Empiree:
i dont think i disputed that. I am only reading from both sides. Sunni arent left out either. Not all though

It is best described as an arrangement between a love-vendor, a prostitute and a client.

It would be great if it could be justified but I strongly believe that supposed evidences have been twisted to support the concept

Omar Ali Grant, a convert to Shia Islam, from London, has had around 13 temporary marriages but argues that he was just trying to find the right person to spend his life with. He conceded they could be used as a cover for premarital sex.
But he said: "Sex is not haram per se. In Islam sex doesn't have negative connotations; it is not impure and is not dirty.
"What Islam is saying is sex has to be between consenting adults who are also responsible. Very often it is said that temporary marriage may amount to some prostitution, but it is not that. Prostitution does occur in certain areas of Muslim society, but then again prostitution happens everywhere," said Mr Grant.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22354201

More like dating bf-gf relationship/ 13 times he has had to pay for sex

^^That Mr. Grant of a guy is a messed up dude, I can't blame him because his rank is uplifted to a Prophet after doing Mut'ah(as per Tashayyu). May Allaah continue to protect us all! Ameen!

JazakAllahu Khair Sino.

Mutah goes against basic morality and was prohibited for a reason. What stops one from sleeping around, if we can do Mutah?

why do some muslims try to compare mutah and misyar? because from what i know, misyar marriage can be defined as a marriage contract between a man and a woman, in which the woman waives some of the rights she would have in a normal Islamic marriage. This sometimes takes place when, for example, there are many women who, as they get older, find it increasingly difficult to marry. In this case a woman opts for a husband who is not able to fulfil the normal marital duties like financial maintenance, or spending adequate time with her, for example. She considers that marrying such a husband is better than remaining unmarried. It’s noteworthy that once a marriage contract meets its Shari`ah requirements, it will be acceptable from the Islamic points of view irrespective of what people call such contract. Conditions of valid marriage are: The consent of both spouses, the consent of the Wali (guardian), the payment of the dower, the presence of the witnesses, and the announcement of the contract.

sino:
The Prohibition of Mutah Marriages

, we at TwelverShia.net

It is obvious this web address is deceitful. Going through their article, it is confirmed they declared to be Ahlu sunnah. So, why deceitfully using your opponent's name to create a website? If there is Shia organization doing the same thing, it is altogether deceit.

sino:

In the beginning, during an expedition, Ibn Masu’d narrated (Muslim #3396): We were on a expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment.

Al-Hazimi in Al-I’itibar (p. 137) explains: This ruling was permissible in the early days of Islam and the Prophet – peace be upon him – , permitted it due to the reasons mentioned by Ibn Mas’ud, during their travels, and it is not known to us that the Prophet – peace be upon him – permitted it while they were in their homes, which is why he forbade them from practicing this more than once at different times.

Second deceit can easily be seen here @underlined. The author of this work (alongside the so-called Al-Hazimi's opinion) deceitfully present Mut'ah, using the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, to have begun at the early period of Islam. Apart from the fact that this author failed to submit the whole hadith, The hadith of Ibn Mas'ud clearly confirmed that prophet recited a verse after "permitting" them to practice Mut'ah.

# The said verse {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}[surah Maidah: 87]

This noble ayah is in surah al-Maidah, the Last chapter of the holy Quran revealed in 10 Hijrah, few months to the death of the Prophet. So how on earth could the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud then be Said to occur In the beginning....In early days of Islam?

# When was Mut'ah started? There was NO single record of it during 13 years of Prophet's Stay at Makkah. All authentic reports suggest it started at al-Madinah where Prophet spent 10years. Even there is no report it started in the first 3 years in Madinah. So how is In the beginning....In early days of Islam can ever come into equation?

* Some argued "Mut'ah" has been in existence since the period of Jahiliyyah till beginning and early days of Islam, the onus lies on them to support that myth with Sahih evidences.

NB: I have posted already the full hadith of Ibn Mas'ud in two different versions it was documented in Sahih Muslim and Musnad of Ahmad. I have also posted at the beginning (first page of this thread) report from Aisha that al-Maidah was the last Surah revealed and that all halal and haram there are halal and haram respectively till Qiyamat.

sino:

One interesting aspect from the narration is that Ibn Mas’ud points out that mutah became “[b]permitted”. This implies that it was forbidden before the aforementioned expedition. This suggests that the companions knew of such a marriage, but that it was not made lawful to them until this occasion. Dr. Jawad Ali, the Shi’ee author of Al-Mufasal fi Tareekh Al-Arab Qabl Al-Islam suggests that mutah was practiced since pre-Islamic times.[/b]

# From the above hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, The fact that Prophet "permitted" Mut'ah truly suggest and confirmed that Sahabah knew of that type of marriage but not as the submission above concluded i.e it has been forbidden until that occasion. Stress is on the word "permitted".

The question is why did the Prophet recited the verse 87 of surah Maidah? {Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you}. It is established from this noble ayah that Sahabah had made Mut'ah HARAM for themselves that's why some of them wanted to castrate themselves since there were no women (their wives) with them. This is what prompted the holy Prophet reciting the ayah as hujjah (proof) to counter their Ijtihad (of making Mut'ah haram). Then, there is another version of the hadith of the same occasion which states that prophet "ORDERED" them to perform Mut'ah instead of "permitting".

Imam Abu Ya'la (d. 307 H) records, Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H):

Abu Khaythamah - Marwan b. Mu'awiyah alFazari - Ismail b. Abi Khalid - Qays b. Abi Hazim:

I heard 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud saying: "We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. There were no women with us. So, we said, "O Messenger of Allah, should we castrate ourselves?" But, he forbade us from doing that AND HE ORDERED US to do nikah with the woman, giving her the 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}.

Shayk Dr. Asad says: Its chain is Sahih

Allamah al-Albani states: Sahih

Shayk al-Arnaut: Its chain is Sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim).

Ref: Musnad Abu Ya'la (Damascus: Dar al-Mamun Li al-Turath; 1st edition, 1404H)[annotator: Dr. Husayn Salim Asad], vol. 9, p.260, #5382.
Ref: Sahih Ibn Hibban bi Tartib Ibn Balban (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 2nd edition, 1414 H)[annotators: Nasir al-Din al-Albani and Shuaib al-Arnaut], vol. 9, p. 448, #4141.


NB: Obviously the matn (content) of the hadith is the same except that Ibn Mas'ud is reported to have used "permitted" in one, and "ordered" in another. Perhaps he (Ibn Mas'ud) did this because the Messenger - being the field commander - had the right to temporarily prohibit certain halal things to his soldiers in order to maintain strict discipline, high morale and strong energy. Normally even if Ibn Mas'ud and others had initially considered Mut'ah to be halal, they would nonetheless have needed the prophet's permission. Obviously his order to them to perform Mut'ah contained two things together: permission and a command.

sino:

Contradiction about the Time in which Mutah was Banned?

Perhaps the most common argument brought forth by Shias that support the lawfulness of mutah is the contradiction argument. A Shi’ee will usually argue that since the reports differ on the timing of the banning of mutah then we must completely reject all narrations that suggest that mutah was banned.

In response, we say that: It is not necessary for one to know the timing of when a religious ruling was made in order to accept it. One does not need to know when the prayers have been made obligatory, nor the alms, nor the pilgrimage, nor the fasting of Ramadan, nor the cutting off the hands of thieves, nor the time of the revelation of the inheritance laws for one to hold these matters as binding.

No scholar would suggest that due to a difference of opinion as to the timing of the revealing of a law that it should be dismissed.

[b]However, if a Shi’ee will obsessively suggest that this is a reason to reject a part of the shari’ah, then it is binding upon them to reject the imamate of Ali. When one returns to Shia sources, one find that Ali was first designated an Imam at different times. His appointment as an Imam occurred as early as the time he was a baby, then in a narration as soon as Mohammad – peace be upon him – became a prophet, then on Yawm Al-Dar, then on the night of the Isra’a, then during Mi’raj in the highest parts of the heavens, then on the way back to the earth, then on the night of the migration to Madinah, then after the 3rd year after Hijra, then on Khaibar, then on the conquest of Makkah, then during the day of the Ghadeer , then on his death bed. Sh. Faisal Noor, on more than one occasion mocks these narrations, since they often include a confused prophet asking the angel: Who is my successor? He comments that the Prophet – peace be upon him – had to be reminded of his successor occasion after occasion.[/b] (See pages 57-69 from Al-Imamah wal Nas by Sh. Faisal Noor).

The reader can also look into the great conflict between all the narrations related to the 12th Imam of the Shia in the same book.

The academic way of dealing with such contradictions is by filtering out weak narrations and by reconciling those that can be reconciled.

With the above in mind, we can take a look at the most important authentic narrations that include the timing of the prohibition of mutah, even though we can all agree that it is not necessary for one to know as to when the practice was made prohibited by the Prophet – peace be upon him.

The narration about the earliest prohibition comes from the path of Ali bin Abi Talib in Saheeh Muslim #3417-3421. He narrates: The Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – prohibited the mutah marriage of woman on Khaibar and consuming the (meat of the) domestic donkey.

In some of these narrations, the words of Ali are directed towards Ibn Abbas.

The second narration is the narration of Rabee’a bin Subra Al-Juhani from his father, in which he states that mutah was banned during the conquest of Makkah. This is also in Saheeh Muslim #3406, #3407, #3410, #3413, and #3414.

Imam Muslim #3404 also includes from the hadith of Salama bin Al-Akwa’ that it was prohibited in the year of Awtas.

According to historians, the conquest of Khaibar occurred on the seventh year after Hijra, while the conquest of Makkah and Awtas occurred on the eighth.

Some of the narrations of Rabee’a bin Subra, like Al-Darimi’s in his Sunan #2250, suggest that it was during the final pilgrimage. However, one can safely conclude that this is a mistake by a narrator, since we find the same wording in Saheeh Muslim #3408 which also includes three of the same narrators. Therefore, it is safe to say that we are looking at the same hadith, but a narrator accidentally said that it was in the final pilgrimage, which occurred in Makkah, instead of conquest of Makkah.

Abu Nu’aym Al-Haddad 3/19 adds: In the narration of Ja’afar bin Awn and Abu Nu’aym, both from Abdul Aziz bin Omar bin Abdul Aziz, from Al-Rabee’, the narrations point to this occurring during the final pilgrimage. As for the narration of Ibrahim bin Sa’eed from Abdul Malik bin Al-Rabee’, and the narration of Harmala bin Abdul Al-Aziz bin Al-Rabee’, and Al-Zuhri, from Al-Rabee’, it was on the conquest (of Makkah), and this is more correct.

The Strongest Views about when Mutah was Prohibited

In this brief chapter, we will simply focus on presenting the case for the strongest views for when mutah was prohibited. We will not be concerned with opinions like Al-Hazimi’s (p. 137) that it occurred during the final pilgrimage, since we have established that it goes against the correct wording of the hadith of Subra Al-Juhani.

With that in mind, we are left with two opinions, which are that mutah was prohibited during Khaibar, during the conquest of Makkah, or in both expeditions.

The most popular opinion is the one that is often most echoed by Sunni scholars.

Al-Nawawi states in Al-Minhaj 9/184 (via Al-Luma’ by Hamid bin Ali Al-Hanafi p. 50): The correct and chosen opinion is that it was made prohibited and permissible twice, and that it was permitted before Khaibar, then prohibited after Khaibar, then permitted before the conquest of Makkah, which is the day (year) of Awtas since they are connected, then made forbidden after three days permanently until the day of judgment, and the prohibition continued.

However, this opinion was not agreed upon by all scholars. Al-Suhaili said in Al-Rawdh Al-Unuf 4/70 that:

Nobody from the historians nor hadith narrators are aware that mutah was forbidden on Khaibar, and Ibn Uyayna narrated it from Ibn Shihab from Abdullah bin Mohammad and said that the Prophet – peace be upon him – forbade the (meat of the) domestic donkey on the year of Khaibar, and (forbade) mutah. This means that mutah was made forbidden after this, or on another day, which means that it was a mix up in the wordings of Ibn Shihab.

One of the earliest of sources “Musnad al-Hamidi” (d.219 AH) states the Hadith as follows:

[“The messenger (saw) forbade the mutah, and the meat of the domestic donkey on Khaybar.” Suffiyan says: Meaning, he (saw) forbade the donkey meat at the time of Khaybar but not the mutah of women.]

Abu Awana similarly comments 2/278:

The scholars say that the meaning of hadith Ali bin Abi Talib is that “the Prophet – peace be upon him – forbade the eating of the meat of the domestic donkey on Khaibar AND forbade the mutah of women on the days of Al-Fath (conquest of Makkah).”

Before going on, it is important to point out that the scholars above seemed to lean towards this view since it is rare for something to be permitted and prohibited twice in the shari’ah. They seem to have sided with the narration of Sabra instead of the narration of Ali due to the fact that it was also narrated that Salama bin Akwa’ also mentioned that it was prohibited on the same year. Furthermore, Sabra himself stated that he practiced mutah on those days and provided details about the events, which makes it unlikely that he could have provided an incorrect date. Due to this, some scholars interpreted the hadith of Ali to mean that mutah was banned in general while domestic donkey meat was banned on Khaibar. Even though we disagree with this opinion due to reasons that we will shortly point out, the opinions and conclusions that these scholars arrived to are rational ones, as opposed to Shia apologists who claim that since “contradictions” have occurred, it is obligatory to reject all the narrations that prohibit mutah.

Of course, we have a few reasons to reject this opinion and stick to the view of the majority of the scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah, which is that mutah was first prohibited on Khaibar, then made permissible and prohibited during the conquest of Makkah.

The first reason is due to the hadith of Ibn Omar, in which he also mentions that mutah was banned in Khaibar. See Mustakhraj Abi Awana #3309.

The second is that the reason provided by Al-Sulaihi is based on a chain that goes against what has been narrated by the majority. He quotes a narration that has Ali saying that “the mutah of women on Khaibar was prohibited,” and not “the mutah of woman, and prohibited the meat of the domestic donkey on Khaibar.” However, this narration contradicts the authentic narrations provided from Saheeh Muslim which are clear that it was banned on Khaibar.

Thirdly, the narration in Saheeh Muslim from Sabra #3408/#3416 states that mutah is now banned until the Day of Judgment. With regular rulings in Islamic fiqh, laws are usually made without those attached words. For these to be binded with mutah suggests that mutah was made permissible before after prohibition, however, is finally banned permanently. The usage of this wording cannot be found in the hadiths describing mutah being banned on Khaibar.

The summary of the above submissions is that Mut'ah was permitted and then forbade at Khaybar, and later permitted and forbade at Fath Makkah or night of Awtas (same as Fath Makkah) till Qiyamat.

# The author though accepted the hadith of al-Darimi to be AUTHENTIC which states that Mut'ah was permitted and forbade forever at the last Hajj. But he argued it away that the narrator might probably made mistake in naming the event "The Last Hajj" instead of "Fath Makkah".

# So, let us accept this argument (in opposition to the clear al-Darimi Sahih hadith). This does not in anyway rescue Sunni myth of "Mut'ah is forbidden".

# The point is not about timing per se but "FOREVER PROHIBITION" at both Khaybar and Fath Makkah, 7 H and 9 H respectively. The fact that the author can never argued out the report of Ali at Khaybar that Mut'ah had been forbidden, he deceitfully hide the fact that the hadith says Mut'ah is forbidden FOREVER at Khaybar. And in fact, this is what made "Ali"[several years after the death of the Prophet] argued against Ibn Abbas who was busy issuing fatwa approving Mut'ah, that Mut'ah has been forbidden forever. Obviously the FOREVER PROHIBITION at Fath Makkah had abrogated the FOREVER PROHIBITION at Khaybar since it was ordered/permitted in-between. Why did Ali used FOREVER PROHIBITION of Khaybar (7. H) and not that of Fath Makkah (8-9 Hijra) which was more recent chronologically?

# It is the forbidden forever at those two occasions that made the whole ahadith rejected altogether.

# The fact that there were very strong Sunni reports that some Sahabah confirmed surah Nisa: 24 established Nikah Mut'ah, and several Tabi'in (who laid the foundation of Sunnism) also maintained the Surah Nisa: 24 confirmed Mut'ah. This alone rubbishes all Sunni "sahih" ahadith on Mut'ah prohibition because No hadith can ever abrogate the verse of the Quran.

tbaba1234:
JazakAllahu Khair Sino.

Mutah goes against basic morality and was prohibited for a reason. What stops one from sleeping around, if we can do Mutah?

Very disappointing. So Prophet ordered "immorality", several Sahabah continued to engage in this "immorality" during the eras of Abu Bakr and Umar till Umar stopped it because a Sahabi (Amr b. Hurayth) "immorally impregnated a slave girl during their Mut'ah contract". Yet a "defiant" Sahabi (Ibn Abbas) continued to practice this "immorality" till he died.

Then comes the Tabi'in who practiced this "immorality" till the end of their lives. Hmmm.

mut'ah is prostitution and the highest point you can get from a Sunni scholar is just basic permissibility which is even a wrong stand.

But the rawafidh (shia) scholars fabricated narrations to encourage mut'ah such that you feel your eeman is not complete without it.

Then, if some scholars differ in its prohibition then that should not be leverage for the filthy rawafidh because even alcohol prohibition is debated among the past scholars, does that in any way affect the prohibition.

Some scholars had the view that only alcohol made from dates is prohibited! Does that mean that you should start drinking gulder etc and think you have evidence or proof?!

That's why Allah gave us intellect, if it's consensus you want before establishing a rule, then you will misguide yourself and others.

Lastly, Allah has blessed this ummah with some set of scholars known as muhaqqiqoon (scrutinizers). AlhamduliLlah, every field of islamic knowledge has its own.

In aqeedah: scholars like imam Malik, imam Ahmad, shafee Ibn taymiyyah and ibnul Qoyyim,imam Abdul wahhaab, Ibn Baaz etc
in fiqh: the four imams, Ibn taymiyyah, ibnul Qoyyim, Ibn Quddamah ibn Uthymeen etc
in hadith: imam Ahmad, Bukharee, Muslim Ibn hajar, Ahmad Shaakir, Imam Albany etc

in history; ibn hishaam, ibn Katheer, Imam Tabariyy imam AbdulWahhaab, imam suyootee, imam dhahabee etc

in Nahw; Imam khaleel Ahmad alfaraaeediyy, imam Ibn Malik, sibawayh, sahlawayh, Al akhfash etc

in tajweed and qiraat; ibnul Jazariyy, jamzuriyy, imam daanee etc

So, it's the muhaqqiqoon of each field that should be quoted and sought when trying to sort issues in the Deen. and there opinion should be given preference.

Please brothers and sisters avoid arguments with innovators and people of desire.

Newnas:
mut'ah is prostitution and the highest point you can get from a Sunni scholar is just basic permissibility which is even a wrong stand.

So, obviously you are accusing the Messenger of Allah of allowing prostitution (at least at a certain stage if you believed he later forbade it)!

# And all the Sahabah and Tabi'in (who were bedrock of your manhaj) practiced this prostitutions even after the demise of the Prophet; and during the eras of Abu Bakr and Umar till he stopped it when the prostitution went to impregnation.

Newnas:

But the rawafidh (shia) scholars fabricated narrations to encourage mut'ah such that you feel your eeman is not complete without it.

Thanks for the word @underlined. So if you believe as I believe also that "those ahadith (which says one's Iman is not complete until you engage in Mut'ah)" are fabrications, how can you then argued that was the basis of Rawafidha permitting Mut'ah?

# In fact this isn't about Rawafidha at all. It is all about Sunnism. There exist lots of authentic ahadith in your documentations that proved Mut'ah is Halal approved by the Quran and the Prophet. And there is of course conspiracy theory that it has been forbidden. This is what we explore here.

Newnas:

Then, if some scholars differ in its prohibition then that should not be leverage for the filthy rawafidh because even alcohol prohibition is debated among the past scholars, does that in any way affect the prohibition.

Some scholars had the view that only alcohol made from dates is prohibited! Does that mean that you should start drinking gulder etc and think you have evidence or proof?!

Quran is perfect when it use "Khamr (intoxicant, or anything that blocks senses) rather than being specific. Whoever will rule on alcohol will maintained the ruling based on "Khamr". Gulder beer is less than or equal to 40% ethanol. That makes it "khamr".

# Liken alcohol prohibition to explain Mut'ah is a failed attempt because alcohol was never allowed in Islam.

Newnas:

That's why Allah gave us intellect, if it's consensus you want before establishing a rule, then you will misguide yourself and others.
Please brothers and sisters avoid arguments with innovators and people of desire.

I can see how "intellectual" you are.

lexiconkabir:
why do some muslims try to compare mutah and misyar? because from what i know, misyar marriage can be defined as a marriage contract between a man and a woman, in which the woman waives some of the rights she would have in a normal Islamic marriage. This sometimes takes place when, for example, there are many women who, as they get older, find it increasingly difficult to marry. In this case a woman opts for a husband who is not able to fulfil the normal marital duties like financial maintenance, or spending adequate time with her, for example. She considers that marrying such a husband is better than remaining unmarried. It’s noteworthy that once a marriage contract meets its Shari`ah requirements, it will be acceptable from the Islamic points of view irrespective of what people call such contract. Conditions of valid marriage are: The consent of both spouses, the consent of the Wali (guardian), the payment of the dower, the presence of the witnesses, and the announcement of the contract.

Paint "Misyar" with whatever definition your Ulama like. The primary Bid'ah of their establishment is still Zawaj bi Niyat talaq (marriage with intention of divorce). And absolutely the one you described above and "zawaj bi Niyyat talaq" and Mut'ah are different and will forever be different. Here we are on Mut'ah debate from Kitab wa Sunnah. What we say is give us a single evidence from Kitab wa Sunnah where Sunni scholar invented "Marriage with Intention of Divorce" existed. A marriage where you as a foreigner, for example, will marry but with a concealed intention to divorce the woman at the end of your stay in that land. I have posted with evidences reports on this already.

.

AlBaqir:


Paint "Misyar" with whatever definition your Ulama like. The primary Bid'ah of their establishment is still Zawaj bi Niyat talaq (marriage with intention of divorce). And absolutely the one you described above and "zawaj bi Niyyat talaq" and Mut'ah are different and will forever be different. Here we are on Mut'ah debate from Kitab wa Sunnah. What we say is give us a single evidence from Kitab wa Sunnah where Sunni scholar invented "Marriage with Intention of Divorce" existed. A marriage where you as a foreigner, for example, will marry but with a concealed intention to divorce the woman at the end of your stay in that land. I have posted with evidences reports on this already.

.

whats the evidence that misyar is called "zawaj bi niyyat talaq" because misyar marriage follows the shariah ruling for marriage, since it does, then whats your argument? how is that bid'ah?

So, obviously you are accusing the Messenger of Allah of allowing prostitution (at least at a certain stage if you believed he later forbade it)!

# And all the Sahabah and Tabi'in (who were bedrock of your manhaj) practiced this prostitutions even after the demise of the Prophet; and during the eras of Abu Bakr and Umar till he stopped it when the prostitution went to impregnation.

Egbon AlBaqir please can you stop this rhetorics? @underlined, Mut'ah is prohibited, alcohol was once allowed but it later became one of the most hated things. @cancelled, you're yet to prove majority of the sahabas and tabi'un engaged in it. I raised some questions in my previous posts, why didn't the Sahabas object Umar? You've not given any tangible fact as to why, I'm waiting please.

# In fact this isn't about Rawafidha at all. It is all about Sunnism. There exist lots of authentic ahadith in your documentations that proved Mut'ah is Halal approved by the Quran and the Prophet. And there is of course conspiracy theory that it has been forbidden. This is what we explore here

You're the one who's basing your arguments on conspiracy theories, Mut'ah is banned till the day of judgement(till eternity)....shikena!

Quran is perfect when it use "Khamr (intoxicant, or anything that blocks senses) rather than being specific. Whoever will rule on alcohol will maintained the ruling based on "Khamr". Gulder beer is less than or equal to 40% ethanol. That makes it "khamr".

# Liken alcohol prohibition to explain Mut'ah is a failed attempt because alcohol was never allowed in Islam.

@bold, I agree that's a nice analysis I must say.

@underlined, you're wrong. It was once allowed and then later prohibited to the extent the Prophet(saw) flogged those who engaged in it;

Narrated Husain bin Ali:
Ali bin Abi Talib said: "I got a she-camel as my share of the war booty on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and Allah's Apostle gave me another she-camel. I let both of them kneel at the door of one of the Ansar, intending to carry Idhkhir on them to sell it and use its price for my wedding banquet on marrying Fatima. A goldsmith from Bam Qainqa' was with me. Hamza bin 'Abdul-Muttalib was in that house drinking wine and a lady singer was reciting: "O Hamza! (Kill) the (two) fat old she camels (and serve them to your guests)."

So Hamza took his sword and went towards the two she-camels and cut off their humps and opened their flanks and took a part of their livers." (I said to Ibn Shihab, "Did he take part of the humps?" He replied, "He cut off their humps and carried them away." 'Ali further said, "When I saw that dreadful sight, I went to the Prophet and told him the news. The Prophet came out in the company of Zaid bin Haritha who was with him then, and I too went with them. He went to Hamza and spoke harshly to him. Hamza looked up and said, 'Aren't you only the slaves of my forefathers?' The Prophet retreated and went out. This incident happened before the prohibition of drinking."
Al Bukhari Hadith 3:563

they have no stress with their elders marrying small girls, and claiming the Prophet (s) married a 9 years old so much that non-Muslims now ridicule Islam; but they have every problem with Mut'ah because their second caliph forbade it and accepting that it is a permissible act would dent the image of their caliph. so who really do you follow as prophet? Muhammad (s) or Umar?

ShiaMuslim:
they have no stress with their elders marrying small girls, and claiming the Prophet (s) married a 9 years old so much that non-Muslims now ridicule Islam; but they have every problem with Mut'ah because their second caliph forbade it and accepting that it is a permissible act would dent the image of their caliph. so who really do you follow as prophet? Muhammad (s) or Umar?

This post of yours points to low-self esteem, the age of Aisha(ra) cannot be compared with Mut'ah, the hadiths are Saheeh, so anyone denying this marriage(when she was 9) is ignorant. We don't base our rulings because of the reactions of Kuffars and perhaps young marriages is a common norm for them also, so if they criticize then they are hypocrites who have no shame. We follow the Prophet(saw), his Ahelbayt and Sahabas(in their good not in their errors, because they're fallibles).

BeansAndBread:


Egbon AlBaqir please can you stop this rhetorics? @underlined, Mut'ah is prohibited, alcohol was once allowed but it later became one of the most hated things. @cancelled, you're yet to prove majority of the sahabas and tabi'un engaged in it. I raised some questions in my previous posts, why didn't the Sahabas object Umar? You've not given any tangible fact as to why, I'm waiting please.

Why would i stop the rhetorics? Did you also believe Mut'ah is a prostitution? If yes, then in sha Allah i will repeat the rhetorics for you too.

@underlined, the onus lies on you to prove Sahabah and Tabi'in MAJORITY abandoned Mut'ah. I have given my evidence time without number that "WE" as mentioned by Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) refer to all Sahabah. And one of your grand Imam Ibn Hazm listed some among the Sahabah, and later the Tabi'in. He even claimed ALL THE MACCAN JURISTS. Again the onus is on you to prove that "WE" is handful, and "ALL MAKKAN JURISTS" are few like 3 or 5.

@bold, I have answered your question perhaps you overlooked it. Umar threatened to stone whoever practice Mut'ah as he forbade it on the minbar. Umar was a wild Khalifah. During his Khilafah, he beats people with whips (especially women who mourn their dead), even Ibn Abbas confessed he feared to talk to him (for 2 years) because he was a man with fierce nature. Interestingly when Umar overruled Quran in the case of Tayammum and Ammar ibn Yassir tried to correct him, the respond was cold and Ammar had to keep quiet saying "if you do not want that, I will stop". That was Umar b. Khattab.

And it has been proving that Sahabi Ibn Abbas practiced Mut'ah after Umar. You dare not question the knowledge of Ibn Abbas in Quranic exegesis and fiqh.

BeansAndBread:


You're the one who's basing your arguments on conspiracy theories, Mut'ah is banned till the day of judgement(till eternity)....shikena!

who banned it? You meant forever prohibition at Khaybar and Fath Makkah?! Those are daylight contradictions. You have nothing to redress that. Besides, If Abdullah ibn Abbas, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Ibn Mas'ud, 'Ata, Sa'id b. Jubayr, al-Hakam etc confirmed there exist an ayah of the Quran that made Mut'ah halal, how can hadith ever abrogate ayah of the Quran? Its not done.

Even the likes of Imam Shafi'i, Ibn Hazm, and some extent Ibn Kathir and Jarir Tabari all believed surah Nisa: 24 established Mut'ah. They only laboured and tried their utmost to convince us that the ayah has been abrogated by hadith and early Makkan ayahs which is not possible.

So, I wonder how Mut'ah is then banned till Qiyamat in your view.

BeansAndBread:


@underlined, you're wrong. It was once allowed and then later prohibited to the extent the Prophet(saw) flogged those who engaged in it;

Narrated Husain bin Ali:
Ali bin Abi Talib said: "I got a she-camel as my share of the war booty on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and Allah's Apostle gave me another she-camel. I let both of them kneel at the door of one of the Ansar, intending to carry Idhkhir on them to sell it and use its price for my wedding banquet on marrying Fatima. A goldsmith from Bam Qainqa' was with me. Hamza bin 'Abdul-Muttalib was in that house drinking wine and a lady singer was reciting: "O Hamza! (Kill) the (two) fat old she camels (and serve them to your guests)."

So Hamza took his sword and went towards the two she-camels and cut off their humps and opened their flanks and took a part of their livers." (I said to Ibn Shihab, "Did he take part of the humps?" He replied, "He cut off their humps and carried them away." 'Ali further said, "When I saw that dreadful sight, I went to the Prophet and told him the news. The Prophet came out in the company of Zaid bin Haritha who was with him then, and I too went with them. He went to Hamza and spoke harshly to him. Hamza looked up and said, 'Aren't you only the slaves of my forefathers?' The Prophet retreated and went out. This incident happened before the prohibition of drinking."
Al Bukhari Hadith 3:563

Give us just ONE ayah from the noble Quran and one Sahih hadith where Allah and His Prophet ordered or allowed Khamr (e.g alcohol).
Just one!

# People had been drinking alcohol far before Islam came. They are used to it. When Islam came, the primary concern was to establish Tawheed as against Shirk. When people abandoned polytheism and begin to worship, their age long alcoholism continue. Quran simply argued logically that benefit they thought they are deriving from alcohol is far less Than its evil. Where does that signify Islam allowed it?. Despite this logical argument, people continued and Quran ruled Do not approach salat while you are intoxicated. This reduced their terrible consumption. And later at Madinah towards the Last year of the Prophet, there came ruling that alcohol is forbidden.

# If you look at the case of Mut'ah, it was NOT known ever before. People only indulge in fornication/adultery and Allah ruled in early Makkah surah: "Do not approach Zina, surely it is indecency and path of evil". Islam first introduced Mut'ah.

My own understanding of the Q4V24 is as stated beneath
Forbidding Women Already Married Except for Female Slaves

Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala said,

وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ

“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.”The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,

إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ

“except those whom your right hands possess” except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,

وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ

Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. Allah’s statement,

كِتَـبَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ

“Thus has Allah ordained for you” means, this prohibition was ordained for you by Allah. Therefore, adhere to Allah’s Book, do not transgress His set limits, and adhere to His legislation and decrees.

The Permission to Marry All Other Women

Allah subhaanhu wa ta’ala said,

وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَّا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ

“All others are lawful” meaning, you are allowed to marry women other than the prohibited types mentioned here, as `Ata’ and others have stated. Allah’s statement,

أَن تَبْتَغُواْ بِأَمْوَلِكُمْ مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَـفِحِينَ

“provided you seek them (with a dowry) from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication,” meaning, you are allowed to use your money to marry up to four wives and for (the purchase of) as many female slaves as you like, all through legal means,

مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَـفِحِينَ

“(desiring) chastity, not fornication.” Allah’s statement,

فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَـَاتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً

“So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,” means, to enjoy them sexually, surrender to them their rightful dowry as compensation.

Prohibiting the Mut’ah of Marriage

Mujahid stated that,

فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَـَاتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً

“So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,” was revealed about the Mut`ah marriage. A Mut`ah marriage is a marriage that ends upon a predeterminied date.

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that the Leader of the Faithful `Ali bin Abi Talib said, “The Messenger of Allah prohibited Mut`ah marriage and eating the meat of domesticated donkeys on the day of Khaybar (battle).” In addition, in his Sahih, 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.” Allah’s statement,

وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَاضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ الْفَرِيضَةِ

“but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you.” is similar to His other statement,

وَءَاتُواْ النِّسَآءَ صَدُقَـتِهِنَّ نِحْلَةً

“And give to the women their dowry with a good heart.” The meaning of these Ayat is: If you have stipulated a dowry for her, and she later forfeits it, either totally or partially, then this bears no harm on you or her in this case. Ibn Jarir said, “Al-Hadrami said that some men would designate a certain dowry, but then fall into financial difficulties. Therefore, Allah said that there is no harm on you, O people, concerning your mutual agreement after the requirement (has been determined).” meaning, if she gives up part of the dowry, then you men are allowed to accept that. Allah’s statement,

إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً

“Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.” is suitable here, after Allah mentioned these prohibitions.

tbaba1234:
JazakAllahu Khair Sino.

Mutah goes against basic morality and was prohibited for a reason. What stops one from sleeping around, if we can do Mutah?

Wa Iyyakum bro. That is just the truth, it just doesn't fit with what Islam preaches thus the reason for being haram till the day of judgment.

AlBaqir:


It is obvious this web address is deceitful. Going through their article, it is confirmed they declared to be Ahlu sunnah. So, why deceitfully using your opponent's name to create a website? If there is Shia organization doing the same thing, it is altogether deceit.

Irrelevant!

AlBaqir:

Second deceit can easily be seen here @underlined. The author of this work (alongside the so-called Al-Hazimi's opinion) deceitfully present Mut'ah, using the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, to have begun at the early period of Islam. Apart from the fact that this author failed to submit the whole hadith, The hadith of Ibn Mas'ud clearly confirmed that prophet recited a verse after "permitting" them to practice Mut'ah.

# The said verse {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}[surah Maidah: 87]

This noble ayah is in surah al-Maidah, the Last chapter of the holy Quran revealed in 10 Hijrah, few months to the death of the Prophet. So how on earth could the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud then be Said to occur In the beginning....In early days of Islam?

# When was Mut'ah started? There was NO single record of it during 13 years of Prophet's Stay at Makkah. All authentic reports suggest it started at al-Madinah where Prophet spent 10years. Even there is no report it started in the first 3 years in Madinah. So how is In the beginning....In early days of Islam can ever come into equation?

* Some argued "Mut'ah" has been in existence since the period of Jahiliyyah till beginning and early days of Islam, the onus lies on them to support that myth with Sahih evidences.

NB: I have posted already the full hadith of Ibn Mas'ud in two different versions it was documented in Sahih Muslim and Musnad of Ahmad. I have also posted at the beginning (first page of this thread) report from Aisha that al-Maidah was the last Surah revealed and that all halal and haram there are halal and haram respectively till Qiyamat.

This is pure ignorance, there is no deceit here, the article said in the beginning, then it quotes the narration, it did not say in the beginning of Islam. There is a narration that supports Al Hazimi’s view, it is also in sahih Muslim and posted here subsequently.

Let me assuage your ignorance a bit, here is the narration of Ibn Mas’ood in Arabic:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ الْهَمْدَانِىُّ حَدَّثَنَا أَبِى وَوَكِيعٌ وَابْنُ بِشْرٍ عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ عَنْ قَيْسٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ يَقُولُ كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- لَيْسَ لَنَا نِسَاءٌ فَقُلْنَا أَلاَ نَسْتَخْصِى فَنَهَانَا عَنْ ذَلِكَ ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ لَنَا أَنْ نَنْكِحَ الْمَرْأَةَ بِالثَّوْبِ إِلَى أَجَلٍ ثُمَّ قَرَأَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ ( يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لاَ تُحَرِّمُوا طَيِّبَاتِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ ).

…Qays said, I heard Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ood) saying, we were on an expedition with the Prophet (SAW) and there were no women (i.e our wives) with us, we then said, may we castrate ourselves, and the Prophet (SAW) forbade us from that, then he (SAW), permitted us to perform nikkah with a woman with a garment for a period of time, then Abdullah (Ibn Masood) recited the verse…

First and foremost, the hadith is the first hadith in Sahih Muslim in the chapter: “Nikkah mut’ah permitted then abrogated, then permitted then abrogated” similar narrations of the above were also presented, except Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ood) was not named as the reciter but rather the narration stated “he then recited to us”. I have not come across where this narration indicates that it was Prophet (SAW) that recited the verse. What we have is the mention of Abdullah as the reciter and an explanation for the recitation had been posted in previous post. So if you claim it was the Prophet (SAW) please provide clear evidence AlBaqir.

Secondly, this hadith did not indicate when the expedition took place, we only know that it was what Qays heard from Ibn Mas’ood, which can only be interpreted that Ibn Mas’ood was narrating his experience during an expedition with the Prophet (SAW), it sure can be placed during the early part of the spread of Islam. Also, another similar narration states that they were youth and it didn’t mention that they were on expedition, we can only understand that if they were youth at the period then it most likely also be during the early part of (the spread of) Islam. This is not to also mention that a narration of Abdullah Ibn Zubayr which clearly states that the Prophet (SAW) permitted nikkah mut’ah during the beginning of Islam. See Sahih Muslim #3495.

I do not see how Qur’an 5:87 in this narration easily put the permission of the Prophet (SAW) towards the end of his life, in fact other corroborating narrations suggests otherwise. I had already presented what was recorded that it was Ibn Mas’ood who recited it, now I expect you to furnish us with clear proof that it was the Prophet (SAW) that recited the verse to Ibn Mas’ood (ra).

Thirdly, in all the narration about the permissibility of mut’ah by the Prophet (SAW) I have not read a reference to Qur’an 4:24 as being the verse Allah (SWT) permitted mut’ah, in fact the narrations clearly states that it was the Prophet (SAW) that permitted it, and especially the narration in question, as a form of respite, just like eating pork etc. AlBaqir, if indeed it was Allah (SWT) that permitted mut’ah in the Qur’an, why is there no reference from the Prophet (SAW) stating so? Did the prophet (SAW) not know about Qur’an 4:24? Because if he (SAW) knew that this verse is about mut’ah, he would have recited the verse first, before even reciting 5:87 and the companions would have known its permissibility and wouldn’t need to request for castration in the first instance.

Fourthly, which expedition did the Prophet go few months to his death with Ibn Mas’ood?! Please give us the name and the month, since you said Qur’an 5:87 was revealed few months to his death (SAW). Thank you.

Fifthly, the Quran 5:87, even if we accept that it was the Prophet (SAW) that recited it, cannot be used to support mut’ah. For the Prophet (SAW) to recite this verse when some of his sahabahs wanted to castrate themselves shows that it is haram to castrate yourself, because it is tantamount to changing Allah’s creation, and what Allah (SWT) has made halal, in this context, could mean women, you cannot transgress or make haram by castrating yourselves and deprive yourselves of the lawful women in marriage. Again we can clearly understand that this permission granted by the Prophet (SAW) was borne out of necessity, just like other narrations had indicated that only necessity can make mut’ah permissible, the similitude of eating pork due to necessity, we do not then say pork is halal, but then again, authentic narration indicating that after this permission given by the Prophet (SAW), he thereafter prohibited it finally, till the day of judgment. No matter the twisted logic you may employ, you cannot prove otherwise.

#I had already mentioned that nowhere did the Prophet (SAW) said Quran 4:24 was about mut’ah, nowhere in the narrations did any sahabah mention that Allah (SWT) permitted mut’ah and used it as an argument to go against Umar or those who said the Prophet (SAW) had prohibited it. How come you lots that were not even existing during this period are now the ones fighting tooth and nail to claim that Quran 4:24 is about mut’ah and that it was Allah (SWT) that permitted it in the Qur’an. Again 3 or even 10 sahabah believing that the verse is about mut’ah cannot stand, for the majority was on the fact that it was about permanent nikkah. In fact, the recitation that you claim is part of tawil has long been rejected, there is nothing to proof that it is so, coupled with the fact that all the other sahabahs are oblivious that 4:24 is about mut’ah, even Ibn Mas’ood and Ibn Abbas never argued its permissibility with this verse.

#I do not need to prove whether mut’ah was a pre-Islamic practice, it is irrelevant to our discussion, the narrations that are important to trash this issue are what we need at this time.

AlBaqir:

# From the above hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, The fact that Prophet "permitted" Mut'ah truly suggest and confirmed that Sahabah knew of that type of marriage but not as the submission above concluded i.e it has been forbidden until that occasion. Stress is on the word "permitted".

The question is why did the Prophet recited the verse 87 of surah Maidah? {Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you}. It is established from this noble ayah that Sahabah had made Mut'ah HARAM for themselves that's why some of them wanted to castrate themselves since there were no women (their wives) with them. This is what prompted the holy Prophet reciting the ayah as hujjah (proof) to counter their Ijtihad (of making Mut'ah haram). Then, there is another version of the hadith of the same occasion which states that prophet "ORDERED" them to perform Mut'ah instead of "permitting".

Imam Abu Ya'la (d. 307 H) records, Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H):

Abu Khaythamah - Marwan b. Mu'awiyah alFazari - Ismail b. Abi Khalid - Qays b. Abi Hazim:

I heard 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud saying: "We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. There were no women with us. So, we said, "O Messenger of Allah, should we castrate ourselves?" But, he forbade us from doing that AND HE ORDERED US to do nikah with the woman, giving her the 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}.

Shayk Dr. Asad says: Its chain is Sahih

Allamah al-Albani states: Sahih

Shayk al-Arnaut: Its chain is Sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim).

Ref: Musnad Abu Ya'la (Damascus: Dar al-Mamun Li al-Turath; 1st edition, 1404H)[annotator: Dr. Husayn Salim Asad], vol. 9, p.260, #5382.
Ref: Sahih Ibn Hibban bi Tartib Ibn Balban (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 2nd edition, 1414 H)[annotators: Nasir al-Din al-Albani and Shuaib al-Arnaut], vol. 9, p. 448, #4141.


NB: Obviously the matn (content) of the hadith is the same except that Ibn Mas'ud is reported to have used "permitted" in one, and "ordered" in another. Perhaps he (Ibn Mas'ud) did this because the Messenger - being the field commander - had the right to temporarily prohibit certain halal things to his soldiers in order to maintain strict discipline, high morale and strong energy. Normally even if Ibn Mas'ud and others had initially considered Mut'ah to be halal, they would nonetheless have needed the prophet's permission. Obviously his order to them to perform Mut'ah contained two things together: permission and a command.

As said above, the text are clear, the Prophet (SAW) then permitted us, the word used is rakkhaso, to authorize, to permit, to allow, to license. Clearly a permission of the Prophet (SAW), and he (SAW) then was reported to have said, in his own words,

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّى قَدْ كُنْتُ أَذِنْتُ لَكُمْ فِى الاِسْتِمْتَاعِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ حَرَّمَ ذَلِكَ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ فَمَنْ كَانَ عِنْدَهُ مِنْهُنَّ شَىْءٌ فَلْيُخَلِّ سَبِيلَهُ وَلاَ تَأْخُذُوا مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شَيْئًا ».

O people! I had given you the permission to perform mut’ah, and verily Allah (SWT) has made it haram till the day of judgment, whoever has any woman (in such relationship) should free them and you should not collect from anything you had given to them. (Sahih Muslim 3488)

No reference whatsoever to Qur’an 4:24, there happens to be no reason to think of abrogation of any ayah here, meaning Allah (SWT) never sanctioned mut’ah in the Qur’an.

In furtherance of my point, since Quran 4:24 came before Quran 5:87, how come the Prophet (SAW) did not teach his companions about mut’ah when the verse 4:24 was revealed? If the sahabas knew, why were they asking for permission to castrate themselves? Wouldn’t the logical thing to do is to ask for permission to perform mut’ah? No matter how you want to come up with your assumptions and theories, you would only be shooting yourself in the foot, the reason I see why you guys would want to falsify authentic narrations with flimsy excuses just to hold on to your perverted opinions.

And please don't quote English translations when you want to talk about different matn, it could be the same word translated differently by the translators. Again, order and permission is not the issue here, the issue is that either they (the companions) didn’t know about mut’ah at all, and it was their first encounter with such, or they did know, but also knew that it was prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), the reason for asking to castrate themselves. Either ways, it does not support your claims because if you go with the former, it proves that Qur’an 4:24 was never about mut’ah, and the sahabahs never practiced such, and if the latter, then the Prophet (SAW) had prohibited it, therefore it was never Allah’s command in Qur’an 4:24, and it was permitted due to necessity, just like eating pork meat which we all know it is haram. Well there is a third option which I believe you may be interested in, falsify the hadith, it wouldn’t be a new thing in your shi’a ways…

Mind explaining how the sahabas made mut’ah haram for themselves?! When no reference to the fact that they said it is haram in this narration? Where did it state that mut’ah is a good thing?! Is it what your infallibles and scholars had described as humiliating to Muslim women that you are claiming now that Allah (SWT) is saying is a good thing?! Subhanallah! I see you are avoiding your narrations from your infallible Imams and scholars, I know it is embarrassing, but you must man-up and face the truth, they are recorded in your books, they are words attributed to your infallible Imams, you can’t run away from them.

AlBaqir:

The summary of the above submissions is that Mut'ah was permitted and then forbade at Khaybar, and later permitted and forbade at Fath Makkah or night of Awtas (same as Fath Makkah) till Qiyamat.

# The author though accepted the hadith of al-Darimi to be AUTHENTIC which states that Mut'ah was permitted and forbade forever at the last Hajj. But he argued it away that the narrator might probably made mistake in naming the event "The Last Hajj" instead of "Fath Makkah".

# So, let us accept this argument (in opposition to the clear al-Darimi Sahih hadith). This does not in anyway rescue Sunni myth of "Mut'ah is forbidden".

# The point is not about timing per se but "FOREVER PROHIBITION" at both Khaybar and Fath Makkah, 7 H and 9 H respectively. The fact that the author can never argued out the report of Ali at Khaybar that Mut'ah had been forbidden, he deceitfully hide the fact that the hadith says Mut'ah is forbidden FOREVER at Khaybar. And in fact, this is what made "Ali"[several years after the death of the Prophet] argued against Ibn Abbas who was busy issuing fatwa approving Mut'ah, that Mut'ah has been forbidden forever. Obviously the FOREVER PROHIBITION at Fath Makkah had abrogated the FOREVER PROHIBITION at Khaybar since it was ordered/permitted in-between. Why did Ali used FOREVER PROHIBITION of Khaybar (7. H) and not that of Fath Makkah (8-9 Hijra) which was more recent chronologically?

# It is the forbidden forever at those two occasions that made the whole ahadith rejected altogether.

# The fact that there were very strong Sunni reports that some Sahabah confirmed surah Nisa: 24 established Nikah Mut'ah, and several Tabi'in (who laid the foundation of Sunnism) also maintained the Surah Nisa: 24 confirmed Mut'ah. This alone rubbishes all Sunni "sahih" ahadith on Mut'ah prohibition because No hadith can ever abrogate the verse of the Quran.

Before anything, provide the narration that states that mut’ah was forbidden at khaybar till day of qiyammat in Arabic. Then I’ll take your comment seriously, and provide the reference too.

Permit me to refresh your memory for I had posted it earlier, the list of sahabas who confronted Ibn Abbas (ra), who believed that mut’ah was permissible, compere with the reported silence of the sahabas when Umar (ra) passed a verdict prohibiting it.

These are the Sahih narrations about Ibn Abbas permitting mut'ah:

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.

Again, no one brought Qur’an 4:24 as a proof for it, not even Ibn Abbas (ra) nor did anyone bring Qur'an 5:87.

And to your continuous mention of Makkan jurist, here is what one of them was reported to have said:

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.

If you want to claim that your scholars that permitted you all to say mut'ah is halal, and that these majority of sahabas including Ali (ra) were all misguided by affirming the Prophets prohibition, then who do you guys follow? and what religion do you practice?

sino:


Before anything, provide the narration that states that mut’ah was forbidden at khaybar till day of qiyammat in Arabic. Then I’ll take your comment seriously, and provide the reference too.

Permit me to refresh your memory for I had posted it earlier, the list of sahabas who confronted Ibn Abbas (ra), who believed that mut’ah was permissible, compere with the reported silence of the sahabas when Umar (ra) passed a verdict prohibiting it.

These are the Sahih narrations about Ibn Abbas permitting mut'ah:

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.

Again, no one brought Qur’an 4:24 as a proof for it, not even Ibn Abbas (ra) nor did anyone bring Qur'an 5:87.

And to your continuous mention of Makkan jurist, here is what one of them was reported to have said:

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.

If you want to claim that your scholars that permitted you all to say mut'ah is halal, and that these majority of sahabas including Ali (ra) were all misguided by affirming the Prophets prohibition, then who do you guys follow? and what religion do you practice?

قال أبوعبيد القاسم بن سلام: عاشرت الناس وكلمت أهل الكلام، فما رأيت أوسخ وسخًا ولا أقذر ولا أضعف حجة ولا أحمق من الرافضة. تأريخ ابن معين٢/٣١٠

Abu Ubayd alQasim bn salaam said;

I lived with people, and spoke to ahlul kalam (philosophers) and I have never met any dirtier or filthier, or weaker in evidence or more mentally retarded like the rafidhah (shia) .

tarikh Ibn Ma'een 2/31

daretodiffer:




More like dating bf-gf relationship/ 13 times he has had to pay for sex

Omar Grant's head is messed up. Pay him no mind. But we have to be just though. What he did is not even Mu'tah. He's into random boy friend and girl friend relationship but tired to justify it.

lexiconkabir:
why do some muslims try to compare mutah and misyar? because from what i know, misyar marriage can be defined as a marriage contract between a man and a woman, in which the woman waives some of the rights she would have in a normal Islamic marriage. This sometimes takes place when, for example, there are many women who, as they get older, find it increasingly difficult to marry. In this case a woman opts for a husband who is not able to fulfil the normal marital duties like financial maintenance, or spending adequate time with her, for example. She considers that marrying such a husband is better than remaining unmarried. It’s noteworthy that once a marriage contract meets its Shari`ah requirements, it will be acceptable from the Islamic points of view irrespective of what people call such contract. Conditions of valid marriage are: The consent of both spouses, the consent of the Wali (guardian), the payment of the dower, the presence of the witnesses, and the announcement of the contract.

I agree that it does meet certain shari'ah requirements. And this misyar practices is primarily practiced in Saudi and it's not in favor of women. That's a big clause right there. It is not conventional marriage. It gives men (young men especially) to walk away from such "marriage" without responsibilities. This is wrong. It does have some legality approach but it still has some attribute of "mu'tah in it.

Maliki yamin is different and will evolve till the Day of Deen unlike what some people said that maliki yamin no longer exist. It does but not just worldwide anymore because slavery is "abolished" worldwide. Condition warranting maliki Yamin may not exist in Nigeria but definitely the condition exist in the middle east today. Maliki Yamin are NOT slave women. I stand to be corrected though.

@empiree, ofcourse i'm not a fan of misyar marriage, scholars such as albany and qaradawi also do not support this marriage, because women in this kind of marriage looses some rights compared to the normal marriage, but where i have problem is someone labelling it as "bid'ah", why is it bid'ah? doesnt it meet the shariah requirements? if it is bid'ah, i want to know why, this is the main reason why i brought the issue up.

lexiconkabir:
@empiree, ofcourse i'm not a fan of misyar marriage, scholars such as albany and qaradawi also do not support this marriage, because women in this kind of marriage looses some rights compared to the normal marriage, but where i have problem is someone labelling it as "bid'ah", why is it bid'ah? doesnt it meet the shariah requirements? if it is bid'ah, i want to know why, this is the main reason why i brought the issue up.

I dont see it as bidah either. I think the reason shia said it's bidah is because:

* of the term itself (which is pretty much irrelevant)

* it might have some sort of pre-determined deadline known to either party or both (red flag).

Empiree:
I dont see it as bidah either. I think the reason shia said it's bidah is because:

* of the term itself (which is pretty much irrelevant)

* it might have some sort of pre-determined deadline known to either party or both (red flag).

misyar shouldnt have pre-determined deadline, if it does then its no longer misyar but mutah.

Empiree:
I dont see it as bidah either.

Do you ever see anything as bidah?! mtcheew!

AlBaqir:

... Do not approach salat while you are intoxicated. This reduced their terrible consumption. And later at Madinah towards the Last year of the Prophet, there came ruling that alcohol is forbidden.

Olodo! What is the explanation of that verse of Qur'an(bolded) according to the Prophet(SAW) and His companions! What is the interpretation of the later verse that finally forbids alcohol?

Simply because you want to defend your evil shameful act of fornicating and committing adultery with innocent women in the name of mut'ah, you're here misinterpreting Allah's word!

Anyway, I don't have your time anymore! Don't bother quoting me! If you believe in your shameful mut'ah, just pray to Allah(SWT) that different men should be sleeping with your daughters, your sisters and your mother and be paying after servicing them!

Agent of shaytan!

Newnas:


Do you ever see anything as bidah?! mtcheew!

Really? Lol. So what is "misyar"? Sunna or bid'ah?

Newnas:


Do you ever see anything as bidah?! mtcheew!

salam brother, that was uncalled for.

Newnas:



قال أبوعبيد القاسم بن سلام: عاشرت الناس وكلمت أهل الكلام، فما رأيت أوسخ وسخًا ولا أقذر ولا أضعف حجة ولا أحمق من الرافضة. تأريخ ابن معين٢/٣١٠

Abu Ubayd alQasim bn salaam said;

I lived with people, and spoke to ahlul kalam (philosophers) and I have never met any dirtier or filthier, or weaker in evidence or more mentally retarded like the rafidhah (shia) .

tarikh Ibn Ma'een 2/31

This is not far from the truth, I have done a little bit of research on most claims made by the shi'ah, on the surface, you would think they do have genuine evidences, they can quote volumes upon volumes and even present snap shots of book pages, but on proper scrutiny, you would see that their arguments are based on shallow reasoning, spurious assumptions and clear cut lies. I wouldn't bother responding to them, but some wonderful brothers and sisters had done much research on their allegations and claims, exposing their lies, refuting and debunking their ways...They (shi'ah) are free to believe whatever they want and quote their books, I wouldn't bother, it's a free forum and free world.

MrOlai:

Olodo! What is the explanation of that verse of Qur'an(bolded) according to the Prophet(SAW) and His companions! What is the interpretation of the later verse that finally forbids alcohol?
Simply because you want to defend your evil shameful act of fornicating and committing adultery with innocent women in the name of mut'ah, you're here misinterpreting Allah's word!
Anyway, I don't have your time anymore! Don't bother quoting me! If you believe in your shameful mut'ah, just pray to Allah(SWT) that different men should be sleeping with your daughters, your sisters and your mother and be paying after servicing them!
Agent of shaytan!

that is the fanaticism we are talking about! you call it a shameful act, yet your likes admit it was permitted twice by the Prophet and then forbidden twice. so the Prophet (s) had permitted a shameful act, right? who is the olodo? this holier than thou attitude on mut'ah only rubs on your own shame. you insult the Prophet (s) with your arguments because whether or not it was later forbidden, the Prophet (s) had permitted it twice and forbade it twice according to your people.

does mut'ah allow different men to sleep with your daughters, sisters and mothers? is that what the conditions of mut'ah dictate? you are so little and mean that you think you are insulting his mother, daughters and sisters. mut'ah is for the widow and divorced, or the girl who is not virgin, or with the father's permission.

you call him agent of shaitan because of mut'ah. yet you admit that the Prophet had twice allowed it and twice forbade it. so the Prophet (auzobillah) was once an agent of shaitan too? silly people and you talk about reasoning!

as for @sino, you can quote all the books in the world. it is agreed that a hadith cannot abrogate a Quranic verse. chikena! and it is agreed verse 4:24 is about mut'ah-both its wordings and its context and history. you can make all the arguments in the world that someone did not use the verse to defend himself on mut'ah and it DOES NOT MATTER. the sahih hadiths that Umar banned it wont disappear from your books. you would have to edit them in the new editions to hide your own "shame".

sino:

This is not far from the truth, I have done a little bit of research on most claims made by the shi'ah, on the surface, you would think they do have genuine evidences, they can quote volumes upon volumes and even present snap shots of book pages, but on proper scrutiny, you would see that their arguments are based on shallow reasoning, spurious assumptions and clear cut lies. I wouldn't bother responding to them, but some wonderful brothers and sisters had done much research on their allegations and claims, exposing their lies, refuting and debunking their ways...They (shi'ah) are free to believe whatever they want and quote their books, I wouldn't bother, it's a free forum and free world.

what you simply do is to choose what you want to believe from the pool of evidences, including the ones IN YOUR OWN BOOKS that disproves your bid'ah and beliefs. it is called CHERRY-PICKING. you dont reason, and you dont examine anything. you cherry-pick and then justify your cherry-picking through arguments like why did someone not mention verse 4:24 if that verse is about mut'ah. go and ask Ibn Abbass in the grave. silly.