I have been involved in debates hotter than this one. When I mean debate I mean debate. So just forget about this mumu albaqir. Albaqir Mata na small. I don't have his time.

Kaytixy:
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.

you are still mesmerized by Shia this, shia that. If you truly followed and understood the thread, you should see already that it is irrelevant calling shia or albaqir kufar.



Evidences abound in sunni books which shia use against sunni of some corruptions. For as long as those texts are there, you are screwed. You are saying shia have their own Quran based on a twist. Sunni are as well guilty as them on rajam issue. Have said that many times.


Sino,

Now you see why it is useless and irrelevant to keep pounding on shia about mutah when evidences show some sahaba continued to practice mutah after the prophet (saw). Albaqir cited evidences of muawiya and others did mutah. These are sunnis. This is why it is sometimes not a good idea to defend all the sahaba hook line and sinker against Shia knowing too well they have their holes.



My point all along is the same; both Shia and sunni are guilty of many things together. It won't be easy for you, mrolai and other sunnis to condemn mutah nikah of shia while there exist historical evidences that some sahaba continued to practice muta
AFTER the demise of the prophet (s). Whether they are right or wrong is another subject. This is why I don't argue with shia on subject that i know sunnis are guilty of.



So from now, it doesn't make sense for mrolai to keep embarrassing himself by condemning nikah mutah if arab sunni also practice misyar, and historical practice of mutah by sahaba after it was banned. That's my target all along.



I know what I believe in terms of men and women relationship, marriage etc. If some of my posts here suggest I'm pro-mutah, it is only for academic and educational purposes which I have achieved. I don't believe in neither mutah nor misyar. Sura Nisai 24 was never about mutah as taught growing up as a child. Never understood the ayah that way. I could have supported it if the verse is clear about muta, but what they tried to deduce(muta) from the ayah doesn't make sense to me. Hence, my reason for rejection.



But I'm never gonna bring it up as an argument against shia when i know for sure they will come up with sunni text to back up their claims. I have read more elsewhere online while following this thread and I see no way you can successfully break shi'a's back unless you stick to Quran only on this issue and disregard all pro-mutah ahadith.



Quran comes first and it is the criteria to determine who is right or wrong. And don't even think for a second that albaqir himself does muta. He doesnt. He is simply defending the text since our sunni brothers are fond of asking for dalil. So he gives them.



Here is the thing, if you follow a famous hadith which says to follow the sunnah and sunnah of sahaba, by that logical standard, shia have the right to claim mutah is sunnah. Middle path is the way to go. I have long understood both major Islamic sects are different sides of the same coin.



If shia are guilty of nikah mutah as zina. Section of Sunni are guilty of misyar another form of zina. It is even funny that the region(Arab - Saudi especially) that critidizes shia are the ones practicing misyar. Yet they have scholars that many brothers here revered so much. Saudi govt could not have approved misyar without their scholars of Islam. So what's the point of condemning shia?. Matter of fact, their muta is more plausible than misyar. Aren't they fulfilling hadith which says zina will be called by other name? .



Far as I am concern, sura nisai 24 has nothing to do with mutah unless anymore can prove to me by using mutawatir hadith that it was about mut'ah. Note that there are amongst the sunni (not contemporary ones) who believe the ayah was revealed about muta and they came up with their evidences but I am not convinced.



However, I will continue to distance myself from saying muta is zina. If it was not considered zina by definition in the time of nabi regardless of whether before or after the ban, it remains muta. To give it another definition of zina is to speak ill of the prophet. You can see why I'm adamant.


Albaqir however doesn't want me to bring misyar into this. Bringing up misyar into this put sunni brothers in check. Thats what i need him to understand. I remember you (sino) said women's rights is zero in mut'ah marriage. It is the same here https://islamqa.info/en/82390 . Sheikh Bin Baz approved of it but it seems sheikh Albani tag it haram.



Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) used to say that it was permissible, then he stopped saying that because of the negative effects, as it was poorly applied by some wrongdoers. That if Misyaar marriage fulfils the conditions of a valid marriage, namely the proposal and acceptance, the consent of the wali and witnesses or announcement of the marriage, then it is a valid marriage contract, and it is good for some categories of men and women whose circumstances call for this type of marriage.


Pay attention to underline, albaqir said the same. He is not concerned about transgressors which this sheikh vouched too. @bold, mut'ah also meets this conditions. So you are the same.

Empiree:
you are still mesmerized by Shia this, shia that. If you truly followed and understood the thread, you should see already that it is irrelevant calling shia or albaqir kufar.



Evidences abound in sunni books which shia use against sunni of some corruptions. For as long as those texts are there, you are screwed. You are saying shia have their own Quran based on a twist. Sunni are as well guilty as them on rajam issue. Have said that many times.


Sino,

Now you see why it is useless and irrelevant to keep pounding on shia about mutah when evidences show some sahaba continued to practice mutah after the prophet (saw). Albaqir cited evidences of muawiya and others did mutah. These are sunnis. This is why it is sometimes not a good idea to defend all the sahaba against Shia knowing too well they have their holes.



My point all along is the same. Both Shia and sunni are guilty of many things together. It won't be easy for you, mrolai and other sunnis to condemn mutah nikah of shia while there exist historical evidences that some sahaba that we regarded to be sunni continued to practiced muta
AFTER the demise of the prophet (s). Whether they are right or wrong is another subject. This is why I don't argue with shia on subject that i know sunnis are guilty of.



So from now, it doesn't make sense for mrolai to keep embarrassing himself by condemning nikah mutah if arab sunni also practice misyar, and historical practice of mutah by sahaba after it was banned. That's my target all along.



I know what I believe in terms of men and women relationship, marriage etc. If some of my posts here suggest I'm promutah, it is only for academic and educational purposes which I have achieved. I don't believe in neither mutah nor misyar. Nisai 24 was never about mutah growing up as a child. Never understood the ayah that way. I could have supported it if the verse is clear about muta. But what they tried to deduce(muta) from the ayah doesn't make to me. Hence, my reason for rejection.



But I'm never gonna bring it up as an argument against shia when i know for sure they will come up with sunni text to back up their claims. I have read more elsewhere online while following this thread and I see no way you can successfully break their back unless you stick to Quran only on this issue and disregard all pro-mutah ahadith.



Quran comes first and it is the criteria to determine who is right or wrong. And don't even think for a second that albaqir himself does muta. He doesnt. He is simply defending the text since our sunni brothers are fond of asking for dalil. So he gives them.



Here is the thing, if you follow a famous hadith which says to follow the sunnah and sunna of sahaba, by that logical standard, shia have the right to claim mutah is sunnah.


Middle path is the way to go. I have long understood both major Islamic sects are different sides of the same coin.



If shia are guilty of nikah mutah as zina. Section of Sunni are guilty of misyar another form of zina. It is even funny that the region(Arab - Saudi especially) that critidizes shia are the ones practicing misyar. Yet they have scholars that many brothers here revered so much. Saudi govt could not have approved misyar without these scholars of Islam. So what's the point of condemning shia?. Matter of fact, their muta is me plausible than misyar. Aren't they fulfilling haditg which says zina will be called by other name? .



Far as I am concern, sura nisai 24 has nothing to do with mutah unless anymore can prove to me by using mutawatir hadith that it was about mut'ah. Note that there are amongst the sunni (not comtemporary ones) who believe the ayah was reveales about muta and they came up with their evidences but I am not convinced.



However, I will continue to distance myself from saying muta is zina. If it was not considered zina by definition in the time of nabi regardless of whether before or after the ban, it remains muta. To give it another definition of zina is to speak ill of the prophet. You can see why I'm adamant.

Pls stop all this Saudi this Saudi that. If Saudi decides to practice something does that make that things generally or acceptable in Islam empiree? We are not told to follow Saudi but Allah and the prophet saw. So forget all this your statement about Saudi practicing this and that. Have you heard the grand mufti of Saudi saying it's halal to practice what is haram. If Saudi government decides to practice what suits them how can you attribute that to Islam. Nawa ooo

Kaytixy:
Pls stop all this Saudi this Saudi that. If Saudi decides to practice something does that make that things generally or acceptable in Islam emp.iree? We are not told to follow Saudi but Allah and the prophet saw. So forget all this your statement about Saudi practicing this and that. Have you heard the grand mufti of Saudi saying it's halal to practice what is haram. If Saudi government decides to practice what suits them how can you attribute that to Islam. Nawa ooo

then stop your finger pointing. You are equally guilty. Don't you see your shuyukh fingerprints approved misyar?. Why're you distancing yourself from your shuyukh now?

Empiree:

Sino,

Now you see why it is useless and irrelevant to keep pounding on shia about mutah when evidences show some sahaba continued to practice mutah after the prophet (saw). Albaqir cited evidences of muawiya and others did mutah. These are sunnis. This is why it is sometimes not a good idea to defend all the sahaba hook line and sinker against Shia knowing too well they have their holes.

Bro, I see nothing o. It is only the twelver shi'as that believe mut'ah is still permissible, you can imagine using Muawiyah as one of the evidences, the one they claim to be a Kafir?! Even AlBaqir cannot tell us when Muawiyah did his mut'ah. I wonder where anyone had been defending anyone here. I have presented logical explanations to the whole evidences presented to support mut'ah, even AlBaqir brought an individual who drank alcohol and eventually left Islam, as part of the evidences of sahabas and tabi'in that practiced mut'ah...There are no holes bro, if you only want to play games ni kan lo ku!

Empiree:

My point all along is the same; both Shia and sunni are guilty of many things together. It won't be easy for you, mrolai and other sunnis to condemn mutah nikah of shia while there exist historical evidences that some sahaba continued to practice muta
AFTER the demise of the prophet (s). Whether they are right or wrong is another subject. This is why I don't argue with shia on subject that i know sunnis are guilty of.

How are you making this conclusions?! So because a sahabah drank alcohol, then we shouldn't condemn the drinking of alcohol?! Each and everyone would be responsible for their actions, and by the way, since we have authentic narration stating that Umar (ra) made a public pronouncement based on the prohibition of the Prophet (SAW), then ignorance stands as a genuine defense for some of these sahabas, since none of them challenged him, nor did Ali (ra) never argued that Umar (ra) was wrong, and therefore permitted mut'ah. You should know that it is unanimously agreed by sunni scholars that mut'ah is forbidden in Islam.

Empiree:

So from now, it doesn't make sense for mrolai to keep embarrassing himself by condemning nikah mutah if arab sunni also practice misyar, and historical practice of mutah by sahaba after it was banned. That's my target all along.



I know what I believe in terms of men and women relationship, marriage etc. If some of my posts here suggest I'm pro-mutah, it is only for academic and educational purposes which I have achieved. I don't believe in neither mutah nor misyar. Sura Nisai 24 was never about mutah as taught growing up as a child. Never understood the ayah that way. I could have supported it if the verse is clear about muta, but what they tried to deduce(muta) from the ayah doesn't make sense to me. Hence, my reason for rejection.



But I'm never gonna bring it up as an argument against shia when i know for sure they will come up with sunni text to back up their claims. I have read more elsewhere online while following this thread and I see no way you can successfully break shi'a's back unless you stick to Quran only on this issue and disregard all pro-mutah ahadith.



Quran comes first and it is the criteria to determine who is right or wrong. And don't even think for a second that albaqir himself does muta. He doesnt. He is simply defending the text since our sunni brothers are fond of asking for dalil. So he gives them.

Actually, everyone is entitled to their opinion, you have stated yours, even though I do not agree, I respect it.

Empiree:

Here is the thing, if you follow a famous hadith which says to follow the sunnah and sunnah of sahaba, by that logical standard, shia have the right to claim mutah is sunnah. Middle path is the way to go. I have long understood both major Islamic sects are different sides of the same coin.

So you are saying the shi'ah are following the sunnah of sahabah like muawiyah who they claim was a kafir?! You can only follow a sahabah if there are no contrary position from the Qur'an and the Prophet (SAW). There is no Qur'anic support for mut'ah, and the Prophet (SAW) in an authentic hadith, prohibited mut'ah.

If I say to you empiree; "we cannot condemn people for being corrupt, since our past leaders had been alleged to be corrupt, even though corruption is illegal in the constitution, " Does this statement make sense?!

Empiree:

If shia are guilty of nikah mutah as zina. Section of Sunni are guilty of misyar another form of zina. It is even funny that the region(Arab - Saudi especially) that critidizes shia are the ones practicing misyar. Yet they have scholars that many brothers here revered so much. Saudi govt could not have approved misyar without their scholars of Islam. So what's the point of condemning shia?. Matter of fact, their muta is more plausible than misyar. Aren't they fulfilling hadith which says zina will be called by other name?

I had explained earlier that a Nikkah remains valid under the shari'ah if the conditions of Nikkah are met. Mut'ah is renting of a woman for a specific period, the woman is not called a wife, she has no right, imagine doing a mut'ah of 1 hour and getting paid, and that's all! So if misyar is also renting of women for a period of time, then you are correct in your submissions above.

Empiree:

Far as I am concern, sura nisai 24 has nothing to do with mutah unless anymore can prove to me by using mutawatir hadith that it was about mut'ah. Note that there are amongst the sunni (not contemporary ones) who believe the ayah was revealed about muta and they came up with their evidences but I am not convinced.

Okay

Empiree:

However, I will continue to distance myself from saying muta is zina. If it was not considered zina by definition in the time of nabi regardless of whether before or after the ban, it remains muta. To give it another definition of zina is to speak ill of the prophet. You can see why I'm adamant.

Well, you are right that we cannot say that mut'ah permitted by Prophet (SAW) was zina, but, I can say now, based on evidences of prohibition, say that those participating in mut'ah are into zina!

Empiree:

Albaqir however doesn't want me to bring misyar into this. Bringing up misyar into this put sunni brothers in check. Thats what i need him to understand. I remember you (sino) said women's rights is zero in mut'ah marriage. It is the same here https://islamqa.info/en/82390 . Sheikh Bin Baz approved of it but it seems sheikh Albani tag it haram.



Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) used to say that it was permissible, then he stopped saying that because of the negative effects, as it was poorly applied by some wrongdoers. That if Misyaar marriage fulfils the conditions of a valid marriage, namely the proposal and acceptance, the consent of the wali and witnesses or announcement of the marriage, then it is a valid marriage contract, and it is good for some categories of men and women whose circumstances call for this type of marriage.


Pay attention to underline, albaqir said the same. He is not concerned about transgressors which this sheikh vouched too. @bold, mut'ah also meets this conditions. So you are the same.

Bro, you would read that those who permitted misyar were mostly focused on the conditions of nikkah, and that it shouldn't be temporary or hidden, and this is based on what is established with regards to nikkah from the Qur'an and Sunnah. All other attendant issues are the scholars ijtihad at arriving at what could be termed permissible, and each cases should be treated individually...This is quite different from mut'ah that had been prohibited, and does not go by the conditions of the established Nikkah!

Lastly, here are some narrations found in shi'ah books indicating the Imams reaction to mut'ah:

عن عبد الله بن سنان قال سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن المتعة فقال: (لا تدنس نفسك بـها) (بحار الأنوار 100/318).

It was narrated by Abdullah Bin Senan said : I asked Abu Abdullah about Mut'ah and he said: "Don't defile yourself with it"
(Bihaar Al-Anwar 100/318).


ولما سأل علي بن يقطين أبا الحسن عليه السلام عن المتعة أجابه:
( ما أنت وذاك؟ قد أغناك الله عنها ) (الفروع 2/43)، الوسائل (14/449)

Ali bin Yaqteen asked Aba Hassan about Mut'ah and he answered : "What is that and You (In Arabic it means what has that got to do with you) Allah had compensated you with something much better" (he meant legal marraige) (Furoo 2/43), (Wasael Al-shia 14/449).

If you will notice, all this mut'ah this and that is focused on the man, yes he can do mut'ah even if he is married when he travels or during wars, what about the woman who is married and her husband is away?! Or the woman must always be chaste no matter what abi?!

If you say it is okay for only singles, so is it when they are on the travel or during war, but what prohibits them from doing it at home?! Do they not seek to have sex or companionship too when they are at home?!

If you say it is free for all, which parent would give her daughter out in a 24 hours or even 3 days marriage?!

More narrations from shi'ahs on mut'ah:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should ask why such words are used above, why would it humiliate a believing woman?!

I am only bringing the above not to argue with you, but to just bring another aspect of this mut'ah to light....

sino:


Even AlBaqir cannot tell us when Muawiyah did his mut'ah. I wonder where anyone had been defending anyone here. I have presented logical explanations to the whole evidences presented to support mut'ah, even AlBaqir brought an individual who drank alcohol and eventually left Islam, as part of the evidences of sahabas and tabi'in that practiced mut'ah...There are no holes bro, if you only want to play games ni kan lo ku!

# Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan and other sinful sahabah are only hujjah upon you, not upon us. This is the reason we quote them for you exclusively.

sino:

Umar (ra) made a public pronouncement based on the prohibition of the Prophet (SAW), then ignorance stands as a genuine defense for some of these sahabas, since none of them challenged him, nor did Ali (ra) never argued that Umar (ra) was wrong, and therefore permitted mut'ah. You should know that it is unanimously agreed by sunni scholars that mut'ah is forbidden in Islam.

# It is unfortunate that whenever you are cornered, you play game that you don't "speculate". We have brought series of argument against you yet you are adamant playing "ignorance" game.

* Umar stopped MUT'AH in the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth ONLY towards the end of his Khilafah; meaning sahabah continue to practice MUT'AH under his watch for almost 10years (including Abubakr's reign). This is testified to by a senior Sahabi, Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari (who participated 100% in those three occasions that your alleged prohibition of Mut'ah took place).

* Before the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth who impregnated a slave girl, a case of Rabia Ibn Umayya who had previously impregnated a girl in MUT'AH case was brought to Umar.

* Our question is simple: Since Umar is aware of sahabah practising MUT'AH for so so long, how does it took him so long before stopping it? In the case of Rabia Ibn Umayya, he promised to stone whoever practice MUT'AH, yet he never stoned Amr Ibn Hurayth who later practised it. He even asked him, "why doing MUT'AH with a slave? Why not other than her (a slave)?!"


# As per Ali, his word, "Had Umar not prohibited MUT'AH, only a wretched person will commit Zina".

Funny enough, sino said he did not know the meaning of that Hadith and he's not a specialist in giving meaning to dead person's words. This is where I am assured you are wonderful.

That word of Ali rubbished his Hadith on Khaybar. And also confirms his stance.

# So, am sorry bro, you have nothing sensible left.

sino:

Lastly, here are some narrations found in shi'ah books indicating the Imams reaction to mut'ah:

/318).

It was narrated by Abdullah Bin Senan said : I asked Abu Abdullah about Mut'ah and he said: "Don't defile yourself with it"
(Bihaar Al-Anwar 100/318).

Allāmah al-Muḥsinī declares about al-Nawādir as we have it in our hands:

The truth is the UNRELIABILITY of its aḥādīth which are quoted in al-Biḥār, al-Wasāil and al-Mustadrak, and whatever is found in the published manuscript from it.

Source: Muḥammad Āṣif al-Muḥsinī, Buḥūth fī ‘Ilm al-Rijāl (Markaz al-Muṣtafā al-‘Ālamī li Tarjamah wa al-Nashr), p. 422, # 3


# Mirza al-Nuri (d. 1320 H):

And thirdly, as for his statement, may Allāh be merciful to him {this is why al-Ḥurr in al-Wasāil did not quote from it}, what is there is: how did he know that the book was with him and he did not rely upon it. and so did not quote from it? Rather, what is undoubtably certain is that it, like other authentic books, was not with him. If it had been, he would certainly have quoted from it, because he quoted from books that are inferior to it by degrees in terms of (the unreliability of) the author, or due to the unreliability of its (i.e. the book’s) attribution to him, or the weakness of the chain (of the book) to him, like Faḍl al-Shī’ah of al-Ṣadūq, Tuḥaf al-‘Uqūl, Tafsīr al-Furāt, Irshād of al-Daylamī, Nawādir of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā, and al-Ikhtiṣāṣ of al-Mufīd.

Source: Mirzā Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Taqī al-Nūrī al-Ṭabarsī, Khātimah Mustadrak al-Wasāil (Qum: Muasassat Āl al-Bayt ‘Alaihim al-Salām li Iḥyā al-Turāth; 1st edition, 1415 H), vol. 1, pp. 30-31


He lists al-Nawādir among the ḍa’īf books which al-Ḥurr al-‘Āmilī relies upon in his Wasāil. So, whatever is quoted from it – in al-Biḥār, al-Wasāil or its published editions – is ḍa’īf by default.

sino:

(14/449)

Ali bin Yaqteen asked Aba Hassan about Mut'ah and he answered : "What is that and You (In Arabic it means what has that got to do with you) Allah had compensated you with something much better" (he meant legal marraige) (Furoo 2/43), (Wasael Al-shia 14/449).

# The full version of the hadith has been quoted on this thread under the post on Shia conditions for MUT'AH.

* What it simply says is that you don't practice MUT'AH when there is NO necessity for it. A married person in your home and vicinity, practising MUT'AH becomes makruh for them, if not Haram.

sino:

If you say it is free for all, which parent would give her daughter out in a 24 hours or even 3 days marriage?!

# No Shia scholar says @underline. That's in your imagination.

sino:

More narrations from shi'ahs on mut'ah:

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


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

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

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

Then, al-Ṭūsī himself declares:

This report has a disconnected chain, mursal.

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī, al-Istibṣār (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Ḥasan al-Mūsawī al-Khurasān], vol. 3, p. 143, Ch. 93, # 4 (515)

So, it is ḍa’īf; and that basically deals with it.

sino:

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

# Don't shut your Aql on the underlined. A place where MUT'AH is not being practiced, even if a girl accept MUT'AH offer, according to Shi'a ulama, one should stay away from it because such word (temporary marriage) and practice will obviously dishonour her family's dignity. For example, a divorce wife is a disgrace to the honour of her parent in Yoruba community especially if she goes back to her father's house.

# This is the reason why MUT'AH is not free for all to practice as you want to rope us. Specific individuals practice MUT'AH under specific conditions which we have stated earlier.

* Even Sunni greatest Tabi'ieen who consider MUT'AH as more Halal than drinking water, Shia do not subscribe to such word.

AlBaqir:


# Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan and other sinful sahabah are only hujjah upon you, not upon us. This is the reason we quote them for you exclusively.

E yah, but we do not take Muawiyah's action as hujjah, even though you couldn't tell us when he did this mut'ah, the hujjah we rely upon is the authentic narration from the Prophet (SAW) prohibiting mut'ah, even Ali (ra) never permitted mut'ah, nor did he ever rule in its favour, who then are you following? The Prophet (SAW), Ali (ra)? or Muawiyah (ra)?!

AlBaqir:

# It is unfortunate that whenever you are cornered, you play game that you don't "speculate". We have brought series of argument against you yet you are adamant playing "ignorance" game.

* Umar stopped MUT'AH in the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth ONLY towards the end of his Khilafah; meaning sahabah continue to practice MUT'AH under his watch for almost 10years (including Abubakr's reign). This is testified to by a senior Sahabi, Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari (who participated 100% in those three occasions that your alleged prohibition of Mut'ah took place).

* Before the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth who impregnated a slave girl, a case of Rabia Ibn Umayya who had previously impregnated a girl in MUT'AH case was brought to Umar.

* Our question is simple: Since Umar is aware of sahabah practising MUT'AH for so so long, how does it took him so long before stopping it? In the case of Rabia Ibn Umayya, he promised to stone whoever practice MUT'AH, yet he never stoned Amr Ibn Hurayth who later practised it. He even asked him, "why doing MUT'AH with a slave? Why not other than her (a slave)?!"


# As per Ali, his word, "Had Umar not prohibited MUT'AH, only a wretched person will commit Zina".

Funny enough, sino said he did not know the meaning of that Hadith and he's not a specialist in giving meaning to dead person's words. This is where I am assured you are wonderful.

That word of Ali rubbished his Hadith on Khaybar. And also confirms his stance.

# So, am sorry bro, you have nothing sensible left.

You are the expert in bringing speculative assumptions into narration, looking for how best to exploit a narration to fit your prejudiced view! The Question that always keep you on the run is where did Ali (ra) say that mut'ah is permissible?! Did Ali (ra) did mut'ah himself?! Did he not go to battles ni?! Did he permit it for his companions during any battle?! Why was he silent when Umar (ra) supposedly ban what was permissible?

If not for Umar (ra), only a wretched person would commit zina, so Umar became a law giver, and this is only what Ali (ra) could muster?! Abeg, spare me your laughable excuses...

AlBaqir:

Allāmah al-Muḥsinī declares about al-Nawādir as we have it in our hands:

The truth is the UNRELIABILITY of its aḥādīth which are quoted in al-Biḥār, al-Wasāil and al-Mustadrak, and whatever is found in the published manuscript from it.

Source: Muḥammad Āṣif al-Muḥsinī, Buḥūth fī ‘Ilm al-Rijāl (Markaz al-Muṣtafā al-‘Ālamī li Tarjamah wa al-Nashr), p. 422, # 3


# Mirza al-Nuri (d. 1320 H):

And thirdly, as for his statement, may Allāh be merciful to him {this is why al-Ḥurr in al-Wasāil did not quote from it}, what is there is: how did he know that the book was with him and he did not rely upon it. and so did not quote from it? Rather, what is undoubtably certain is that it, like other authentic books, was not with him. If it had been, he would certainly have quoted from it, because he quoted from books that are inferior to it by degrees in terms of (the unreliability of) the author, or due to the unreliability of its (i.e. the book’s) attribution to him, or the weakness of the chain (of the book) to him, like Faḍl al-Shī’ah of al-Ṣadūq, Tuḥaf al-‘Uqūl, Tafsīr al-Furāt, Irshād of al-Daylamī, Nawādir of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā, and al-Ikhtiṣāṣ of al-Mufīd.

Source: Mirzā Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Taqī al-Nūrī al-Ṭabarsī, Khātimah Mustadrak al-Wasāil (Qum: Muasassat Āl al-Bayt ‘Alaihim al-Salām li Iḥyā al-Turāth; 1st edition, 1415 H), vol. 1, pp. 30-31


He lists al-Nawādir among the ḍa’īf books which al-Ḥurr al-‘Āmilī relies upon in his Wasāil. So, whatever is quoted from it – in al-Biḥār, al-Wasāil or its published editions – is ḍa’īf by default.

I never doubt this would be your response, they are always da'if, what about those narration praising mut'ah, and explaining the enormous rewards in it?!

AlBaqir:



# The full version of the hadith has been quoted on this thread under the post on Shia conditions for MUT'AH.

* What it simply says is that you don't practice MUT'AH when there is NO necessity for it. A married person in your home and vicinity, practising MUT'AH becomes makruh for them, if not Haram.

Lol, so mut'ah is only for necessity, what always bring about permitting something out of necessity?! Pork becomes permissible due to necessity, so is alcohol, but we all know that they are haram! So why should you be here trying to prove what is not?! Well you say it maybe makruh, perhaps those who are exploiting it, are thinking as you do, it is still permissible to go to mut'ah houses even when married, it is just disliked, not forbidden...No wonder those guys who changed their sex to women had no choice but to start trading their fake body for money in the name of mut'ah!

AlBaqir:

# No Shia scholar says @underline. That's in your imagination.

I didn't say anyone said so, was asking question generally, but why did you jump the question about a married woman at home and her husband is far away, doing mut'ah with another woman?! She must remain chaste abi?! She does not need sex and companionship too abi?! What happens to equity between the sexes?!

AlBaqir:

Then, al-Ṭūsī himself declares:

This report has a disconnected chain, mursal.

Source: Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī, al-Istibṣār (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Ḥasan al-Mūsawī al-Khurasān], vol. 3, p. 143, Ch. 93, # 4 (515)

So, it is ḍa’īf; and that basically deals with it.

Clap for yourself! Da'if! Do you guys ever have authentic hadiths?! Please show us some authentic hadiths on how the Imams described mut'ah and how it should be done? Please this is a great opportunity to showcase the esoteric knowledge of the Imams o...

AlBaqir:

# Don't shut your Aql on the underlined. A place where MUT'AH is not being practiced, even if a girl accept MUT'AH offer, according to Shi'a ulama, one should stay away from it because such word (temporary marriage) and practice will obviously dishonour her family's dignity. For example, a divorce wife is a disgrace to the honour of her parent in Yoruba community especially if she goes back to her father's house.

# This is the reason why MUT'AH is not free for all to practice as you want to rope us. Specific individuals practice MUT'AH under specific conditions which we have stated earlier.

* Even Sunni greatest Tabi'ieen who consider MUT'AH as more Halal than drinking water, Shia do not subscribe to such word.

How could something said to be sanctioned in the Qur'an dishonour the whole family?! Isn't it marriage ni?! Divorce is not something anyone wants, so you are comparing mut'ah to divorce? Wow, brilliant! Indeed it is shameful for a woman who had been married ni 'su 'loka, to come back to her father's house, but if she has genuine reasons to leave, she should, it protects her dignity and life! So with mut'ah, it is double shame, cos she would go with a man without any form of proper nikkah (ni'su 'loka), and then come back home to her parents house after some few hours or days, yeah it is double jeopardy! I do not wish for such humiliation for our Muslimahs...So tell us were we can see free girls who have no family hnour to protect please, so we may know never to go there!

sino:


Lol, so mut'ah is only for necessity, what always bring about permitting something out of necessity?! Pork becomes permissible due to necessity, so is alcohol, but we all know that they are haram! So why should you be here trying to prove what is not?!

# Your first woeful approach to this thread was that Mut'ah is Zina. You were corrected by Empiree using simple Qur'anic argument that:

* Right from the early days of Islam there is a law till Qiyamat comes:

"Do not go near Zina, surely it is an indecency, and an evil way"

* Zina is Haram and under no circumstances does Islam accepted it. People had been performing Zina before Islam. Be it as it may, Islam established MUT'AH which had never been heard of before; meaning that it could never have been Zina or Haram or indecent acts because: "Allah does not command indecency (fahshaa )...", Qur'an says again.


# Funny enough you keep on bringing silly "pork-alcohol" argument. Islam did not at anytime allowed either of them. Again people were used to pork and alcohol before Islam and Islam brought its rule on them and make them Haram till Qiyamat comes.


* MUT'AH that was allowed under temporary necessity is a fact that Nabi never likened it to "eat pork or drink alcohol when there is nothing to eat and you are at the verge of death"; rather Nabi even used a verse saying, "Do not make Haram what Allah had made halal".


# Isn't it a common sense (not to mention medical facts) that somebody on the VERGE OF DEATH due to thirstiness will die easily if he consume alcohol? So what kind of unreasonable proposition and myth is that, that if you are at the verge of death due to thirstiness and alcohol is available, you can take it Afalataqiluna.

* On the other hands, a man will die due to long term hunger if he finds no food hence Haram food is allowed for him to eat at that extreme point. Can a man die if he cannot satisfy his sexual needs when he needs it dearly. Can he?! Absolutely NO. Therefore how can you make analogy as per the three?!


* You have two ahadith on MUT'AH approval:

1. One says Nabi allowed it when some try to castrate themselves.

2. At Fat'h Makkah, no such thought of castration was reported, he (saws) simply COMMANDED it.

So, please always think before you bring untenable arguments.

AlBaqir:


# Your first woeful approach to this thread was that Mut'ah is Zina. You were corrected by Empiree using simple Qur'anic argument that:

* Right from the early days of Islam there is a law till Qiyamat comes:

"Do not go near Zina, surely it is an indecency, and an evil way"

* Zina is Haram and under no circumstances does Islam accepted it. People had been performing Zina before Islam. Be it as it may, Islam established MUT'AH which had never been heard of before; meaning that it could never have been Zina or Haram or indecent acts because: "Allah does not command indecency (fahshaa )...", Qur'an says again.

If you do not have appropriate response to my posts, you shouldn't go on lying na?! Go back and read my initial post on this thread, my approach was your extraordinary zeal to defend mut'ah with absolutely zero reward, and your condemning fasting on Ashura, and observing tarawih as fabrications and lies even though these activities are reward based and supererogatory!

Why not bring evidences that suggests what you have up there?! Tell us which legislation through the Qur'an or through the Prophet (SAW) was not properly detailed? How come no one asked what this new legislation is all about?! Where are your authentic evidences that states mut'ah is a new law?!

So what is Zina?! Having illegal sexual intercourse, so let us go to the Qur'an for details:

Made lawful to you this day are At-Tayyibat [all kinds of Halal (lawful) foods, which Allah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits, etc.). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time, when you have given their due Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girl-friends (or secret lovers). And whosoever disbelieves in the Oneness of Allah and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allah's), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al-Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (Qur'an 5:5)

First, Islam says, take chaste women as wives, give them their mahr, desiring to also be chaste and not commit illegal sexual intercource...The question here for you is, are mut'ah women called wives?! If yes, provide your evidence from the Qur'an and authentic narrations...

So we quickly look at another explanation what would entail illegal sexual intercourse:

"And those who guard their private parts

Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed

But whoever seeks beyond that, then they are the transgressors" (Qur'an 70:29-31)

Oya Sheikh AlBaqir, where does mut'ah fit in the above verses?!

AlBaqir:

# Funny enough you keep on bringing silly "pork-alcohol" argument. Islam did not at anytime allowed either of them. Again people were used to pork and alcohol before Islam and Islam brought its rule on them and make them Haram till Qiyamat comes.

* MUT'AH that was allowed under temporary necessity is a fact that Nabi never likened it to "eat pork or drink alcohol when there is nothing to eat and you are at the verge of death"; rather Nabi even used a verse saying, "Do not make Haram what Allah had made halal".

Cherry-picking hadiths again abi?! Wehdonsah Are you giving up on Ibn Abbas (ra) already ni?! He was the one who brought the analogy, but since you do not agree with him again, and want to stick to permissibility by Allah (SAW), give us where Allah (SWT) clearly states that Mut'ah is halal, and while doing that, can you please tell us what is temporary necessity that makes mut'ah halal? And what happens to mut'ah when this temporary necessity is not present? And why didn't the Prophet (SAW) quote the verse that you claim is about mut'ah?! Can you bring authentic evidence where the Prophet (SAW) said this verse is about mut'ah?!

AlBaqir:

# Isn't it a common sense (not to mention medical facts) that somebody on the VERGE OF DEATH due to thirstiness will die easily if he consume alcohol? So what kind of unreasonable proposition and myth is that, that if you are at the verge of death due to thirstiness and alcohol is available, you can take it Afalataqiluna.

* On the other hands, a man will die due to long term hunger if he finds no food hence Haram food is allowed for him to eat at that extreme point. Can a man die if he cannot satisfy his sexual needs when he needs it dearly. Can he?! Absolutely NO. Therefore how can you make analogy as per the three?!

* You have two ahadith on MUT'AH approval:

1. One says Nabi allowed it when some try to castrate themselves.

2. At Fat'h Makkah, no such thought of castration was reported, he (saws) simply COMMANDED it.

So, please always think before you bring untenable arguments.

That is my argument all along, why is necessity the reason behind you people's claim to continue to practice mut'ah?! I even asked you what about the married woman, must she remain chaste all through?! So what is the wisdom behind this mut'ah?! Do you have evidences for this wisdom from the Qur'an and authentic narrations?! Who enjoys this mut'ah?! Why are you finding it difficult to answer these questions?!

By the way, the narration you are alluding to as being a myth, was not about death, they wanted to castrate themselves, which was an extreme decision to make, hence the permission granted by the Prophet (SAW), any further permissions were most likely based on such initial concern, stressing the fact that mut'ah is based on sexual enjoyment and nothing more, even from the word itself, mut'ah means "enjoyment". So once the religion had been completed, it was prohibited forever! There is absolutely no need for it again! And for the fact that some people may be ignorant of this prohibition, or some being humans, would still want to take advantage of such permission earlier given, Umar (ra) reiterated the prohibition of the Prophet (SAW), just as the scholars of Islam would continue to do till the end of time.

Have you asked yourself what Umar (ra) intends to gain from prohibiting mut'ah on his own?! And then no one changed it after his death, not even Ali (ra).

I know mut'ah is one of the pillars of twelvers shi'ah, but make you use your brain small na....

sino:


If you do not have appropriate response to my posts, you shouldn't go on lying na?! Go back and read my initial post on this thread, my approach was your extraordinary zeal to defend mut'ah with absolutely zero reward,

# Are you denying you came up this thread liken MUT'AH to Zina? You, sino, accusing me of lying?! Wonder shall never end. Do you know how many lies you have desperately made against ALBAQIR on this thread!


* The theme of this thread is never to defend MUT'AH or argue against it. This is clearly stated at the OP. The theme of this thread is to expose sahabah whom Sunni claimed to have gotten their religion from, practising MUT'AH in abundance after the demise of Nabi.

* It was you and Empiree that dragged the subject to where it is: validity vs invalidity of Mut'ah.

sino:

Are you giving up on Ibn Abbas (ra) already ni?! He was the one who brought the analogy, but since you do not agree with him again, and want to stick to permissibility by Allah (SAW), give us where Allah (SWT) clearly states that Mut'ah is halal, and while doing that, can you please tell us what is temporary necessity that makes mut'ah halal? And what happens to mut'ah when this temporary necessity is not present? And why didn't the Prophet (SAW) quote the verse that you claim is about mut'ah?! Can you bring authentic evidence where the Prophet (SAW) said this verse is about mut'ah?!

# You, sino, are the one repeating over and over the alleged argument of Ibn Abbas of "pork". I have NEVER ever brought that. When Empiree exposed the weakness in that submission, instantly you disowned Ibn Abbas claiming, " its his analogy not yours".

* My submission on Ibn Abbas are crystal clear:

1. He permitted Mut'ah with or without necessity

2. He submitted that Qur'an 4:24 is ayah that validate Mut’ah

3. After the alleged warning of Ali to Ibn Abbas, he continue approving Mut'ah (good example is Ibn Abbas vs Ibn Zubair)

As per the remainder of your points above, we've already gone through that on this thread (and other thread). There's no point going in circle.

sino:

By the way, the narration you are alluding to as being a myth, was not about death, they wanted to castrate themselves, which was an extreme decision to make, hence the permission granted by the Prophet (SAW), any further permissions were most likely based on such initial concern, stressing the fact that mut'ah is based on sexual enjoyment and nothing more, even from the word itself, mut'ah means "enjoyment".

# Do you even understand what we are discussing here at all?

* You brought an alleged Ibn Abbas argument and ignorantly continue to use it on and on and on equalling necessity of Mut'ah with necessity of eating pork or drinking alcohol at the extreme point.

* While that of alcohol was your concoction which has been exposed, that of pork is only allowed if life will be endangered (lost). No matter how a man desire sex to whatever length of extremism, he cannot die if he did not have sex. So, my simple point which you didn't grab is " compare necessity of pork/alcohol with necessity of Mut'ah" is a myth, a weak argument.

# @underlined, so you can use "intellectual argument" now, I thought you said you are not expert in deriving meaning from a dead man's statement ni

Anyway, the fact that you used the word "likely" equally showed that the order to do MUT'AH, on the other hands might not be as a result of initial reason (castration). Besides, the hadith NEVER says anything like that.

sino:

So once the religion had been completed, it was prohibited forever! There is absolutely no need for it again!

# So, the reason of human's uncontrollable sexual desire when his wife is not at his vicinity, that made MUT'AH established is gone in the innate nature of man?

* This is where Empiree knocked you down finally that even your scholars could not help it than to formulate and concoct a Bid'ah called, "Zawja bi niyyat talaq".

sino:

And for the fact that some people may be ignorant of this prohibition, or some being humans, would still want to take advantage of such permission earlier given, Umar (ra) reiterated the prohibition of the Prophet (SAW), just as the scholars of Islam would continue to do till the end of time.

Have you asked yourself what Umar (ra) intends to gain from prohibiting mut'ah on his own?! And then no one changed it after his death, not even Ali (ra).

# So you are not sure again? Is now maybe. You have been showed that:

* Ibn Abbas was "defiant" to Ali's alleged admonition

* Umar was very much aware all along

* Ali's other statement destroyed his alleged Khaybar record, therefore his aware

* Jabir Ibn Abdullah was not only present at Khaybar, Fat'h Makkah/Hajjat al-wada but also narrated series of reports from Nabi. Yet he reported "We used to practice MUT'AH pre and post Nabi's time".

So, how is ignorance could be submitted as an excuse?

# To your last point: Banning MUT'AH by Umar (even threatening stoning as punishment) is nothing new of Umar seeing records of Sunnah of Nabi he had previously cancelled citing his own personal feelings as an excuse.

* Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari exclusively exposed the reason why Umar banned the sahabah from MUT'AH in the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth who impregnated a slave. Apart from a fact that Umar doesn't like slaves whom he regards as nobody (hence his reaction to Amr " why doing MUT'AH with slave" ), there's a possibility he banned the sahabah from it due to advantage of slaves many of them were abusing.

* Saying Umar forbid MUT'AH to follow initial alleged ban of Nabi will only give you more questions to answer:

1. What took him so long until the case of Amr towards the end of his reign: obviously he was aware MUT'AH was going on to the point of impregnation? Was he also see the alleged banning as nothing or he thought necessity can lift the ban?

2. It is also in blatant contradiction of Ali and Jabir's reports which clearly confirmed that it was Umar that banned MUT'AH (and not Nabi).

sino:

I know mut'ah is one of the pillars of twelvers shi'ah, but make you use your brain small na....

# Another desperation trying to score cheap point.

Shi'i Usul al-Din is just 3: Tawheed (+ Adl), Nubuwah (+Imamah) and Ma'ad.

AlBaqir:


# Are you denying you came up this thread liken MUT'AH to Zina? You, sino, accusing me of lying?! Wonder shall never end. Do you know how many lies you have desperately made against ALBAQIR on this thread!

You keep making allegations you cannot backup, why don't you provide the evidence that my approach to this thread was likening mut'ah to zina?! I am waiting o...

AlBaqir:

* The theme of this thread is never to defend MUT'AH or argue against it. This is clearly stated at the OP. The theme of this thread is to expose sahabah whom Sunni claimed to have gotten their religion from, practising MUT'AH in abundance after the demise of Nabi.

* It was you and Empiree that dragged the subject to where it is: validity vs invalidity of Mut'ah.

I responded to the thread accordingly, presenting the refutation of the names of the usual sahabah which you deem as proofs for your continuous promotion of mut'ah. For the record, sunnis do not have sleepless night over mut'ah, we don't even think for a second before stating categorically that it is prohibited in Islam... It is you guys that are looking for any thing just to support your beliefs on mut'ah.

AlBaqir:

# You, sino, are the one repeating over and over the alleged argument of Ibn Abbas of "pork". I have NEVER ever brought that. When Empiree exposed the weakness in that submission, instantly you disowned Ibn Abbas claiming, " its his analogy not yours".

Except that I never claimed that mut'ah is still permissible due to Ibn Abbas's opinion, it seems you are always quick to read....You on the other hand claimed Ibn Abbas (ra) continued to permit mut'ah, of which I counter that he explained his position comparing it to eating PORK, and PORK is HARAM, meaning mut'ah is also HARAM!

AlBaqir:

* My submission on Ibn Abbas are crystal clear:

1. He permitted Mut'ah with or without necessity

2. He submitted that Qur'an 4:24 is ayah that validate Mut’ah

3. After the alleged warning of Ali to Ibn Abbas, he continue approving Mut'ah (good example is Ibn Abbas vs Ibn Zubair)

As per the remainder of your points above, we've already gone through that on this thread (and other thread). There's no point going in circle.

So Ibn Abbas (ra) never explained himself?! Why then did he compare mut'ah to pork? Please present the relevant narrations and let's see...All this your points up there are just paperweight...

AlBaqir:

# Do you even understand what we are discussing here at all?

* You brought an alleged Ibn Abbas argument and ignorantly continue to use it on and on and on equalling necessity of Mut'ah with necessity of eating pork or drinking alcohol at the extreme point.

* While that of alcohol was your concoction which has been exposed, that of pork is only allowed if life will be endangered (lost). No matter how a man desire sex to whatever length of extremism, he cannot die if he did not have sex. So, my simple point which you didn't grab is " compare necessity of pork/alcohol with necessity of Mut'ah" is a myth, a weak argument.

Then tell us what necessitate mut'ah na?! Which evidence do you rely on?! Or is mut'ah free for all since it is halal?!

AlBaqir:

# @underlined, so you can use "intellectual argument" now, I thought you said you are not expert in deriving meaning from a dead man's statement ni

Anyway, the fact that you used the word "likely" equally showed that the order to do MUT'AH, on the other hands might not be as a result of initial reason (castration). Besides, the hadith NEVER says anything like that.

Yeah I look at issues logically and intellectually, and once there is room for different interpretations, you don't see me make silly conclusions as you quickly do, so i am not in the business of assumptions and speculations!

AlBaqir:

# So, the reason of human's uncontrollable sexual desire when his wife is not at his vicinity, that made MUT'AH established is gone in the innate nature of man?

* This is where Empiree knocked you down finally that even your scholars could not help it than to formulate and concoct a Bid'ah called, "Zawja bi niyyat talaq".

Olodo ni e fa, when Islam came, the Arabs were into drinking, fornication (zina), slavery and so many vices. For Islam to be established in the hearts of these fore bearers, outright prohibition wouldn't work, it was a gradual process...The soul of man is said to be prone to evil,

Allah (SWT) says about Prophet Yusuf's statement:

"And I free not myself (from the blame). Verily, the (human) self is inclined to evil, except when my Lord bestows His Mercy (upon whom He wills). Verily, my Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 12:53)

It is innate in man to do bad things, that is our nature, but it takes Allah's Mercy, and the will given by Allah to man to resist it and keep righteous, and this doesn't happen in a single day. So if the Prophet (SAW) permitted them to engage in mut'ah and later forbade it, then it means we do not have any need for such in Islam!

By the way, in your books of hadiths, alKafi to be precise, it states that a woman desire is much intense than that of man, so I ask you for the upteenth time, what about the married woman that her husband is away?! Can she do mut'ah?!

AlBaqir:

# So you are not sure again? Is now maybe. You have been showed that:

* Ibn Abbas was "defiant" to Ali's alleged admonition

* Umar was very much aware all along

* Ali's other statement destroyed his alleged Khaybar record, therefore his aware

* Jabir Ibn Abdullah was not only present at Khaybar, Fat'h Makkah/Hajjat al-wada but also narrated series of reports from Nabi. Yet he reported "We used to practice MUT'AH pre and post Nabi's time".

So, how is ignorance could be submitted as an excuse?

Ignorance can be used as an excuse, but it really doesn't matter anyway, their actions are not what determines halal and haram in Islam. You want to condemn them?! Be my guest, it is not new how you are quick to condemn wives and sahabas of the Prophet (SAW), it's your stock-in-trade...

AlBaqir:

# To your last point: Banning MUT'AH by Umar (even threatening stoning as punishment) is nothing new of Umar seeing records of Sunnah of Nabi he had previously cancelled citing his own personal feelings as an excuse.

* Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari exclusively exposed the reason why Umar banned the sahabah from MUT'AH in the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth who impregnated a slave. Apart from a fact that Umar doesn't like slaves whom he regards as nobody (hence his reaction to Amr " why doing MUT'AH with slave" ), there's a possibility he banned the sahabah from it due to advantage of slaves many of them were abusing.

* Saying Umar forbid MUT'AH to follow initial alleged ban of Nabi will only give you more questions to answer:

1. What took him so long until the case of Amr towards the end of his reign: obviously he was aware MUT'AH was going on to the point of impregnation? Was he also see the alleged banning as nothing or he thought necessity can lift the ban?

2. It is also in blatant contradiction of Ali and Jabir's reports which clearly confirmed that it was Umar that banned MUT'AH (and not Nabi).

1. You want me to answer a question which cannot be established from the hadiths?! Will you please give us the list of those who did mut'ah during Umar's reign?! How sure are you that he was aware that people were doing mut'ah before the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth?! The most accurate and logical explanation to Umar's prohibition is that the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth was brought to him, If it wasn't he wouldn't know! I guess Buhari knows what all Nigerians are doing abi?!

2. You see anything you want to see, so Ali (ra) was so hapless that he could only lament that had Umar (ra) not banned mut'ah, only a wretched person would have commited zina. He had the mouth to say that, but couldn't say, this is wrong, and Allah (SWT) had permitted mut'ah in the Qur'an.... Yeah contradictions indeed!

AlBaqir:

# Another desperation trying to score cheap point.

Shi'i Usul al-Din is just 3: Tawheed (+ Adl), Nubuwah (+Imamah) and Ma'ad.

Lol, if it is not a pillar of twelver shi'ah, why are you so pained about the prohibition?! Is there a special reward for it?! Perhaps the following fabrications are what you guys hold on to, to keep promoting mut'ah?!

Faith al-Kashani narrated in his book:


From As-Sadiq: Mut’a is from my religion and the religion of my fathers, so whoever applies it applies our deen and whoever does not apply it rejects our deen furthermore he is following another deen, the son that is conceived through mut’a is better than the one conceived through a permanent marriage and who denies mut’a is a kaffir murtad.

(Manhaj Al Sidiqin) by Fat’h AllAh Al Kashani page 356

And he also narrated from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali):


“Who makes mut’a once, it is as if he is on the level of Al Hussein aleihi al salam, and who commits mut’a twice then it is as if he is is on the level of Al Hassan aleihi al salam, and who commits mut’a three times it is as if he is on the level of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb aleihi al salam, and who commits mut’a four times then it is as if he is on a level like mine”.

Same place as above.

And in “Muntaha Al Amal” volume 2 page 341, from imam as-Sadiq:

Not a man who has made mut’a then washed except that Allah has created 70 angels for each drop of water that drops from his body so that they ask Allah to forgive this man till the day of judgment and curses his ennemies till the day the hour will be here.

sino:

Olodo ni e fa, when Islam came, the Arabs were into drinking, fornication (zina), slavery and so many vices. For Islam to be established in the hearts of these fore bearers, outright prohibition wouldn't work, it was a gradual process...The soul of man is said to be prone to evil,

Allah (SWT) says about Prophet Yusuf's statement:

"And I free not myself (from the blame). Verily, the (human) self is inclined to evil, except when my Lord bestows His Mercy (upon whom He wills). Verily, my Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 12:53)

It is innate in man to do bad things, that is our nature, but it takes Allah's Mercy, and the will given by Allah to man to resist it and keep righteous, and this doesn't happen in a single day. So if the Prophet (SAW) permitted them to engage in mut'ah and later forbade it, then it means we do not have any need for such in Islam!

# Simple question we ask and here you are giving stories. I know you have comprehension problems. Here's it again, "The sexual desires when sahabah's wives were not available with them that made Nabi ordered/approved MUT'AH as a temporary solution, has that innate urge dies in the Ummah of Muhammad?

Many of your sahabah that keep on banging slaves and impregnating them, Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah was even accused of committing Zina by fellow sahabah... all these post Nabi's time. Has those sexual desires dies and buried within the Ummah today? Again, what is the sole aim of your ulama that formulated " misyar nikkah"?!

Those were simple questions you are deviating away from bringing tale by moonlight stories.

sino:

Faith al-Kashani narrated in his book:

From As-Sadiq: Mut’a is from my religion and the religion of my fathers, so whoever applies it applies our deen and whoever does not apply it rejects our deen furthermore he is following another deen, the son that is conceived through mut’a is better than the one conceived through a permanent marriage and who denies mut’a is a kaffir murtad.

(Manhaj Al Sidiqin) by Fat’h AllAh Al Kashani page 356

And he also narrated from prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali):


“Who makes mut’a once, it is as if he is on the level of Al Hussein aleihi al salam, and who commits mut’a twice then it is as if he is is on the level of Al Hassan aleihi al salam, and who commits mut’a three times it is as if he is on the level of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb aleihi al salam, and who commits mut’a four times then it is as if he is on a level like mine”.

Same place as above.

And in “Muntaha Al Amal” volume 2 page 341, from imam as-Sadiq:

Not a man who has made mut’a then washed except that Allah has created 70 angels for each drop of water that drops from his body so that they ask Allah to forgive this man till the day of judgment and curses his ennemies till the day the hour will be here.

It remains that you prove the authenticity of those reports attributed to Imam Ja'far Sadiq, salamullah alayhi.

Really its a huge wasting of time going in circles with you. You are not new to me.

Well, I asked AlBaqir to present authentic narration from the Imams about mut'ah, he would not, so I took it upon myself to help him out...

The following hadith are from kitab al kafi, one of the best hadith books of the shi'ah...

H 9871, Ch. 94, h 4 Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu ‘Umayr from ‘Umar ibn ‘Udhaynah from Zurarah who has said the following: “Once ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umayr al-Laythiy came to abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, and asked, ‘What do you say about al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) of women?’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Allah has made it lawful in His book by the tongue of His Holy prophet, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, thus it will remain lawful up to the Day of Judgment.’ He then said, ‘O abu Ja’far, how can someone like you say this, when ‘Umar made it unlawful and prohibited it?’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Even if he has done so.’ He said, ‘I ask Allah to protect you against a thing that ‘Umar has made unlawful.’ He (the narrator) has said that he (the Imam) then said, ‘So you can stand by the words of your friend but I stand by the words of the Messenger of Allah, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, and I am prepared for al-Mula‘inah (ask Allah to condemn the party on the side of falsehood) that the word is what the Messenger of Allah, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, has said; and that falsehood is what your friend has said.’ He (the narrator) has said that ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umayr then said, ‘Will it make you happy that your women, daughters, sisters, daughters of your aunts do?’ He (the narrator) has said that abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, when he mentioned his women and daughters of his aunts turned away from him.’”

Comment: I just wonder why the Imam was said to have turned away when he was asked this kind of question...


H 9874, Ch. 94, h 7 Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn Mahbub from al-Sa’iy who has said the following: “I once said to abu al-Hassan, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, ‘I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause, I would marry in the manner of al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage), I then disliked it and had bad omens about it; then I promised before Allah between the corner of al-Ka’bah and the Station of Ibrahim, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, kept a vow upon myself and fasting not to do such marriage again. It became difficult for me, I regretted because of my swearing and I was not able to marry publicly. He (the Imam) said, ‘You promised Allah not to obey Him. By Allah, if you do not obey Him you sin against Him.’”

Comment: This is very interesting narration, imagine how the man met tribulations because he swore not to do mut'ah again when he disliked it, when I said mut'ah is one of the pillars of twelver shia, now we are seeing corroborating information...

H 9877, Ch. 95, h 2 Al-Husayn from Muhammad has narrated from Ahmad ibn Ishaq al-Ash’ariy from Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Azdiy who has said the following: “In response to my question before abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, about al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) if it is one of the four, he (the Imam) said, ‘No, it is not one of the four.’”

Comment: Yep the mut'ah lady aint a wife, tha had been established long ago, she is more like a side chick!

H 9878, Ch. 95, h 3 Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Mahbub from ibn Ri’ab from Zurarah ibn ‘A‘yan who has said the following: “I once asked him (the Imam), ‘Alayhi al-Salam, ‘How many is lawful for al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage)?’ He (the Imam) said, ‘It is as many as you wish.’”

Comment: SPEECHLESS

H 9880, Ch. 95, h 5 Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqiy from al-Qasim ibn ‘Urwah from ‘Abd al-Hamid from Muhammad ibn Muslim who has said the following: “Abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said, ‘Al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) is not of four because it has no divorce or inheritance; she is only hired.’”

Comment: Empiree, come and see o, before you start accusing me of calling mut'ah of the shi'ah zina.

H 9881, Ch. 95, h 6 Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu ‘Umayr from ‘Umar ibn ‘Udhaynah from ‘Isma’il ibn al-Fadl al-Hashimiy who has said the following: “This is concerning my question before abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, about al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage). He (the Imam) said, ‘Meet ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Jurayh and ask him about it; he has information about it.’ I met him and he dictated a great deal of issues about its lawfulness. Among the matters that ibn Jurayh narrated to me was that he said, ‘There is no particular time limit for it or a particular number. The case is similar to that of the slave-girls. One may marry as many as he wishes and one with four wives can marry in this manner, as many as he wishes, without the presence of guardian or witness. When the time expires she becomes a stranger to him without divorce and he may give her something very little. Her waiting period is two cycles of menses but if she does not experience Hayd (menses) her waiting period is forty five days.’ I brought the book to abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, and displayed it before him (the Imam). He (the Imam) said, ‘He has spoken the truth and has made it easy.’ Ibn ‘Udhaynah has said, that Zurarah ibn ‘A‘yan would say so and swear that it is true except that he would say, ‘If she experiences Hayd (menses) her waiting period is one cycle of Hayd (menses) and if she does not experience Hayd (menses) her waiting period is one and a half month.’”

Comment: One can just be doing mut'ah with many women, funny enough it is likened to slaves, but we all know slavery isn't in practice anymore, and Islam never promoted slavery....I see why AlBaqir couldn't quote these information to support his claims...SCANDALOUS!

H 9882, Ch. 95, h 7 Al-Husayn from Muhammad has narrated from Ahmad ibn Ishaq from Sa‘dan ibn Muslim from ‘Ubayd ibn Zurarah from his father who has said the following: “I once mentioned al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) before abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, and asked if it is one of four (wives). He (the Imam) said, ‘You may marry a thousand of them; they are on hire.’”

Comment: Abeg Empiree, when you hire girls from the campuses or from a house, to spend some "nice" time with them, what is it called?!

H 9886, Ch. 96, h 4 Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Salih ibn abu Hammad from ibn Sinan from al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar who has said the following: “I once heard abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, saying about al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage), ‘Stay away from it. Do you not feel ashamed of being seen in a place for which your virtuous brothers in belief and friends feel embarrassed?’

Comment: Now this is getting confusing, these information clearly describes going to love-vendor houses and hotels where prostitutes are found, and you guys claim we are the ones comparing your mut'ah to zina?!

H 9919, Ch. 104, h 2 Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Aban from certain persons of his people who has said the following: “About the case of a man who marries a woman in the manner of al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) many times, abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said, ‘It is not unlawful, he can marry her in the manner of al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) as many times as he wants.’”

Comment: One can just be serially mut'ahlizing a woman, making her to be in a status of perpetual "hirement" for cheap too as one narration suggest up there. I am ashamed to even be quoting these narrations, and to even think they are said to be coming from religious leaders....

Empiree, I keep mentioning you because you claimed we had no right to claim mut'ah done by the shi'ah as zina, but the above narrations, even if claimed to be weak are just too explicit to suggest otherwise.

AlBaqir would quickly come on here quoting sunni books looking for anything that would support the above, and you would hardly see him quote from shi'ah books, in fact, the above information should never be shown to any woman at all, Subhanallah!

AlBaqir:



# Simple question we ask and here you are giving stories. I know you have comprehension problems. Here's it again, "The sexual desires when sahabah's wives were not available with them that made Nabi ordered/approved MUT'AH as a temporary solution, has that innate urge dies in the Ummah of Muhammad?

Many of your sahabah that keep on banging slaves and impregnating them, Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah was even accused of committing Zina by fellow sahabah... all these post Nabi's time. Has those sexual desires dies and buried within the Ummah today? Again, what is the sole aim of your ulama that formulated " misyar nikkah"?!

Those were simple questions you are deviating away from bringing tale by moonlight stories.

Yes the urge is still there, so is the urge for people to commit other sins, but that does not justify committing sins na?! Mut'ah has become a sin since the Prophet (SAW) prohibited it, so as we are capable of avoiding other sins, mut'ah can be avoided, that is why alternatives are available, which are, fasting and Nikkah!

I had told you, actions of any sahabah not sanctioned in the shari'ah are not hujja, you may start commiting zina and say that one sahaba did it o, na you sabi...

And misyar is said to be sanctioned by the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW)?! Did you see me promoting misyar by creating multiple threads?! SMH!

AlBaqir:

It remains that you prove the authenticity of those reports attributed to Imam Ja'far Sadiq, salamullah alayhi.

Really its a huge wasting of time going in circles with you. You are not new to me.

I have provided the narrations you are ashamed to post, go and deal with those ones from Al-Kafi...

sino:

The following hadith are from kitab al kafi, one of the best hadith books of the shi'ah...

H 9871, Ch. 94, h 4 Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu ‘Umayr from ‘Umar ibn ‘Udhaynah from Zurarah who has said the following: “Once ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umayr al-Laythiy came to abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, and asked, ‘What do you say about al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) of women?’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Allah has made it lawful in His book by the tongue of His Holy prophet, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, thus it will remain lawful up to the Day of Judgment.’ He then said, ‘O abu Ja’far, how can someone like you say this, when ‘Umar made it unlawful and prohibited it?’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Even if he has done so.’ He said, ‘I ask Allah to protect you against a thing that ‘Umar has made unlawful.’ He (the narrator) has said that he (the Imam) then said, ‘So you can stand by the words of your friend but I stand by the words of the Messenger of Allah, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, and I am prepared for al-Mula‘inah (ask Allah to condemn the party on the side of falsehood) that the word is what the Messenger of Allah, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, has said; and that falsehood is what your friend has said.’ He (the narrator) has said that ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umayr then said, ‘Will it make you happy that your women, daughters, sisters, daughters of your aunts do?’ He (the narrator) has said that abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, when he mentioned his women and daughters of his aunts turned away from him.’”

Al-Laythi was apparently a Sunni, who held ‘Umar in extremely high esteem. He did not believe in the legitimacy of mut'ah, solely on the premise that `Umar forbade it. The Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet, `alaihim al-salam, by contrast, follow his Sunnah, and uphold its legality. So, the official position of the chosen ones from the Messenger's offspring is that mut'ah is decreed in the Qur'an and its verse had never been abrogated. As such, temporary marriage remains halal till the Last Hour. The Ahl al-Bayt also believe that it
is a bid'ah to consider mut'ah to be Haram, and that whosoever does so has opposed the Prophet of Allah.


Al-Laythi insulted Imam al-Baqir, `alaihi al-salam, by asking if it would please him if his wives and the daughters of his uncle did mut'ah. Of course, mut'ah is Haram for married women. A woman in Islam can only have one husband at a time. It is also very likely that the daughters of the Imam's uncle were also already married at that time. Thus, due to al-Laythi’s mocking (or perhaps ignorant) insult, the noble Imam turned away from him.

Didn't see my mentions at all. Something is wrong.


Anyways, taking to account the face value of your evidence, without any doubt, it is nothing but PROSTITUTION. First all, I'm not here or in position to analyze the evidence provided.


Second, quran came to REGULATE number of women a man should marry, unlike pre Islam or previous prophets where they married as many women as possible. So the idea that you can "marry" as many of them in mutah is rubbish. Even number of slave girls are restricted to 4.


However, my position stands. It is not necessarily as shia practice mutah. I like to stick to the definition. It was clear that even nabi (saw) allowed mutah, there was time limit which means by definition of mutah itself, it purpose was to serve temporary solution to something.


What I am saying is, forget about how or what shia do today. Forget about whether muta was banned or not. If you concluded that mutah is zina, did nabi (saw) order sahaba to commit zina by temporarily marrying those women until khaybar was over?. This is where i was telling you to be careful not to say it is zina by its definition.


Shia might corrupt the meaning and essence. That's semi-irrelevant. Also during the course of effectuating mutah by sahaba (ra) did each of them marry as many women as they possibly could? . I don't think so. If that is the case, the rule is broken if the evidence you put up there is true, bcuz the man said you can may as many as possible. This is quite the opposite.


We need to be careful of choice of word. I will continue to refrain from saying mutah is zina bcus it has implications. Maybe you don't see the implications. I do. I think I have made my position clear that I am not in support of it.



However, I'm still looking for critical evidence how nisai 24 was revealed in connection with mutah. Both sects have corruption in them. If you, sino, succeeded in defeating mutah, albaqir will succeed in defeating sunni of sex slave. All these are nonsense.


For me, I can easily dismiss everything including story of khaybar and mutah connection bcuz, I am absolutely not obligated. I begin to suspect khaybar itself was fraud. Text can be easily corrupted bcuz Allah did not promise to protect any books except Quran. Again, comparison btw mutah (by its definition) with pork, wine etc doesn't make sense. It is dangerous thing to say unless you ready to defend yourself on Qiyamah. Or unless you can provide evidence of prevalence of mutah pre Islam. That would validate the ban after khaybar.


I rather stick to the idea of mulikat-yamin. I had thought it is what shia called mutah until albaqir rebuked that. Even with mulikat-yamin, sunni said that it is no longer exist either in today world, which closes the door to finding solution to sexual perversion.

sino:

H 9874, Ch. 94, h 7 Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn Mahbub from al-Sa’iy who has said the following: “I once said to abu al-Hassan, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, ‘I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause, I would marry in the manner of al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage), I then disliked it and had bad omens about it; then I promised before Allah between the corner of al-Ka’bah and the Station of Ibrahim, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, kept a vow upon myself and fasting not to do such marriage again. It became difficult for me, I regretted because of my swearing and I was not able to marry publicly. He (the Imam) said, ‘You promised Allah not to obey Him. By Allah, if you do not obey Him you sin against Him.’”

This Hadith is best explains by what al-Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad and others documented:

Qutaybah b. Sa'īd ­ Jarīr ­ Ismā'īl ­ Qays ­ `Abd Allāh (b. Mas'ūd):

"We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, and we had nothing with us. So, we said, "Should we castrate ourselves?" But, he forbade us to do that. Then, he permitted us to do nikāḥ (marriage) with the woman, giving her a garment (as the dowry). Then, he recited to us {O you who believe! Do not make ḥarām the good things which Allāh has made ḥalāl for you; and do not exceed the limits; surely Allāh does not love those who exceed the limits}."


You don’t make Haram what Allah and His Messenger have made Halal.

sino:

H 9877, Ch. 95, h 2 Al-Husayn from Muhammad has narrated from Ahmad ibn Ishaq al-Ash’ariy from Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Azdiy who has said the following: “In response to my question before abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, about al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) if it is one of the four, he (the Imam) said, ‘No, it is not one of the four.’”


H 9880, Ch. 95, h 5 Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Barqiy from al-Qasim ibn ‘Urwah from ‘Abd al-Hamid from Muhammad ibn Muslim who has said the following: “Abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said, ‘Al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) is not of four because it has no divorce or inheritance; she is only hired.’”

Allamah Majlisi declares: Majhul

Source: Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī, Mir-āt al-‘Uqūl fī Sharḥ Akhbār Āl al-Rasūl (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muḥsin al-Ḥusaynī al-Amīnī], vol. 20, p. 232

And al-Jawāhirī declares concerning one of its narrators:
Al-Qāsim b. ‘Urwah, Abū Muḥammad, freed slave of Abū Ayyūb al-Khawzī: MAJHUL.

Source: Muḥammad al-Jawāhirī, al-Mufīd min Mu’jam al-Rijāl al-Ḥadīth (Qum: Manshūrāt Maktabah al-Maḥalātī; 2nd edition, 1424 H), p. 464, # 9521

sino:

H 9882, Ch. 95, h 7 Al-Husayn from Muhammad has narrated from Ahmad ibn Ishaq from Sa‘dan ibn Muslim from ‘Ubayd ibn Zurarah from his father who has said the following: “I once mentioned al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) before abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, and asked if it is one of four (wives). He (the Imam) said, ‘You may marry a thousand of them; they are on hire.’”

And, al-Majlisī submits: Majhūl.


Source: Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī, Mir-āt al-‘Uqūl fī Sharḥ Akhbār Āl al-Rasūl (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muḥsin al-Ḥusaynī al-Amīnī], vol. 20, p. 233


This basically establishes that there is NO authentic basis for referring to mut'ah wives as rented/hired women.

But then, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that she is rented. Is it really for sex? There are two possibilities here:

(i) The woman is rented for sex in mut'ah. Therefore, there can be no mut'ah without intercourse.

(ii) The woman is not rented for sex in mut'ah. As such, there can be mut'ah without intercourse.

There is no third way to this. If mut'ah is only a "rental" of the woman for sex, then any mut'ah without sex is no mut'ah.


We have given you Athar where your Tabi’ieen liken MUT’AH to be more halal than drinking water, and even a Sunni tabi did MUT’AH with between 60 to 90 women. Apparently, that’s not all about sex sex as your brain is programmed to believe. We have quoted Shia Hadith earlier which confirmed that Mut’ah can be done without sex.

sino:

H 9886, Ch. 96, h 4 Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Salih ibn abu Hammad from ibn Sinan from al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar who has said the following: “I once heard abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, saying about al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage), ‘Stay away from it. Do you not feel ashamed of being seen in a place for which your virtuous brothers in belief and friends feel embarrassed?’

Al-Majlisī says: Ḍa’īf.

Then, he adds:

“His statement, peace be upon him (to be seen at the place of blemish) meaning, the people see him at a place where whosoever they find there is condemned, due to their abhorrence of mut'ah, hence that becomes a cause of harm to him and to his brothers.”

Source: Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī, Mir-āt al-‘Uqūl fī Sharḥ Akhbār Āl al-Rasūl (Tehran: Dār al-
Kutub al-Islāmīyyah) [annotator: Sayyid Muḥsin al-Ḥusaynī al-Amīnī], vol. 20, p. 234


This seems to be a conditional ban imposed to curb the harm which accrues to righteous Shī’īs from ignorant Sunnīs. Wherever the practice of mut'ah would not put the Shee'ah in danger, then the prohibition would not apply. In any case, the ḥadīth is ḍa’īf. Meanwhile, if its texts does question the legitimacy of mut'ah, then it is in contradiction to the Verse of al-Mut'ah, and therefore mawḍū’.

sino:

H 9919, Ch. 104, h 2 Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Aban from certain persons of his people who has said the following: “About the case of a man who marries a woman in the manner of al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) many times, abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said, ‘It is not unlawful, he can marry her in the manner of al-Mut‘ah (advantageous marriage) as many times as he wants.’”

Imām ‘Abd al-Razzāq of the Ahl al-Sunnah is not left out either:

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

Albaqir and empiree are the same thing. Don't let the former present himself as he is taking a middle stand. He will only end up deceiving himself.

Kaytixy:
Albaqir and empir.ee are the same thing. Don't let the former present himself as he is taking a middle stand. He will only end up deceiving himself.

Excuse me?


But you all disappeared without making reasonable contributions since this thread turned into serious academic issue.

MY CONCLUSION ON THIS FORTH AND BACK THREAD

Imam Tabari documents:

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


So, the list is long of such Sunni heavyweights from the sahabah to the Tabi'ieen that firmly believed the verse is MUT'AH established. What do you have other than speculation that the verse is not MUT'AH established. So, if a verse established MUT'AH, your Hadith can never rule it out. Anyway, the above athar is a hujjah upon the Sunnis.



BACK TO THE GENESIS OF THIS THREAD: EXPOSING SAHABAH AND SUNNI TABI'IEEN PRACTISING MUT'AH POST NABI'S DEMISE

Imam Ibn Hazm (d.456H) summarized the position of Sahabah and Tabi'in on Mut'ah thus:


“A group of the Salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, were FIRM in declaring it (Mut’a) halal AFTER the Messenger of Allah .

Those of them from the SAHABAH , may Allah be pleased with them, were Asma bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq, Jabir b. ‘Abd Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, ‘Amr b. Ḥurayth, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and Salamah and Ma’bad – sons of Umayyah b. Khalaf.


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

And among the TABI'IN were: Ṭawus, ‘Aṭa, Sa'id b. Jubayr, and the rest of the jurists of Makkah, may Allāh honour it. "

Source: al-Muhalla (Dar al-Fikr li al-Ṭaba ah wa al-Nashr wa
al-Tawzi), vol. 9, pp. 519-520


# NB: sino submitted that Ibn Jurayj one of Sunni greatest Tabi'ieen and jurist of Makkah retracted from MUT'AH. I am challenging you, in line of new research that its nothing but a fraud and concocted lies. You can give it a try?

Empiree:
Excuse me?

But you all disappeared without making reasonable contributions since this thread turned into serious academic issue.

# You assume too much. You don't expect a fish to climb a tree. Likewise, you don't expect fool to contribute reasonably to academic issues.

Empiree:
Didn't see my mentions at all. Something is wrong.


Anyways, taking to account the face value of your evidence, without any doubt, it is nothing but PROSTITUTION. First all, I'm not here or in position to analyze the evidence provided.


Second, quran came to REGULATE number of women a man should marry, unlike pre Islam or previous prophets where they married as many women as possible. So the idea that you can "marry" as many of them in mutah is rubbish. Even number of slave girls are restricted to 4.

# First, the proper thing to do when Hadith is quoted, is to verify its authenticity and what scholars of ahadith said on it. Unfortunately, neither the lousy sino nor you did that before you jumped to your conclusion that, "it is nothing but prostitution". Please always wait for Hadith verification before you comment. The guy's desperation of at least one person to support his myth made him "shouting" and keep on mentioning you to comment, and you too rushed into it.

If you follow well, he has first quoted some rubbished he cannot verify its authenticity. Then, he went ahead quoting more in a desperation. Majority of what he has quoted are either Da'eef Hadith or Majhul. He loves messing up thread with irrelevances.


Second, as a correction, there's no limit to slave sex o in Sunni Fiqh. You can have as many slave as you wish and continue to have sex with them as you wish. That's a blunt truth. Kindly read Fiqh Sunnah on that.

AlBaqir:


# First, the proper thing to do when Hadith is quoted, is to verify its authenticity and what scholars of ahadith said on it. Unfortunately, neither the lousy sino nor you did that before you jumped to your conclusion that, "it is nothing but prostitution". Please always wait for Hadith verification before you comment. The guy's desperation of at least one person to support his myth made him "shouting" and keep on mentioning you to comment, and you too rushed into it.

If you follow well, he has first quoted some rubbished he cannot verify its authenticity. Then, he went ahead quoting more in a desperation. Majority of what he has quoted are either Da'eef Hadith or Majhul. He loves messing up thread with irrelevances.


Second, as a correction, there's no limit to slave sex o in Sunni Fiqh. You can have as many slave as you wish and continue to have sex with them as you wish. That's a blunt truth. Kindly read Fiqh Sunnah on that.

oga as far as I'm concerned, it's a waste of time no energy having any argument with you. You are a swine worst than being called a fish. Animal in human skin. Sino has done a very good job on you but you and your perverts brothers won't accept the truth. Take your daughter to El zakizaki in Abuja so that he can practice mutah on her na. You are beginning to succeed on top empiree head because he has started talking loosely about the sahabah ra. All lies have been exposed. A big lier you are. Some people here thinks I should e scared to call you a kafir when you feel free to slander the companions of the prophet saw and our mother aisha ra? Who ever thinks it is wrong to call you a kaafir is sick in the head and needs urgent ruqya.

^ I don't understand how you think, buddy.

AlBaqir:



Al-Laythi was apparently a Sunni, who held ‘Umar in extremely high esteem. He did not believe in the legitimacy of mut'ah, solely on the premise that `Umar forbade it. The Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet, `alaihim al-salam, by contrast, follow his Sunnah, and uphold its legality. So, the official position of the chosen ones from the Messenger's offspring is that mut'ah is decreed in the Qur'an and its verse had never been abrogated. As such, temporary marriage remains halal till the Last Hour. The Ahl al-Bayt also believe that it
is a bid'ah to consider mut'ah to be Haram, and that whosoever does so has opposed the Prophet of Allah.


Al-Laythi insulted Imam al-Baqir, `alaihi al-salam, by asking if it would please him if his wives and the daughters of his uncle did mut'ah. Of course, mut'ah is Haram for married women. A woman in Islam can only have one husband at a time. It is also very likely that the daughters of the Imam's uncle were also already married at that time. Thus, due to al-Laythi’s mocking (or perhaps ignorant) insult, the noble Imam turned away from him.

Bros, did you copy this post from somewhere?! Where in the narration did "uncle" come from?! So it is an insult to ask the Imam if he would allow mut'ah for his close female relations?! I see how narrations are interpreted in shi'ism And I actually agree that it was an insult, although the excuse that they were married is laughable, so all his sisters, daughters, and daughters of his aunt were married?! Where is your evidence for this?! Like I said, I agree it was an insult because no right thinking father or guardian would allow any man to do one hour "marriage" with his female children.

Will you allow your daughter to do mut'ah Mr. AlBaqir?!

Islam made it permissible to marry more than one wife, but not the other way round due to the roles they play and to also safe guard the family structure, still marrying more than one is not emphasized as being advantageous or an enjoyment. A woman can dislike it and write a clause in a marriage contract against it, not to mention that the woman is still protected and gets her full rights as a wife including intimacy, not to mention the stringent condition Alllah (SWT) attached to it in the Qur'an. I have asked you severally, what is the purpose of mut'ah?! If your narrations clearly states that they are not wives, and you can have them as many as you want, where does this fit in the Islamic Shari'ah?! Mut'ah means enjoyment, while the translator of the hadith above said "advantageous marriage", what does that even mean?!

A married woman is left to be chaste, even if she misses are husband so much and want companionship and intimacy, she must remain chaste! But her husband?! He can do mut'ah as much as he desires, he can even do it with different women each day, and after their time is up, and he pays them, then game over, except they renew it again, negotiate and get paid and the cycle continues....I agree, it is such and advantageous "marriage"

What if person go do mutah come catch AIDS what will be his excuse not only that also transfer to his wife kai! With all this Shia oloshos for Iran, wahala dey oo

Albaqir uncle ajala the story teller. He can tell lie lie story just to buttress his point. We all know you except for the new comers here. Don't worry just continue telling yourself lie and those that would believe you. Kai kai kai, I degbe for you ooo

6 pages and yet no conclusion?! The thread has been derailed already.

@sino, few questions for you.

1) All those sahaabahs who performed mut'ah during the lifetime of the Nabi, after his demise and some tabi'een were they wrong or ignorant of the hadith of the Prophet prohibiting it?

2) You said mut'ah is only a necessity for those soldiers during war or an expedition but there is an hadith that says some companions said WE WERE YOUNG........... .If mut'ah was meant for married men who have no access to their spouses, what about unmarried young men? Why did the Nabi recommend mut'ah for them? Why not fasting?

3) If mut'ah is akin to eating pork, we know unlawful becomes lawful at the time of necessity and a person is ONLY ALLOWED to take what will cure/satisfy his hunger at that time WITHOUT taking extra along. If mut'ah is similar to eating of pork, is a person who practised mut'ah only allowed to have intimacy that would his sexual urges? Like 1minute or how would we measure that?

4) You said that the mut'ah during the time of the Prophet wasn't a sin but the mut'ah today is a sin. Does that include all those mut'ah marriages practised by the companions and tabe'een after the death of the Nabi? If it was to be sin, is it major sin or minor sin?

5) You said that

sino: The evidences being put forward that the verse is about mut'ah is not traced to the Prophet (SAW)

Do you think the Nabi would legislate something like nikkah (whether temporary or permanent) without a verse to back it up??



Now to AlBaqir, these are your questions.

1) Do you think we need Mut'ah in this age and time? The money one would used in contracting mut'ah, why can't the person use it in contracting the permanent nikkah?

2) Females who are married have sexual urges too when their husbands aren't at home. How do you expect them to fulfill their urges lawfully? Count ceilings?

3) Do you think we still have the conditions that warrant mut'ah now?



Thanks to you both in advance for answering the questions. No questions for Empiree, he doesn't believe in both mut'ah and misyar. Baba is just here for academic purposes and to 'oversee' the affairs.

Kaytixy:
Albaqir uncle ajala the story teller. He can tell lie lie story just to buttress his point. We all know you except for the new comers here. Don't worry just continue telling yourself lie and those that would believe you. Kai kai kai, I degbe for you ooo

Have you ever made any contribution that is meaningful on this thread?!

lanrexlan:

Now to AlBaqir, these are your questions.

1) Do you think we need Mut'ah in this age and time? The money one would used in contracting mut'ah, why can't the person use it in contracting the permanent nikkah?

# 1. The truth is the same sexual urge that drove those sahabah to the point of contemplating castrating themselves is the same till Qiyamat. So, Yes this age and time still needs it.

# 2. Obviously, there's absolutely nothing meritorious like permanent Nikkah. Observe mut'ah is designed for a purpose at specific place and time, therefore it's not about "why can't we use the money for permanent nikkah". Mut'ah becomes haram for a resident with all the capability to do permanent marriage yet refuse to and hiding under Mut'ah. Kindly see my post on the conditions and guidelines to Mut'ah practice (on this thread).

lanrexlan:

2) Females who are married have sexual urges too when their husbands aren't at home. How do you expect them to fulfill their urges lawfully? Count ceilings?

# The truth is Islam made women sacrifice more than their husband. Imagine a man is entitled to marry up to 4 wives + several concubines yet woman has no such luxury.

* Is this injustice? Islam comes out with certain philosophical arguments:

1. GENERALLY man's sexual desires is far higher than woman's. And while woman's urge EVENTUALLY weakens or dies at certain age bracket, man's don't till death comes. While it is GENERALLY easier for women to control her sexual feelings, men generally finds it difficult to do same (hence 99% of cases of sexual harassment and rape, men are chief culprits).

2. For a woman to have two husband at a time will not only constitute problems and danger but also is GENERALLY seen as immoral in every society. The case is not for men.

3. Can leads to wrong Child(ren)'s ownership

Therefore, in truth women endured more because they have tendency and capacity to endure, and their reward is far far higher than that of men.

Shia have ahadith about every pain a pregnant woman undergo equivalent to the stage of Jihad. Think about that in line with a woman that misses her husband while Ògá adé have luxury of Mut'ah or even the formulated Misyar nikkah to ease himself.

lanrexlan:

3) Do you think we still have the conditions that warrant mut'ah now?

Consider the following:

1. A Muslim soldier or a businessman, sailors etc out within the reach of his wife(s), and the beast came calling and uncontrollable. What is Islamic solution to it?

* Shia says MUT'AH

* Some Sunni says "nikkah with intention of divorce".

* Other Sunnis says fasting.

NB: While fasting can work for some, it absolutely cannot for others. Even sahabah led by Umar broke the rules of "do not have sex during Ramadan night" before Allah then grant them the permission. So, we are left with either Mut'ah or Misyar.


2. A divorcee or widow with for example 4 - 5 children, not even ready of going back into any so-called marriage which is usually gonna be polygamous. All she thinks now is herself and proper upkeep of her children. And as human being, nature demands once in a while. What is Islam solution to her problem?