Empiree:
I thought there are differences amongst the Sahabi based on evidences provided by you and sino? MODIFIED: that was abrogation of mut'ah

# It is only on Hadith sahabah have differences over, NOT Qur'an. I stand to be corrected if there is any Sahabi that submit that the verse was not revealed for MUT'AH.

Empiree:

You'd better discuss it but i wont hold you responsible for what they do. I believe you read comment from MISYAR I posted twice. Is that how it is done and it that what they called mut'ah and do you agree with this practice (even though you don't engage in it)?.

# Again, none of you guys have firsthand report of how MUT'AH is being conducted in Iran. You only rely on reports. Obviously, there will or might be abuse of it. I am not concern about all that, and please stop mentioning that either. Let's focus on what Shia ahadith (and Sunni ahadith says) on MUT'AH processes.

I post few highlights shortly. Note: Each highlighted points obviously have more information but I do not wish to spend all my time on them. The few highlights should be okay in sha Allah.

Empiree:
Your opinion. How is it "shameful act". My view is that we talking about war zone here. Their husbands die in war. It doesn't mean they call their husbands in their presence now. It is war zone. As for those crackheads, they can use and misuse the ayah, that's their problem. They are wrong bcuz they are simply causing terror and fitna in the land. Their fight is not legit. So their use of the ayah is irrelevant

# You kill somebody at war or enslaved them, captured the GRIEVING children or wives; and have sex with them. No woman in that situation will ever have sex freely with you therefore you can only force her. And her heavy heart will be raining curses on you.

Islam I know and understand do not treat people like animals.

Empiree:

This is what i was trying to get your view and sino. So now what's your position on what he said plus, what's the correlation between this and mut'ah?. Remember this is the same ayah of 'muta'h as you claimed?

# There is absolutely no correlation between it and MUT'AH.

# And for a fact, the verse of Mut'ah used to be a LONE verse but compilation did "smuggled" it into that context. There are few other lone verses like that with similar cases. Therefore, we run into several interpretation problems the moment we try to interpret within the "new" context, and not based on the way they are revealed.

Empiree:

Similar lecture he delivered before this one, he said the child his legit(HALAL) and the child is treated in the same level of his wife's children. ONLY the "second class" woman is impacted by this type of marriage.The children have the same rights.

# So, what's the essence of running away from financial responsibilities in the first instance?!

AlBaqir:

I post few highlights shortly. Note: Each highlighted points obviously have more information but I do not wish to spend all my time on them. The few highlights should be okay in sha Allah.

1. MUT’AH: A TOOL OF NECESSITY

Generally, mut’ah is forbidden except in cases of necessity.
Shaykh al-Kulaynī (d. 329 H) reports:

Alī b. Ibrāhīm – his father – Ibn Abī ‘Umayr – ‘Alī b. Yaqṭīn:

I asked Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā, peace be upon him, concerning mut’ah, and he said, “What do you have to do with that, for Allāh has already made you needless of it?” I said, “I only want to learn about it.” Then he said, “It is in the Book of ‘Alī, peace be upon him.” So, I said, “Do we increase it and is it multiplied?” He said, “Is there anything that pleases him except that?”

Allamah Majlisi comments: Hasan (sound)

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 5, p. 452, # 1


2. THE SUITABLE MUT’AH WIVES

* She must be of age, and chaste.

# Sheik Kulayni again documents:

Alī – his father – Ibn Abī ‘Umayr – Jamīl b. Darrāj:

I asked Abū ‘Abd Allāh about the man who does mut’ah with the virgin girl. He said, “There is no problem with that, as long as he does not find her to be underage.”

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 5, p. 463, # 4

FEW NOTES:

A. Āyatullāh al-Rūḥānī states:

"...what is meant by the “virgin” is the one who has never married."

Source: Fiqh al-Ṣādiq (Qum: Muasassat Dār al-Kitāb; (3rd ed.1414 H), vol. 25, pp. 420-421

B. Mut'ah with virgin is generally Makrooh (dislike).

C. Another restriction

Al-Kulayni documents:

Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā – Aḥmad and ‘Abd Allāh, sons of Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā – ‘Alī b. al-Ḥakam – Ziyād b. Abī al-Ḥilāl:

I heard Abū ‘Abd Allāh, peace be upon him, saying: “There is no problem in doing mut’ah with the virgin as long as he does not have intercourse with her, for fear of the disgust of the blemish upon her family.”

Allamah Majlisi declares: Sahih

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 5, p. 462, # 2

Obviously, if sex is one of the aims of the man in seeking a mut’ah, he has to forgo the virgin women.


# Sheik Tusi also documents:

Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā – Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl b. Bazī’:

A man asked al-Riḍā, peace be upon him, while I was listening, about the man who marries the woman in mut’ah and he imposes a condition upon her that he will not seek her child. But, she later comes with a child and he severely denies the child. So, he (al-Riḍā) said, “Does he deny? How can he deny primarily because of that?” Then, the man said, “What if he accuses her (of fornication)?” He (al-Riḍā) said, “It is not appropriate for you to marry except a faithful woman. Verily, Allāh the Almighty says: {The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or an idolatress; and the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater: and that is made ḥarām for the believers}.

Al-Majlisī states: Sahih

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Ḥasan al-Mūsawī al-Khurasān], vol. 7, p. 269, Ch. 24, # 82 (1157)



# Sheik Kulayni also states:

‘Alī b. Ibrāhīm – Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā – Yūnus – Muḥammad b. al-Fuḍayl:

I asked Abū al-Ḥasan, peace be upon him, about the beautiful woman who is a prostitute: is it permissible for the man to do mut’ah with her for a day or more?” He said: “If she is famous for zinā, then he must NOT do mut’ah with her and also must NOT marry her (permanently).”

Al-Majlisī comments: Muwaththaq (Reliable)

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 5, p. 454, # 6

AlBaqir:
# Again, none of you guys have firsthand report of how MUT'AH is being conducted in Iran. You only rely on reports. Obviously, there will or might be abuse of it. I am not concern about all that, and please stop mentioning that either. Let's focus on what Shia ahadith (and Sunni ahadith says) on MUT'AH processes.

I post few highlights shortly. Note: Each highlighted points obviously have more information but I do not wish to spend all my time on them. The few highlights should be okay in sha Allah.

I have never for once criticized them bcus i dont have firsthand info until comment the guy left. I felt that his statement is too true to be false. Forget about whoever abuses the system. That happens all the time in every aspect. Whoever doesn't grasp that, i can care less.

If you have authentic information how iranian authority (in their constitution or official report) views the process, kindly post it. I will try to verify what you post though. I just don't want to rely on propaganda.

3. MUT'AH WITH CHRISTIAN OR JEWS

Qur'an 5: 5 rules a Muslim is allowed to marry chaste ones from Christian or Jew.

# Allamah al-Ḥurr al-‘Amili (d. 1104 H) also records this hadith:

Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan with his isnād from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā – Ismā’īl b. Sa’d al-Ash’arī:

I asked him (i.e. the Imām) about the man who does mut’ah with a Jewess or a Christian woman. He said, “I see no problem with that.” I said, “What about a Zoroastrian woman?” He said, “As for a Zoroastrian woman, then no.”
Āyatullāh Ṣādiq al-Rūḥānī comments: Muwaththaq (reliable)

Source: Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ḥurr al-‘Āmilī, Tafṣīl Wasāil al-Shī’ah ilā Taḥṣīl Masāil al-Sharī’ah (Qum: Muasassat Āl al-Bayt ‘Alaihim al-Salām li Iḥyā al-Turāth; 2nd edition, 1414 H), vol. 21, p. 37, Ch. 13, # 1 (26465)



4. THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT & IDDAH PERIOD

Sheik Al-Kulayni documents:

A number of our companions – Sahl b. Ziyād AND Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā – Aḥmad b. Muḥammad – Ibn Maḥbūb – Jamīl b. Ṣāliḥ – Zurārah – Abū ‘Abd Allāh, peace be upon him, who said:

“Mut’ah does not exist except through two things: a specified term and a specified dowry.”

‘Allāmah al-Majlisī says: Ṣaḥīḥ

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 5, p. 455, # 1


Al-Kulayni further records:

Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā – Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn AND a number of our companions – Aḥmad b. Muḥammad – ‘Uthmān b. ‘Īsā – Samā’ah – Abū Baṣīr:

You must say in these terms: “I marry you in mut’ah for such-and-such days with such-and-such amount, in marriage and NOT for fornication or adultery, upon the Book of Allāh the Almighty and the Sunnah of His Prophet, peace be upon him and his family; and upon the condition that you shall not inherit me and I shall not inherit you; and upon the condition that you do ‘iddah for forty-five days” and some of them said, “a menstruation.”

Al-Majlisī comments: Muwaththaq (Reliable)

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 5, p. 455, # 2

NOTE: Other riwayat clearly confirmed that there is no waiting period (iddah) for women who have despaired of menstruation.


* Al-Kulayni also adds:

Alī b. Ibrāhīm – his father – Ibn Abī ‘Umayr – Ḥammād – al-Ḥalabī:

Abū ‘Abd Allāh, peace be upon him, said about a man who has sexual intercourse with a woman: “When the two circumcised parts meet, the dowry and the ‘iddah become compulsory.”

Al-Majlisī says: Hasan (sound)

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 6, p. 109, # 1

# Sheik Tusi documents:

Al-Ḥusayn b. Sa’īd – al-Naḍr – ‘Āṣim b. Ḥumayd – Muḥammad b. Muslim:

I asked Abū ‘Abd Allāh, peace be upon him, “How much is the dowry, that is in mut’ah?” So, he said, “Whatsoever they both mutually agree upon, up to whatsoever length of time he wishes.”

Al-Majlisī proclaims: sahih

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Ḥasan al-Mūsawī al-Khurasān], vol. 7, p. 264, Ch. 24, # 66 (1141)



5. ON THE INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF THE SPOUSES

# Al-Kulayni documents:

Alī b. Ibrāhīm – his father – Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Abī Naṣr – Abū al-Ḥasan al-Riḍā, peace be upon him:

The marriage of mut’ah is marriage with inheritance and marriage without inheritance. If it is stipulated as a condition, then it occurs. But, if it is not stipulated as a condition, it does not occur.”

Al-Majlisī says: Hasan

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 5, p. 465, # 2

6. CHILDREN OF MUT’AH

Sheik Tusi documents:

Al-Ḥusayn b. Sa’īd – al-Naḍr – ‘Āṣim b. Ḥumayd – Muḥammad b. Muslim:

I asked Abū ‘Abd Allāh, peace be upon him, “How much is the dowry, that is in mut’ah?” So, he said, “Whatsoever they both mutually agree upon, up to whatsoever length of time he wishes.” I said, “Tell me: what if she gets pregnant?” He said, “It is his child. And if he wishes to renew the union, he can do (that). In such a case, she would not be required to observe the ‘iddah in his case. However, for anyone else, she must observe forty-five nights. Meanwhile, if inheritance is stipulated as a condition (of the mut’ah), then they both must comply with their condition.”

Al-Majlisī comments: sahih

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Ḥasan al-Mūsawī al-Khurasān], vol. 7, p. 264, Ch. 24, # 66 (1141)


7. RENEWAL OF THE MUT’AH

Sheik Al-Kulayni documents:

A number of our companions – Sahl b. Ziyād AND ‘Alī b. Ibrāhīm – his father – ‘Abd al-Raḥman b. Abī Najrān AND Aḥmad b. Abī Naṣr – Abū Baṣīr:

There is no problem if you renew your union when the period (mutually agreed) between both of you expires. You say, “I seek to marry you for another term”, subject to her consent. That is not permissible for anyone apart from you until she completes her ‘iddah.

Al-Majlisī states: Sahih

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Ya’qūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Furū’ min al-Kāfī (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah) [annotator: ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghiffārī], vol. 5, p. 458, # 1



# The Sunnī Imām, ‘Abd al-Razzāq (d. 211 H), has a similar ḥadīth:

Abd al-Razzāq – Ibn Jurayj – Abū al-Zubayr – Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh:

“We, the Ṣaḥābah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, did mut’ah until ‘Amr b. Ḥurayth was forbidden.”

Jābir also said, “When the time expires, and both (spouses) wish to repeat (the mut’ah), then he must give her another dowry”. One of us asked him, “How long is her ‘iddah?” He said, “A single menstruation.”

Source: Abū Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzāq b. Hamām al-Ṣa’nānī, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Ḥabīb al-Raḥman al-A’ẓamī], vol. 7, p. 499, # 14025

Empiree:

If you have authentic information how iranian authority (in their constitution or official report) views the process, kindly post it. I will try to verify what you post though. I just don't want to rely on propaganda.

# On issues of Religion (Fiqh), Rulings of the Maraji is the "constitution". Some follow Ayatullah Khameini, some follow Ayatullah Sistani etc. Their respective websites clearly stated their rulings. And their offices are 24/7 available and accessible for problems, questions and answers.

Whatever anybody does outside the ruling of his marja, that's between him and his Lord.

AlBaqir:


# You kill somebody at war or enslaved them, captured the GRIEVING children or wives; and have sex with them. No woman in that situation will ever have sex freely with you therefore you can only force her. And her heavy heart will be raining curses on you.

LOL, you are indirectly referencing some irrelevant ahadith. This is nothwat i am talking about. Let me give example from Lion Of The Desert where Ali's mother (the little boy), whose husband was killed in the battle. She came to Umar Mukhtar(ra) to seek for her husband's where about. Although she is muslim according to the movie. But consider she is from the other side, someone else would marry her from amongst the muslims. This is pretty much what Quran describes in my view. What you described however is thug life and a crime. That isnt sensible

# There is absolutely no correlation between it and MUT'AH.

Isn't the same ayah?

# And for a fact, the verse of Mut'ah used to be a LONE verse but compilation did "smuggled" it into that context.

what exactly was 'smuggled'?. That the verse was lumped with preceding phrases or statement of Allah was removed?. If that's the case, the same approach with ayah of rajm applies to this as well. No one has the right to claim a verse was missing or added except Allah and His messanger. Not S.Umar(ra). Not S. Ibn Abbas(r), regardless how many times he sworn by Allah just as the case of rajm. But if you are talking about punctuation like in sura Imran, that's understandable bcus punctutions are not part of revelation.

There are few other lone verses like that with similar cases. Therefore, we run into several interpretation problems the moment we try to interpret within the "new" context, and not based on the way they are revealed.

Again, this is understandable and this has nothing to do with Waḥy. This is the same case with ayah at the beginning of sura Imran

# So, what's the essence of running away from financial responsibilities in the first instance?!

It stems from economic hardship for men especially. The Sheikh explained this in his video now

AlBaqir:
6. CHILDREN OF MUT’AH

AlBaqir:

3. MUT'AH WITH CHRISTIAN OR JEWS

One problem i have here is, they failed to mention in their fatwa if this mut'ah practices is done ONLY in the same condition as the time of nabi(saw) i:e only restricted to the time of military service or outside of it including anyday and time?

Empiree:
LOL, you are indirectly referencing some irrelevant ahadith. This is nothwat i am talking about. Let me give example from Lion Of The Desert where Ali's mother (the little boy), whose husband was killed in the battle. She came to Umar Mukhtar(ra) to seek for her husband's where about. Although she is muslim according to the movie. But consider she is from the other side, someone else would marry her from amongst the muslims. This is pretty much what Quran describes in my view. What you described however is thug life and a crime. That isnt sensible

You cant blame me. You referenced the Hadith in respect to the "verse" as submitted by Ibn Kathir. So, I have give my judgement based on that.

Empiree:

Isn't the same ayah?

what exactly was 'smuggled'?. That the verse was lumped with preceding phrases or statement of Allah was removed?. If that's the case, the same approach with ayah of rajm applies to this as well. No one has the right to claim a verse was missing or added except Allah and His messanger. Not S.Umar(ra). Not S. Ibn Abbas(r), regardless how many times he sworn by Allah just as the case of rajm. But if you are talking about punctuation like in sura Imran, that's understandable bcus punctutions are not part of revelation.

# Consider the ayah, "Today I have perfected your religion for you and complete my favour upon you and chose Islam".

It is a complete ayah on its own, undiluted. Where do you find it as per arrangement today? Inside a very long context. It did not enjoy its loneliness any longer.

# Interestingly, even when Uthman re-compiled his own version of the Qur'an, and destroyed other revealed different styles of reading, people are still using different versions. It seems Khulafah that came late later enforce the official Uthmanic version.

* There is one beautiful Hadith in Sahih Bukhari where a man from Kufa visited Aishah and requested her version of the Qur'an so that he can re-arrange his own kufan version. Aishah said it doesn't matter.


# So the point is the verse of Mut'ah is a lone verse

AlBaqir:


You cant blame me. You referenced the Hadith in respect to the "verse" as submitted by Ibn Kathir. So, I have give my judgement based on that.





# Consider the ayah, "Today I have perfected your religion for you and complete my favour upon you and chose Islam".

It is a complete ayah on its own, undiluted. Where do you find it as per arrangement today? Inside a very long context. It did not enjoy its loneliness any longer.

# Interestingly, even when Uthman re-compiled his own version of the Qur'an, and destroyed other revealed different styles of reading, people are still using different versions. It seems Khulafah that came late later enforce the official Uthmanic version.

* There is one beautiful Hadith in Sahih Bukhari where a man from Kufa visited Aishah and requested her version of the Qur'an so that he can re-arrange his own kufan version. Aishah said it doesn't matter.


# So the point is the verse of Mut'ah is a lone verse

now i get it. This whole thing is irrelevant. You think this ayah in Imran doesn't enjoy it loneliness?. I don't know why you think it isn't. Quoting the ayah alone makes perfect sense OUT OF CONTEXT. Tafsir comes later.

So Nisai 24 is clear. Whether it was revealed in the case of mut'ah or not is a matter of differences in tafsir

Empiree:
now i get it. This whole thing is irrelevant. You think this ayah in Imran doesn't enjoy it loneliness?. I don't know why you think it isn't. Quoting the ayah alone makes perfect sense OUT OF CONTEXT. Tafsir comes later.

So Nisai 24 is clear. Whether it was revealed in the case of mut'ah or not is a matter of differences in tafsir

@underline, ayah in Nisa.

Well, you are right generally speaking, but @bold, we simply cannot close our eyes from the sabab nuzul of the ayah. It is always very important in Tafsir as it guides understanding and interpretation.

Empiree:
One problem i have here is, they failed to mention in their fatwa if this mut'ah practices is done ONLY in the same condition as the time of nabi(saw) i:e only restricted to the time of military service or outside of it including anyday and time?

# Doesn't mean it must be war time. Once the real necessity is there, then absolutely it becomes necessary.

# The other point is mut'ah is not all about sex sex sex. It might be about companionship. The best example here is a Sunni Tabi'ieen called Abd Al-Malik Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 H).

# Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 H) documents about him:

Abū Ghassān Zunayj said: I heard Jarīr al-Ḍabī saying: “Ibn Jurayj believed in the legitimacy of mut’ah. He married sixty women. And it is said that he informed his children of their names, in case one of them made a mistake and married one of those whom his father had married in mut’ah.”

He also records:

Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abd al-Ḥakam said: I heard al-Shāfi’ī saying: “Ibn Jurayj did mut’ah with ninety women.”

Source: Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ‘Uthmān al-Dhahabī, Siyar A’lām al-Nubalā (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risālah; 9th edition, 1413 H) [annotators of the sixth volume: Shu’ayb al-Arnāūṭ and Ḥusayn al-Asad], vol. 6, p. 331, # 138

The practice of Ibn Jurayj is interesting. Mut’ah is technically a tool of necessity. But, was he really pushed by necessity into marrying sixty or ninety women?! Or, was he only abusing it?

Well, perhaps, one may say that he was forced by the needs of those women, rather than his own. He only wanted to help them – to keep them company, privately discuss their problems with them, do his best to help them, and maybe also satisfy their sexual needs.

AlBaqir:


There is two roads here:

# You and the website adhered to those who accepted Aban as trustworthy with no weakness.

# I adhered to those who said Aban was severe in memory problem and was a munkar Hadith.

So, this is 50-50. This is what the website sensed before bringing that rookie explanation which unfortunately you don't understand. Alhamdulillah you killed yourself with double barrel.

You always amuse me with your self aggrandizement, quote a reputable hadith scholar that said the narration is weak due to Aban! I have brought evidences of those who classed the hadith hassan!

AlBaqir:

Here you are below:



* For a fact, I said the context must be the same or very similar to it.

* Now here's what you copy-pasted:


# What is the topic?

1. Umar banned MUT'AH on the Minbar claiming Allah's messenger BANNED it THREE TIMES. And whoever did MUT'AH, I will (Umar said) stone him.

That is our context.


Following are what you brought:

A. Ali: Prophet banned MUT'AH at Khaybar

B. Sabrah: Prophet banned MUT'AH at Fat'h Makkah/Hajj al-wada

NB: Sunni data confirmed the "banning at Hajj al-wada" was actually Fat'h Makkah, and that it was a mistake by the reporter to label it as "hajj al-wada. You (sino) had once brought this excuse before. Hope you remember.


So, how does that fits in into Umar's context?

Oga Ade, so you were waiting for me to quote relevant information on how hassan li ghairihi is graded?! But you could have asked me for proper explanation instead of going on a tangent...Any way, a simple question to show the weakness of your above analysis is, under which topic did hadith scholars classify the narration?! What you will find is PROHIBITION OF MUT'AH! And where did the narration state that mut'ah was banned by the Prophet (SAW) three times?! You couldn't even comprehend a narration properly how then would you understand how hadith are classified?! How does "but has the support of another suitable chain or other texts on the same topic" translate to mean the same context?! If you don't know, let me educate you, the quote first states that another chain (sanad) obviously with same narration (matn) or another narration (matn) with the same topic! Again I will ask you, under which topic can we find the narration in question, and the narrations listed to corroborate it?! Did any of these narration go against the narration in question?!

If you like, go and bring another quote stating that Aban was a liar and not trustworthy, it would never change the fact that Prophibition of mut'ah was made by the Prophet (SAW) through authentic narrations!

AlBaqir:


The above is the best scenario.

# Kindly tell us, sino, who graded the Hadith of "Kitab Allah Wa sunnati" as Hasan using the abovementioned processes?

Answer to this had already been posted you don't raise a narration that is severely weak hassan, I do not have the facts about this narration, You should bring the facts here let us all read, who classified it weak? Why? are the narrations under the same topic?! Do that and I will proceed from there...

AlBaqir:


# Sino, the theme of Umar's Hadith was that Prophet banned MUT'AH THREE TIMES.

Unfortunately, there was no "third" the moment you argued that "Fat'h Makkah" was the same thing as "hajj wada".

# Ali's other Hadith is yet a big thorn on your throat, " Had Umar not banned MUT'AH, none would have commit Zina except wretched. "

* We should ask Ali in your book: was it the Prophet that banned MUT'AH at Khaybar ni or was it Umar that banned it?

* So, to Ali, is MUT'AH allowed or Prophet had banned it at Khaybar?

* And obviously Ali had no knowledge of "banning at either Fat'h Makkah or hajj al-wada".


# You can see long list of problems with your Hadith and it's various attributions.

Please go and read the narration properly and stop repeating banning three times....

Secondly, the hadith of Ali (ra) actually is more problematic to you, I would say he didn't say mut'ah was permissible by the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW), and I am not into the business of speculating and assuming what a long dead sahabah meant with his statement, when we do not have any authentic statement explaing this, or claiming that the Prophet (SAW) never prohibited mut'ah. What we have is Ali (ra) challenging Ibn Abbas (ra), stating categorically that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah.

Again, one would wonder, Ali (ra) became the Caliph, yet he never said mut'ah is still permitted, or that Umar (ra) was wrong, or claim that Qur'an 4:24 was about mut'ah. So are you saying Ali (ra) just didn't care about a man changing Allah's laws?! What will it take Ali (ra) to have challenged Umar (ra) when he purportedly banned mut'ah by himself?! Or what would it have cost him after Umar (ra) to say the "truth"?!

AlBaqir:

@ Bold,

# The fact that Ahlu Sunnah are adamant that all their ahadith on Mut'ah prohibitions are authentic, therefore Prophet banned it, Shi'a's best argument against Ahlu Sunnah is the Qur'an, the verse of Mut'ah.

* Hadith do not negate verse(s) of the Qur'an. Therefore, all your so-called sahih Hadith are nothing but myth.

* OUR SUBMISSION: Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Ubai Ibn Kaab, Ibn Mas'ud among the sahabah, all submitted that Q.4:24, in fact not all verse 24 but a section of it, was a verse on its own that was revealed on MUT'AH.

* FACT: No sahabah is documented having contrary opinion to what Ibn Abbas, Ubai, and Ibn Mas'ud said.

NB: 1 - The fact that there are records of several Tabi'ieen that also argued that the verse was about MUT'AH, there are few who argued it is not. Likewise Sunni scholars: some believed the verse was on MUT'AH, and some argued it was not. The point is according to Sunni belief system itself, both Tabi'ieen and later scholars are lower on the food chain compare to sahabah


NB: 2 - Your best argument to prove that the ayah is not talking about MUT'AH was this:

www.nairaland.com/1946601/wont-stop-opposing-sunnah-mutah/2


# So, apart from the fact that Ibn Abbas and Ubai Ibn Kaab revealed that the verse is MUT'AH revealed, they both used to recite it with a phrase, "FOR A FIXED PERIOD". Unfortunately, we do not find this in the present Qur'an.

* Was Ibn Abbas and Ubai Ibn Kaab lying?

* Were they saying Tahrif happened in the Qur'an even when Ibn Abbas especially was confronted by a tabi that such phrase is not being recited by them, yet Ibn Abbas sworn Allah revealed it with those phrase?

# My submission is in sahih Bukhari where we read that Jubril revealed Qur'an in 7 different styles. In fact, Umar was confused about one of these seven styles that he dragged a fellow Sahabi to the Prophet and presented the case. According to the Hadith, Prophet confirmed both - recitation style of Umar, and different recitation style of the other sahabah.

Sources:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/13
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/14


So, Abu Ja'far was wrong, Ibn Abbas was right otherwise the later will be tagged a liar against Allah.

This is the most simplest of issue to refute....

Allah (SWT) said: Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).(Qur'an 15:9)

Where is the recital in the Qur'an?! If it was part of the Qur'an, who deleted it?! Are you saying Allah's statement above is false?! Why are you quick to believe these narrations that supports mut'ah to be authentic when this believe would be contradicting the Qur'an as stated above?! Why is mut'ah so important to you shi'as?! Any special reward attached to it?!

Again, you cannot trace this narration to the Prophet (SAW) that he said the verse is about mut'ah, even the narrations that the Prophet (SAW) permitted mut'ah, he never made mention of this, no where else can we find mut'ah in the Qur'an, and then you want us to believe that the verse is about mut'ah?! So all the sahabahs were also just quiet when Umar was banning it, and none could bring this verse as evidence?! Na wa o AlBaqir, I see how mut'ah is so very important to your being a shi'ah...COntinue....Enjoy well well

sino:


Secondly, the hadith of Ali (ra) actually is more problematic to you, I would say he didn't say mut'ah was permissible by the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW), and I am not into the business of speculating and assuming what a long dead sahabah meant with his statement, when we do not have any authentic statement explaing this, or claiming that the Prophet (SAW) never prohibited mut'ah. What we have is Ali (ra) challenging Ibn Abbas (ra), stating categorically that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah.

We will only be going in circles which is not healthy.

# Your problem is you are not ready to admit the obvious contradictions in those ahadith altogether.

1. Ali was allegedly warned Ibn Abbas that Nabi banned MUT'AH at Khaybar.

* The fact that Mut'ah was allowed 2 or 3 years later made the alleged Khaybar's banning abrogated. Why didnt Ali used the "new" banned law to warn Ibn Abbas?

2. The second attribution to Ali also comes which blew away the first:

"Had Umar not banned MUT'AH, only wretched person would have commit Zina"

Sino, Wallahi, it is very unfortunate that you deliberately undermine this Hadith and intentionally pretend not to "understand" its obvious meaning @underline. You are indeed wonderful.

* The saying mean nothing other than: (a) It was Umar who banned MUT'AH, (b) Ali sees no problem with whoever performs MUT'AH.

This altogether contradict the first Hadith that Ali warned Ibn Abbas that, "Prophet banned MUT'AH at Khaybar".

# This is what you run away from tendering excuse you are not expert on interpreting the saying of a dead Sahabi.

* Empiree, kindly offer your view.

sino:

This is the most simplest of issue to refute....

Allah (SWT) said: Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).(Qur'an 15:9)

Where is the recital in the Qur'an?! If it was part of the Qur'an, who deleted it?! Are you saying Allah's statement above is false?!

# The simplest route you can take is by calling Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud and Ubai Ibn Kaab liars against Allah. And that will make them all KUFFAR.

# So long the Hadith continues to be Sahih in Sunni books and grading, there is no escape from it.

# I have given you my submission on the saying of Ibn Abbas. It was very unfortunate that your Khalifah destroyed other 6 different styles of recitations that Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet.

AlBaqir:

# I have given you my submission on the saying of Ibn Abbas. It was very unfortunate that your Khalifah destroyed other 6 different styles of recitations that Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet.

Sino, here are the hadiths side by side.


Imam Bukhari documents:
Chapter: The Qur'an was revealed to be recited in seven different ways

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas:

"Allah's Messenger (s) said, "Gabriel recited the Qur'an to me in one way. Then I requested him (to read it in another way), and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4991
In-book reference : Book 66, Hadith 13
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 513
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/13


# A PERFECT SCENARIO

Narrated `Umar bin Al-Khattab:

"I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger ( s) and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Messenger (s) had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Messenger (s) taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Messenger (s) has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Messenger (s) and said (to Allah's Messenger (s)), "I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that
Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O `Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him
reciting. Then Allah's Messenger ( s) said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O `Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Messenger (s) then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4992
In-book reference : Book 66, Hadith 14
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 514
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/14


# AGAIN HERE'S THE HADITH OF IBN ABBAS


“Abū Naḍrah:

I read to Ibn Abbās: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He said: “{Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah *for a specified period*}”. 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.”

Sources:

1. Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310H) in his Tafsir [Jāmi al-Bayān fī Tāwīl al-Qur’ān (Dār al-Fikr; 1415 H), vol. 5, p. 19];

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

3. Imam al-Hafiz ibn Kathir (d. 774H) in his Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-'Aẓīm [( 2nd edition, 1420 H), vol. 2, p. 259];


4. Imam al-Hakim (d. 410H) document with more or less similar versions.

Al-Ḥākim and Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 H) comments:

This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) upon the standard of (Imām) Muslim.

Source: al-Mustadrak 'alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‟Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H), vol. 2, p. 334, # 3192}.

AlBaqir:
Emp.iree, kindly offer you view .

Well, my view is that based on evidences so far, nabi (saw) could not have banned MUT'AH till Qiyamah. I believe he banned it only after khaybah for khaybah.



Why?


Because the condition(s) which brought about permmisibilty of MUT'AH was restricted at battle i:e any such legit battle even in the future (generations to come).


That's it is the ONLY context I see that nabi(saw) allowed it. If it was banned forever, and Qur'an ayah 24 of sura Nisai was indeed revealed in this regard, it can not be eternal banned because Qur'an will continue to function for present and the future.


I said this because there are amongst the sunni and shi'i ulama who believe the ayah was revealed in reference to MUTA'H even though I never for once seen it that way.


I do not believe the ahadith abrogated that ayah of Quran just like I do not believe ahadith of rajam abrogated ayah of FLOGGING for adultery.


The reason muta'h can not be forever banned is bcus, a war may breakout between Muslims and nonMuslims and the same old condition(s) will be activated if muslim army are to travel away from their wives for a period of time.


This is fact. We can take examples from around us like Israeli-Palestinian wars, saudi army in yemen, US military soldiers who leave their wives and kids behind and travel thousands of miles away from home.


Matter of fact this happened to US troops where US govt hired women and paid them for period of time to be with the soldiers. This is one of the many things their wives have to endure.



I DO NOT support or see any reason to support mutah outside of this context. But I am open to very good convincing EVIDENCE of this. This is my conclusion on this topic so far. In summary, mutah can not be zina because the prophet (saw) ordered it to begin with. Did he order zina?. Absolutely not.


Nor do I believe there is comparison between mutah, pork and wine etc. This is my submission.

Empiree:
Well, my view is that based on evidences so far, nabi (saw) could not have banned MUT'AH till Qiyamah. I believe he banned it only after khaybah for khaybah.



Why?


Because the condition(s) which brought about permmisibilty of MUT'AH was restricted at battle i:e any such legit battle even in the future (generations to come).


That's it is the ONLY context I see that nabi(saw) allowed it. If it was banned forever, and Qur'an ayah 24 of sura Nisai was indeed revealed in this regard, it can not be eternal banned because Qur'an will continue to function for present and the future.


I said this because there are amongst the sunni and shi'i ulama who believe the ayah was revealed in reference to MUTA'H even though I never for once seen it that way.


I do not believe the ahadith abrogated that ayah of Quran just like I do not believe ahadith of rajam abrogated ayah of FLOGGING for adultery.


The reason muta'h can not be forever banned is bcus, a war may breakout between Muslims and nonMuslims and the same old condition(s) will be activated if muslim army are to travel away from their wives for a period of time.


This is fact. We can take examples from around us like Israeli-Palestinian wars, saudi army in yemen, US military soldiers who leave their wives and kids behind and travel thousands of miles away from home.


Matter of fact this happened to US troops where US govt hired women and paid them for period of time to be with the soldiers. This is one of the many things their wives have to endure.



I DO NOT support or see any reason to support mutah outside of this context. But I am open to very good convincing EVIDENCE of this. This is my conclusion on this topic so far. In summary, mutah can not be zina because the prophet (saw) ordered it to begin with. Did he order zina?. Absolutely not.


Nor do I believe there is comparison between mutah, pork and wine etc. This is my submission.

# With all due respect, I personally do not ask your view as to whether MUT'AH is permissible or not. All I ask is your view on the two ahadith attributed to Ali. Sino, claimed its meaning is not clear to him and he is not a speculator or interpreter of a dead Sahabi's saying.

* My stand is crystal clear - both Hadith contradict themselves 100%. And leaves lots of loopholes within themselves.

# Kindly re-read, and make comment accordingly.

AlBaqir:


Sino, here are the hadiths side by side.


Imam Bukhari documents:
Chapter: The Qur'an was revealed to be recited in seven different ways

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas:

"Allah's Messenger (s) said, "Gabriel recited the Qur'an to me in one way. Then I requested him (to read it in another way), and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4991
In-book reference : Book 66, Hadith 13
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 513
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/13


# A PERFECT SCENARIO

Narrated `Umar bin Al-Khattab:

"I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger ( s) and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Messenger (s) had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Messenger (s) taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Messenger (s) has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Messenger (s) and said (to Allah's Messenger (s)), "I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that
Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O `Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him
reciting. Then Allah's Messenger ( s) said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O `Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Messenger (s) then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4992
In-book reference : Book 66, Hadith 14
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 514
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/14


# AGAIN HERE'S THE HADITH OF IBN ABBAS


“Abū Naḍrah:

I read to Ibn Abbās: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He said: “{Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah *for a specified period*}”. 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.”

Sources:

1. Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310H) in his Tafsir [Jāmi al-Bayān fī Tāwīl al-Qur’ān (Dār al-Fikr; 1415 H), vol. 5, p. 19];

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

3. Imam al-Hafiz ibn Kathir (d. 774H) in his Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-'Aẓīm [( 2nd edition, 1420 H), vol. 2, p. 259];


4. Imam al-Hakim (d. 410H) document with more or less similar versions.

Al-Ḥākim and Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 H) comments:

This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) upon the standard of (Imām) Muslim.

Source: al-Mustadrak 'alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‟Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H), vol. 2, p. 334, # 3192}.

You should tell us if Allah's statement is false, where Allah (SWT) says:

"Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)." (Qur'an 15:9)

Where is such a recital in the Qur'an?! Who removed it?! Can anyone remove what Allah (SWT) has said HE would Guard?!

Let the hadith be over authentic, it remains Ibn Abbas's opinion, he is not an authority on this issue, Allah (SWT) is, and the Prophet (SAW)... Also, Ibn Abbas (ra), had also admitted that mut'ah is like eating PORK when being asked to explain his position, he did not quote this verse did he?!

[quote author=Empiree post=61909827][/quote]

Bro,

* The Prophet (SAW), never made mention of Qur'an 4:24 as being the verse of mut'ah, there is no record of him putting this verse and mut'ah in the same context.

* We do not have any other verse that slightly suggests mut'ah in any form, while we do have many verses on Nikkah, sexual intercouse with slaves/captives and yet mut'ah is missing

*If you agree that mut'ah was prohibited only in Khaybar, that means, the Prophet (SAW) abrogated the ruling of the Qur'an, but we know revelation was still coming, there should have been a verse to address this...But we have nothing!

*The argument that if we call mut'ah zina, then it means that the Prophet (SAW) permitted zina, personally, holds no water. We know that it is permissible to drink alcohol or eat pork due to necessity, does that mean these things are halal?! Also, there were actions permitted for previous prophets, but haram now, do we now shy away from saying the truth about such activities now?!

*You say the necessity for mut'ah still exist? Now that we can travel to very far places within hours?! Let me ask you, will anyone die if he doesn't have sex ni?! What about the married women?! So their husbands can go have nice time with strange women, and their wives go just they languish for house with fear of if ever they would see their husbands again?! So they do not need sex and companionship too?! How is this fair?! If you say it is only for singles, were are your proofs?!

*AlBaqir wants us to believe that mut'ah is not meant for sex alone, I ask what else?! What brought about mut'ah?! What kind of companionship does an able-bodied man seek from a damsel?! You can even read that it is done with virgins, so na to just dey talk about current affairs abi?!

*You gave an example of the US Army shipping women who were paid to come have sex with soldiers and you still ask if it is not prostitution?! What is prostitution?! Why is it different?!

*IF you claim necessity for mut'ah, then you have no other option than to compare it to Alcohol and pork!

sino:


Bro,

* The Prophet (SAW), never made mention of Qur'an 4:24 as being the verse of mut'ah, there is no record of him putting this verse and mut'ah in the same context.

I didnt say he did. I dont think you read to understand my conclusion up there and preceding posts. I never for once understood Nisai 24 tobe verse of Mut'ah. Please scroll back up to read where i challenged albaqir and even attached the ayah and asked him to highlight mut'ah from the verse. I want convinced. But during my research elsewhere, I realized some ulama in sunni believe the verse was revealed about Mut'ah. I found that strange bcus that not how i understood it. But since there existed ulama who believed it is, then, it becomes matter of opinion to me. So this is not about me.

* We do not have any other verse that slightly suggests mut'ah in any form, while we do have many verses on Nikkah, sexual intercouse with slaves/captives and yet mut'ah is missing

Neither do i believe there existed a verse slightly different either. You need to read to understand my post. You should see where i challenged him when he said mut'a phrase in the sentence in nisai 24 was isolated ayah as "confirmed" by Ibn Abass. If you read me well, you would see i disagree with him. So again, it is not me and not him either. It is some evidences he gleaned from sunni books( regardless of whether they are sahih or not) is what he reply to prove his point. All you have to do is read my post from yesterday.

*If you agree that mut'ah was prohibited only in Khaybar, that means, the Prophet (SAW) abrogated the ruling of the Qur'an, but we know revelation was still coming, there should have been a verse to address this...But we have nothing!

For as long as there are sahaba, tabi'n and scholars who believe that ayah 24 was revealed about mut'ah, the ayah is still active unless you can prove it isnt. I didnt get the time to prove otherwise yet. Again, i personally DO NOT believe the ayah was revealed about mut'ah. I am not convinced as yet.

*The argument that if we call mut'ah zina, then it means that the Prophet (SAW) permitted zina, personally, holds no water. We know that it is permissible to drink alcohol or eat pork due to necessity, does that mean these things are halal?! Also, there were actions permitted for previous prophets, but haram now, do we now shy away from saying the truth about such activities now?!

Again, this analogy doesnt hold water either. It is the same arguement i see throughout internet. The difference is, people have alway been drinking, eating pork etc but not mut'ah which i quoted thehadith of Aisha(r) where she named types of marriages pre-islam. Mut'ah was not amongst them which means they werent practing mut'ah pre-islam. This is not the case with eating port or consuming alcohol. These are pre-exisiting and nabi(saw) allowed them until finally banned. But mut'ah was like a new legislation at that time. I will only agree with you if you can proof that mut'ah existed pre-islam and also need proof that the ayah 24 was not about mut'ah. Truly "mut'ah doesnt appearsin that ayah. I was shocked when albair specifically mentioned mut'ah but i didnt see it there. The verb used was istamtatum which they said to mean mut'ah. I wanst convonced at all. Please go back up to read my post yesterday. The only reason i eschewd from saying it isnt about mut;ah is bcus of some sahab and tabi'in who claimed it is. Thats why i asked albaqir if the ayah is there strongest evidence of mut'ah but seems he avoided that

*You say the necessity for mut'ah still exist? Now that we can travel to very far places within hours?! Let me ask you, will anyone die if he doesn't have sex ni?! What about the married women?! So their husbands can go have nice time with strange women, and their wives go just they languish for house with fear of if ever they would see their husbands again?! So they do not need sex and companionship too?! How is this fair?! If you say it is only for singles, were are your proofs?!

Geez, bro, where did i make @bold statement?. I dont think you understood my post you quote. I restricted mut'ah practices to battle field as done in the time of nabi NOT just any travel. Please read again.

*AlBaqir wants us to believe that mut'ah is not meant for sex alone, I ask what else?! What brought about mut'ah?! What kind of companionship does an able-bodied man seek from a damsel?! You can even read that it is done with virgins, so na to just dey talk about current affairs abi?!

perhaps, you could see from my post i didnt agree with this either.

*You gave an example of the US Army shipping women who were paid to come have sex with soldiers and you still ask if it is not prostitution?! What is prostitution?! Why is it different?!

I was simply making analogy btw military assignment of today and in the time of nabi(saw). Same condition different situation of women.

*IF you claim necessity for mut'ah, then you have no other option than to compare it to Alcohol and pork!

lae lae, they aren't the same. Refer to my post up there.

Albaqir,

I understand what you are trying to derive from those ahadith. Indeed, there seems to be contradictions. In such a situation, you are aware of my methodology. So if ahadith are in conflict with each other, we MUST first turn to Qur'an for clarification to determine valid claim(s) of each hadith.


Remember i asked you if Nisai 24 is the most ayah you rely on the validity of mut'ah?. I don't recollect your reply. Anyways, there is thing i need to raise. Up to you t defend it. Critical look at sura nisai ayah 24 again, from what i gathered, the word "mut'ah" is derived from (mta) istamtamtum i:e enjoyment. Let's take a look at Sura al-Imran where Allah used the same or similar phrase in ayah 197



مَتَـعٌ قَلِيلٌ ثُمَّ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمِهَادُ Their enjoyment is brief. Their ultimate home shall be Hell, an evil refuge.


The same phrase same meaning. You most likely would debate the context. Bring it on. Let's see.

Empiree:
Albaqir,

I understand what you are trying to derive from those ahadith. Indeed, there seems to be contradictions.

# That is what your brother stubbornly and arrogantly and deliberately denying given wonderful excuses. It is very tiring discussing with a person of such nature. I say, "La haola wala quwata illah billah".

Empiree:

Remember i asked you if Nisai 24 is the most ayah you rely on the validity of mut'ah?. I don't recollect your reply. Anyways, there is thing i need to raise. Up to you t defend it.

# Kindly go back to my reply on that. The reply is simple and explicit.

Empiree:

Critical look at sura nisai ayah 24 again, from what i gathered, the word "mut'ah" is derived from (mta) istamtamtum i:e enjoyment. Let's take a look at Sura al-Imran where Allah used the same or similar phrase in ayah 197



مَتَـعٌ قَلِيلٌ ثُمَّ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمِهَادُ Their enjoyment is brief. Their ultimate home shall be Hell, an evil refuge.


The same phrase same meaning. You most likely would debate the context. Bring it on. Let's see.

"matahu" (Their enjoyment) - qalilun (is brief) "

# MUT'AH, matah, istamta etc are all of the same root "m-t-a". Interestingly, some of these ahadith where Nabi ordered/command mut'ah, or people did MUT'AH, the same arabic word is used "istamta", " tastamtihu" were used depending on doers, and all these simply means: to enjoy, to derive pleasure, to profit (from something) etc.

# Attached below are screenshots of ahadith from sahih Muslim and al-Muwatta of Imam Malik where, "tastamtihu" and "istamta" were used respectively.

Note: "hu" is the pronoun indicating "Men (plural)" while the "ta" indicating it is "present action" remember the Hadith is being reported.

Note 2: "ta" indicate "one man", it is actually the " alif" that comes at the beginning that made the "ta" maftuh, normally it is madmum.


So, I don't understand what you need me to do on that.

^^^

Empiree, sorry here's the translation and link of the Hadith in Muwatta:

Imam Malik documents:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az- Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, ''Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman (ISTAMTA) and she is pregnant by him.'' Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, "This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it! "
.
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 28, Hadith 42
Arabic reference : Book 28, Hadith 1137

https://sunnah.com/malik/28


# This is another case apart from that of Amr Ibn Hurayth. So, obviously people were doing MUT'AH during the time of Umar's reign and he was very much aware of it.

# The Hadith further confirmed the truthfulness of the word of a senior Sahabi Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari who said, "WE USED TO perform MUT'AH during the time of the Messenger of Allah, and Abubakr and Umar until Umar banned it in the case of Amr (Ibn Hurayth) "

# Was Umar forgot the so-called three times prohibition of the Nabi ni? And for sure he was present in those three occasions, and Jabir Ibn Abdullah was equally present in those three outing. Yet our brother is giving "ignorance excuse".

# And it is very interesting that Umar wished to stone whoever did MUT'AH. Was MUT'AH a Zina act? It seemed he only used the word to scare and ban people from it because, for a fact, he never stoned or lashed Amr Ibn Hurayth, whose case finally made Umar banned MUT'AH.

Let me break it down bit by bit

AlBaqir:
^^^

Empiree, sorry here's the translation and link of the Hadith in Muwatta:

Imam Malik documents:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az- Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, ''Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman (ISTAMTA) and she is pregnant by him.'' Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, "This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it! "
.
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 28, Hadith 42
Arabic reference : Book 28, Hadith 1137

https://sunnah.com/malik/28




# This is another case apart from that of Amr Ibn Hurayth. So, obviously people were doing MUT'AH during the time of Umar's reign and he was very much aware of it.

Here, S. Umar(r) could be excused. For instance, people will always be people. There will always be transgressors after it was banned by the prophet(s). And just bcus they do mut'ah would not make it right. Perhaps, the reason he said this. Let me make analogy of this. It is like immigration crisis in usa where feds warned any state that harbors illegal immigrants. This means it is illegal for any state in US to be sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. By law it is illegal but it doesn't mean the state can be santuary. The legal consequence is it will face federal wrath. Just bcus they are sanctuary doesn't make them right. Just bcus people practiced mut'ah in his reign doesn't make it right.

# The Hadith further confirmed the truthfulness of the word of a senior Sahabi Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari who said, "WE USED TO perform MUT'AH during the time of the Messenger of Allah, and Abubakr and Umar until Umar banned it in the case of Amr (Ibn Hurayth) "

Now, this is a clause here. I dont excuse here faah

# Was Umar forgot the so-called three times prohibition of the Nabi ni? And for sure he was present in those three occasions, and Jabir Ibn Abdullah was equally present in those three outing. Yet our brother is giving "ignorance excuse".

no comment

# And it is very interesting that Umar wished to stone whoever did MUT'AH. Was MUT'AH a Zina act? It seemed he only used the word to scare and ban people from it because, for a fact, he never stoned or lashed Amr Ibn Hurayth, whose case finally made Umar banned MUT'AH.

No comment

I already sensed it is NOT ALL Shi'a practice Mut'ah marriage. The wiki article states that's Sunni, and Shi'a sect like Zaidi shias, Ismaili Shias and Dawoodi Bojras do not practice Nikah Mut'ah.

It says however that Sunni Muslims practice Nikah misyar, that some muslim and islamic scholars have claimed that both Nikat mut'ah and misyar are islamically void attempts to religiously sanction prostitut1on which is otherwise forbidden.


Now this wiki article is right on point. But Baqir keeps preventing me from bringing misyar in this. Perhaps the reason i see no reason to be harsh on shi'a on this issue and the reason i see no reason for these brothers to keep pounding on shi'a over this is bcus section of Sunni a k a Saudi region approved of nikah misyar which doesn't even have reference in the kitab and sunnah. This is a case of kettle calling pot black. Mrolai needs to refute misyar first before challenging shi'a.



I am sorry, i am interested in either. Middle path criticism is the way. As you can see this thread is stall due to evidences of mut'ah in sunni books. That kills this back/forth brouhaha.


I believe albaqir cited part of this before. The lay part is funny. So Muawiya practiced mutah long after nabi. Interesting!

Funny the last statement says his mutah was more halal than drinking water

[quote author=Empiree post=61872984][/quote] nawa ooo empiree, why would you be with a beautiful woman all alone before the thought of zina go come enter you. No. Make me laugh abeg. We have been giving instructions on how to avoid zina, just follow it and Inn sha Allah you will be saved from it.

Empiree:
I didnt say he did. I dont think you read to understand my conclusion up there and preceding posts. I never for once understood Nisai 24 tobe verse of Mut'ah. Please scroll back up to read where i challenged albaqir and even attached the ayah and asked him to highlight mut'ah from the verse. I want convinced. But during my research elsewhere, I realized some ulama in sunni believe the verse was revealed about Mut'ah. I found that strange bcus that not how i understood it. But since there existed ulama who believed it is, then, it becomes matter of opinion to me. So this is not about me.

I believe I do understand you, the more reason I emphasized the Prophet (SAW) never using the verse to permit mut'ah...The only authority in classifying haram and halal is the Qur'an and the Sunnah, Ulama must base their evidences on these two, hence their opinion, if in contrary to what is established from these two sources, and the consensus of the sahabah, then it is rejected. The scholars of tafsir usually present these divergent opinions from various sources, but would always state the most correct view, based on established evidences.

Empiree:

Neither do i believe there existed a verse slightly different either. You need to read to understand my post. You should see where i challenged him when he said mut'a phrase in the sentence in nisai 24 was isolated ayah as "confirmed" by Ibn Abass. If you read me well, you would see i disagree with him. So again, it is not me and not him either. It is some evidences he gleaned from sunni books( regardless of whether they are sahih or not) is what he reply to prove his point. All you have to do is read my post from yesterday.

Okay, but take not, I sometimes write generally, the reason I didn't quote your post in full.

Empiree:

For as long as there are sahaba, tabi'n and scholars who believe that ayah 24 was revealed about mut'ah, the ayah is still active unless you can prove it isnt. I didnt get the time to prove otherwise yet. Again, i personally DO NOT believe the ayah was revealed about mut'ah. I am not convinced as yet.

What other proof do you want?! Evidences had been presented how the Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah, secondly the evidences being put forward that the verse is about mut'ah is not traced to the Prophet (SAW), rather traced to men who are fallible, and the said words which we cannot find in the Qur'an, can never be said to be part of the Qur'an except you want to claim the Qur'an had been corrupted, which Allah (SWT) had categorically guarded even up till today.

Empiree:

Again, this analogy doesnt hold water either. It is the same arguement i see throughout internet. The difference is, people have alway been drinking, eating pork etc but not mut'ah which i quoted thehadith of Aisha(r) where she named types of marriages pre-islam. Mut'ah was not amongst them which means they werent practing mut'ah pre-islam. This is not the case with eating port or consuming alcohol. These are pre-exisiting and nabi(saw) allowed them until finally banned. But mut'ah was like a new legislation at that time. I will only agree with you if you can proof that mut'ah existed pre-islam and also need proof that the ayah 24 was not about mut'ah. Truly "mut'ah doesnt appearsin that ayah. I was shocked when albair specifically mentioned mut'ah but i didnt see it there. The verb used was istamtatum which they said to mean mut'ah. I wanst convonced at all. Please go back up to read my post yesterday. The only reason i eschewd from saying it isnt about mut;ah is bcus of some sahab and tabi'in who claimed it is. Thats why i asked albaqir if the ayah is there strongest evidence of mut'ah but seems he avoided that

Brother Empiree, you would agree with me that if mut'ah was a new legislation, then the Qur'an would have been very clear, with the conditions, or we would have detailed information from the Prophet (SAW)...But this is not the case, we cannot find any additional information about this "new" legislation in the Qur'an, and information from the Prophet (SAW), indicated that it was permitted due to necessity, the Prophet (SAW) never explained that this is another type of "marriage" legislated by Allah (SWT), nothing is found! And if a sahabah or tabi'i said something, and we cannot find authentic evidences to support it, we cannot use that as an evidence for shari'ah, it remains their opinion, not binding on anyone.

Qur'an 4:24 is placed in the right place and context, the Prophet (SAW) recited surah Nisai like we are doing today, except AlBaqir wants us to believe that the Prophet (SAW) wasn't in charge of where each and every verse should be. You should use hijab as an example, was it not detailed?! How come mut'ah a new law, was just "surreptitiously" mentioned in the Qur'an?! And no further clarification from the Prophet (SAW), the walking Qur'an?!

We shouldn't even be talking about this, the Qur'an clearly states that sexual relation is only between a man and his wife, or his slave, mut'ah women are not called wives and they are not slave, so where does this put the Qur'anic verses that prohibit such sexual relationships?!

Empiree:

Geez, bro, where did i make @bold statement?. I dont think you understood my post you quote. I restricted mut'ah practices to battle field as done in the time of nabi NOT just any travel. Please read again.

I didn't say you made mention of the bold, I was only making a point that we live in a time when travel is much faster, which should afford couples to still keep in touch within a reasonable period of time, that even reminds me, we have technology now, husband and wife can do both voice and video calls, which should ease the pressure to have sex and stress of being far away from each other, so really, I see no reason why mut'ah is needed in our present time.

Empiree:

perhaps, you could see from my post i didnt agree with this either.

Okay

Empiree:

I was simply making analogy btw military assignment of today and in the time of nabi(saw). Same condition different situation of women.

Even those in the millitary like the US, do make provisions for their personnel to go home after a tour which can have different duration and I think 4 years is the maximum. I don't think any man will die if he abstains from sex for that long. But again, if they are single, it does not matter if they are in expedition or not, because they do not have woman anywhere! So what is the case of the single man at home and during expedition?!

Empiree:

lae lae, they aren't the same. Refer to my post up there.

Okay.

Kaytixy:
nawa ooo empi.ree, why would you be with a beautiful woman all alone before the thought of zina go come enter you. No. Make me laugh abeg. We have been giving instructions on how to avoid zina, just follow it and Inn sha Allah you will be saved from it.

what are u talking about? . Did you read the thread at all? .


One thing I noticed though, is that, you, Mrolai and co love to start what you can't finish. You all disappeared the moment this thread goes beyond your level of maturity.

Now you come around talking trash

Empiree:
what are u talking about? . Did you read the thread at all? .


One thing I noticed though, is that, you, Mrolai and co love to start what you can't finish. You all disappeared the moment this thread goes beyond your level of maturity.

Now you come around talking trash

I'm following this thread step by step from the start my brother. I don't have anything to argue with albaqir wallah. I have read enough. Albaqir is Shia, he has his own quran, hadith and all of that. Sino has done a good job and may Allah reward him abundantly and all of those who have contributed to this thread with sincerity with the exclusion of albaqir. I will never pray or say anything good to albaqir as long as he continues to insult the companions of the prophet saw. Until he repents, he remains a KAAFIR. The best I can do for him is pray for guidance for him and us too.