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

you can also ask them about TARAWEEH, the same question. their definition of bid'ah is all about others and not them. anything they do is automatic sunnah, even if it is a new concept or act and even if that concept or act is haram. it is the disease of cherry-picking and ta'assoob.a mixture of these two is a great disease of the heart without cure.

lexiconkabir:
salam brother, that was uncalled for.

Each person has a befitting response. What I have stated above is the most befitting for him.

Don't be in a haste to take sides.

@sino,

Albaqir made a very GOOD point that according to the Sunni hadiths of prohibition on mut'ah you have, it was purported through Imam Ali (as) that mut'ah was prohibited by the Prophet (s) in Khaybar FOREVER. and that was the account Imam Ali (as) is purported to have used against Ibn Abbas when the later was practicing it. yet, you also uphold another hadith as "sahih" which states the Prophet (s) forbade mut'ah (again) FOREVER in the conquest of Makkah about a year or two after the first "FOREVER PROHIBITION" in Khaybar. isnt that ridiculous? you guys have two "forverer prohibitions". per your arguments, it means in between, the Prophet (s) disregarded his alleged "first forever" prohibition to allow it for a period before he made another "forever prohibition". so the Prophet (s) did not know what "forever" means? that is to tell you it was never prohibited by the Prophet (s) but people who wanted to put words into the mouth of both the Prophet (s) and Imam Ali (as).

mut'ah is not an obligatory act. so whhy the stress? of course, the issue goes beyond mut'ah. it becomes a matter of bid'ah and who changed the sunnah of the Prophet (s) and added his own views and verdicts into the religion. you are trying hard to cover up for your hero who was the person who did ijtihad and passed his own view as a new law overruling the teachings of the Prophet (s). that is the crux of the matter.

SALAM.

@ Sino, I only have request of yours to reply.

1. "Arabic text" of "Ali" Khaybar report that Mut'ah is banned forever

2. Evidence that Prophet was the first to have recited al-Maidah: 87

# The rests of your arguments are repetitions. We have already go forth and back so there is no need to start it all over again. Besides what should be an academic discourse has turned into an uncontrollable deep-emotional argument with personal attack and abuse. I will rather call it quit.
..........................................................


# As per the first issue^, I maintained that text exist which says Mut'ah was banned forever at Khaybar. All Sunni English translations of those ahadith (which I posted earlier) included FOREVER whereas the Arabic text only reads "prohibited". I have attached screenshot of www.sunnah.com

# I might not be vigilant enough in taking the "Arabic text" into consideration, however I still maintained 100% that the alleged Khaybar prohibition of Mut'ah was forever and not temporal. My submission is still: If truly there was a rebuttal and correction from Imam Ali to Abdullah ibn Abbas far after the death of the Prophet, on Mut'ah, why did Ali argued against Ibn Abbas approval of Mut'ah using the "ban at Khaybar (6-7 H)" when both of them were present 100% at Fath Makkah (8-9 Hijrah) and Last Hajj (10 Hijrah) where Mut'ah was said to have been ordered/practiced and then banned "forever"?. If it is Authentic according to you that Mut'ah was practiced after Khaybar, then the banning at Khaybar has been abrogated completely and do not exit anymore as a Hujjah. The new prohibition at Fath Makkah or probably last Hajj are more sensible to be used as hujjah against Ibn Abbas not Khaybar.

ShiaMuslim:


you can also ask them about TARAWEEH, the same question. their definition of bid'ah is all about others and not them. anything they do is automatic sunnah, even if it is a new concept or act and even if that concept or act is haram. it is the disease of cherry-picking and ta'assoob.a mixture of these two is a great disease of the heart without cure.

umar only revived an act of voluntary worship of rasoolAllah pbuh, how is that bidah?

^No. 2 That Prophet was the first to have recited the ayah 87 of sura Maidah

Attached are the Arabic text and English (from both Sahih Bukhari and Musnad of Imam Ahmad), then snapshot from www.sunnah.com
.................................. ............................

Observation from the hadith
We are unsure about that exact military expedition which Ibn Mas'ud was making reference to. However, we know that a lot – perhaps the majority - of its Muslim soldiers were youths as stated by him. He himself died during the rule of ‘Uthman in 32 H* and his age was sixty three then*. This means that he was already 31 during the Hijrah and had reached 33 by the time of the Battle of Badr – the first battle in Islam. So, whenever that expedition was, Ibn Mas’ud was, by all indications, already beyond youthfulness. Therefore, when he said “and we were youths”, he was most probably referring only to the dominant composition of the army. It seems that this is also what explains the tone of the ayah. The Verse of al-Mut’ah had been revealed before that expedition. So, when these youthful Sahabah talked of castrating themselves instead of going into mut’ah, it looked as though they had made it haram for themselves. As a result, the Prophet quoted Qur’an 5:87 (which also had been revealed before then) to declare that temporary marriage was one of the good things mentioned in that ayah, that it was made halal by Allah, and that the Muslims must not make it ḥarām for themselves.

*Ref: Shams al-Din Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam wa Wafiyat al-Mashahir wa al-A’lam (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Salam Tadmuri], vol. 3, p. 389

lexiconkabir:
umar only revived an act of voluntary worship of rasoolAllah pbuh, how is that bidah?

Funny. Umar himself according to your ahadith confirmed his establishment to be Bid'ah. He labeled it "This is good BID'AH". And Umar concluded that "The one they will wake up from and then pray is BETTER than this one they are praying". The narrator said, "He meant Tahajjud.

So your Tarawih is Umar's Bid'ah. Not Prophetic Sunnah of Tahajjud at Late night.

Don't let us derail this Mut'ah thread with Tarawih issue. There is thread already for Tarawih:
https://www.nairaland.com/2080782/misconception-salat-tarawih-bida-sunnah

AlBaqir:


Funny. Umar himself according to your ahadith confirmed his establishment to be Bid'ah. He labeled it "This is good BID'AH". And Umar concluded that "The one they will wake up from and then pray is BETTER than this one they are praying". The narrator said, "He meant Tahajjud.

So your Tarawih is Umar's Bid'ah. Not Prophetic Sunnah of Tahajjud at Late night.

Don't let us derail this Mut'ah thread with Tarawih issue. There is thread already for Tarawih:
https://www.nairaland.com/2080782/misconception-salat-tarawih-bida-sunnah

"Good bid'ah" was used in the linguistic sense and not the shariah sense, anyway like you rightly said, this thread is about mutah, and wouldnt make sense if it is derailed.

ShiaMuslim:


you can also ask them about TARAWEEH, the same question. their definition of bid'ah is all about others and not them. anything they do is automatic sunnah, even if it is a new concept or act and even if that concept or act is haram. it is the disease of cherry-picking and ta'assoob.a mixture of these two is a great disease of the heart without cure.

Misyar is a nikkah that fulfills all the conditions of the Sharia i.e the pillars and obligations of nikkah.

The only thing that makes Misyar a point of interest is that one or both of the two spouses decides to compromise some of the rights given to her by the Sharia like spending, accommodation etc for the women. cooking and washing clothes etc for the men. till they finally get things in place.

So Misyar is a valid Sharia marriage, the only thing special about it is that it has a name. in fact it's done among many Muslim youths in Nigeria especially those in higher institutions and no scholar has raised a brow about it.

These people just want to hold on to something to support their misguidance .

As for its being sunnah or bidah, nikkah in Islam is sunnah but Misyar as a type of nikkah is only mubah and no special punishment or reward applies to it.

As for taraweeh, the evidence for that is in the sunnah and ijmaa .

The Messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam observed it in his lifetime.

The messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam also said: stick to my sunnah and the sunnah of my rightly guided caliphs.
And Umar bn Khattaab rodiyaLLaahu anhu is one of them. so the general meaning of the hadith covers him and this his action.

The companions also agreed to it and none of them raised a brow against it.

As for the statement: "what a good bidah this is"! Then it refers to the literal meaning of the word not the shareeah meaning.

If it were a bidah as the shias claim, Ali bn Abi talib that they claim to follow would have changed it during his reign!

Newnas:

Misyar is a nikkah that fulfills all the conditions of the Sharia i.e the pillars and obligations of nikkah.
The only thing that makes Misyar a point of interest is that one or both of the two spouses decides to compromise some of the rights given to her by the Sharia like spending, accommodation etc for the women. cooking and washing clothes etc for the men. till they finally get things in place.
So Misyar is a valid Sharia marriage, the only thing special about it is that it has a name. in fact it's done among many Muslim youths in Nigeria especially those in higher institutions and no scholar has raised a brow about it.
These people just want to hold on to something to support their misguidance .
As for its being sunnah or bidah, nikkah in Islam is sunnah but Misyar as a type of nikkah is only mubah and no special punishment or reward applies to it.

Mut'ah is a nikkah that fulfills all the conditions of the Sharia i.e the pillars and obligations of nikkah.
The only thing that makes Mutah a point of interest is that one or both of the two spouses decides to compromise some of the rights given to her by the Sharia like having the wedding with a time limit or expiration until both partners choose to make it permanent, for the women. cooking and washing clothes etc for the men. till they finally get things in place.

So Mut'ah is a valid Sharia marriage, the only thing special about it is that it has a time limit (divorce date). in fact it's done among many Muslim youths in Nigeria especially those in higher institutions and no scholar has raised a brow about it.
These people just want to hold on to something to support their misguidance .
As for its being sunnah or bidah, nikkah in Islam is sunnah but mut'ah as a type of nikkah is only mustahhab and no special punishment or reward applies to it.

As for taraweeh, the evidence for that is in the sunnah and ijmaa .
The Messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam observed it in his lifetime.
The messenger of Allah alyhissolaat wassalaam also said: stick to my sunnah and the sunnah of my rightly guided caliphs.
And Umar bn Khattaab rodiyaLLaahu anhu is one of them. so the general meaning of the hadith covers him and this his action.
The companions also agreed to it and none of them raised a brow against it.
As for the statement: "what a good bidah this is"! Then it refers to the literal meaning of the word not the shareeah meaning.
If it were a bidah as the shias claim, Ali bn Abi talib that they claim to follow would have changed it during his reign!

Tawaraweeh was prohibited by the Prophet (S).
The Messenger of Allah (s) discouraged it.
the Messenger of Allah said to stick to his sunnah and the sunnah of his rightly guided caliphs, who were reported in Sahih Muslim to be 12 in number. how did you get four?
Umar was not one of the 12 caliphs the Prophet (s) prophesied.
there were companions who raised an eyebrow.
there is nothing in Islam as "literal meaning of the word" when it comes to a'maal (actions of worship). what happens to the saying: "every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance leads to the hell fire" this is the hadith your people like parroting most when they label other Muslims as "ahlul-bid'ah"; but here we have those who sentence other Muslims to eternal hell fire differentiating between literal and shariah bid'ah!

it is incredible that in every bid'ah enforced by Umar, either through acting on something or discouraging something, the name of Imam Ali (as) pops up!!! why? so you have straws to clutch at since the Shia would refuse the bid'ah of Umar. you will wrongly abuse the name of Imam Ali (as), since he is the first Shia Imam and the first rightly guided caliph as per the Hadith of the 12 Imams in Sahih Muslim. in the case of Taraweeh, Imam Ali (as) did not practice or enforce it. he met people practicing during his khilafa in Kufa. the reason why he did not use force to prevent them is in the hadith in question. it is stated there.

Six: Mut’ah yet again became Halal at the Farwell Pilgrimage despite it being ‘permanenlty’ made haram on ‘five’ previous occasions

Although Mut’ah had already previously been made Haram ‘forever’ until the day of Resurrection, on five separate occasions in alleged ‘Sahih’ Sunni Hadiths, Sunni literature points to this outlawed practice being made HALAL for the sixth time at the time of the farewell pilgrimage (Hujatul Wid’a) in the 10th year of Hijri. This Sahih hadith can be found with different chains of narration in:
1. Sunnan Abu Dawud, Hadith 1778
2. Mustakhraj Abi ‘Awana, Hadith 3241
3. Sunnah Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Nikah, Hadith 1952

In this tradition, once again Sabra is saying that the Holy Prophet told them to perform Mut’ah with women at Hujjat-ul-Wid’a (10th hijri) and after some time Mut’ah was again made permanently Haram until the day of Resurrection.

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/was-it-abrogated-by-sunnah.html


My Comment:

the use of the terms "forever" and "until the day of resurrection" in Sunni "Sahih" literature, and after which it is later on reported that mut'ah was made HALAL and then again "forever forbidden", and the same thing keep happening severally on historical events ( "forever forbidden" and then made "halal", so on and so forth) points to the fact that something is really FISHY! there is foul play. what does "forever" means?

ShiaMuslim:
... mut'ah is for the widow and divorced, or the girl who is not virgin, or with the father's permission.

Another agent of shaytan!
All the evils you are doing to innocent girls/women in the name of mut'ah, will you allow other men to do the same to your daughters, sisters and mother? I repeat! This is another evil one of your people did to an innocent sister! Listen to her yourself:

"I was fourteen years old and my relationship with my parents was on the edge just like any other teenager. I started to become interested in boys. I felt as if no one understood me, not even my friends. I especially didn’t feel pretty with my braces.

It all changed when I met him. It was fascinating to know that a college student would care so much about me. He was the most wonderful person. He treated me like a queen, and soon we became the best of friends. I felt I could tell him anything. As our friendship progressed, we talked about different topics including religion. He had different beliefs than me; he was Shia while I was Sunni. We always argued upon the differences. He had a way with making things sound bettter than what they were. Soon I became very confused.

One day he mentioned the idea of Mutah. He told me that it was a type of temporary marriage, which was Halal even in Sunni books. At first I didn’t believe him, but he used sources such as Bukhari and Muslim. I took his word for it, and before I realized, I was into a lot of trouble. I was in Mutah for four years. As time went by, I learnt that I had lost my honor and dignity to someone who had done this to several other girls.

I hope to inform and educate the people about the disease of Mutah, which is spreading rapidly in the Sunni community. It is the goal of certain Shia individuals to do Mutah with innocent girls, who lack knowledge of religion and experience of life. They convince them with their beliefs, and create confusion in their minds. I beg every sister, brother, father, mother, and friend to take a closer look at their dear ones, and make sure they do not become victims to the concept of Mutah.

Mutah is a form of temporary marriage whereby a man can “marry” a woman for an agreed amount of time and money (mahr). In Mutah, the husband is not financially responsible for the wife. There are no set limits in this kind of marriage by the Shia. According to Shia beliefs, no witnesses nor a permission of the guardian is needed (the Sunni father does not believe in Mutah), and there is no limit on the number of times one can do Mutah.

Also, the time period can be as little as one hour to as long as sixty years. In addition, a man who is permanently married can do as many Mutah as he feels like, even with married women. This is very similar to prostitution indeed.

Every day, more and more girls in our community are falling victim to this idea of Mutah presented by the Shia individuals. These girls are helpless in asking anyone for help, especially their parents. Please, teach and inform one another about the idea of Mutah, and our beliefs regarding it. Please do it for the honor and dignity of our Islam and for the love of Allah!

If everyone practised Mutah, which is what Shi’ism encourages, then we’d all probably die of STDs. There are Shia[code][/code] hadith which say that a man should perform Mutah with a thousand women. The medical implications of the implementation of these Shia beliefs would mean an epidemic of diseases. It is well-known that Shia guys are engaging in Mutah, oftentimes preying on innocent Sunni and Shia girls. This has become a major problem on university campuses world-wide."

Yours Truly,
A Concerned Muslim Sister
https://www.nairaland.com/828367/plea-muslim-sister

ShiaMuslim:

... mut'ah is for the widow and divorced, or the girl who is not virgin, or with the father's permission.

This is another sister you people turned her life upside down:

"A Muslim woman known as Fairuza is said to offer sex services to men but strictly keeps the Shia Islamic principles.
The 25-yr-old escort reportedly performs the quickie service by reading a religious text in Arabic and takes the money as a "dowry".

And once the deed is done, she divorced the two of them from their temporary marriage – “nikah mut’ah” – arrangement.

According to The Sun, belly dancer Fairuza told an undercover reporter that once the marriage is up the client must wait three months to request the service again.

In a secret video filmed by the newspaper, she revealed: "I married myself to you for one hour and agreed upon the money you’ve given me. It’s £300 and £50 for the marriage. If you want to renew it we can do it within three months.

“Even though we do mut’ah, you must still use a condom. I don’t do it without condom. Some people think that if you do mut’ah you don’t have to use a condom.”

The Daily Star reports that Fairuza is believed to be one of many Muslim women now offering the guilt-free service.
On a hidden escort advertising website, Fairuza boasts to have "very beautiful natural 34DD breasts" and a "very pretty face with juicy lips".

Her Twitter account, which is thought to have recently been deleted, had more than 85,000 followers – all of which could see her raunchy topless posts.

In the video she explains that some men are converting to Shia Islam to take advantage of the sin-free sex.

She explains: “I did it with one Saudi who converted to Shia Islam only so he could do mut’ah.
"He was in London for two months. I was his wife for the two months. I lived with him and I wasn’t allowed to be with any other man. He paid very good money.
“He is coming back next year and we’ll do it again."

https://www.nairaland.com/attachments/3052725_muslimwoman_jpegd5edbf08b3bf0382c789302ed0b7b45b

https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pulse.ng/religion/in-uk-muslim-prostitute-marries-customers-to-avoid-fornication-divorces-them-after-sex-id3598492.html&ved=0CBkQFjAAahUKEwiHueLG1IHJAhXDRQ8KHa1-CLs&usg=AFQjCNEerAcGfKE3EHNzvmYbJST1kHPF5g&sig2=iRVxDI9LfWjWf_uwmJQ5BQ

Pray to Allah(SWT) that what is happening to her should happen to your sisters, daughters and your mother!

^^^

Mr. Agent of the Angels,

no amount of subjective/individual stories you an conjure up that can deny, falsify, nullify, abrogate or discredit something halal. whether you want to practice it or not, is left for you and me to decide. it is not obligatory. but do not change the religion and make it haram, especially when there are guidelines based on the Sunnah to practice the act. if a boy has deceived a girl, it does not mean the boy is doing the right thing or the practice as stipulated in Islam. there are cases of Saudi men using permanent marriage to lure poor Yemen girls into marriage. after the marriage is consummated, the Saudi men abandon the girls in Yemen, and run back to Saudi Arabia across the border. should that make marriage altogether forbidden? there are Muslims who commit terrorism, and kill innocent people in the name of Islam. should we altogether make Islam forbidden? so after failing to present the facts, you want to stir up emotions. it is not done like that. Islam is not practiced as such. Islamic practices are not judged and graded based on how people practice them or abuse their practice, but how the religion itself stipulate the conditions.

ShiaMuslim:
mut'ah is for the widow and divorced, or the girl who is not virgin, or with the father's permission.

This is another terrible one coming from your scholar:

Shia Ayatollah Khomeini stated in his book "Tahir-ul-Wasila", Vol. 2, Page No. 292, "Temporary marriage can be for one day, a night, and even just a few hours ! But for Khomeini, that was not enough so he further states in the same book on Page No. 292, "Temporary marriage can be performed with harlots and prostitutes".

Is this Islam? Or an evil?

ShiaMuslim:
...mut'ah is for the widow and divorced, or the girl who is not virgin, or with the father's permission.

This is another fatwa from shia scholar saying a cook/chef can be having sex with the daughter of the house owner in the name of mut'ah in the house.. Subhanallah!

https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DgAj3OluD87U&ved=0CBoQuAIwAGoVChMIxobpvtCByQIVhaYeCh19VwLk&usg=AFQjCNGLXdItwgPZCTpJpgw7ih5ypSCRrA&sig2=Fc-EJpFLZlI1Kt2hhjc0WA

Is this also Islam?
You shia people cannot give Islam bad name! You will only create more problems for yourselves!

^^

that is a fiqh (jurisprudence) question. the opinion of Imam Khomeini on this does not make mut'ah more or less validated.

if you have problem with a harlot, or with doing it for one or two hours, then look for a pious woman who is widowed or divorced and do it for two years. the essence of my reply is that the details does not change the fact the practice is Sunnah. it all matters about the intentions. and when you talk of intentions, even permanent marriage and every other Sunnah can be abused and misused.

and what if a harlot repents? will Allah forgive her or not? mut'ah for your info is a way of stopping pros.titution. whether you like it or not, pros.titution is prevalent in Muslim societies. women sell their bodies for money. in mut'ah, the woman is wifed, and you do not have to pay a certain amount for s e x. you can do mut'ah and use dates or any commodity as dowry.

again, the question is how many people, male or female, would want to do mut'ah instead of permanent marriage? the goal of every Muslim man and woman is to live a chaste and decent life. mut'ah is for exceptional cases. you do not have to do and we all do not. but we should not change the religion of Allah based on our emotions.

MrOlai:


This is another fatwa from shia scholar saying a cook/chef can be having sex with the daughter of the house owner in the name of mut'ah in the house.. Subhanallah!

https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DgAj3OluD87U&ved=0CBoQuAIwAGoVChMIxobpvtCByQIVhaYeCh19VwLk&usg=AFQjCNGLXdItwgPZCTpJpgw7ih5ypSCRrA&sig2=Fc-EJpFLZlI1Kt2hhjc0WA

Is this also Islam?
You shia people cannot give Islam bad name! You will only create more problems for yourselves!

i am sure you did not watch that video. the speaker in that clip is speaking about mut'ah for the sake of mahram. since a man, even though employed in the house cannot be in the same house with female muslims, there must be some sort of relation. the conducting of mut'ah with the daughter, is so as the foreign man can be the "son in law" of the girl's mother. it is not for s e x. even at that understanding, how many people would like the idea? this is ijtihad by the speaker. it is his opinion and idea of how to employ a practice that has its purpose in Islam.

and your holier than thou attitude continues. should i dig fatwas by Sunni scholars that are giving Islam bad name? a while back there was a thread on the forum that took count of those Sunni fatwa, from having s e x with the dead wife, to bre astfeeding of the adult male, to forbidden women from coming into contact with cucumbers. you guys promote the idea that if a mature woman bre astfeeds an adult man, the man becomes her son/child through bre astfeeding. and then, he becomes halal to see her without hijab or cohabit with her in the same house without a mahram. even though this is evidently ridiculous, and the Sunni hadith reported by Aisha to support this obscene act has no basis in Islam, because a male must be bre astfed at infancy by a mature woman before he can be considered her son by bre astfeeding. this is a similar case with doing a mut'ah nikah agreement with a girl so the male servant can be related to the the family and be able to work in the house if the male mahram/guardian/father is not around. it is not for s e x as there can be no s e x. but just imagine adult bre astfeeding.

so please, either deal with the facts and remain in the context of the discussion in a decent way, or just respect yourself.

ShiaMuslim:
^^
that is a fiqh (jurisprudence) question. the opinion of Imam Khomeini on this does not make mut'ah more or less validated.

...what if a harlot repents?

You have no shame at all! I don't have your time! I'm done with you!

MrOlai:

You have no shame at all! I don't have your time! I'm done with you!

MrOlai:

You have no shame at all! I don't have your time! I'm done with you!

to say a harlot can repent and mend her ways is a "shameful thing"; but to defend those who oppressed and harmed the Prophet's (s) Ahlul-Bayt (a) by saying the oppressors could have repented just before death (even though there is no evidence for such) is not a shameful thing to people like you?

Rafidi:

to say a harlot can repent and mend her ways is a "shameful thing"; but to defend those who oppressed and harmed the Prophet's (s) Ahlul-Bayt (a) by saying the oppressors could have repented just before death (even though there is no evidence for such) is not a shameful thing to people like you?

ShiaMuslim:

Go and preach to harlots and prostitutes to repent! Stop commiting adultery with them! Stop committing adultery with girls/women in the name of mut'ah! That's the message!

MrOlai:



Go and preach to harlots and prostitutes to repent! Stop commiting adultery with them! Stop committing adultery with girls/women in the name of mut'ah! That's the message!

ShiaMuslim Rafidi AlBaqir etc You should preach this meritorious act of ibadah to your moms, sisters aunts and even ensure that your daughters get at least a dozen mut'ah each.

That way you would have raised them all to the level of Husayn and you won't have much problem in qiyamah.

Obuko!

AlBaqir:
@ Sino, I only have request of yours to reply.

1. "Arabic text" of "Ali" Khaybar report that Mut'ah is banned forever

2. Evidence that Prophet was the first to have recited al-Maidah: 87

# The rests of your arguments are repetitions. We have already go forth and back so there is no need to start it all over again. Besides what should be an academic discourse has turned into an uncontrollable deep-emotional argument with personal attack and abuse. I will rather call it quit.
..........................................................


# As per the first issue^, I maintained that text exist which says Mut'ah was banned forever at Khaybar. All Sunni English translations of those ahadith (which I posted earlier) included FOREVER whereas the Arabic text only reads "prohibited". I have attached screenshot of www.sunnah.com

# I might not be vigilant enough in taking the "Arabic text" into consideration, however I still maintained 100% that the alleged Khaybar prohibition of Mut'ah was forever and not temporal. My submission is still: If truly there was a rebuttal and correction from Imam Ali to Abdullah ibn Abbas far after the death of the Prophet, on Mut'ah, why did Ali argued against Ibn Abbas approval of Mut'ah using the "ban at Khaybar (6-7 H)" when both of them were present 100% at Fath Makkah (8-9 Hijrah) and Last Hajj (10 Hijrah) where Mut'ah was said to have been ordered/practiced and then banned "forever"?. If it is Authentic according to you that Mut'ah was practiced after Khaybar, then the banning at Khaybar has been abrogated completely and do not exit anymore as a Hujjah. The new prohibition at Fath Makkah or probably last Hajj are more sensible to be used as hujjah against Ibn Abbas not Khaybar.

So after acknowledging the fact that the original Arabic texts do not have the word “forever” you still hold on to your view? Who does that?! Now you have jumped to another issue, why did Ali (ra) mention khaybar prohibition and not that of fath makkah. After answering this, what other point would you bring to reject this authentic narration?! Is this how your teachers operate? Looking for irrelevancies to falsify authentic narrations?

When it is said that you guys are shallow, and you all look for flimsy excuses to falsify authentic narrations, it’s as if we are insulting you. But isn’t it quite obvious now?

Well to answer your question, let me borrow your brother shi’a’s comment when I raised the fact that no sahabah ever used Qur’an 4:24 to argue the permissibility of mut’ah even Ibn Abbas, he said I should go ask Ibn Abbas (ra). So bro, go to Ali's (ra) grave and ask why he didn’t use the prohibition at fath Makkah.

On a serious note, when reading through the sharh of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawiy, a good point was made and I’ll paraphrase here, “that individuals narrated what they know and heard about the prohibition of mut’ah”. Thus we can say, some knew about the prohibition at khaybar, while some at fath Makkah, and also, there should be no need for confusion or contradiction here, the case of permitting it after khaybar was a rukhsoh, and then followed prohibition till Day of Judgment as it has been established previously, it is a case of repeated prohibition. So it is possible that Ali (ra) was only stating the prohibition he was aware of to correct Ibn Abbas (ra). Ali (ra) using the prohibition at khaybar is even irrelevant, We have seen that Ibn Abbas(ra) himself also thought that mut’ah is just like eating haram meat for survival, nowhere in Islam can we find that something haram that is done out of necessity, would now become halal continuously. Mut’ah is haram till the day of judgment, if your contemporary scholars and yourself are now looking for ways to claim it is not permitted generally like your people have been practicing from time immemorial, it is because you guys are ashamed, and you have no proof to hold on to except for bringing Ibn Abbas majorly, and that would also affirm that it is prohibited, an act of haram like eating haram meat carried out due to necessity can never become halal.

Mut'ah is prohibited till the day of judgment!

AlBaqir:
^No. 2 That Prophet was the first to have recited the ayah 87 of sura Maidah

Attached are the Arabic text and English (from both Sahih Bukhari and Musnad of Imam Ahmad), then snapshot from www.sunnah.com
.................................. ............................

Observation from the hadith
We are unsure about that exact military expedition which Ibn Mas'ud was making reference to. However, we know that a lot – perhaps the majority - of its Muslim soldiers were youths as stated by him. He himself died during the rule of ‘Uthman in 32 H* and his age was sixty three then*. This means that he was already 31 during the Hijrah and had reached 33 by the time of the Battle of Badr – the first battle in Islam. So, whenever that expedition was, Ibn Mas’ud was, by all indications, already beyond youthfulness. Therefore, when he said “and we were youths”, he was most probably referring only to the dominant composition of the army. It seems that this is also what explains the tone of the ayah. The Verse of al-Mut’ah had been revealed before that expedition. So, when these youthful Sahabah talked of castrating themselves instead of going into mut’ah, it looked as though they had made it haram for themselves. As a result, the Prophet quoted Qur’an 5:87 (which also had been revealed before then) to declare that temporary marriage was one of the good things mentioned in that ayah, that it was made halal by Allah, and that the Muslims must not make it ḥarām for themselves.

*Ref: Shams al-Din Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam wa Wafiyat al-Mashahir wa al-A’lam (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Salam Tadmuri], vol. 3, p. 389

Another issue I have with you is that you lack the proper knowledge of hadith, I also do not claim to be knowledgeable, but when I read your analysis, I read your own projections, not backed up by any scholastic evidences, you try to inject your views to narrations, interpreting to serve your interests.

This narration has a constant narrator, which is Qays (ra), what does that imply? There are variations in the content of a narration attributed to the same person, in most cases when the variations cannot be reconciled, the narration is weakened, it is called mudtarib. While variations in narrations can be reconciled, they can also give us more information about the narrations. As I had stated previously, the narration in sahih Muslim states clearly that it was Ibn Mas’ood that recited the verse, since the same person is the narrator, then there should be no option of saying that it was the Prophet (SAW) that first recited the verse, before Ibn Mas’ood recited it. As stated in An-Nawawi’s sharh, Ibn Mas’ood was the reciter, stating the permissibility of mut’ah, the reason why this narration is the first narration in sahih Muslim, indicating the permissibility of mut’ah in the beginning (mind you, this has nothing to do with when Quran 5:87 was revealed, because Ibn Mas'ud was narrating his experience with the Prophet (saw) to those present, which most likely would be after the death of the Prophet (saw) ).

[b]“Some scholars commented that Ibn Mas’ud’s recitation of the verse suggests that people transgressed by making mutah forbidden.

However, Ibn Al-Qayyim in Zad Al-Ma’aad (p. 405) provides another possible interpretation. He said:
He wanted to use this verse in order to respond to those that say it is completely permissible and that he is a transgressor since the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – only allowed it out of necessity and need, during military expeditions, without there being women, and with extreme need for women. So, whoever legalized it in towns, which have an abundance of women and the ability for one to get married, is a transgressor, and Allah does not like transgressors.

It seems that this explanation is more likely. This is because in the Mustakhraj of Abi Awana of Saheeh Muslim (#3319), there is an addition, at the end of this Hadith where Ibn Mas’ud says: “Then it (mut’ah) was forbidden.” Ibn Hajar, in Al-Fath, when quoting Al-Isma’eeli in the explanation of hadith #4686 in Al-Bukhari adds that similar additions have been narrated from Ibn Uyayna and Ma’mar.”[/b]

Note that this portends a problem for your claims, for naturally, quoting verse 5:87 instead of 4:24, which is attributed to Ibn Abbas as referring to mut’ah, should have been the appropriate verse to support mut’ah, hence, 4:24 was and is never about mut’ah.

Secondly, if we are to say it was the Prophet (SAW) that recited the verse to permit mut’ah, then, according to you, you said the verse was revealed few months to the prophet’s (SAW) death, thus the prophet (saw) and Ibn Mas’ood must have gone on an expedition together before his death, which I demanded that you give me details of the expedition.

Thirdly, the verse said not to forbid good thing that Allah has made permissible, but your infallibles have used derogatory words to describe this practice, so who is saying the truth and who is lying? Why would a good thing only become permissible due to necessity and a case of desperation?! Think! Like my teacher would say back in the days, “if something is good, it has no other name than good, and if something is bad, it has no other name to call it than bad!”

Fourthly, if you say it was the Prophet (saw) that recited this verse to permit mut’ah, then it means that there was never a case of mut’ah before this period (few months to the death of the Prophet), no one knew what mu’ah was until this period, we would have to reject any narration about mut’ah before this period. If you claim that the companions knew about mut’ah and made it forbidden for themselves, then the questions you need to answer is how did they know? How and why did they make it forbidden for themselves? You’ll have to provide ample and authentic evidences for your claims.

Lastly, Scholars of hadith do not look at a narration in isolation, when there are corroborating narrations, they analyze them and make informed conclusion. As I have said previously, all narrations in regards to the permissibility of mut’ah were attributed to the Prophet (saw), and no where did the permission attributed to the Qur’an, except in the tafsir of Qur’an 4:24 which scholars had rejected as not part of the Qur’an. Therefore, the case of mut’ah is simple and straight forward; it was permitted and later on prohibited till the Day of Judgment.

The most rational and logical analysis had already been presented AlBaqir, you would only be going in circles, and arguing blindly if you keep playing this mut’ah card being permitted continuously. I believe you people's problem with the prohibition is stemmed from you people's hatred for Umar (ra), the reason why you would fight tooth and nail to absolve Ali(ra) and falsify authentic narrations, because I see no reason why something in which you would not wish for your daughter, nor yourself be this important to you to accept as being halal in Islam.

sino:


So after acknowledging the fact that the original Arabic texts do not have the word “forever” you still hold on to your view? Who does that?! Now you have jumped to another issue, why did Ali (ra) mention khaybar prohibition and not that of fath makkah. After answering this, what other point would you bring to reject this authentic narration?! Is this how your teachers operate? Looking for irrelevancies to falsify authentic narrations?

Subah'Allah! It seem you have a forgetful memory chairman. This is not the first time I have raised the question faah. At the very beginning of this debate, even before I posted the English translation of the hadith which says "forever prohibition at khaybar".

# I raised my question then, and now based on the so-called rebuttal of Imam Ali to Ibn Abbas verdict using Khaybar. And my point is it is only sensible that Ali using Khaybar verdict against Ibn Abbas means it is "forever".

Check your fact right before you accuse.

sino:

When it is said that you guys are shallow, and you all look for flimsy excuses to falsify authentic narrations, it’s as if we are insulting you. But isn’t it quite obvious now?

Its a free world. And it has been proven not once that some of you guys have big mouth. Am not bothered.

sino:

Well to answer your question, let me borrow your brother shi’a’s comment when I raised the fact that no sahabah ever used Qur’an 4:24 to argue the permissibility of mut’ah even Ibn Abbas, he said I should go ask Ibn Abbas (ra). So bro, go to Ali's (ra) grave and ask why he didn’t use the prohibition at fath Makkah.

Qur'an states:

"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" {surah an-Nisa: 24}

# Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310H) in his Tafsir [Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Qur'an (Dar al-Fikr; 1415 H), vol. 5, p. 19],

# Imam 'Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211H) in his al-Musannaf [vol. 7, p. 498, # 14022],

# Imam al-Hafiz ibn Kathir (d. 774H) in his Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim [( 2nd edition, 1420 H), vol. 2, p. 259],

# And Imam al-Hakim (d. 410H) ALL document with more or less similar versions:

"Abu Nadrah: I read to Ibn Abbas: {Those of them with whom you contract mutah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He said: {"Those of them with whom you contract Mutah 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 and Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) comments: This ḥadīth is Sahih upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.

Source: {al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H), vol. 2, p. 334, # 3192}

Imam Ibn Kathir gives further information [ref. cited above]:

"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}"

# Kindly get your fact right. Sahabah confirmed the ayah is for Mut'ah.

sino:

On a serious note, when reading through the sharh of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawiy, a good point was made and I’ll paraphrase here, “that individuals narrated what they know and heard about the prohibition of mut’ah”. Thus we can say, some knew about the prohibition at khaybar, while some at fath Makkah, and also, there should be no need for confusion or contradiction here, the case of permitting it after khaybar was a rukhsoh, and then followed prohibition till Day of Judgment as it has been established previously, it is a case of repeated prohibition. So it is possible that Ali (ra) was only stating the prohibition he was aware of to correct Ibn Abbas (ra). Ali (ra) using the prohibition at khaybar is even irrelevant, We have seen that Ibn Abbas(ra) himself also thought that mut’ah is just like eating haram meat for survival, nowhere in Islam can we find that something haram that is done out of necessity, would now become halal continuously. Mut’ah is haram till the day of judgment, if your contemporary scholars and yourself are now looking for ways to claim it is not permitted generally like your people have been practicing from time immemorial, it is because you guys are ashamed, and you have no proof to hold on to except for bringing Ibn Abbas majorly, and that would also affirm that it is prohibited, an act of haram like eating haram meat carried out due to necessity can never become halal.

@Underlined,

#1. Only Ali reported the so-called "prohibition of Mut'ah" at Khaybar + Prohibition of Donkey meat.

# Jabir ibn Abdullah, Abdullah ibn Umar and countless of Sahabah were also at Khaybar. They only reported prohibition of Donkey meat. This alone give suspicion about the so-called Mut'ah prohibition at Khaybar.

#2. The same with Fath Makkah. Only ONE Sahabah reported it. Where were other Sahabah? Abu Bakr and Umar continued to allow Mut'ah during their Khilafah until Umar forbid it in the case of Amr ibn Hurayth. Jabir ibn Abdullah and Abdullah ibn Abbas continue to practice Mut'ah...Were they all unaware of the prohibition at "Khaybar" and "Fath Makkah"? To say that all other Sahabah were (or might) not aware of the prohibition of Mut'ah is desperate measure.

# THE ONUS LIES ON YOU TO GIVE A SAHIH EVIDENCE THAT ALI (at Fath Makkah), JABIR, IBN ABBAS, ABU BAKR AND UMAR etc WERE NOT AWARE OF THE PROHIBITION OF MUT'AH.

sino:

Mut'ah is prohibited till the day of judgment!

By who?!

^@ Sino, about the case of Ibn Mas'ud.

# It is very unfortunate that I have never ever seen you admitting simple truth. You challenged that I should produce evidence that it was the Prophet that first used the verse. I produced two of your authentic sources. Instead of admitting first before bringing whatever suggestion of your Ulama, you stubbornly refuse to do that. All I see is arrogance and desperation to bring Mut'ah down by all means.

# There is no single hadith that says Ibn Mas'ud ever back down on Mut'ah. And he died during the reign of Uthman. And it is obvious he used the report to validate Mut'ah.

# As per the interpretation of your Ulama trying to reconcile and maintained that Prophet could not have read the verse (as against a clear report in Sahih Bukhari and Musnad Ahmad), that is one side interpretation. I have already submitted mine to reconcile the two hadiths from the same source.

@brother Albaqir, and bro sino,

the term "forever" and "till the day of judgment" may not be found in the hadith of the alleged prohibition in Khaybar. but they are found in the hadith of the alleged prohibition in Fath Makkah. and that is the third event during which it is narrated it was forbidden. thereafter, there are other events after the "forever prohibition" that it is again narrated that mut'ah was permitted, and then "prohibited forever". so this "forever prohibition" that does not hold water. if it was not prohibited "forever" at Khaybar, as it is evident and agreed it was later permitted and prohibited in the conquest of Makkah, then when was it forbidden "forever"? we can then cling on to the argument that the prohibitions are not "forever". and if you can bring us the hadith with the first "forever prohibition", then you will face problem because the "forever prohibition" followed another and another and another "forever prohibition". so when was it "forever"?

please check for the number of times of the "forever prohibitions" are said to have occurred:

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/was-it-abrogated-by-sunnah.html

MrOlai:

Go and preach to harlots and prostitutes to repent! Stop commiting adultery with them! Stop committing adultery with girls/women in the name of mut'ah! That's the message!

do not be childish please. this is an act it is agreed the Prophet (s) had permitted, regardless whether you believe it was later on in the long run forbidden by him or by someone else, and regardless if there are people who abuse the practice. so your sentiments and emotions are not rational assertions.

MrOlai:
Hmmm! Wonders shall never seize!

what is the source of the article (posted by newnas)? no source!

what is the source or reference for the alleged words of the scholars you quoted? no source!

the references you gave in the content cannot be found or validated.

now answer this: do you believe the rubbish you either made up/copied, or do you simply not care whether it is credible or not, but you want others to believe it because "the end justifies the means"; and whatever causes damage to the name and image of the Shia, you are good with it?

it is not surprising, and not shocking. these are your ways that the Wahhabi ideology has made you follow.

Rafidi:

what is the source of the article (posted by newnas)? no source!
what is the source or reference for the alleged words of the scholars you quoted? no source!
the references you gave in the content cannot be found or validated.
now answer this: do you believe the rubbish you either made up/copied, or do you simply not care whether it is credible or not, but you want others to believe it because "the end justifies the means"; and whatever causes damage to the name and image of the Shia, you are good with it?
it is not surprising, and not shocking. these are your ways that the Wahhabi ideology has made you follow.

You cannot use your Taqiya to deceive people anymore! This is information age. This is a fatwa from your scholar, Ayatollah Sistani on Anal Sex:

Question: Is anal intercourse permissible.?

Answer:Anal intercourse is permissible if wife is consenting but it is strongly undesirable (makrooh).

Ayatullah Sistani

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/

Is this Islam? Is this what the Prophet(SAW) taught? Is this what Allah(SWT) commanded us to do?