Empiree:
Like saying to a woman "can you be my mut'ah". Far as i am concern, it is inappropriate

# How do you propose to a girl in girlfriendship Zina relationship or envisaging permanent marriage? Its either she accept or not. However, it is very imperative that both consenting qualified adults should know what Mut'ah is, agreed to its terms and conditions before jumping into it.

# NB: A woman after the fixed term of Mut'ah MUST observe her iddah period before she can have luxury of doing another one.

AlBaqir:


# How do you propose to a girl in girlfriendship Zina relationship or envisaging permanent marriage? Its either she accept or not. However, it is very imperative that both consenting qualified adults should know what Mut'ah is, agreed to its terms and conditions before jumping into it.

# NB: A woman after the fixed term of Mut'ah MUST observe her iddah period before she can have luxury of doing another one.

I think the reason sunni largely detests mutah today, apart from propaganda, is abuse of mutah itself. That however should not have anything to do with essence.

Second, absolutely both parties MUST understand the conditions attached.

Empiree:
I think the reason sunni largely detests mutah today, apart from propaganda, is abuse of mutah itself. That however should not have anything to do with essence.

# The fact that something is being abused doesn't mean it should be hated. Lots of things have been abused by Muslims. Have we not abused multiple marriage ni? Even Salat is abused.

You would see AlBaqir and his fellow shi'a condemn fasting during ashurah, observing tarawih in jama'ah and making it up to twenty raka'aat, even though these activities are associated with rewards according to authentic narrations, they would label those narrations lies, fabrications, they even would accuse Umar (ra) for practicing bid'ah, even though these acts which are supererogatory in nature, would have been championed by them if it was prescribed by one of their ayatollah or sheikhs...But when it comes to mut'ah, with absolutely zero reward spiritually, and with loads of baggage, which AlBaqir himself would not practice or allow his daughter to be involved in, coupled with narrations from "infallible" using derogatory statement with regards to this mut'ah, you would see them championing it, writing epistles and trying too hard to rope in the sahabas into their perverted activities...

Anyways, the topic had already been discussed in the past, I'll just present some aspect necessary here:

"These are the Sahih narrations:

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

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

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

What we gather from the above hadith is that, Ibn Abbas thought Mut'ah to be permissible like eating pork due to necessity, this alone defeats 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. "

You may read more at: https://www.nairaland.com/1946601/wont-stop-opposing-sunnah-mutah/2

So we have Sahabahs confronting Ibn Abbas (ra) about his leniency for mut'ah, even with the fact that Ibn Abbas (ra) thought it to be only permissible in cases of necessity just like eating pork! Yet, AlBaqir wants us to believe mut'ah is permissible like drinking water?!

AlBaqir would also claim that majority of the Makkans practiced mut'ah, but the following information put things in proper perspective:

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.

With all these information, why would any right thinking Muslim still want to believe mut'ah is permissible?!

Now i see that shias are not following Ali(r.a)

Ali(r.a) forbade mutah while the shias made it permissible.

Just as the poster above me said, albakir will never allow mutah to be practiced with his own daughter but he will still be bringing hadith that permits mutah.
This is truly deception.

salaam alaikum sino,

Your writeup got holes in my view. You got two problems:

# comparison btw Mutah, pork or swine etc


# and then you said it is forbidden still.


Pork or swine has always made HARAM. There was no time in history of Islam it was halal. It is ONLY exception in case of necessity.

Mutah on the other hand was HALAL at out start(Allah did not order fawaish) before it was forbidden. See the difference?. And now you said it is only an exception in case of neccesity like "scarcity of women" ? . During the time of nabI (saw), was mutah practiced because of SCARCITY OF WOMEN?. WAS THAT THE REASON FOR MUTAH?. Please I would like to see evidence of that. Thanks.

I believe that mutah is indeed a case of neccesity even now in 2017. This is not like the case of pork. Pork was always Haram. The implication is that, according to your post, if mutah is an alternative exception then it is not haram. Now blames are shifted on s. Ibn Abass (r). I have no problems with mutah being banned in the lifetime of the prophet (saw) but why did they continue to practice it afterward? . Were women scarced still?.

Anyways, this is not "SUSHI" thing anymore because sunni arabs themselves practice "misyar", and misyar has element of mutah attached. So what's the fuss exactly?. I have always said that sunni in most cases are guilty of the very same thing they accused shi'a of.

Once again, similarity you drawn btw mutah and pork is illogical. If the condition in the time of nabi (SAW) which brought about mutah to begin with is here today, then mutah is still valid on the basis of that. Mutah is not about meeting any woman and jump into it.

* You like jumping like "mountain goat" without fully understand the theme of the thread. Am afraid, it isn't about Shia, or about validity/invalidity of Mut'ah. Empiree, only forced my hand to post few note on meaning of Mut'ah and its prove.

Trust me the thread is about your Salafs performing and approving MUT'AH AFTER the demise of the Prophet. Sorry man

sino:

2. Abdullah bin Zubair (ra)

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.”

sino:

So we have Sahabahs confronting Ibn Abbas (ra) about his leniency for mut'ah, even with the fact that Ibn Abbas (ra) thought it to be only permissible in cases of necessity just like eating pork!

# ALL THE ABOVEMENTIONED AHADITH YOU HAVE QUOTED HAVE BEEN QUOTED ALREADY AND THEY ALL STILL POINT TO THE FACT THAT ABDULLAH IBN ABBAS ALLOWED MUT'AH AFTER THE DEMISE OF NABI

So, pay attention to these few points:

1. There is NOTHING like him being "ignorant of the alleged Prophet's prohibition". Therefore, if MUT'AH is regarded as ADULTERY, that means Abdullah IBN Abbas supported adultery, and for hearing the so-called "prohibition" but continue to support MUT'AH, suggest he didn't agree with his antagonists.

This is what made Sheik al-Albani concluded that most authentic ahadith from Ibn Abbas regarding MUT'AH is that:

A. He allowed it WITHOUT any condition

B. He allowed it with condition/necessity

C. Hadith that say he retracted from it are all DAEEF.


2. That was Abdullah ibn Abbas, we have mentioned few other sahabah who enjoyed MUT'AH after the demise of Nabi, and there is no record whether they CHANGED their mind on its permissibility. Umar known for his FORCED laws, punishment and temperamental nature forbid the sahabah towards the end of his reign BECAUSE of a case of a Sahabi that impregnated a slave girl in MUT'AH relationship. So, meaning that, as Jabir ibn Abdullah revealed Sahabah enjoyed MUT'AH for almost 12 years of Abubakr and Umar's reign.


3. Those (interestingly including the same Abdullah ibn Abbas) that made analogy of necessity of Mut'ah with dead meat or pork will have to give us their proof from the Prophet.

* Was Amr ibn Hurayth, a Sahabi who impregnated a slave girl during the reign of Umar was in such a "pork-dead meat" situation? Imagine, Umar even told him, "why doing Mut'ah with a slave girl? Why not other than her (a free woman)"

* Was Mu'awiyah who entered into a known woman in Ta'if and performed Mut'ah with her was also in the same so called condition of "pork-haram-halal" necessity?

* At the time of Nabi, as read in the hadith of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, even some sahabah felt reluctant to do Mut’ah after Prophet allowed them, he (saws) further told them with ayah of Qur'an, "Do not make Haram what has been made Halal for you".

Could that scenario be liken to the so-called "dead/pork/Haram/halal" necessity?


4. Ibn Abbas VS Ibn Zubair:

* Apart the fact that the Hadith further confirmed the approval of Abdullah Ibn Abbas of Mut'ah, he SWORN BY ALLAH that MUT'AH was enjoyed and enjoined at the time of the Prophet. Interestingly, Ibn Zubair has absolutely NO counter against Ibn Abbas whether by quoting Prophet's alleged prohibition or somebody else. He only resulted into rough and violent statement.

sino:

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

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. "

# Here's another man in the thinking of Ibn Zubair. No reference to Prophet's prohibition against Ibn Abbas (who perhaps might rebuked him too as an uncouth being). Ibn Umar too only used his dead father's forced punishment.

sino:

Yet, AlBaqir wants us to believe mut'ah is permissible like drinking water?!

AlBaqir would also claim that majority of the Makkans practiced mut'ah, but the following information put things in proper perspective:

# Please, is that desperation or confusion alagba sino?

1. It was NOT Albaqir that believed MUT'AH to be like drinking water o. It was one of your Sunni greatest Tabi'ieen, Sa'id Ibn Jubayr.

2. Again, It was not Albaqir o, it was one of your Sunni greatest Imams, Ibn Hazm that claimed that, "...AND THE REST OF (tabi'een) MAKKAH'S JURISTS (allowed and approved MUT'AH)"

* Always pay right attention and do not let desperation, confusion and frustration make you lie.

Aminu212:
Now i see that shias are not following Ali(r.a)

Ali(r.a) forbade mutah while the shias made it permissible.

Just as the poster above me said, albakir will never allow mutah to be practiced with his own daughter but he will still be bringing hadith that permits mutah.
This is truly deception.

Ògá Aminu kano, Abeg just dey watch jare

sino:

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

1. Ali (ra)

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:

‘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…”

# I submit that this alleged Hadith attributed to Ali is nothing but forgery and I challenge the Hadith for two reasons:

1. Why was Ali's report different from others on the same incident of Khaybar's prohibition? Only Ali's hadith seems to have added "prohibition of Mut'ah" to Donkey's meat on the conquest of Khaybar.

Following are other eyewitnesses of Prophet's order at Khaybar:

# Narrated Ibn `Umar:
The Prophet made the meat of donkeys unlawful on the day of the battle of Khaibar.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/72/48

NB: Little wonder why Ibn Umar had NOTHING to quote from the Prophet regarding "prohibition of Mut'ah" when he was against Ibn Abbas.


# Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:
On the Day of the battle of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle made
donkey's meat unlawful and allowed the eating of horse flesh.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/72/47

NB: No wonder Jabir Ibn Abdullah continue to enjoined MUT'AH after the demise of the Prophet. He was not only100% present at Khaybar, Fat'h Makkah and last Hajj but also narrated what happened in those three outing. How is it possible to have missed the Prophet's alleged Prohibition of Mut'ah in ALL those three occasions?



# Narrated Zahir Al-Aslami:
(who was one of those who had witnessed (the Pledge of
allegiance beneath) the Tree) While I was making fire
beneath the cooking pots containing donkey's meat , the
announcer of Allah's Apostle announced, "Allah's Apostle forbids you to eat donkey's meat ."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/215

NB: You can see English translator's interpolation in bracket. The Hadith is about prohibition of donkey's meat at Khaybar, and obviously the Sahabi witnessed the event. Why is the translator referring us to Hudaybiyyah that was 2 - 3 years before Khaybar? Anyway, no brackets information in the Arabic text of the Hadith.



# Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We reached Khaibar early in the morning and the inhabitants of Khaibar came out carrying their spades, and when they saw the Prophet they said, "Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." We then got the meat of donkeys (and intended to eat it), but an announcement was made by the announcer of the Prophet, "Allah and His Apostle forbid you to eat the meat of donkeys as it is an impure thing."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/238



# NONE of these ahadith made mention of "Mut'ah prohibition" at Khaybr. Were all these 4 sahabah missed the part of "Mut'ah prohibition" when Prophet and his announcer made the announcement publicly? Did Nabi told ONLY Ali privately leaving the rest into "zina". Authubillah!

No doubt, as usual in the so-called sahih, foul play have been made to the Hadith and whose name would have been in a best position to be used other than Ali, the leader of Shi'a?!



2. Why would Ali used the "prohibition of Mut'ah" at Khaybar (7 A.H) as a reference point to Ibn Abbas after the demise of the Prophet?

* This can ONLY make sense and be valid had that "prohibition" be a FOREVER prohibition.

* For a fact, Sunni still have ahadith that claimed Nabi forbid MUT'AH on the conquest of Makkah (in 9 A.H) and Hajjat wada (in 10 A. H) AFTER he allowed it for few nights. At both events, Ali FULLY participated. Why did Ali used the alleged prohibition at Khaybar not the last alleged prohibition?

* Allowing MUT'AH post Khaybar destroyed the alleged prohibition at Khaybar.

sino:

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.

# The statement of your Imam Ibn Hazm saying "...and the rest of MAKKAN'S jurists", might be faulty then as you have removed rope from one of them.

# Anyway, Ibn Hazm made mention of few names which did not include Ibn Jurayj. This perhaps in the language of " generality" means "all of the jurists except very few" which in such situations is insignificant. Or Ibn Hazm might not know or seen Ibn Jurayj's stance on MUT'AH.


# Anyway, I have NOTHING to do with "Ibn Jurayj". My business as explicitly highlighted is on "SA'ID IBN JUBAYR, (AND A'TA, TAWUS)", Sunni's greatest Tabi'ieen who liken MUT'AH's easiness and approval to DRINKING water.

sino:

With all these information, why would any right thinking Muslim still want to believe mut'ah is permissible?!

# Abeg, which information You can see you are not " right thinking ".

I await more "information ".

Empiree:
salaam alaikum sino,

Your writeup got holes in my view. You got two problems:

# comparison btw Mutah, pork or swine etc


# and then you said it is forbidden still.


Pork or swine has always made HARAM. There was no time in history of Islam it was halal. It is ONLY exception in case of necessity.

Mutah on the other hand was HALAL at out start(Allah did not order fawaish) before it was forbidden. See the difference?. And now you said it is only an exception in case of neccesity like "scarcity of women" ? . During the time of nabI (saw), was mutah practiced because of SCARCITY OF WOMEN?. WAS THAT THE REASON FOR MUTAH?. Please I would like to see evidence of that. Thanks.

I believe that mutah is indeed a case of neccesity even now in 2017. This is not like the case of pork. Pork was always Haram. The implication is that, according to your post, if mutah is an alternative exception then it is not haram. Now blames are shifted on s. Ibn Abass (r). I have no problems with mutah being banned in the lifetime of the prophet (saw) but why did they continue to practice it afterward? . Were women scarced still?.

# You really think the guy reasoned at all before jumping into the same old skull submission? That's the problem he always runs to whenever he copied somebody else's idea. He always ended up copying rubbish, devoid of sense.

Empiree:

Anyways, this is not "SUSHI" thing anymore because sunni arabs themselves practice "misyar", and misyar has element of mutah attached. So what's the fuss exactly?. I have always said that sunni in most cases are guilty of the very same thing they abused shii of.

Once again, similarity you drawn btw mutah and pork is ilogical. If the condition in the time of nabi (SAW) which brought about mutah to begin with is here today, mutah is still valid on the basis of that. Mutah is not about meet any woman and jump into it.

# Please don't let us bring "misyar" any more. Even I regretted making reference to it yesterday because I SIMPLY DO NOT WANT THIS THREAD TO BE HIJACKED via derailing.

# This is PURELY about the Salaf who performed "ADULTERY" and DISOBEYED the Prophet's (alleged) order, and that is KUFR by Sunni ruling.

Empiree:
salaam alaikum sino,

Your writeup got holes in my view. You got two problems:

# comparison btw Mutah, pork or swine etc


# and then you said it is forbidden still.


Pork or swine has always made HARAM. There was no time in history of Islam it was halal. It is ONLY exception in case of necessity.

Mutah on the other hand was HALAL at out start(Allah did not order fawaish) before it was forbidden. See the difference?. And now you said it is only an exception in case of neccesity like "scarcity of women" ? . During the time of nabI (saw), was mutah practiced because of SCARCITY OF WOMEN?. WAS THAT THE REASON FOR MUTAH?. Please I would like to see evidence of that. Thanks.

I believe that mutah is indeed a case of neccesity even now in 2017. This is not like the case of pork. Pork was always Haram. The implication is that, according to your post, if mutah is an alternative exception then it is not haram. Now blames are shifted on s. Ibn Abass (r). I have no problems with mutah being banned in the lifetime of the prophet (saw) but why did they continue to practice it afterward? . Were women scarced still?.

Anyways, this is not "SUSHI" thing anymore because sunni arabs themselves practice "misyar", and misyar has element of mutah attached. So what's the fuss exactly?. I have always said that sunni in most cases are guilty of the very same thing they abused shii of.

Once again, similarity you drawn btw mutah and pork is ilogical. If the condition in the time of nabi (SAW) which brought about mutah to begin with is here today, mutah is still valid on the basis of that. Mutah is not about meeting any woman and jump into it.

Wa alaykum salam brother Empiree, first and foremost, according to books of tafsir, there is no verse permitting mut'ah marriage, as i have said earlier, this had already been dealt with, you may read the link provided. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no man that would boldly go against a CLEAR-CUT verse of the Qur'an, and there would be no sahabah who could bring that verse as evidence against him?!

Be that as it may, the permissibility of mut'ah attributed to the Prophet (SAW) were only in cases of necessity as the following narration suggests:

"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. Then, Abdullah recited, “Do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”

You can clearly see that it wasn't a case of free for all... All other permisibility were never attributed to the Prophet (SAW)! Even Ibn Abbas (ra) believed it to be a case of necessity like eating pork, it was Ibn Abbas's opinion, his ijtihad, not mine, and a sahaba's opinion is not binding, since there is an authentic narration which states categorically of mut'ah being banned forever!

sino:


Wa alaykum salam brother Empiree, first and foremost, according to books of tafsir, there is no verse permitting mut'ah marriage, as i have said earlier, this had already been dealt with, you may read the link provided. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no man that would boldly go against a CLEAR-CUT verse of the Qur'an, and there would be no sahabah who could bring that verse as evidence against him?!

# So, all the sahabah who read and refer to sura Nisa:24 as "verse of Mut'ah", and even added Tafsir " for a fixed period", with Abdullah Ibn Abbas who even swear by Allah that the ayah was revealed exactly like that, WERE ALL LIARS AND MADE ERRORS IN THEIR AFFIRMATION?

# Same goes for all the Tabi'ieen that followed same interpretation of those sahabah.


# If Q.4:24 does not approved MUT'AH, then why are your Imams (like Shafi'i, Ibn Hazm et al) labouring to counter the ayah?

Interestingly, Imam Tabari documents this:

Muḥammad b. al-Muthannā – Muḥammad b. Ja’far – Shu’bah:

I asked al-Ḥakam concerning this verse {Also [forbidden for marriage are] women already married, except those whom your right hands possess} up till {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah} [4:24], “Is it abrogated?” He said, “NO”.

Al-Ḥākam said: “ ‘Alī, may Allāh be pleased with him, said: ‘If ‘Umar, may Allāh be pleased with him, had not forbidden mut’ah, none would have committed zinā except a wretched person.

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Jarīr b. Yazīd b. Kathīr b. Ghālib al-Āmulī al-Ṭabarī, Jāmi al-Bayān fī Tāwīl al-Qur’ān (Dār al-Fikr; 1415 H) [annotator: Ṣidqī Jamīl al-‘Aṭṭār], vol. 5, p. 19

Sometimes, I wonder how you think.

NB: 1. The above athar is Sahih. You can contest its authenticity if you wanna give a try. However, that was another attributed saying to 'Ali. Why didn't he used the so-called "prohibition of Mut'ah at Khaybar"? Why referring to Umar's prohibition if truly Nabi prohibited it? Does Umar's prohibition have more weight than Nabi's?

2. Yet, Ali in that athar never see it as Zina.

sino:

Be that as it may, the permissibility of mut'ah attributed to the Prophet (SAW) were only in cases of necessity as the following narration suggests:

"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. Then, Abdullah recited, “Do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”

# The bold is that they were not accompanied by their wives, and they need to fulfil their s.exual desires. That is not scarcity of women.

# The ayah @underlined which Abdullah ibn Mas'ud recited was FIRST recited by the Prophet himself in approving MUT'AH, and is in sura al-Maidah. al-Maidah was the last sura revealed and Sunni believed everything made halal in that surah is halal till Qiyamat.

# So, we add Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud to the list of those who enjoyed MUT'AH after the demise of Nabi. Ibn Mas'ud died in the reign of Umar or Uthman.

sino:

You can clearly see that it wasn't a case of free for all... All other permisibility were never attributed to the Prophet (SAW)! Even Ibn Abbas (ra) believed it to be a case of necessity like eating pork, it was Ibn Abbas's opinion, his ijtihad, not mine, and a sahaba's opinion is not binding, since there is an authentic narration which states categorically of mut'ah being banned forever!

# Sheik Albani submission which is more correct in line with available Sunni evidences, again, is that:

1. Ibn Abbas approved MUT'AH without necessity

2. Ibn Abbas approved MUT'AH with necessity

BOTTOMLINE, Ibn Abbas NEVER retracted from MUT'AH.

Actually, question i have for sino is, do you believe there exist a non-conventional nikkah besides conventional marriage or not?

AlBaqir:
* You like jumping like "mountain goat" without fully understand the theme of the thread. Am afraid, it isn't about Shia, or about validity/invalidity of Mut'ah. Empiree, only forced my hand to post few note on meaning of Mut'ah and its prove.

Trust me the thread is about your Salafs performing and approving MUT'AH AFTER the demise of the Prophet. Sorry man

Well sorry to disappoint you, I presented relevant narrations to show that no sahabah believed in mut'ah marriage as you guys do, especially Ibn Abbas (ra) who only believed it to be a case of necessity like eating pork! Again, even if some sahabahs did perform mut'ah after the demise of the Prophet (SAW), we do have ample evidences that states that majority of the sahabah were against it, and for the record, none of those who practiced it produced any Qur'anic verse that permits mut'ah, and no direct statement from the Prophet (SAW), except we used to practice it during the life of the Prophet (SAW). What we have, is permission during cases of necessity and direct prohibition afterwards from the Prophet (SAW)!

AlBaqir:

# ALL THE ABOVEMENTIONED AHADITH YOU HAVE QUOTED HAVE BEEN QUOTED ALREADY AND THEY ALL STILL POINT TO THE FACT THAT ABDULLAH IBN ABBAS ALLOWED MUT'AH AFTER THE DEMISE OF NABI

So, pay attention to these few points:

1. There is NOTHING like him being "ignorant of the alleged Prophet's prohibition". Therefore, if MUT'AH is regarded as ADULTERY, that means Abdullah IBN Abbas supported adultery, and for hearing the so-called "prohibition" but continue to support MUT'AH, suggest he didn't agree with his antagonists.

This is what made Sheik al-Albani concluded that most authentic ahadith from Ibn Abbas regarding MUT'AH is that:

A. He allowed it WITHOUT any condition

B. He allowed it with condition/necessity

C. Hadith that say he retracted from it are all DAEEF.

First and foremost, what the prophet (SAW) permitted was not adultery or zina, as clearly stated before, it was a case of necessity, as some were on the verge of castrating themselves.... This is a far cry from what you guys practice in the name of mut'ah!

Ibn Abbas (ra) did not attribute the permissibility of mut'ah to the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW), he even opined that it is only allowed in cases of necessity which is in congruence with the permissiblity given by the Prophet (SAW) at the expeditions he (SAW) allowed it. Even at that, there were notable sahabas who confronted him, but he didn't give any convincing evidence, he didn't bring the "verse" of Mut'ah, and he didn't challenge those who informed him of the prohibition by the Prophet (SAW). It is clear that Ibn Abbas (ra) was just sticking to his opinion, and mind you, the narrations from Ibn Abbas (ra) clearly explains his position, there are no two opinions of Ibn Abbas on mut'ah...For the fact that his opinion is that mut'ah is like permission to eat pork out of necessity,then you cannot say Ibn Abbas (ra) gave a free pass on mut'ah. Also we do not have any record of Ibn Abbas (ra) performing mut'ah himself, or do you have such narration sheikh AlBaqir?!

AlBaqir:

2. That was Abdullah ibn Abbas, we have mentioned few other sahabah who enjoyed MUT'AH after the demise of Nabi, and there is no record whether they CHANGED their mind on its permissibility. Umar known for his FORCED laws, punishment and temperamental nature forbid the sahabah towards the end of his reign BECAUSE of a case of a Sahabi that impregnated a slave girl in MUT'AH relationship. So, meaning that, as Jabir ibn Abdullah revealed Sahabah enjoyed MUT'AH for almost 12 years of Abubakr and Umar's reign.

You have to present the list of those sahabas that were involved and enjoyed mut'ah for 12 years, not this your market women assumptions abeg! Who were they?! who did they perform mut'ah with?! what was their evidence to continue performing mut'ah after the death of the prophet (SAW)?!

AlBaqir:

3. Those (interestingly including the same Abdullah ibn Abbas) that made analogy of necessity of Mut'ah with dead meat or pork will have to give us their proof from the Prophet.

* Was Amr ibn Hurayth, a Sahabi who impregnated a slave girl during the reign of Umar was in such a "pork-dead meat" situation? Imagine, Umar even told him, "why doing Mut'ah with a slave girl? Why not other than her (a free woman)"

* Was Mu'awiyah who entered into a known woman in Ta'if and performed Mut'ah with her was also in the same so called condition of "pork-haram-halal" necessity?

* At the time of Nabi, as read in the hadith of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, even some sahabah felt reluctant to do Mut’ah after Prophet allowed them, he (saws) further told them with ayah of Qur'an, "Do not make Haram what has been made Halal for you".

Could that scenario be liken to the so-called "dead/pork/Haram/halal" necessity?

All these assumptions and speculations are not tenable in cases of halal and haram in Islam, you don't go assuming things and then make claims...And the actions of a sahabah are his, and there are hidden information which you cannot claim to know of. By the way, sahabas are not infallible, and you would really gain nothing if you go searching for those that commit this or that sin, what is obvious is that, Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah after he had allowed it during cases of necessity like during war! Again it is Ibn Abbas's opinion that mut'ah is only allowed in cases of necessity like eating pork! The narrations from the Prophet (SAW) suggests permissible during necessity, and of course, another clear narration from the Prophet indicates prohibition.

AlBaqir:

4. Ibn Abbas VS Ibn Zubair:

* Apart the fact that the Hadith further confirmed the approval of Abdullah Ibn Abbas of Mut'ah, he SWORN BY ALLAH that MUT'AH was enjoyed and enjoined at the time of the Prophet. Interestingly, Ibn Zubair has absolutely NO counter against Ibn Abbas whether by quoting Prophet's alleged prohibition or somebody else. He only resulted into rough and violent statement.

You know I had advised you to go write for nollywood, you just dey waste your talent ...It is already established what Prophet (SAW) permitted mut'ah during his life, and during his life time, he prohibited it! So if you want to establish how the sahabahs enjoyed mut'ah during the life time of the Prophet (SAW), you should bring evidences of those who did, when they did it, who they did it with!

AlBaqir:

# Here's another man in the thinking of Ibn Zubair. No reference to Prophet's prohibition against Ibn Abbas (who perhaps might rebuked him too as an uncouth being). Ibn Umar too only used his dead father's forced punishment.

First, Ibn Abbas (ra) never brought evidence from the Prophet (SAW), he only said they did so when he was alive, we already know why, where and when the Prophet (SAW) permitted mut'ah. Ibn Abbas (ra) didn't quote Qur'an or statement of the Prophet (SAW)...But what we have on record from the Prophet (SAW) was permissibity during necessity, like during war, then another Prophetic narration prohibiting it forever...So you need to be sure who you are following with respect to what is halal and what is haram...

AlBaqir:

# Please, is that desperation or confusion alagba sino?

1. It was NOT Albaqir that believed MUT'AH to be like drinking water o. It was one of your Sunni greatest Tabi'ieen, Sa'id Ibn Jubayr.

2. Again, It was not Albaqir o, it was one of your Sunni greatest Imams, Ibn Hazm that claimed that, "...AND THE REST OF (tabi'een) MAKKAH'S JURISTS (allowed and approved MUT'AH)"

* Always pay right attention and do not let desperation, confusion and frustration make you lie.

I have quoted one of the jurist of Makkah (d. 150AH) who retracted his fatwa permitting mut'ah, probably this jurist had been in error, and realized so based on convincing evidences that came to light after he had permitted it. What I am really particular about is the fact that we have on record, prohibition from the Prophet (SAW). There is no statement from the Prophet (SAW) that says mut'ah is halal, no Qur'anic verse(s), and an act being permitted as a case of necessity does not equal halal continuously, the reason Ibn Abbas explained his opinion, that it is like eating pork! So do you have the evidences of those you mentioned above that made them approve mut'ah?!

AlBaqir:


Ògá Aminu kano, Abeg just dey watch jare





# I submit that this alleged Hadith attributed to Ali is nothing but forgery and I challenge the Hadith for two reasons:

1. Why was Ali's report different from others on the same incident of Khaybar's prohibition? Only Ali's hadith seems to have added "prohibition of Mut'ah" to Donkey's meat on the conquest of Khaybar.

Following are other eyewitnesses of Prophet's order at Khaybar:

# Narrated Ibn `Umar:
The Prophet made the meat of donkeys unlawful on the day of the battle of Khaibar.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/72/48

NB: Little wonder why Ibn Umar had NOTHING to quote from the Prophet regarding "prohibition of Mut'ah" when he was against Ibn Abbas.


# Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:
On the Day of the battle of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle made
donkey's meat unlawful and allowed the eating of horse flesh.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/72/47

NB: No wonder Jabir Ibn Abdullah continue to enjoined MUT'AH after the demise of the Prophet. He was not only100% present at Khaybar, Fat'h Makkah and last Hajj but also narrated what happened in those three outing. How is it possible to have missed the Prophet's alleged Prohibition of Mut'ah in ALL those three occasions?



# Narrated Zahir Al-Aslami:
(who was one of those who had witnessed (the Pledge of
allegiance beneath) the Tree) While I was making fire
beneath the cooking pots containing donkey's meat , the
announcer of Allah's Apostle announced, "Allah's Apostle forbids you to eat donkey's meat ."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/215

NB: You can see English translator's interpolation in bracket. The Hadith is about prohibition of donkey's meat at Khaybar, and obviously the Sahabi witnessed the event. Why is the translator referring us to Hudaybiyyah that was 2 - 3 years before Khaybar? Anyway, no brackets information in the Arabic text of the Hadith.



# Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We reached Khaibar early in the morning and the inhabitants of Khaibar came out carrying their spades, and when they saw the Prophet they said, "Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." We then got the meat of donkeys (and intended to eat it), but an announcement was made by the announcer of the Prophet, "Allah and His Apostle forbid you to eat the meat of donkeys as it is an impure thing."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/238



# NONE of these ahadith made mention of "Mut'ah prohibition" at Khaybr. Were all these 4 sahabah missed the part of "Mut'ah prohibition" when Prophet and his announcer made the announcement publicly? Did Nabi told ONLY Ali privately leaving the rest into "zina". Authubillah!

No doubt, as usual in the so-called sahih, foul play have been made to the Hadith and whose name would have been in a best position to be used other than Ali, the leader of Shi'a?!



2. Why would Ali used the "prohibition of Mut'ah" at Khaybar (7 A.H) as a reference point to Ibn Abbas after the demise of the Prophet?

* This can ONLY make sense and be valid had that "prohibition" be a FOREVER prohibition.

* For a fact, Sunni still have ahadith that claimed Nabi forbid MUT'AH on the conquest of Makkah (in 9 A.H) and Hajjat wada (in 10 A. H) AFTER he allowed it for few nights. At both events, Ali FULLY participated. Why did Ali used the alleged prohibition at Khaybar not the last alleged prohibition?

* Allowing MUT'AH post Khaybar destroyed the alleged prohibition at Khaybar.




# The statement of your Imam Ibn Hazm saying "...and the rest of MAKKAN'S jurists", might be faulty then as you have removed rope from one of them.

# Anyway, Ibn Hazm made mention of few names which did not include Ibn Jurayj. This perhaps in the language of " generality" means "all of the jurists except very few" which in such situations is insignificant. Or Ibn Hazm might not know or seen Ibn Jurayj's stance on MUT'AH.


# Anyway, I have NOTHING to do with "Ibn Jurayj". My business as explicitly highlighted is on "SA'ID IBN JUBAYR, (AND A'TA, TAWUS)", Sunni's greatest Tabi'ieen who liken MUT'AH's easiness and approval to DRINKING water.




# Abeg, which information You can see you are not " right thinking ".

I await more "information ".

Oga Ade! you have no point! claiming a hadith is forgery based on just how you think Ali (ra) should have reported the prohibition to Ibn Abbas (ra)? or why others did not relate the same prohibition...Was it not possible that the prohibition were not done the same day and time at khaybar?! Even from the reports you have presented, it clearly shows that it was likely that the two prohibition were not on the same day or time, and Ali (ra) made reference to that which he was a witness of. If you want to claim forgery or fabrication, go through the process of scholars, and not this armchair hadith analyst you are forming abeg...

The information I had presented paints a clear picture, mut'ah was prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), those who opined the permissibility as with cases of necessity were probably unaware of the final prohibition or still believed that it doesn't matter, since necessity does make some haram permissible like eating pork, and if you do not have convincing evidence(s) to state contrary other than your cherry-picking and assumptive speculations, then I am afraid you are on your own!

Empiree:
Actually, question i have for sino is, do you believe there exist a non-conventional nikkah besides conventional marriage or not?

Bro, I do not understand your question...

sino:


Bro, I do not understand your question...

As in, aside from CONVENTIONAL MARRIAGE as we know it, does islam allows for other type of nonconventional marriage for necessities but doesn't have to be temporary?.

sino:


First and foremost, what the prophet (SAW) permitted was not adultery or zina, as clearly stated before, it was a case of necessity, as some were on the verge of castrating themselves.... This is a far cry from what you guys practice in the name of mut'ah!

# Kindly leave "you guys" out of the picture. So, it seems your conclusion now is that Mut'ah is not Zina IF it is done out of necessity but becomes Zina if there is no condition attached?

sino:

Ibn Abbas (ra) did not attribute the permissibility of mut'ah to the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW), he even opined that it is only allowed in cases of necessity which is in congruence with the permissiblity given by the Prophet (SAW) at the expeditions he (SAW) allowed it.

1. # Imam Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Hakam, Dhahabi, all documents:

Abū Naḍrah: I read to Ibn ‘Abbās: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He (Ibn Abbas) said: “{Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period}”. Abū Naḍrah said: I said, “We do not recite it like that!” Ibn ‘Abbās replied, “I swear by Allāh, Allāh certainly revealed it like that.”


2. You yourself just quoted Hadith that Ibn Abbas replied that Mut'ah was practised at the lifetime of the Prophet.

sino:

You have to present the list of those sahabas that were involved and enjoyed mut'ah for 12 years, not this your market women assumptions abeg! Who were they?! who did they perform mut'ah with?! what was their evidence to continue performing mut'ah after the death of the prophet (SAW)?!

# Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari (a prominent Sahabi for that matter) made two claims which is the conclusion of my point. While he was lecturing the confused Tabi'ieen said:

1. WE USED TO PERFORM MUT'AH. What does he meant by "WE"?

2. During the time of Nabi, Abubakr and Umar UNTIL towards the end of Umar's reign.

* Abubakr ruled for 2 + years

* Umar ruled for 12 years

Kindly do the math. Even if you conclude at 7 years, am good.

sino:

All these assumptions and speculations are not tenable in cases of halal and haram in Islam, you don't go assuming things and then make claims...
And the actions of a sahabah are his, and there are hidden information which you cannot claim to know of. By the way, sahabas are not infallible, and you would really gain nothing if you go searching for those that commit this or that sin, what is obvious is that, Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah after he had allowed it during cases of necessity like during war!

# So, @underlined, in one word, there is no defence for ALL the sahabah that continued to practised MUT'AH after Nabi allegedly prohibited it.

sino:

I have quoted one of the jurist of Makkah (d. 150AH) who retracted his fatwa permitting mut'ah, probably this jurist had been in error, and realized so based on convincing evidences that came to light after he had permitted it. What

Perhaps, but:
# The point still remains that Sunni best of the best Tabi'ieen like SA'ID Ibn JUBAYR, A'ta, Tawus and the rest of MAKKAN'S jurists (except he with a clear record of retraction) continue to followed the sahabah who enjoyed and enjoined MUT'AH after the death of Nabi.

sino:


Oga Ade! you have no point! claiming a hadith is forgery based on just how you think Ali (ra) should have reported the prohibition to Ibn Abbas (ra)? or why others did not relate the same prohibition...Was it not possible that the prohibition were not done the same day and time at khaybar?! Even from the reports you have presented, it clearly shows that it was likely that the two prohibition were not on the same day or time, and Ali (ra) made reference to that which he was a witness of. If you want to claim forgery or fabrication, go through the process of scholars, and not this armchair hadith analyst you are forming abeg...

# Kindly tell me how I do not have right to fault an out of placed and suspected Hadith?. Who give right to those who sanctions Hadith into sahih, daeef, mawdoo? No one give anybody the right. They only follow a system looking through the sanad and matn.


# That's a very good point @underline. Why is it so? Sunni have yet another sahih Hadith that says Nabi and his entourage only spent 3 DAYS at Khaybar. Remember, Khaybar was just at outskirt of Madina faah, never and never far away from home (Madina).

3 DAYS outing NEAR Madina, and you want me to believe:

1. Sahabah were caught up by sexual necessity (to the extent of castration) hence Nabi allowed MUT'AH for them then prohibited it? There is NO single reference that Mut'ah was EVER in practice before.


2. Now, again @underlined, how is it possible that Jabir Ibn Abdullah, Abdullah Ibn Umar, Anas Ibn Malik (carrier of Nabi's àgé aluwala), Zahir Al-Aslam, Abdullah Ibn Abbas and THE REST of ALL SAHABAH that participated in the conquest of Khaybar except ONE person, Ali missed the "prohibition of Mut'ah" announcement at Khaybar BUT DO NOT MISSED PROHIBITION OF EATING DONKEY'S meat?

Sino, Please think. Empiree, Lanrexlan, kazlaw2000, Rilwayne001, tintingz, and every sensible human being, tori Olohun am I the one assuming nonsense here ni?


3. Lastly, The same Ali that allegedly cautioned Ibn Abbas over MUT'AH referring to alleged prohibition at Khaybar was quoted in yet another Sunni sahih Hadith thus:

‘Alī, may Allāh be pleased with him, said: ‘If ‘Umar, may Allāh be pleased with him, had not forbidden mut’ah, none would have committed zinā except a wretched person.

* Did he forgot the alleged Khaybar prohibition ni?

sino:

The information I had presented paints a clear picture, mut'ah was prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), those who opined the permissibility as with cases of necessity were probably unaware of the final prohibition or still believed that it doesn't matter, since necessity does make some haram permissible like eating pork, and if you do not have convincing evidence(s) to state contrary other than your cherry-picking and assumptive speculations, then I am afraid you are on your own!

# Now you are talking from two mouths saying:

1. They might not be aware of final prohibition

2. Might think Prophet's prohibition doesn't matter when necessity present itself.

Bro, do you think at all?

* Jabir, Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Umar, to mention but few. All of them participated and reported Hadith from all the 3 occasions (Khaybar, Fat'h Makkah, Hajjat wada) that Nabi allegedly prohibited MUT'AH yet "only Ali refer to old skull Khaybar's prohibition, and not later alleged prohibition"? The rests did not even refer to either of the three occasions!

* Your second assumption is worse. The case of Mu'awiyah or Amr Ibn Hurayth (a Sahabi) who impregnated a slave girl was never out of the so-called "pork-haram-halal" necessity. Kódà Umar gann dasi saying, "why doing MUT'AH and impregnated a SLAVE GIRL? Why not other than her (i.e a free woman)?

I just keep laughing. Albaqir is not a serious person. All he needs is prayer to be honest with you guys. Albaqir is a kaafir until he repents and turn to Allah swa.

In case my respected friends would like to carry on this discussion and would like to convince me of their point of view, I would like to suggest that to make our discussion meaningful and precise, they should concentrate on providing linguistic evidences (that is evidence from Arabic literature) to prove the following points:
The word "zauj" (singular of "azwaj" is used for women with whom a person has a contract of "Mut'ah", or that a woman with whom a person has a contract of "Mut'ah" was termed a slave girl. Providing this evidence is necessary because according to the Qur'an sexual relationship, for a man, is only allowed with "azwaj" or with slave girls.
The word "Istamta`a be" is used for "Mut'ah".
If "Mut'ah" is to be accepted as a part of the social setup of Islam, then evidences to substantiate the above two points must be provided. Once these evidences have been provided, we shall then look for the detailed guidance given in the Shari'ah (Qur'an and Sunnah) in this respect. This again would be necessary. For if "Mut'ah" was a part of the pre-Islamic Arab culture there must be a noun in the classical Arabic literature to denote it (which I have failed to find yet), just like the noun "Nikah". The very existence of this noun is evidence of the fact that the Arab culture consisted of and recognized something called "Nikah".
On the other hand, if "Mut'ah" was introduced and promoted by Islam (as reader's response holds), then:

The Qur'an should not have used a verb of common usage (istamta`a), especially when it stood for some other meaning, to teach people about something which was being introduced for the first time;
The Qur'an or the sunnah should then have given the detailed law regarding this newly introduced concept of relationship between a man and a woman.
Without getting the above evidences, a Muslim who desires to live his life according to the clear teachings of his Lord, the Qur'an and the sunnah of His Prophet, cannot accept that the concept of "Mut'ah" has been promoted by the Qur'an, especially when there is clear evidence that the whole concept of "Mut'ah" is in contradiction to the Qur'an.

Empiree:
As in, aside from CONVENTIONAL MARRIAGE as we know it, does islam allows for other type of nonconventional marriage for necessities but doesn't have to be temporary?.

Okay, Nikkah is Nikkah once all the conditions for a Nikkah are met. I don't know of non conventional nikkah out of necessity, what Islam prescribes is to get married if you can, and if you cannot, then engage in fasting.

sino:


what Islam prescribes is to get married if you can, and if you cannot, then engage in fasting.

# Why didn't Prophet prescribed fasting for those who intend to castrate themselves when their sexual urge was uncontrollable and their wives were not available with them?


# And can fasting suppress sexual desires? It can for some, and it cannot for some (especially after iftar).

A golden example: Allah revealed the secret acts of some sahabah in the holy month of Ramadan. Note: part of the initial rules and obligations of Ramadan fasting is NO SEX with your couple during the days and NIGHT. Yet, some sahabah were not able to keep up with this rule. Then, Allah revealed:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 187:

It is made lawful to you to go into your wives on the night of the fast; they are an apparel for you and you are an apparel for them; Allah knew that you acted unfaithfully to yourselves, so He has turned to you (mercifully) and removed from you (this burden); so now be in contact with them and seek what Allah has ordained for you, and eat and drink until the whiteness of the day becomes distinct from the blackness of the night at dawn, then complete the fast till night, and have not contact with them while you keep to the mosques; these are the limits of Allah, so do not go near them. Thus does Allah make clear His communications for men that they may guard (against evil).

^^

I believe the verse you cited was in reference to the Jews prior to abrogation of their mosaic form of fasting. The Jews used to fast around the clock. Ramadan now abrogates that. That's when Allah permit them to eat and enjoy their wives during the nights. So the fasting in that ayah was that of the Jews.

Empiree:
^^

I believe the verse you cited was in reference to the Jews prior to abrogation of their mosaic form of fasting. The Jews used to fast around the clock. Ramadan now abrogates that. That's when Allah permit them to eat and enjoy their wives during the nights. So the fasting in that ayah was that of the Jews.

# It has nothing to do with the Jews o. Here's Tafsir Ibn Kathir on the verse:


Al-Bukhari reported this Hadith by Abu Ishaq who related that he heard Al-Bara' say, "When fasting Ramadan was ordained, Muslims used to refrain from sleeping with their wives the entire month, but some men used to deceive themselves. Allah revealed:

(Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you.)

`Ali bin Abu Talhah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "During the month of Ramadan, after Muslims would pray `Isha', they would not touch their women and food until the next night. Then some Muslims, including `Umar bin
Al-Khattab, touched (had sex with) their wives and had some food during Ramadan after `Isha'. They complained to Allah's Messenger .

Then Allah sent down:

(Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you. So now have sexual relations with them)'' This is the same
narration that Al-`Awfi related from Ibn`Abbas.

www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=246

Interesting, i am seeing this tafsir first ever in this version. Never read it like this before. I want to believe tafasir were referring SAUM since SAUM had always been observed prior to nabi Medina. When muslims came to Madinah they followed the same pattern of fasting before Ramadan was legislated. Hence, previous pathern was stopped. Anyways, i dont want to derail this. I thought Ramadan has always been the way we practice is now (from sunup to sundown) rather than overnight

So this topic still exist.......
Lemme judge:

Practice mutah
Don't practice mutah

Practice mutah
Don't practice Murat


Practice mutah
Don't practice mutah

Hope am not partial?

sino:


Okay, Nikkah is Nikkah once all the conditions for a Nikkah are met. I don't know of non conventional nikkah out of necessity, what Islam prescribes is to get married if you can, and if you cannot, then engage in fasting.

Indeed, nikah is nikah with all the conditions. But remember mut'ah itself had conditions. I just feel like argument against muta isnt strong at all except for its prohibition during khaybar. That's the only strong argument against it. The rest are framework. I believe MUTA as exactly practiced at that time is still valid but with qualified women only. The ahadith which go against it, no matter how mutawatir they are can not abrogate Qur'an. Let's forget about abusers of MUTA. They only use it as cover up but are actually committing zina. If the conditions in those days remain today, then, MUTA is valid bcus no ayah of Quran is redundant till qiyamah. Nabi(saw) might made it haram for the fact that the conditions no longer existed. But to compare MUTA to swine, wine etc is outrageous. I even read during my research that the same way alcohol was consumed pre-islamic Arab's was the same way muta was hobby of the Arabs. This is really ridiculous.

Neither nabi nor Allah ordered them to drink alcohol but MUTA was recommended as alternative for those men. Allah did not order fawaish. If muta was zina as claimed by Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari, when he defines muta as "when someone commits zina with a woman as prost!tute in the name of a legal islamic marriage, no more no less." Watch him on youtube. It is only 6 minutes video. Question is did nabi ordered sahaba to commit zina?.


So for anyone to say MUTA means zina will have to answer that on the Day of Qiyamah. Look back up and read images posted where someone said that today, marriage is late but zina is rampant. This is good talk. Why do people not fast today to avoid zina?. It is easy to narrate the hadith in question but when it comes to practical aspect, wallah only below 1% can actually fast for that purpose outside of ramadan. The purpose of MUTA was to avoid committing zina to begin with. That's why the conditions were set by nabi(saw) at that time too.


Now that marriage is late but zina is everywhere, what is the solution?. Forget about telling people to fast bcus they won't unless they want to deceive themselves. Now people here should not think that just bcus we defend muta theoretically means we practice it. This is for academic purposes. Many people, muslims or non-muslims would generally go for "conventional marriage" anytime any day bcuz that's ideal and the best. It is like asking a lady to be your babymama while she can easily get married responsibly. She will choose the proper nikkah over babymama. So muta is restricted to certain type of people. My research is still on this subject and i will gladly like to read convincing narration than what we already know so far.

Below i copied in response to the Sheikh

Albaqir, Empiree pls help a brother here
Can you guys please arrange me women like 3(or more) that i can be performing mutah with?

Aminu212:
Albaqir, Empiree pls help a brother here
Can you guys please arrange me women like 3(or more) that i can be performing mutah with?

could you stop this nonsense please?. I am serious here and you are talking trash.

Empiree:
could you stop this nonsense please?. I am serious here and you are talking trash.

Am sorry bro if my comment irritates you but its just that am tired of this theory you guys are giving us.

Lets go into the practical aspect!!!

Aminu212:
Am sorry bro if my comment irritates you but its just that am tired of this theory you guys are giving us.

Lets go into the practical aspect!!!

what is tiring you here?. You better resolve everything here now before you are confronted by christian fanatics on this topic in the future.

Empiree:
I just feel like argument against muta isnt strong at all except for its prohibition during khaybar. That's the only strong argument against it.

# Please enlighten this soul what makes it a strong argument. I want to see from another perspective, because to me it is the most weakest argument for these reasons:


1. ONLY Ali was said to have reported the underlined phrase: "prophet prohibited Mut'ah and donkey's meat on the day of Khaybar."


2. ALL the other companions that participated in Khaybar especially Jabir Ibn Abdullah, Abdullah Ibn Umar, Anas Ibn Malik, Zahir Al-Aslami, NONE of them reported the underlined phrase (above) but ALL of them simply reported "Prophet prohibited donkey's meat on the day of Khaybar"

# How is it possible they all missed the "Mut'ah part"


3. The same Ali that was reported to have used that "Khaybar's prohibition of Mut'ah" against Ibn Abbas was also reported in another Sahih Hadith saying:

"Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said: ‘If ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, had not forbidden mut’ah, none would have committed Zina except a wretched person"

# That NEVER sounds like he believed or even know about the so-called Khaybar's prohibition.


4. Conquest of Khaybar lasted ONLY 3 days. Day 1, Abubakr and his entourage returned back to the Prophet with no success. Day 2, Umar and his entourage returned with no success. Day 3, Ali and his entourage came back with victory for Islam. Apart from the fact that Khaybar is just a few miles away from home (Madina), with that tight schedule for just 3 days, how is it possible that Prophet allowed MUT'AH and then prohibited it for the sahabah?

5. Ali, Umar, Jabir, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Abdullah Ibn Zubair, Mu'awiyah; these sahabah in one way or the other involved in MUT'AH debates after the demise of the Prophet, and all of them participated in conquest of Makkah (9 AH) and the last hajj (10 A.H) (Two other submitted places in Sunni Hadith which say Prophet prohibited MUT'AH). In this case:

* Was did Ali used Khaybar (7A.H) as reference and not 9A.H/10A.H?

* Using Khaybar as reference for Ibn Abbas can ONLY make sense IF it is a forever prohibition. Then, if it is, why did Prophet allowed it (MUT'AH) afterwards?

* Why did NONE of the abovementioned prominent sahabah NEVER EVER mentioned the so-called prohibition of Mut'ah at either Fat'h Makkah or last hajj?

Empiree or whoever should kindly help me solve the puzzle ACADEMICALLY.