our sect (Shia), even if they were authentic and didn’t conflict with other narrations. Mu’jam Mustalahat Al-Rijal wal Diraya p. 81

2. Taqqiyah: lieing under fear of ones life which begs the question, who was doing taqqiyah?!

3. It contains a sunni narrator do i need to remind you how you were arguing that sect is not the basis for rejecting a narration? But Alhamdulilah, it is not rejected, but classed as weak

AlBaqir:

Did I hear you well, sino?
Sino, again I am disappointed brother. I proved it to you the so-called hadith you rely on is Daeef as far as Sunni grading is concern. Yet you are here telling the world "Misconception".

Here's 'Allamah Nasir deen al-Albani:
"The summary is: three opinions are narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, about mut'ah:

The one: he permitted it unconditionally

The second: he permitted it in case of necessity.

The last: he forbade it unconditionally, but this is from what is NOT authentically transmitted from him, unlike the first two opinions which are authentically transmitted from him."
~Irwa al-Ghali fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil, vol. 6 p. 319, #1903

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani too concur:
"As for Ibn Abbas, it is narrated concerning him that he permitted it, and it is also narrated concerning him that he withdrew from that. Ibn Battal said: The people of Makkah and Yemen narrated that Ibn Abbas permitted mut'ah, and it is (also) narrated concerning him with DA'IF chains that he withdrew. That he permitted mut'ah (till death) is more authentically transmitted, and it is the madhhab of the Shi'ah"
~Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, p. 150

Well, what can i say, it is obvious our Scholars do not try to hide the truth or play tricks and being deceitful.

These are the Sahih narrations:

5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»

Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.” (Sahih Bukhari)

In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”

What we gather from the above hadith is that, Ibn Abbas thought Mut'ah to be permissible like eating pork due to necessity, this alone defits any other argument to say that Mut'ah is still permissible, for we know that the ruling on pork meat is Haram! Asliyan!

But did other sahabas agree with him?! we read further that some sahabas questioned his judgement amongst them were...

1. Ali (ra)
5115 – حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ الزُّهْرِيَّ، يَقُولُ: أَخْبَرَنِي الحَسَنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، وَأَخُوهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: «إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنِ المُتْعَةِ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ، زَمَنَ خَيْبَرَ»

Al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin ‘Ali and his brother Abdullah bin Ali both narrate from their father [i.e. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah] that ‘Ali said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade from Mut’ah and the eating of domestic donkey’s flesh during the time of Khaybar.”

In Sahih Muslim it is like this:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللهِ، ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُلَيِّنُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ، فَقَالَ: «مَهْلًا يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْإِنْسِيَّةِ»

‘Ali heard of Ibn ‘Abbas being lenient regarding Temporary marriage so he said to him, “Wait O Ibn ‘Abbas! Indeed the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade it during Khaibar and from the meat of domestic donkeys.”

In another version of Sahih Muslim he said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “You are a person who has been led astray…”

2. Abdullah bin Zubair (ra)

حَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ، فَقَالَ: «إِنَّ نَاسًا أَعْمَى اللهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ، كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ، يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ»، يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ، فَنَادَاهُ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ، فَلَعَمْرِي، لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ – يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ: «فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ، فَوَاللهِ، لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لَأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ»

Abdullah bin Zubair stood up in Makkah and said referring to a person, “Allah has made some people hearts blind as they as He has made their eyes blind; they issue verdict in favor of Mut’ah.” So that person called him and said, “You are uncouth and lacking in manners. By Allah, Mut’ah was practiced during the time of the leader of the pious i.e. the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).” Ibn az-Zubair said to him, “Then do it by yourself. By Allah if you do that I will stone you with your own stones.”

3. Ibn Abi ‘Amrah al-Ansari objected to Ibn ‘Abbas on his view on Mut’ah. Hence, Abdur-Razzaq reports in “Al-Musannaf” (14033) through Az-Zuhri from Khalid bin Muhajir:

عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِي، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: أَرْخَصَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ: «مَا هَذَا يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ؟» فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فُعِلَتْ مَعَ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ: «اللَّهُمَّ غُفْرًا، إِنَّمَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ رُخْصَةً كَالضُّرُورَةِ إِلَى الْمَيْتَةِ، وَالدَّمِ، وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ، ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الدِّينَ بَعْدُ»

Ibn ‘Abbas permitted Mut’ah so Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said to him, “What is this O Ibn ‘Abbas?” He said, “I did it during the time of the leader of pious.” Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said, “May Allah forgive. Indeed Mut’ah was an exemption like in the case when the dead meat, blood or the flesh of swine is necessary. Then Allah completed his religion after that.”

4. ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar also raised his voice against Ibn ‘Abbas regarding Mut’ah. Abdur-Razzaq (14035) reports:

14035 - عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، قِيلَ لِابْنِ عُمَرَ: إِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ: «مَا أَظُنُّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ هَذَا». قَالُوا: بَلَى، وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَيَقُولُهُ قَالَ: «أَمَا وَاللَّهِ مَا كَانَ لِيَقُولَ هَذَا فِي زَمَنِ عُمَرَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ عُمَرُ لَيُنَكِّلُكُمْ عَنْ مِثْلِ هَذَا، وَمَا أَعْلَمُهُ إِلَّا السِّفَاحَ»

Saalim said: It was said to Ibn ‘Umar that Ibn ‘Abbas permits Mut’ah with women. He said, “I do not think Ibn ‘Abbas says that.” They said, “Indeed, by Allah he says that.” So he said, “By Allah, he would not say such a thing during the lifetime of ‘Umar. Indeed ‘Umar would punish you on such things. And I do not think of it except as adultery.” – This narration is present in Sahih Muslim but without mentioning Ibn ‘Abbas.

AlBaqir:


Here you are again brother. This is weird all in the name of protecting your Aqeedah at all cost! Here's the verse again:

"Those of them with whom you contract MUT'AH, give them their prescribed dowries; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is prescribed. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise."

1. Imam al-Hakim (d. 403H) records:
"Abu Nadrah: I read to Ibn Abbas: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah, give them their prescribed dowries}[4:24]. He said: "{Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD}". Abu Nadrah said: I said, "We do not recite it like that!" Ibn Abbas replied, "I swear by Allah, Allah certainly revealed it like that."

* Al-Hakim comments: This hadith is Sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.
* Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748H) concurs:
Upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim
~al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn vol. 2, p. 334, #3192.

2. Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310H) also document the same as Imam al-Hakim above in his 'Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Quran vol. 5, p. 19 with the following extra:
"... I swear by Allah, Allah certainly revealed it like that. He said it three times."

al-Hafiz ibn Hajar (d. 852H) declared the narrators as Thiqah (trustworthy) and thabt (accurate).
~Taqrib al-Tahdhib, vol. 2 p. 129, #6283.

3. Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774H) gave some relevant info:
"Ibn Abbas, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Sa'id b. Jubayr and al-Suddi used to recite: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah for a specified period, give them their prescribed dowries}[4:24].."
~Tafsir al-Quran al-'Azim, vol. 2, p. 259

4. Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari also documents:
Muhammad b. al-Muthanna - Muhammad b. Ja'far - Shu'bah:
I asked al-Hakam concerning this verse{Also [forbidden for marriage are] women already married, except those whom your right hands possess} up till {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah}, Is it abrogated? He said,""NO".
~Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Quran, vol. 5 p. 19

*Ibn Hajar declared all the narrators Thiqah.

@Sino, here you are telling me Q. 4:24 is not about Mut'a. For you to convince the world its not about Mut'a, you need to present hadith from a Sahabi NOT contradictory opinions of Sunni ulama.

Are you in dilemma how those "Heretic" sahaba above recited "for a specified period" and claimed it was revealed alongside 4:24? Please indicate!

ABROGATION OF A VERSE
Qur'an:
"Whatever a verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or one similar to it."

"And When We change a verse in place of another verse, and Allah knows best of what He sends down..."

Imam al-Shafi'i (d. 204H) says:
The Book of Allah cannot be abrogated except by His Book, due to the Statement of Allah...So, it is very clear that the abrogation of (a verse of) the Qur'an cannot occur except through (another verse of) the Qur'an.
~Muhammad b. Idris al-Shafi'i, kitab Ikhtilaf al-Hadith, p. 483 - 484.

Here, it is worth mentioning that ALL the "SAHIH" hadith that says Mut'a was later forbidden are nothing but forgery of highest order {Imam Jafar Sadiq (as): ...EVERY hadith that does not agree with the Book of Allah is a vanity for ONLY a verse of the Qur'an can abrogate another verse, and in that case also the rule is previous verse (Makkan verses) cannot abrogate later verse (Madina verse).
*********************

ANOTHER AYAH THAT VALIDATE MUT'AH
"O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you, and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
~al-Maidah: 87

Prophet call Mut'ah "Good Thing"
Imam al-Bukhari records:
Ibn Mas'ud: "We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and we had nothing with us. So, we said, "Should we castrate ourselves?" But, he forbade us to do that. Then, he permitted us to do nikah (marriage) with the woman, giving her a garment (as the dowry). Then,he recited to us {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you, and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits}"
~sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 1953, #4787
~Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, p. 450, #4302.

*Imam Ahmad in his Musnad vol. 6,p. 188, #25588[annotated by sheik al-Arnaut] reported 'Aisha to have confirmed that sura al-Maida was the last surah revealed so whatever it declared halal is halal; and whatever it declared Haram is haram till Qiyam.

This is one of the reasons why Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud continued to be practicing and validate Mut'ah

Do you know what would have been best brother? Just to show me the verse with Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah "FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD", and i would not have to argue against mut'ah again!

If you believe the Qur'an with us today is what was revealed the best of mankind, was read by the best 3 generations, then i challenge you to bring such wordings from the Qur'an...

Ali (ra) the custodian of knowledge, did not say it is so, i have not read any narration from him stating it to be so, and even when Umar (ra) was prohibiting Mut'ah, no one not even Ali (ra) had objected, referencing Qur'an 4:24, was Umar (ra) a monster that people feared so much? the one you said was running away from battles?! it just does not just add up bro

AlBaqir:

Very dishonest and disappointing! Again are you telling the world that ALL those listed sahaba did not know the ruling? Three different occasions (Khaybar, Fath Makkah and Hijjat al-wadah) sino.

If you do not fancy mut'a, that doesn't mean you cannot be transparent in your assessment.

Ibn Jurayj a Makkan Jurist died AH 150 was reported thus...

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani (rah) reports regarding ibn Jurayj’s (rah) opinion of Mut`ah: “Abu `Awanah narrated in his Sahih from ibn Jurayj that he said to them in Basarah: “Bear witness that I have retracted my Fatwa.” After he narrated to them eighteen narrations that there was no harm in it.”
source: al-Talkhees al-Habeer 3/160, Musnad abi `Awanah 3/31 #4087.

One would have to ask, what made him retract his fatwa? most probably, when the truth reached him, i do not think it was because of the fear of Umar (ra)....

Please AlBaqir, i read the following from Shia Scholars, can you please explain?

Shia scholar al-Tusi narrated in his “Tahzeeb al-Ahkam” (7/253):

واما ما رواه أحمد بن محمد عن ابى الحسن عن بعض اصحابنا يرفعه إلى ابي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: لا تتمتع بالمؤمنة فتذلها.
فهذا حديث مقطوع الاسناد شاذ، ويحتمل ان يكون المراد به إذا كانت المرأة من اهل بيت الشرف فانه لايجوز التمتع بهالما يلحق اهلها من العار ويلحقها هي من الذل ويكون ذلك مكروها دون ان يكون محظورا.

As for what is narrated from Ahmad bin Muhammad from Abu al-Hassan from some of our companions which is Marfu’u to Abu Abdullah -alaihi salam- that he said: “Do not humiliate the believing woman by having Mutah with her.” and this Hadith has a Maqtu’u Isnad and has Shuzouz in the Matn.

It is possible that what is meant in this narration is that if a believing woman was from a noble household then it is not allowed to have Mutah with her as it will dishonour her parents and disgrace her and this would be Makruh (Disliked) without it being forbidden.”

A Shia scholar al-Hurr al-Amili in his “Wasailu shia” (21/26) narrated:

“And from him from al-Hasan b. `Ali [Abu ‘l-Hasan – in at-Tahdheeb, Abu ‘l-Hasan `Ali – in al-Istibsar] from one of our companions going up to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: Do not do mut`a with the mu’mina as you would humiliate her.”

The Shaykh said: This is shaadh (odd), and it is possible that his intent by it is when the woman is from a noble family which scandal would be attached to and humiliation attached to her, and that would be disliked.

I say: And there has preceded what indicates upon permission and there is coming what indicates upon it.

I do not want to be part of those who humiliate a Muslim Woman!

Ma' Salam

sino:


LOL AlBaqiruuuu, please we do not need to be going in circles, i had addressed these issues, and did you ever read any post from me saying the Sahabahs are heretics, forgers or adulterers?!

Funny man. Oun sinmi je nu fa @underline.
I only need to remind you when I perceived "unequilibrumity" in your statements to kazlaw2000. Pls don't mind my vocabulary in quote o. What you can do that will be just is by spelling out clearly, sahaba in support, and those oppose. Tabi'in in support and those oppose. All conjectual talk as to information did not reach them should be put aside.

Then at the end, you can now present your view.

sino:

I had said it is true that Mut'ah was permissible during the life time of Prophet (SAW) and i had also said that in authentic narrations, he (SAW) forbade it. repeating these narrations is just you trying hard to force me to accept your views, i had said earlier, i respect your shi'a views...

Something reminds me about being rigid, fanatical and what have you...

@underlined, so ALL those sahaba, tabi'in and few sunni ulama who believe in the validity of Mut'a were SHI'A? I love that!

There isn't rigidity here bro. This is intellectual discussion, and mind you I care more for the unseen viewers than the person am debating with. That's why I always labor myself to give detailed information.

LAST WORD
Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Ubay Ibn Kabb, et al all believed Q. 4:24 is an ayah that validate Mut'ah.

Your ALL Ulama claimed only a verse can abrogate another verse.

My final word on this episode is: Put forth 1001 "Sahih" ahadith and athar from Sunni world to prove Mut'ah was "forbidden", can they EVER abrogate the verse of Mut'a?

This is where your Ulama showed dishonesty, and few who doesn't want to be defeated, fanatically,
Claimed with no evidence that the verse is not about Mut'ah.

sino:



[quote author=sino post=29691937]
1. Ali (ra)
In Sahih Muslim it is like this:

‘Ali heard of Ibn ‘Abbas being lenient regarding Temporary marriage so he said to him, “Wait O Ibn ‘Abbas! Indeed the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade it during Khaibar and from the meat of domestic donkeys.”

I have given you my last submission. Just to add for academic sake. The event of Khaibar is well-documented. Who won the battle for Islam?! How many days does the whole episode lasted?! What's the distance of the fortress of khaibar to Madina?! All these questions are enough to put off the light of the interpolation of the above hadith.

There wasn't anything like permissiblity or prohibition of Mut'ah at Khaybar. The only thing Muhammad forbade was the eaten of donkey and asses when some companions, without, permission went to kill dozens of those animals and eat.

Anyhow, with whatever story and fact you can proffer, my RIGID and FANATIC point is [size=28pt]NO "SAHIH" AHADITH can ever abrogate an ayah of the holy Qur'an. Please I do not need opinion of any Ulama; If you wish to say the ayah is not on Mut'ah, kindly bring ahadith as I brought many to support the ayah is on Mut'ah[/size]

* You see I did not respond to your questions based on hadith in Shi'ah books. You should know why by now. What is the grading of those ahadith. Simple.

Thanks

[color=#006600][/color][font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]
...And who told you Muta'h is sunnah? Stop spreading your Ignorance

Copy and paste things. My little contribution.

Ibn Abbas belief of Mut’ah VS Shia belief of Mut’ah –
LEARN THE DIFFERENCEby islamistruth

بسم الله و الصلاة و السلام على رسول الله و على آله و صحبه و سلم

Shias always argue that the literal prostitution they believe in is the SAME Mut'a that was once allowed in Islam, with all the conditions. This is yet another big Shia lie and many, even knowledgeable Sunnis, are not aware of the fact that the Mut'ah that was once allowed had little to do with that the Rafidis propagate and belief in (pure prostitution). I remember Farid posted an interesting difference from a narrations, gotta find it in sha Allah, also I gonna post loads of fatwas from their top scholars proving to everyone that the Shia Marja'iyyah (read Mafia) promotes prostitution with hookers, virgins etc. and their Mut'ah has barely any Shuroot.

Anyway, what is really important in this thread is that even those Sahaba who did believe in Mut'ah after it's prohibition (obviously they did not believed in its prohibition in the absolute sense and ironically no one less but Ali rebuked them HARSHLY for that!) never believed in it as the Shia do, the likes of Ibn 'Abbas believed Mut'ah to be a RUKHSA i.e. only permissible in very EXTREME situations (like pork!) whereas the Shia Rawafid believe it is one of the most noble Sunnahs and a recommended deed i.e. it's like believing that pork (which is only permissible in extreme situations) is one of the best meat and recommended to be eaten!!!

Before I start let me explain an important Islamic term:

الرخصة
Its linguistic meaning is easiness. Its legal meaning is that which is established contrary to [other] legal evidence because of a preponderant contingency. [Its examples include]: someone in need eating unslaughtered meat, pork, shorting prayers while traveling, and joining [prayers while traveling].

What Ibn 'Abbas actually believed with regards to Mut'ah marriage:

Bismillah

It is a well accepted opinion among the scholars of Sunnah that Mut’ah (temporary marriage) is an invalid practice. It is also well accepted that it was once valid but later on it was banned. Hence, many narrations are present in the books of hadith to prove that it was prohibited. One of the companions who have narrated the hadith on the prohibition of Mut’ah is ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (ra). Besides that there were some who held the view of its permissibility. This is not a discussion on it details rather this is particularly to discuss the view of Abdullah bin ‘Abbas (ra) regarding it and the reaction of companions to his opinion.

OPINION OF IBN ‘ABBAS REGARDING TEMPORARY MARRIAGE

Ibn ‘Abbas considered that temporary marriage was permitted. Al-Imam Muhammad bin Isma’il al-Bukhari (d256 AH) narrates in his Sahih:

5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»

Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.”

In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”

It is clear from the above authentic narrations that the view of Ibn ‘Abbas was not similar to that of Shia Twelvers regarding Mut’ah. Hence, according to him Mut’ah is only permitted when there is need while according to Twelvers it is a virtuous act.

However, Sunni scholars do not think that Mut’ah is permitted even if there is lack of women unlike Ibn ‘Abbas who thought it is permitted. The view of Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) was wrong and the view of Twelvers is worse.

REACTION OF COMPANIONS AGAINST THE VIEW OF IBN ‘ABBAS

The foremost to oppose Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) in his view was Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (ra). Al-Imam Al-Bukhari narrates in his marvelous book Sahih:

5115 – حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ الزُّهْرِيَّ، يَقُولُ: أَخْبَرَنِي الحَسَنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، وَأَخُوهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: «إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنِ المُتْعَةِ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ، زَمَنَ خَيْبَرَ»

Al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin ‘Ali and his brother Abdullah bin Ali both narrate from their father [i.e. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah] that ‘Ali said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade from Mut’ah and the eating of domestic donkey’s flesh during the time of Khaybar.”

In Sahih Muslim it is like this:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللهِ، ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُلَيِّنُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ، فَقَالَ: «مَهْلًا يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْإِنْسِيَّةِ»

‘Ali heard of Ibn ‘Abbas being lenient regarding Temporary marriage so he said to him, “Wait O Ibn ‘Abbas! Indeed the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade it during Khaibar and from the meat of domestic donkeys.”

In another version of Sahih Muslim he said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “You are a person who has been led astray…”

Another person to oppose Ibn ‘Abbas in this regard was Abdullah bin az-Zubair. Hence, Imam Muslim records in Sahih:

حَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ، فَقَالَ: «إِنَّ نَاسًا أَعْمَى اللهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ، كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ، يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ»، يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ، فَنَادَاهُ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ، فَلَعَمْرِي، لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ – يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ: «فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ، فَوَاللهِ، لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لَأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ»

Abdullah bin Zubair stood up in Makkah and said referring to a person, “Allah has made some people hearts blind as they as He has made their eyes blind; they issue verdict in favor of Mut’ah.” So that person called him and said, “You are uncouth and lacking in manners. By Allah, Mut’ah was practiced during the time of the leader of the pious i.e. the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).” Ibn az-Zubair said to him, “Then do it by yourself. By Allah if you do that I will stone you with your own stones.”

Ibn Abi ‘Amrah al-Ansari objected to Ibn ‘Abbas on his view on Mut’ah. Hence, Abdur-Razzaq reports in “Al-Musannaf” (14033) through Az-Zuhri from Khalid bin Muhajir:

عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِي، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: أَرْخَصَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ: «مَا هَذَا يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ؟» فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فُعِلَتْ مَعَ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ: «اللَّهُمَّ غُفْرًا، إِنَّمَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ رُخْصَةً كَالضُّرُورَةِ إِلَى الْمَيْتَةِ، وَالدَّمِ، وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ، ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الدِّينَ بَعْدُ»

Ibn ‘Abbas permitted Mut’ah so Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said to him, “What is this O Ibn ‘Abbas?” He said, “I did it during the time of the leader of pious.” Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said, “May Allah forgive. Indeed Mut’ah was an exemption like in the case when the dead meat, blood or the flesh of swine is necessary. Then Allah completed his religion after that.”

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar also raised his voice against Ibn ‘Abbas regarding Mut’ah. Abdur-Razzaq (14035) reports:

14035 - عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، قِيلَ لِابْنِ عُمَرَ: إِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ: «مَا أَظُنُّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ هَذَا». قَالُوا: بَلَى، وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَيَقُولُهُ قَالَ: «أَمَا وَاللَّهِ مَا كَانَ لِيَقُولَ هَذَا فِي زَمَنِ عُمَرَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ عُمَرُ لَيُنَكِّلُكُمْ عَنْ مِثْلِ هَذَا، وَمَا أَعْلَمُهُ إِلَّا السِّفَاحَ»

Saalim said: It was said to Ibn ‘Umar that Ibn ‘Abbas permits Mut’ah with women. He said, “I do not think Ibn ‘Abbas says that.” They said, “Indeed, by Allah he says that.” So he said, “By Allah, he would not say such a thing during the lifetime of ‘Umar. Indeed ‘Umar would punish you on such things. And I do not think of it except as adultery.” – This narration is present in Sahih Muslim but without mentioning Ibn ‘Abbas.

source: http://alsonnah./2014/06/07/ibn-abbas-and-mutah-temporary-marriage/

^@Abuamam, "do not be lazy for a lazy man do not fulfill the right of his Lord upon himself"~Imam Ali (as).

In this modern world of information dissemination and intellectual research, coupled with the fact that so many have been said on this thread, I simply don't expect this kind of "copy-paste" comment. I bet you hardly read before you even paste.

Another bet of mine is, you simply wanna bash "shi'a" as usual. That's not intellectual.
***********

As per Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra) again, these are Sunni heavy weight hadith scholars:

'Allamah Nasir deen al-Albani:
"The summary is: three opinions are narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, about mut'ah:

[size=28pt]The one: he permitted it unconditionally[/size]

The second: he permitted it in case of necessity.

The last: he forbade it unconditionally, but this is from what is NOT authentically transmitted from him, unlike the first two opinions which are authentically transmitted from him."
~Irwa al-Ghali fi Takhrij Ahadith Manar al-Sabil, vol. 6 p. 319, #1903

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani too concur:
"As for Ibn Abbas, it is narrated concerning him that he permitted it, and it is also narrated concerning him that he withdrew from that. Ibn Battal said: The people of Makkah and Yemen narrated that Ibn Abbas permitted mut'ah, and it is (also) narrated concerning him with DA'IF chains that he withdrew. That he permitted mut'ah (till death) is more authentically transmitted, and it is the madhhab of the Shi'ah"
~Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 9, p. 150
***************

Second, apart from Ibn Abbas who permitted and practice Mut'a long after the demise of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household), following are other notable sahaba that does the same: Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, Asma bint Abi Bakr, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan...please endeavor to read previous posts; names of Sahaba and tabi'in are provided by top Sunni scholars.
Abuamam, I hope you will copy-paste these sahaba's "conditioned-pork-like" excuses in allowing Mut'ah

Third, the utmost defense of the validity of Mut'a is the holy Qur'an itself. Ibn kathir in his Tafsir Quran al-Azeem (among many Sunni Tafassir) documents that Ibn Abbas, Ubay Ibn kaab, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud et al reported that Q. 4:24 was revealed for the legality of Mut'a. And nothing was revealed to have abrogated it.

So bring a 1001 sahih ahadith, they can never abrogate a single verse of the Qur'an. Only an ayah can abrogate another ayah; and in that also, there are rules in abrogation lest you make blunder.


Mut'a is defined by Islam with set of rules and conditions established by Sunni sahih ahadith. Many sahaba and very few Sunni Tabi'in and Ulama that believed in Mut'ah legality derived these laws on Mut'a. On the other hands, there are no rules, regulations and limitations in Fornication/adultery so how can both be the same? And isn't it even a shame that some sahaba, tabi'in continued with mut'a, if it is fornication?

Akhee Albaqir, please your comment seem ambigous to me, do you support muta'h or against?

AbooTasleemah1:
Akhee Albaqir, please your comment seem ambigous to me, do you support muta'h or against?

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in my comment, you only need to read previous comments till this present. In short, I support Mut'ah as it is declared by the Qur'an and established by the Prophet; and I oppose Misyar (Nikkah with the intention of divorce) because it has no root in the Book of Allah or Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his household).

But the verse you provided, I can't understand how it validate Muta'h.
Do you support Muta'h to negate Misyar?

AbooTasleemah1:
But the verse you provided, I can't understand how it validate Muta'h.

Please my brother kindly read this below, short and concise:
www.nairaland.com/1946601/wont-stop-opposing-sunnah-mutah

www.nairaland.com/1946601/wont-stop-opposing-sunnah-mutah/3#1946601.126

[quote author=AbooTasleemah1 post=29886446
Do you support Muta'h to negate Misyar?[/quote]
Absolutely No. Misyar is nothing but Bid'ah, never found in the Book of Allah or Sunnah of His Prophet.