enieme:

hmm, what of the cases of Muslims who desire to have children but however do not want to stay in marriage with anyone? Is it wrong for any such person to get married to achieve his/ her purpose and afterwards file for divorce?

This is a case scenario of Western culture which Islam frowns at. However, the cause for this in Western world is because of "divorce law". Men tend to be careful when they get married especially if man has assets. It is not common among Muslims. But if a Muslim is unfortunate to be in such country, he/she may have no choice. In the US for instance, if you are married and have assets, your predator wife may screw you. The law also makes provision for back door for men within 10yrs. So this is just one of the many reasons marriages dont last. I forgot what it is called that men have to file for when getting married but it is something done pre-nuptial.

Or another case where a Muslim enters into a marriage with a terminally ill/ near to the grave ' individual knowing fully well the marriage won't last long at all but still marrying for other purposes Than chchildbearing

I think you should re-read yourself. This is pretty much a different case entirely. I can see you stressed "grave condition" to get your point across.

What's your take on Mu'tah marriage?

Empiree:
Subject of mu'tah is eternal debate. At least we can agree from both sides that mut'ah is haram WITHOUT "mission".

.

Its better you use "circumstances" and an example of that is just a "mission".

enieme:

Or another case where a Muslim enters into a marriage with a terminally ill/ near to the grave ' individual knowing fully well the marriage won't last long at all but still marrying for other purposes Than chchildbearing

# Islam gives the choice of marrying second wife.

# Or you can divorce though in that case Allah will judge your intention. Divorce though approved by Islam yet it is one of the most detestable before our Lord.

# You can equally continue "for better for worse" till the spouse died while you remarry.

Empiree:
This is a case scenario of Western culture which Islam frowns at. However, the cause for this in Western world is because of "divorce law". Men tend to be careful when they get married especially if man has assets. It is not common among Muslims. But if a Muslim is unfortunate to be in such country, he/she may have no choice. In the US for instance, if you are married and have assets, your predator wife may screw you. The law also makes provision for back door for men within 10yrs. So this is just one of the many reasons marriages dont last. I forgot what it is called that men have to file for when getting married but it is something done pre-nuptial.

I think you should re-read yourself. This is pretty much a different case entirely. I can see you stressed "grave condition" to get your point across.

What's your take on Mu'tah marriage?

by reffering to the grave condition I'm talking about cases we have of young women getting married to really old men mabmaybe for monetary gain while knowing the man may shit his la st the very next moment.
I know islamically it says its forbidden but I think they should elavoratr more on the forms it may take. Someone may frown on m utah marriages but may be practising it him/herself unknosingly so long as the duration for staying in the marriage isn't explicitly specified before conjugation but is however known within the Heart.

AlBaqir:


Its better you use "circumstances" and an example of that is just a "mission".




# Islam gives the choice of marrying second wife.

# Or you can divorce though in that case Allah will judge your intention. Divorce though approved by Islam yet it is one of the most detestable before our Lord.

# You can equally continue "for better for worse" till the spouse died while you remarry.

But entering the marriage while knowing fully well it won't last,?

enieme:

by reffering to the grave condition I'm talking about cases we have of young women getting married to really old men mabmaybe for monetary gain while knowing the man may shit his la st the very next moment. .

This is off actually. Death can catch up with a one yr old baby as much as it can catch old man. This has nothing to do with "temporary marriage". But like you said, unless the lady is after his wealth knowing fully well he may not live too long.

I know islamically it says its forbidden but I think they should elavoratr more on the forms it may take. Someone may frown on m utah marriages but may be practising it him/herself unknosingly so long as the duration for staying in the marriage isn't explicitly specified before conjugation but is however known within the Heart.

yup

Empiree:
This is off actually. Death can catch up with a one yr old baby as much as it can catch old man. This has nothing to do with "temporary marriage". But like you said, unless the lady is after his wealth knowing fully well he may not live too long.


yup

How about if the person purposefully cause his/ her death?

Empiree:
This is off actually. Death can catch up with a one yr old baby as much as it can catch old man. This has nothing to do with "temporary marriage". But like you said, unless the lady is after his wealth knowing fully well he may not live too long.


yup

How about if the person purposefully causes his/ her death?

enieme:

How about if the person purposefully causes his/ her death?

That's a grievous sin.

# Marrying for a purpose (e.g wealth or beauty etc) isn't a sin but Islam advice against it because of its "consequences".

enieme:

How about if the person purposefully causes his/ her death?

Perhaps this would be premeditated scheme and ONLY known to the person NOT both parties. It still does not meet "temporary marriage" requirements. For it to be termed "mu'tah" it has to be something made plain and clear to both parties and agreed upon. What you described above is criminal act for short. We see that all the time.

AlBaqir:

That's a grievous sin.
# Marrying for a purpose (e.g wealth or beauty etc) isn't a sin but Islam advice against it because of its "consequences".

AlBaqir:

That's a grievous sin.
# Marrying for a purpose (e.g wealth or b

AlBaqir post=43977631:

That's a grievous sin.
# Marrying for a purpose (e.g wealth or beauty etc) isn't a sin but Islam advice against it because of its "consequences".

eauty etc) isn't a sin but Islam advice against it because of its "consequences".

Empiree:
Perhaps this would be premeditated scheme and ONLY known to the person NOT both parties. It still does not meet "temporary marriage" requirements. For it to be termed "mu'tah" it has to be something made plain and clear to both parties and agreed upon. What you described above is criminal act for short. We see that all the time.

tqs for ur responses.

AlBaqir:


# honestly I don't have time for your dishonesty.

What dishonesty?! Don't you know the meaning of intention, to intend?! And I only asked you to show how the above is the definition of Misyar, is that too much to ask?!

AlBaqir:


Absolutely I never wished Mut'ah or Sunni-invented marriage with intention of divorce, for my daughter or any Muslimah. I wished permanent stable marriage for them.

# It has been proven (in previous dialogue involving you and I, and on this thread) that Mut'ah is not for every tom, dick and harry (as against your fantasy). It is an exceptional marriage in an exceptional cases (e.g a case of a soldier on a mission of years in foreign land). You can never forbid it because it has been misused. How many of Islamic practices have been abused!

According to Shi'i fiqh based on ahadith of our Aimmah, Mut'ah could be Halal, Makruh or Haram depending on circumstances. A resident married man, a married woman, a virgin; Mut'ah is absolutely HARAM for them.

I had accepted that your opinions are that of the shi'a, I can't force you to change your mind, even the Prophet (SAW) was only sent to speak the truth, and never to force anyone to accept it. It is all you choice and decision.

Be that as it may, I must state here that the reason you put up there is not valid, so if a soldier on the so called mission for several years, gets to foreign land, and since there is no fixed duration for mut'ah, or any other concrete rule, could go ahead to have mut'ah just for, lets say 3 days, and the following month, since he is still on this long mission, could look for another lady to contract another 3 days and can continue to do so till the end of his mission, or is there any rule against such practices? Please kindly educate us (provide concrete evidences please).

Permit me to post again the ahl Sunnah stand on mut'ah:

From Tafsir Akham Al Qur'an :

The Ahl Sunnah justified the prohibition of mut'ah based on the summarry of the following points

Firstly: Sex is unlawful except with a wife or the female which the right hand possesses, this is based on Allah (SWT) statement: “And those who guard their private parts, except with their wives or what the right hand possesses” (Qur'an 23 vs 5-6). this (woman in mut'ah) is not a wife, and she is not what your right hand possesses, for if she was a wife, then there would be inheritance, and proven relationship by marriage (lineage and kinship) and also, obligatory iddah. The agreement of mut'ah does not prove all these, hence it is void.

Secondly: indeed, there are hadiths that reports the prohibition, among them is what was narrated by malik from Azhury with is chain, narrated from Ali (ra) that verily the Messanger of Allah (SAW) prohibited Mut'ah of women and the eating of donkey meat.

Thirdly: what was related by Ibn Majah, that the Messanger of Allah (SAW) forbade Mut'ah, by saying: “Oh people,, I had permitted for you mut'ah, and verily Allah has definitely forbidden it till the day of judgement”.

Fourthly: Indeed, Umar (ra) forbade it while on the minbar during his days of being the Caliph, the Sahabas, agreed (or affirmed) may Allah have mercy on them all, and their agreement is not a mistake, and if they agreed on it by mistake (or for any other reason), then it means it is a consensus from them.

Fifthly: Indeed, temporary marriage is only inteded to satisfy the desire, it is not intended for procreation, nor for taking care of the children. The initial intention is just to marry, but it can be likened to fornication, in the sense that, the intention of enjoyment without anything else attached, and Allah the most high said: ...seeking chastity not fornication (zina)” and there is nothing intended with mut'ah except to fulfill the desire, to Erupt and free the vessels... thus, mut'ah is nullified based on these conditions.

Empiree:
Subject of mu'tah is eternal debate. At least we can agree from both sides that mut'ah is haram WITHOUT "mission".

What sense does it make for a muslim who intent to marry with pure intention to break it off at specific period?. That's evil intent to begin with.

Anyways, everyone should take chil pill. "Mut'ah" is now worldwide practice now without even know it, especially in the west. They would tell you "I just want to be with him/her for a little while".

Bros Mut'ah is forbidden, it is Haram! authentic narrations are there, don't fall for the sophistry of the twelver shi'as even other sects within shiism do not agree with their stand on mut'ah.

You just stated the fact with the bold.

Do you even know that these guys fabricated narrations from their Imams to praise mut'ah with such lofty words?!

sino:


Permit me to post again the ahl Sunnah stand on mut'ah:

Please brother! Educate me on the underlined. You meant Ahl Sunnah Ijma'ah (consensus)? When exactly was this ijma agreed upon and signed? Who were candidates participated. Akhi there is no ijma here because some of the heavyweights of Ahlu Sunnah from among the Sahabah and earliest Tabi'in NEVER agreed on the so-called Ahlu sunnah stand.

# Imam Ibn Hazm (456H) :

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

Those of them from the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, were Asma bint Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Jabir b. 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Mu'awiyah b. Abu 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: Tawus, 'Ata, Sa'id b. Jubayr, and the rest of the jurists of Makkah, may Allah honour it.

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

Subhanallah! When you have a record which says Tawus, Ata, Sa'id b. Jubayr and the rest of the jurists of Makkah (in their long lists) declared Mut'ah as Halal and continue to practice and pass fatawa for it, what kind of Ahlu Sunnah stand are you proving?

# Sa'id ibn Jubayr, an earlier Tabi'in is one of the most revered and most knowledgeable of Ahlu Sunnah. Imam Abd al-Razzaq documented an interesting athar on him.

Imam Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211):

Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. Khaytham:

There was a pious, beautiful Iraqi woman in Makkah. She had a son called Abu Umayyah; and Sa’d b. Jubayr used to enter upon her a lot. I said, “O Abu ‘Abd Allah! Why do you frequently enter upon this woman?” He said, “We have married her in that marriage”, referring to mut’ah. He (Ibn Jurayj) said: He (‘Abd Allah) informed me that Sa’id said to him: “IT IS MORE HALAL THAN THE DRINKING OF WATER,” referring to mut’ah

Ref: Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Ḥabīb al-Raḥman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 496, # 14020

sino:


From Tafsir Akham Al Qur'an :

The Ahl Sunnah justified the prohibition of mut'ah based on the summarry of the following points

Firstly: Sex is unlawful except with a wife or the female which the right hand possesses, this is based on Allah (SWT) statement: “And those who guard their private parts, except with their wives or what the right hand possesses” (Qur'an 23 vs 5-6). this (woman in mut'ah) is not a wife, and she is not what your right hand possesses, for if she was a wife, then there would be inheritance, and proven relationship by marriage (lineage and kinship) and also, obligatory iddah. The agreement of mut'ah does not prove all these, hence it is void.

The noble surah/ayah you quoted was a Makkan surah and ayah 24 of surah Nisa was Madinas (a far later ayah). Makkah (previous surah or ayah) can never abrogate a later (Madina sura or ayah). In fact surah Nisa being later, legislated more of the types of wedlock approved by Allah.

# For the record, there is Iddah for woman in Mut'ah.

sino:


Secondly: indeed, there are hadiths that reports the prohibition, among them is what was narrated by malik from Azhury with is chain, narrated from Ali (ra) that verily the Messanger of Allah (SAW) prohibited Mut'ah of women and the eating of donkey meat.

# Even if this hadith of Imam Ali (as) is ever correct, the fact that the alleged prohibition took place at Khaybar (7 Hijrah), and Prophet was reported to have ordered Mut'ah 2 years later at Fath Makkah (8-9 Hijrah) abrogate the previous prohibition. So how on earth was it possible for Imam Ali to refer to Khaybar prohibition while he was 100% present at Fath Makkah (9 H) and Hijjat wadah (10 H) when another "ordering and prohibition" was said to have taken place?

# Abdullah ibn Umar and Jabir ibn Abdullah also reported the hadith of "prohibition of donkey meat at Khaybar", they never mentioned Mut'ah along with it.{sahih Muslim, book of military expedition led by the Prophet" hadith No. 257 - 259}. Was only Imam Ali heard the Prophet? And interestingly Jabir ibn Abdullah continued to practice Mut'ah till Umar forbade it, almost 14 years after the demise of the Prophet.

sino:


Thirdly: what was related by Ibn Majah, that the Messanger of Allah (SAW) forbade Mut'ah, by saying: “Oh people,, I had permitted for you mut'ah, and verily Allah has definitely forbidden it till the day of judgement”.

# Prophet can never abrogate Allah's Quran. Ayah 24 of surah Nisa reigns till Qiyamat. Period.

# Now for argument sake, when exactly does this "permanent prohibition" took place?

* Hadith attributed to Imam Ali (while correcting Ibn Abbas to stop giving fatwa on Mut'ah years after the demise of Rasul) says at Khaybar. This can only make sense if it is permanent prohibition.

* There was another "permanent prohibition" at Fath Makkah (conquest of Makkah) reported by one Sahabi out of thousands Sahabah present at Fath Makkah, and yet another permanent prohibition at the last Hajj.

Interestingly, Imam Bukhari and Muslim documented this hadith which reported that a verse in the LAST SURAH (al-Maidah) REVEALED at 10 H (some months before the Prophet's death) validate Mut'ah knocking out the so-called permanent prohibition at 7 H, 9 H, and 10H[/b]:
Abd Allah (b. Mas'ud): We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, 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 nikah (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 Allah does not love those who exceed the limits}.
Ref: {al-Bukhari al-Ju'fi, al-Jami' al-Sahih al-Mukhtaṣar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H), vol. 5, p. 1953, # 4787}

This is (Another) ayah said to have been recited by the Prophet for the validity of Mut'ah in the above hadith which is in Surah al-Maida: 87 and Umm al-Mu'minina Aisha was reported to have said that whatever Halal is declared in surah Maidah is Halal till the day of Qiyamat; and whatever Haram is declared in surah Maidah is haram till Qiyamat.

sino:


Fourthly: Indeed, Umar (ra) forbade it while on the minbar during his days of being the Caliph, the Sahabas, agreed (or affirmed) may Allah have mercy on them all, and their agreement is not a mistake, and if they agreed on it by mistake (or for any other reason), then it means it is a consensus from them.

# Umar forbade Mut'ah because of what he felt to be disgusting when a Sahabi, Amr b. Hurayth impregnated a slave girl in their Mut'ah relationship. Umar asked him, "why a slave girl?" And going by the Sahih hadith of Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari where he affirmed that "We (the Sahabah) used to practice Mut'ah during the eras of the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and Umar", indicated that both Abu Bakr and Umar knew and also approved Mut'ah after the demise of the Prophet. So, if truly Prophet ever forbade Mut'ah (in opposition to the Quran, nauthubillah), then why did it took the Shaykhain so long and for a "shameful purpose" before prohibiting it?

# And on the pulpit, Umar NEVER quoted the Prophet to have prohibited Mut'ah. He rather attributed the prohibition to himself. And that was the reason why some Sahabah like Ibn Abbas, Mu'awiyah et al continued Mut'ah after the so-called banned of Umar. So it was never a consensus among the Sahabah.

# @underlined, obviously some Sahabah followed or agreed Umar's fatwa. He was a "force man". Besides he threatened to stone whoever practice Mut'ah. He never argued its prohibition based on Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet. Sino, remember his fatwa on "no salat (no tayammum) when there is no water"? He passed this fatwa and Sahabi like Abdullah ibn Mas'ud followed in blatant opposition to the book of Allah.
So, his prohibition on Mut'ah is not new.

sino:


Fifthly: Indeed, temporary marriage is only inteded to satisfy the desire, it is not intended for procreation, nor for taking care of the children. The initial intention is just to marry, but it can be likened to fornication, in the sense that, the intention of enjoyment without anything else attached, and Allah the most high said: ...seeking chastity not fornication (zina)” and there is nothing intended with mut'ah except to fulfill the desire, to Erupt and free the vessels... thus, mut'ah is nullified based on these conditions.

This point is false. A blatant lie. The onus lies on you to prove otherwise. Mut'ah is always based on agreement of the two couples. So there might be agreement of child(ren) and taken care etc.

sino:


You just stated the fact with the bold

Do you even know that these guys fabricated narrations from their Imams to praise mut'ah with such lofty words?!

Empiree only meant your Bid'ah "Marriage with intention of divorce" @bold,

sino:


Bros Mut'ah is forbidden, it is Haram! authentic narrations are there, don't fall for the sophistry of the twelver shi'as even other sects within shiism do not agree with their stand on mut'ah.

You never stop deceiving yourself thinking that people are dumb ass and dishonest @underline. Tell them that Tabi'in (e.g Tawus, Ata, Sa'id ibn Jubayr and the rest of Jurists of Makkah) who were bedrock of Ahlu Sunnah fell for the sophistry of Twevler Shi'as. Tell the world please. And shame yourself further by saying Sahabah, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan () fell for sophistry of Twevler Shia. And tell them that ALL SAHABAH who continue to engage in Mut'ah during the eras of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar (before he forbade it few years to the end of his 14 years Khilafah) were all fell to the sophistry of twevler's Shi'a.

sino:


Do you even know that these guys fabricated narrations from their Imams to praise mut'ah with such lofty words?!

# Only in your fantasy world were those ahadith could ever be authentic. You've been flogged on that before only for you to frustratedly cried "all Shi'a hadith are Da'eef, and you don't care if they graded any as Sahih".

AlBaqir:


Please brother! Educate me on the underlined. You meant Ahl Sunnah Ijma'ah (consensus)? When exactly was this ijma agreed upon and signed? Who were candidates participated. Akhi there is no ijma here because some of the heavyweights of Ahlu Sunnah from among the Sahabah and earliest Tabi'in NEVER agreed on the so-called Ahlu sunnah stand.

Please refer back to the thread indicated in my initial post on this thread; these issues had already been made clear. But, perhaps if that is too difficult for you, let me address the issues you have raised here again. For the fact that no one went against Umar (ra) when he gave his ruling, no one confronted him and negated his verdict, not even Imam Ali (ra), then that signifies consensus by the sahabah, vis-à-vis the ahl-Sunnah.

Bro, how come you are basing your opinion on the sahabahs you and your cohorts have labeled hypocrites?! How convenient, when it suits you, you claim they are sahabahs, and when not, they were hypocrites? SMH

AlBaqir:

# Imam Ibn Hazm (456H) :

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

Those of them from the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, were Asma bint Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Jabir b. 'Abd Allah Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Mu'awiyah b. Abu 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: Tawus, 'Ata, Sa'id b. Jubayr, and the rest of the jurists of Makkah, may Allah honour it.

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

Subhanallah! When you have a record which says Tawus, Ata, Sa'id b. Jubayr and the rest of the jurists of Makkah (in their long lists) declared Mut'ah as Halal and continue to practice and pass fatawa for it, what kind of Ahlu Sunnah stand are you proving?

# Sa'id ibn Jubayr, an earlier Tabi'in is one of the most revered and most knowledgeable of Ahlu Sunnah. Imam Abd al-Razzaq documented an interesting athar on him.

Imam Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211):

Abd al-Razzaq – Ibn Jurayj – ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. Khaytham:

There was a pious, beautiful Iraqi woman in Makkah. She had a son called Abu Umayyah; and Sa’d b. Jubayr used to enter upon her a lot. I said, “O Abu ‘Abd Allah! Why do you frequently enter upon this woman?” He said, “We have married her in that marriage”, referring to mut’ah. He (Ibn Jurayj) said: He (‘Abd Allah) informed me that Sa’id said to him: “IT IS MORE HALAL THAN THE DRINKING OF WATER,” referring to mut’ah

Ref: Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Ṣa’nani, al-Muṣannaf [annotator: Ḥabīb al-Raḥman al-A’ẓami], vol. 7, p. 496, # 14020

To the above, the following debunks the so called permissibility by “heavy weight” sahabahs.

General Answer

The actions of companions are not binding evidence for the legality of these actions, especially with the existence of clear cut prophetic-narrations in prohibition.

In this case, if a companion were to practice mutah, it does not mean that mutah is permissible. Similarly, the companions that practiced adultery or consuming intoxicants never believed in the permissibility of these actions.

As for those that clearly stated that mutah is permissible, then their opinions are trounced by the opinions of those who spoke of prohibition, since their evidence lies in authentic prophetic traditions. Those that preached the permissibility of mutah were not able to attribute it to the Prophet – peace be upon him – except by saying that it was practiced at his time.

It goes without saying that this is not sufficient evidence, since some people were consuming intoxicant and engaging in adultery at the time as well. It holds nowhere close to as much weight as the clear evidences for the prohibition of mutah.

Specific Answers

1- Ibn Abbas

Perhaps the strongest advocate for mutah amongst the companions was Ibn Abbas. The narrations in which Ibn Abbas has narrated for the permissibility are usually general. However, it is important to recognize that Ibn Abbas’ ruling does not suggest the permissibility of mutah in all situations.

In Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra 7/204, we find that Abu Jamra narrated:

Ibn Abbas was asked about mutah, so he said it was permissible. A servant of his said, “That is during a time of war when there are not a lot of women and situations like that?” Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.”

The opinion of Ibn Abbas here is that mutah is only to be performed in situations that are similar to the situations in which mutah was first made permissible. The situation mentioned above is similar to that which Ibn Mas’ud described in Saheeh Muslim #3396:
We were on a military expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment.
The reasoning of Ibn Abbas is a mystery. One can only speculate as to why he stuck to his opinion when the majority of the companions sided with the clear evidences for the prohibition of mutah. Perhaps the most reasonable possibility is that Ibn Abbas accepted that the Prophet – peace be upon him – prohibited mutah, but since he permitted it more than once it meant that it can be permitted during dire conditions. Of course, this ijtihad has no weight since the text from the Prophet – peace be upon him – is clear, and the text always takes precedence over ijtihad.

2- Jabir bin Abdullah

Jabir is perhaps the second companion who is most often cited as to have gone against the prohibition of mutah. In Saheeh Muslim #2498, Abu Nadhra said:

I was at Jabir bin Abdullah’s when a man came saying, “Ibn Abbas and Ibn Al-Zubair different when it came to the two (types of) mutah,” Jabir said, “We performed them with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – then Omar prohibited us from them, and we never returned to them.”

Ibn Hajar in Fath Al-Bari comments that the last statement by Jabir suggests that he sided with the consensus, which is that mutah is prohibited, for if it was permissible, then he would have taught the permissibility of it after the death of Omar.
Ibn Hajar is correct for Jabir lived for another five decades after Omar and never returned to what was supposedly permissible, nor was he known to having preached the permissibility of mutah. This is evidence that he accepted the prohibition of Omar, since the prohibition of Omar has supporting evidence from the traditions of the Prophet – peace be upon him – as we have proven in a previous article.

3- Ali bin Abi Talib

One narration is provided in order to prove that Ali believed in the permissibility of mutah and it is the narration of Al-Hakam bin Abi Utaibah (Tafseer Al-Tabari #9042). Al-Hakam, however, was born after the death of Ali according to several scholars. See his biography in Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb.

Furthermore, the narration that Al-Hakam attributes to Ali is identical to the authentic narration to Ibn Abbas, in Musanaf Abd Al-Razaq #14021, through an authentic chain, where he says:

“If it were not for his prohibition (Omar), then only a vile person would perform adultery.”

It is obvious to the objective reader that Al-Hakam made a mistake in attributing this narration to Ali, who opposed mutah, instead of Ibn Abbas.

4- Omar bin Al-Khattab

In Tareekh Al-Madinah #1190, by Ibn Shibbah, we find a narration in which Omar suggests that he used to practice mutah and that it was his ijtihad that causes him to reject mutah. However, this narration is weak due to it being narrated solely by Zam’a bin Salih. This narration also goes against the authentic narration that Omar rejected mutah because of the Prophet’s narration and asked for witnesses with evidence that it was permitted after its prohibition.

5- Abdullah bin Omar

Ibn Omar is mentioned to have made mutah permissible. Authors of a Shia website provide Sunan Al-Tirmithi #832. However, the narration clearly states that Ibn Omar was referring to the mutah of the pilgrimage, so this has nothing to do with mutah marriages. It was narrated from Ibn Omar that he rejected temporary marriage and described as an act of indecency.

6- Abdullah bin Mas’ud

Ibn Masu’d narrated (Muslim #3396): We were on a expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment. Then, Abdullah recited, “Do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”
[Al-Ma’idah: 87]

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

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

7- Imran bin Husain

A narration that is often used to support the attribution of this view to Imran bin Husain is the narration of Al-Bukhari #4156 where he says that the verse of mutah was revealed in the book of Allah and it was practiced by him with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, and that nothing forbidding it was revealed until his death, but then a man banned it.

The narration can be found in the chapter of the pilgrimage, which leads us to believe that this is not about the mutah marriage, but the mutah of the pilgrimage.

This is supported by a hadith in Saheeh Muslim #2158 that states that this is the mutah of the pilgrimage.

Thus, the burden of proof lies upon opponents to prove that this is about mutah marriages.

As for the verse that Imran bin Husain is talking about, then it is verse 196 from Surat Al-Baqara.

8- Asma’ bint Abi Bakr

Asma’s words regarding mutah has been explained in details in an old article. See here.

The clear conclusion is that Asma’ never had temporary marriage and this was mistakenly attributed to her, rather her narrations are regarding the Mutah of Hajj.

9- Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri

The narration in which Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri talks about mutah is in Musanaf Abd Al-Razzaq #14022. Ata’a says, “It was told to me by whomever you wish that Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri said…” The narration describes that saweeq was used as a mahr.

The narration by Abi Sa’eed simply describes the details of mahr back in the time when mutah was permissible, and there is no issue with this. It does not suggest that he believed that mutah was prohibited by Omar, nor that it was left as permissible by the Prophet – peace be upon him.

Furthermore, the hadith is weak since Ata’a does not mention who his teacher is.

10- Mu’awiyah

The narration of Abd Al-Razaq in his Musanaf #14026 suggests that Mu’awiyah performed mutah during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him. Like Jabir, Amr bin Huraith, and others, it seems that he was not aware that mutah was prohibited by the Prophet – peace be upon him. The personal actions of a companion of the Prophet – peace be upon him – cannot be used to legalize an act if there is clear evidence of prohibition.

11- Samura bin Jundub

No such narration can be found attributed to Samura bin Jundub. However, those that have included Samura in this list did so because Ibn Hajar said in the biography of a companion named Sameer, “This may be Samura bin Jundub.”
Ibn Hajar goes on to quote Ibn Mandah in Al-Isaba 1/771 which says that, “We used to perform mutah at the time of the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him.”

Even though there is nothing problematic about this, since there is an agreement that the companions used to practice mutah back then. However, it seems that Ibn Hajar or a scribe who wrote Al-Isaba made a mistake, since all other sources say, “We used to narrate hadiths during the time of the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him.” See Usd Al-Ghaba 2/344, Al-Jami’ lama fil Musanafat Al-Jawami’ 3/90, and Ma’rifat Al-Sahaba by Abu Nu’aym 2/1442.

The word يتمتع yatamata’ (to perform mutah) is similar in its characters to يستمع yastami’ (to hear), so such a mistake does happen from time to time.

12- Imran bin Sawadah[/b]

A narration in Tareekh Al-Tabari 2/749 says that Imran bin Sawadah debated Omar on the permissibility of mutah. Omar simply responds that the conditions during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him – required mutah, but they don’t require it anymore.
The narration comes through the path of Eisa bin Yazeed bin Da’b. He is considered to be munkar al-hadith and a liar. See his biography in Lisan Al-Mizan. Therefore, this narration is rejected and cannot be used as evidence that Imran bin Sawadah believed in the permissibility of mutah.

[b]13- Salama bin Al-Akwa’

It is narrated in Musnad Al-Royani #1170 that Salama bin Al-Akwa’ stated that there is no evidence for the prohibition of mutah from the Qur’an or the traditions of the Prophet – peace be upon him.

However, the narration is weak since it comes from the path of Harun bin Abi Eisa.

Al-Uqaili criticized him in his book of weak narrators for narrating traditions that are not corroborated.

More importantly, Salama bin Al-Akwa’s narration of the prohibition of mutah was related by Muslim as we’ve pointed out in our original article on evidences for the prohibition of mutah.

14- Zaid bin Thabit

There are no narrations that suggest that Zaid bin Thabit believed in the permissibility of mutah. Though, a shortlist of five companions was compiled by the third century historian Mohammad bin Habeeb Al-Baghdadi that include Zaid.
Mohammad bin Habeeb included this shortlist on p. 289 of his Al-Muhabbar, but did not provide any proof that this was Zaid’s opinion. It is, therefore, rejected.

15- Amr bin Huraith

In Musanaf Abd Al-Razaq #14021 we find a narration that explicitly states that Amr bin Huraith practiced mutah during the time of Omar. Like Jabir bin Abdullah, Amr bin Huraith was unaware that mutah was made forbidden during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him.
Amr continued to live on for another six decades after the death of Omar, and it was not known that he ever practiced mutah or spoke of the permissibility of mutah after the death of Omar.

16- Rabee’a bin Umayyah
In Muwatta Malik #995, we find Khawla bint Hakeem accusing Rabee’a bin Umayyah bin Khalaf for mutah during the time of Omar.
Ironically, Rabee’a was also known for drinking alcohol. He eventually leaves Islam and becomes a Christian. See his biography in Al-Isaba by Ibn Hajar 1/607.

Perhaps opponents will one day argue that drinking alcohol is permissible as well since this was an act practiced by Rabee’a.
It is needless to say that the actions of a man who eventually leaves Islam cannot be used as binding evidence against Muslims.

17- Salama bin Umayyah

The inclusion of Salama bin Umayyah as one of those that practiced mutah during the time of Omar can be found in Musanaf Abd Al-Razzaq #14024.

The most obvious excuse that can be given is that he was not aware that it was prohibited. There is also another possibility, which is that he was included in this narration accidentally since his story is very similar to the story of Amr bin Huraith. Though, do note that the chain is weak. See Tareekh Al-Madinah #1193.
________________________________________
This is as far as the evidence the opponents use for the permissibility of Mutah, as the reader can see their evidence is very weak and problematic as opposed to the clear authentic narrations by several companions that declare its prohibition from the Hadith of Rasul-Allah (saw).

Source: http://twelvershia.net/2015/02/19/companions-believed-mutah/

So Sheikh AlBaqir, in your wisdom and understanding, the above are what you claim to be permissibility of muta’ah against the clear words as recorded in authentic narrations prohibiting it?! SMH

AlBaqir:

The noble surah/ayah you quoted was a Makkan surah and ayah 24 of surah Nisa was Madinas (a far later ayah). Makkah (previous surah or ayah) can never abrogate a later (Madina sura or ayah). In fact surah Nisa being later, legislated more of the types of wedlock approved by Allah.

# For the record, there is Iddah for woman in Mut'ah.

Already debunked, the fallacy of Qur’an 4:24 is not about mut’ah, but you are free to believe whatever you want.

By the way, please answer the following questions:

Are women who contract mut’a wives?

Are these women divorced?

If they are not wives, and not divorced, why iddah?

What is the iddah period for women who did mut’a?!

Who gave the ruling on iddah, is it Allah (SWT), the Prophet (SAW)? Or who?

Please provide authentic evidences for your answers, thank you in anticipation of your robust response.

AlBaqir:
# Even if this hadith of Imam Ali (as) is ever correct, the fact that the alleged prohibition took place at Khaybar (7 Hijrah), and Prophet was reported to have ordered Mut'ah 2 years later at Fath Makkah (8-9 Hijrah) abrogate the previous prohibition. So how on earth was it possible for Imam Ali to refer to Khaybar prohibition while he was 100% present at Fath Makkah (9 H) and Hijjat wadah (10 H) when another "ordering and prohibition" was said to have taken place?

# Abdullah ibn Umar and Jabir ibn Abdullah also reported the hadith of "prohibition of donkey meat at Khaybar", they never mentioned Mut'ah along with it.{sahih Muslim, book of military expedition led by the Prophet" hadith No. 257 - 259}. Was only Imam Ali heard the Prophet? And interestingly Jabir ibn Abdullah continued to practice Mut'ah till Umar forbade it, almost 14 years after the demise of the Prophet.

Please permit me to revisit this issue of the hadith prohibiting mut’a as found in your book from Imam Ali (ra)

Mutah in Shia Hadiths: Permissible or Prohibited?

Even though there are tons of narrations that suggest the permissibility of mutah in Shia books, we find an authentic narration that is clear about its prohibition.

We find in Al-Istibsar by Al-Tusi (p. 689) from Mohammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya from Abi Al-Jawza’a from Al-Hussain bin Ulwan from Amr bin Khalid from Zaid bin Ali from his fathers from Ali – peace be upon him – that he said: The Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – forbade the meat of the domestic donkey and mutah marriages.

All the narrators in this hadith are reliable even though some contemporary Shias have attempted to weaken this hadith by criticizing two narrators.

The first to be criticized was Al-Hussain bin Ulwan. Al-Najashi (p. 52) said: “Al-Hussain bin Ulwan Al-Kalbi, their servant, from Kufa, aami (Sunni), and his brother is Al-Hasan, named Abu Mohammad, reliable.”

Shias disagreed amongst themselves as to who Al-Najashi is referring to here as: Reliable.

Those that want to weaken this hadith will argue that it is his brother that is reliable, while those that are objective know that it is Al-Hussain himself, for Al-Najashi’s biography is from Al-Hussain and not Al-Hassan. This is the opinion of Ayatullah Al-Khoei.

The second argument is that Amr bin Khalid is not an Imami. However, upon further inspection, we find that he is a Zaidi. See Al-Kashshi (p. 169). The same page also includes a quote from Ibn Fadhal that he is trustworthy. This is sufficient for some major scholars like Al-Khoei to regard Amr bin Khalid as reliable. (See his Mu’jam) However, some contemporaries would rather see Shia hadith sciences burn to a crisp than to stick to see this hadith being considered authentic, so they argued that Al-Kashshi’s quote from Ibn Fadhal is disconnected. In response, we say that Al-Kashshi and other scholars of rijal were not ignorant of the opinions of other earlier rijalis, and these experts are reliable when attributing statements to earlier rijalis. If this was not the case, then one could next say that the rijalis themselves are disconnected from the narrators, and therefore, all opinions of rijali scholars should be rejected. This is why real scholars like Al-Khoei would never make absurd claims like this.

Al-Tusi, in Al-Istibsar, when commenting on this hadith stated that, “This hadith is to be taken as taqiyya.”

In response, we say that there is no reason for taqiyya in this situation since scholars from Makkah, like Ibn Abbas, his students from Makkah, and even later muftis like Ibn Juraij, all accepted the permissibility of mutah. In other words, their life was not in danger for holding this belief, even though we have proven in previous chapters that they were incorrect in their opinion. More importantly, it is authentically proven in both Sunni and Shia sources that Ali taught that mutah is not permissible, and it is binding upon anyone who wishes to follow Ali to accept this consensus.

We also find in Al-Kafi 5/1095 from Mohammad bin Yahya from Ahmad bin Mohammad from Mu’amar bin Khallad that he said: I asked Abu Al-Hasan Al-Redha – peace be upon him – about a man getting married to a women in mutah and taking her from country to another country? He said: The other type of marriage is permissible, and this type of marriage isn’t.

Bros, I just tire for una matter, you guys are never straight forward! So please explain the above o! is the hadith authentic or not?!

AlBaqir:
# Prophet can never abrogate Allah's Quran. Ayah 24 of surah Nisa reigns till Qiyamat. Period.

# Now for argument sake, when exactly does this "permanent prohibition" took place?

* Hadith attributed to Imam Ali (while correcting Ibn Abbas to stop giving fatwa on Mut'ah years after the demise of Rasul) says at Khaybar. This can only make sense if it is permanent prohibition.

* There was another "permanent prohibition" at Fath Makkah (conquest of Makkah) reported by one Sahabi out of thousands Sahabah present at Fath Makkah, and yet another permanent prohibition at the last Hajj.

Interestingly, Imam Bukhari and Muslim documented this hadith which reported that a verse in the LAST SURAH (al-Maidah) REVEALED at 10 H (some months before the Prophet's death) validate Mut'ah knocking out the so-called permanent prohibition at 7 H, 9 H, and 10H[/b]:
Abd Allah (b. Mas'ud): We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, 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 nikah (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 Allah does not love those who exceed the limits}.
Ref: {al-Bukhari al-Ju'fi, al-Jami' al-Sahih al-Mukhtaṣar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H), vol. 5, p. 1953, # 4787}

This is (Another) ayah said to have been recited by the Prophet for the validity of Mut'ah in the above hadith which is in Surah al-Maida: 87 and Umm al-Mu'minina Aisha was reported to have said that whatever Halal is declared in surah Maidah is Halal till the day of Qiyamat; and whatever Haram is declared in surah Maidah is haram till Qiyamat.

It has been proven times without number that Qur’an 4:24 is not about mut’a, and the hadith you quote still cannot be used as a prove the continuous permissibility of mut’a. I had posted it above, but let me post it again:

Ibn Masu’d narrated (Muslim #3396): We were on a expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment. Then, Abdullah recited, “Do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”
[Al-Ma’idah: 87]

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

However, Ibn Al-Qayyim in Zad Al-Ma’aad (p. 405) provides another possible interpretation. He said:

He wanted to use this verse in order to respond to those that say it is completely permissible and that he is a transgressor since the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – only allowed it out of necessity and need, during military expeditions, without there being women, and with extreme need for women. So, whoever legalized it in towns, which have an abundance of women and the ability for one to get married, is a transgressor, and Allah does not like transgressors.

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

So bros look for another narration to hang on to, authentic narrations by the Prophet (SAW) clearly states, Mut’a is forbidden till the day of judgement!

FYI, it wasn’t the Prophet SAW that recited the verse, it was Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood. Trying too hard I can see, even quoting Aisha (ra) to support your views LOL

One would need to even ask, why would Ibn Mas’ood be asking that they castrate themselves? Did they not know about mut’a? If they did, but knew that it was forbidden by the prophet (SAW), then this defeats your shi’a opinion, and even goes against the verse you erroneously believe is about the permissibility of mut’a. The narration said they wanted to castrate themselves! Showing that they were desperate, in Islam, an exception is not the rule, thus, this narration does not support the claims and practices of the shi’a at all.

And by the way, what is your issue with when it was permanently prohibited?! The hadith being authentic both in your books and that of the sunni are not enough for you right? Can it not be a case of repetition, does it change anything? Just looking for technicalities to dismiss an authentic narration speaks volume of your shi’a aqeedah.

AlBaqir:
# Umar forbade Mut'ah because of what he felt to be disgusting when a Sahabi, Amr b. Hurayth impregnated a slave girl in their Mut'ah relationship. Umar asked him, "why a slave girl?" And going by the Sahih hadith of Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari where he affirmed that "We (the Sahabah) used to practice Mut'ah during the eras of the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and Umar", indicated that both Abu Bakr and Umar knew and also approved Mut'ah after the demise of the Prophet. So, if truly Prophet ever forbade Mut'ah (in opposition to the Quran, nauthubillah), then why did it took the Shaykhain so long and for a "shameful purpose" before prohibiting it?

# And on the pulpit, Umar NEVER quoted the Prophet to have prohibited Mut'ah. He rather attributed the prohibition to himself. And that was the reason why some Sahabah like Ibn Abbas, Mu'awiyah et al continued Mut'ah after the so-called banned of Umar. So it was never a consensus among the Sahabah.

# @underlined, obviously some Sahabah followed or agreed Umar's fatwa. He was a "force man". Besides he threatened to stone whoever practice Mut'ah. He never argued its prohibition based on Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet. Sino, remember his fatwa on "no salat (no tayammum) when there is no water"? He passed this fatwa and Sahabi like Abdullah ibn Mas'ud followed in blatant opposition to the book of Allah.
So, his prohibition on Mut'ah is not new.

HAHAHAHAHHA! I had asked you before, is it the same Umar (ra) that you and your cohorts labeled a coward all over this section?! So no sahabah right there could confront him?! Even Ali (ra) was helpless?! Honestly, do you really believe what you write?! Abeg look for another lie, the silence of the sahabah is consensus, anyone who says or does anything contrary to that is on his own. A narration indicates that Umar (ra) was basing is judgement on the verdict of the Prophet (SAW), I know such narration does not fit into your narrative, thus you overlooked it. Again Ali (ra) was the one even correcting Ibn Abbas about his position on mut’ah, meaning, he knows of the prohibition by the Prophet (SAW) and is in agreement with Umar (ra). You may continue to wiggle around technicalities, na you sabi.

This is what a narration found in Ibn Majah states.

Umar said:

“The Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – allowed us to perform mutah for three (days), then prohibited it. By Allah, if I knew that one of you performs mutah and is fortified, I will stone him (to death), unless he comes to me with four that testify that the Messenger – peace be upon him – permitted it after prohibiting it.” Sunan Ibn Majah #1953

So bros come up with another lie.

I had explained your misconception about the tayyamum issue, but it seems you choose what to read and comprehend. The threads are still there, you may go back to read again. The sahabas are not pushovers like you want us to believe, they stood for justice, and spoke the truth regardless of the position or power of anyone.

AlBaqir:
This point is false. A blatant lie. The onus lies on you to prove otherwise. Mut'ah is always based on agreement of the two couples. So there might be agreement of child(ren) and taken care etc.

I’ll let your scholar answer you here:

2433. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to subsistence even if she becomes pregnant.

2434. A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband, and does not inherit from him, and the husband, too, does not inherit from her. However, if one or both lay down a condition regarding inheriting each other, such a stipulation is a matter of Ishkal as far as its validity is concerned, but even then, precaution should be exercised by putting it into effect.

2435. If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, did not know that she was not entitled to any subsistence and sharing her husband's conjugal bed, still her marriage will be valid, and inspite of this lack of knowledge, she has no right to claim anything from her husband.
http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2350/

Then from your shi’a book Wasail ush-shia

And from him from Ahmad b. Ishaq from Sa`dan b. Muslim from `Ubayd b. Zurara from his father from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: I mentioned mut`a to him, is she from the four? So he said: Marry a thousand of them, for they are rented women. (Wasail ush-shia 2[ 26407 ]

And from him from Ahmad from al-Husayn b. Sa`id and Muhammad b. Khalid from al-Qasim b. `Urwa from `Abd al-Hamid from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abu Ja`far عليه السلام regarding mut`a: She is not from the four since she is not divorced nor does she inherit. And she is only a rented woman. [ 26409 ] 4

al-`Ayyashi in his Tafsir from `Abd as-Salam from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: I said to him: What do you say regarding mut`a? He said: The saying of Allah “So those of them with whom you have done mut`a” to a named duration “then give them their wages as a duty.” He said: I said: May I be made your ransom, is she from the four? He said: She is not from the four, she is only a renting – (al-hadith) [26419 ] 14

Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from one of our companions from Zurara from Abu Ja`farعليه السلام. He said: I said to him: The man who marries in mut`a and her (or, its) stipulation (i.e. duration) expires then another man marries her until she separates from him then the first one marries her until she separates from him, thrice, and she married three husbands. It is allowed for the first one to marry her? He said: Yes, as much as he wants, this is not like the freewoman, this is a rented (or, hired) woman and she is of the status of the slave-girl.

And the Shaykh narrated it by his isnad from Muhammad b. Ya`qub likewise. [ 26530 ] 1

And from `Ali from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from `Umar b. Udhayna from Isma`il b. al-Fadl al-Hashimi. He said: I asked Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام about mut`a. So he said: Go meet `Abd al-Malik b. Jurayj and ask him about it, for verily he has knowledge about it. So I met him and he dictated many things to me in regards to its being deemed lawful, and in what Ibn Jurayj narrated to me regarding it was that there is no time and number in it, she is only with the status of the slave women, one marries from them however many one wants. And the one who has four wives marries from them what he wants without a guardian or witnesses. So when the term is expired, she is separated (?) from him without divorce. And he gives her the simple thing. And her `idda is two menstruations. And that if she does not menstruate, then it is forty-five days. He said: So I brought the writing to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام [and I presented it to him – in al-Kafi] and he said: He has spoken the truth and confirmed it. Ibn Udhayna said: And Zurara would say this and swear that it was the truth, except that he would say: If she menstruates, then a (single) menstruation, and if she does not menstruate, then a month and a half. [ 26413 ] 8

Source: http://gift2shias.com/2010/10/31/from-characters-of-shia-mutah/

Imagine a rental, a slave girl?! SMH

You are free to deny or accept any of the above.

AlBaqir:


Empiree only meant your Bid'ah "Marriage with intention of divorce" @bold,

Bros it does not matter, the fact remains, stated or hidden, such a marriage is not what Islam advocates simple!

AlBaqir:

You never stop deceiving yourself thinking that people are dumb ass and dishonest @underline. Tell them that Tabi'in (e.g Tawus, Ata, Sa'id ibn Jubayr and the rest of Jurists of Makkah) who were bedrock of Ahlu Sunnah fell for the sophistry of Twevler Shi'as. Tell the world please. And shame yourself further by saying Sahabah, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan () fell for sophistry of Twevler Shia. And tell them that ALL SAHABAH who continue to engage in Mut'ah during the eras of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar (before he forbade it few years to the end of his 14 years Khilafah) were all fell to the sophistry of twevler's Shi'a.

It is not new that you engage in sophistry, falling for such is not about being dumb or stupid; it is just the way we are as humans, the reason why shaitan (la) could manipulate even a scholar. The reasons Muslims are enjoined by Allah (SWT) to always remind ourselves of the truth and be patient (Sura Asr).

I had already addressed the other issues on this post. Again, you can either accept or deny, it doesn’t change the fact that Mut’a was prohibited by the Prophet (SAW) during his life.

AlBaqir:

# Only in your fantasy world were those ahadith could ever be authentic. You've been flogged on that before only for you to frustratedly cried "all Shi'a hadith are Da'eef, and you don't care if they graded any as Sahih".

It seems you always read my response in a rush, didn’t you see FABRICATED there?! And when would you come to the Mahdi thread to explain how you people arrive at authenticity of narrations found in your books?

sino:


It has been proven times without number that Qur’an 4:24 is not about mut’a,

So what do you do with numbers of Sunni Tafsirs (including your esteemed Ibn Kathir) who reported that many Sahabah (like Ibn Abbas, Ubayy ibn Ka'b et al) and Tabi'in (Sa'id b. Jubayr, al-Suddi et al) were quoted that the ayah was revealed for Mut'ah. They even go to the extent of adding the Ta'wil of the ayah: {Those of them with whom you contract Mut'ah (istamta'tum) for a specified period?

sino:


Again Ali (ra) was the one even correcting Ibn Abbas about his position on mut’ah, meaning, he knows of the prohibition by the Prophet (SAW) and is in agreement with Umar (ra). You may continue to wiggle around technicalities, na you sabi.

This is what a narration found in Ibn Majah states.

Umar said:

“The Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – allowed us to perform mutah for three (days), then prohibited it. By Allah, if I knew that one of you performs mutah and is fortified, I will stone him (to death), unless he comes to me with four that testify that the Messenger – peace be upon him – permitted it after prohibiting it.” Sunan Ibn Majah #1953

So bros come up with another lie.

Ma sha Allah! Your submission is weaker than cobwebs.

Here is the chain of the hadith as repoted by Imam Ibn Majah:

Muḥammad b. Khalaf al-‘Asqalani – al-Farya i – ‘Aban b. Abi Hazim – Abu Bakr b. Ḥafṣ – Ibn ‘Umar
Shaykh al-Arnaut and two others say: A sahih hadith, and this chain is ḥasan.

This hadith is actually Da'if.
# Concerning one of its narrators, al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 H) states:

Aban b. ‘Abd Allah b. Abi Hazim b. Ṣakhr b. al-‘Aylah al-Bajali al-Aḥmasi al-Kufi: Saduq (very truthful), there is weakness in his memory.

Ref: Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Ḥajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 1, p. 51, # 140

# Then, Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H) gives more details:

Aban b. ‘Abd Allah al-Bajali, from the people of Kufa, and he was the one called Aban b. Abi Hazim. He narrated from Aban b. Taghlib and the people of Kufa. Al-Thawri, Waki' and the people narrated from him. He was one of those whose mistakes were terrible, and who narrated manakir (repugnant reports) without corroboration. Al-Hamdani informed us, and said: I heard ‘Amr b. ‘Ali saying: “I never heard Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan ever narrating anything from him” – he meant Aban al-Bajali.

Ref: Abu Hatim Muḥammad b. Hibban b. Aḥmad al-Tamimi al-Busti, Kitab al-Majruhin [annotator: Maḥmud Ibrahim Zayad], vol. 1, p. 99

* In normal circumstances, a narrator like this is not just ḍa’if, but also munkar. So, his reports are very weak and thrown away.

FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, LETS SAY THE HADITH IS EVEN SAHIH.
* Just like 'Ali was reported to have claimed that Prophet had prohibited Mut'ah at Khaybar FOREVER in 6-7 Hijri, so was Umar ibn al-Khattab is reported to have claimed that Prophet prohibited Mut'ah FOREVER at Fath Makkah in 8-9 Hijri.

Yet here's another Sunni "sahih" hadith where prophet is said to have ALLOWED and then prohibited FOREVER Mut'ah at Hijat wada, a year after Umar's claim.

# Imam al-Darimi (d. 255):

far b. ‘Awn – ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz – al-Rabi b. Sabrah – his father:

We journeyed with the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, during the Farewell Hajj and he said, “Do mut’ah with these women”.... Then, in the morning, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, stood between al-Rukn and the door and said, “O mankind! Verily, I have been allowing you to do mut’ah with women. But, surely, Allah has made that haram till the Day of al-Qiyamat. So, whoever has something of them with him, let him free her, and do not take back anything from what you gave them (as dowries).”

Shaykh Asad comments: Its chain is Sahih

Ref: Abu Mohammad ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abd al-Raḥman al-Darimi, Sunan (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Husain Salim Asad], vol. 2, p. 188, # 2195

# Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354) also documents it and al-Albani says its Sahih. Shaykh al-Arnaut also concur: Sahih.

Ref: Sahih Ibn Hibban bi Tartib Ibn Balban (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 2nd edition, 1414 H) [annotators: Muḥammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani and Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 9, p. 454, # 4147

Subhan'Allah! How just is it possible for one thing to be prohibited FOREVER at three different occasions after allowing it at those occasions? What kind of forever never ends? Such is the inconsistent of the Sunni ahadith documents.

So, Sino you are back to square one.

Salam Alaikum, brother sino(may Allaah preserve him) has done perfect justice to this topic, the final note is Mut'ah is banned and forbidden in Islam.

AlBaqir criticizes the difference of date but he's okay with the contradictory appointment of his first Imam(Ghadir, Tabuk, etc). May Allaah have mercy on us all and protect us from innovations. The sahabas the Tashayyu hates have suddenly become yardsticks for propagating their misguidance, he even went as far as to mention Mu'awiyah(ra), this was the same man AlBaqir said he's a caller to hellfire, but when the issue of Mut'ah is mentioned, he's suddenly a sahaba.

He claimed the "We" used by Jabir ibn Abdullah meant "All Sahabas" this is very laughable because the hadith never meant all the Sahabah, I ask you AlBaqir, since you said it refers to all sahabas, did: Bilal, Umm Ayman, Usamah Ibn Zaid, Zaid Ibn Haritha, Zaid Ibn Khattab, Aqeel, Amr Ibn Al As, Ammar Ibn Yasser do mut’ah?!

Imam Al Qurtubi says in his commentary on this verse(Quran 4:24); "the payment in the context is the dowry, it has been called recompense because it is a fee for the enjoyment. This is a support for dowry being a recompense. Alhasan, Mujahid, and others said: The meaning relates to what you have 'enjoy'ed through your union with women in proper marriage, so "give them their recompense" that is, their dowries. Ibn Khuwayz Mindad said: There is no support and it is not permissible to use the verse as a permission for temporary marriage as the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) has warned against and has forbidden temporary marriage as Allah Most High said: "So marry them with the permission of their families." It is natural for the marriage to take place with the permission of the parents, this is a proper marriage which has a trustee and two witnesses, temporary marriage is not like that. 'A`isha said: "It has been forbidden in the Qur'an in the words of the Most High: "And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses, then they would have no blame." [23:5]. Temporary marriage is not regarded as a proper marriage, and the spouse does not fall into the category of what the right hand possesses. "

sino:


Bro, how come you are basing your opinion on the sahabahs you and your cohorts have labeled hypocrites?! How convenient, when it suits you, you claim they are sahabahs, and when not, they were hypocrites? SMH

An attempt to deviate this thread. For the very record which is clear to you (but you thought wise to pretend to either score cheap point or deviate), WE do not label (ALL) Sahabah as hypocrites.

Besides, I am your opponent and it makes better sense arguing on your terms and on what you believed in.

sino:

Specific Answers

1- Ibn Abbas

Perhaps the strongest advocate for mutah amongst the companions was Ibn Abbas. The narrations in which Ibn Abbas has narrated for the permissibility are usually general. However, it is important to recognize that Ibn Abbas’ ruling does not suggest the permissibility of mutah in all situations.

In Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra 7/204, we find that Abu Jamra narrated:

Ibn Abbas was asked about mutah, so he said it was permissible. A servant of his said, “That is during a time of war when there are not a lot of women and situations like that?” Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.”

The opinion of Ibn Abbas here is that mutah is only to be performed in situations that are similar to the situations in which mutah was first made permissible. The situation mentioned above is similar to that which Ibn Mas’ud described in Saheeh Muslim #3396:
We were on a military expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment.

The reasoning of Ibn Abbas is a mystery. One can only speculate as to why he stuck to his opinion when the majority of the companions sided with the clear evidences for the prohibition of mutah. Perhaps the most reasonable possibility is that Ibn Abbas accepted that the Prophet – peace be upon him – prohibited mutah, but since he permitted it more than once it meant that it can be permitted during dire conditions. Of course, this ijtihad has no weight since the text from the Prophet – peace be upon him – is clear, and the text always takes precedence over ijtihad.

In one word, Abdullah ibn Abbas never ceased from practicing and issuing fatwa for Mut'ah. Lobatan.

# Allamah Muḥammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani summarized:

"The summary is: three opinions are narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, about mut'ah:

The one: he permitted it unconditionally.

The second: he permitted it in cases of necessity.

The last: he forbade it unconditionally, but this is from what is NOT authentically transmitted from him, unlike the first two opinions which are authentically transmitted from him”

Source: {Irwa al-Ghalil fī Takhrik Ahadith Manar al-Sabil (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami; 2nd edition, 1405 H), vol. 6, p. 319, # 1903}

@ Underlined, sorry there is no speculation.

@bold, which clear text from the Prophet? Those inconsistent documentations of your Ulama which says Prophet prohibited forever at 3 different occasions after allowing it at those occasions?! Thats a big blow!

sino:

2- Jabir bin Abdullah

Jabir is perhaps the second companion who is most often cited as to have gone against the prohibition of mutah. In Saheeh Muslim #2498, Abu Nadhra said:

I was at Jabir bin Abdullah’s when a man came saying, “Ibn Abbas and Ibn Al-Zubair different when it came to the two (types of) mutah,” Jabir said, “We performed them with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – then Omar prohibited us from them, and we never returned to them.”

Ibn Hajar in Fath Al-Bari comments that the last statement by Jabir suggests that he sided with the consensus, which is that mutah is prohibited, for if it was permissible, then he would have taught the permissibility of it after the death of Omar.

Ibn Hajar is correct for Jabir lived for another five decades after Omar and never returned to what was supposedly permissible, nor was he known to having preached the permissibility of mutah. This is evidence that he accepted the prohibition of Omar, since the prohibition of Omar has supporting evidence from the traditions of the Prophet – peace be upon him – as we have proven in a previous article.

# @bold, in one word, Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari continued to practice Mut'ah from the lifetime of the Prophet till Abu Bakr's time, till Umar's time UNTIL the later prohibited it because of Amr ibn Hurayth who got a slave girl impregnated.

# So, have you ever ask yourself why Jabir continue to practice Mut'ah if Prophet had prohibited it forever at three different occasions after allowing it? Was he absent in all those occasions and therefore did not heard ?

* For the record, Sahabi Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) present in all those three occasions.

* As for Umar's fatwa, Jabir choose to follow his fatwa of prohibition. I have no problem with that so long Jabir did not attributed the Prohibition to Rasul

@Underlined, there's no supporting evidence from Prophetic traditions. Stop exposing yourself man.

sino:

3- Ali bin Abi Talib

One narration is provided in order to prove that Ali believed in the permissibility of mutah and it is the narration of Al-Hakam bin Abi Utaibah (Tafseer Al-Tabari #9042). Al-Hakam, however, was born after the death of Ali according to several scholars. See his biography in Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb.

Furthermore, the narration that Al-Hakam attributes to Ali is identical to the authentic narration to Ibn Abbas, in Musanaf Abd Al-Razaq #14021, through an authentic chain, where he says:

“If it were not for his prohibition (Omar), then only a vile person would perform adultery.”

It is obvious to the objective reader that Al-Hakam made a mistake in attributing this narration to Ali, who opposed mutah, instead of Ibn Abbas.

Ma sha Allah. I agreed with this analysis. That shows a sound ilm hadith. So, in a nutshell there is no Sunni hadith which says Imam Ali (as) "approved" Mut'ah.

# However, there is a big problem the moment you try to play false and dishonest card that Imam Ali (as) reported the Prophet prohibiting Mut'ah Forever at Khaybar in 6-7Hijrah.

..............................
Imam Muslim, Book 008, Number 3265:

Muhammad b. Ali narrated on the authority of his father Ali that Allah's Apostle on the Day of Khaybar prohibited FOREVER Mut'ah and eating of the flesh of the donkey.

Book 008, Number 3267:

Ali said to Ibn Abbas that Allah's Messenger on the Day of Khaybar forbade FOREVER the contracting of temporary marriage and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.
................

# So, the exposition is what happened to the so-called approval of Mut'ah 1 or 2 years after Khaybar at Fath Makkah, and then after that at Hijjat wadah 3years later at 10.H?

# Again, Ibn Umar and Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari and many other Sahabah (men and women) who were present at Khaybar reported ONLY THE MEAT OF DONKEY WAS PROHIBITED. None reported Mut'ah alongside it.

# The point is there was no Mut'ah whatsoever at Khaybar so there was no room for its prohibition. So quoting Imam Ali is a failed attempt and that was what made Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456 H) declared Ali expressed no opinion concerning Mut'ah; and of course according to Sunni sources.

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim gave a glimpse of Islamic history when he says in Zaad al Maad, Volume 3 page 183:

“In Khayber there were no Muslim women but there were Jewish women and marriage with Ahl’ul Kitab (Jews & Christians) wasn’t permissible during that time. The permission (to marry Jew and christian women) came later on in Surah Mai’da (last sura revealed in 10 H)…Muslims were not interested in marrying the women of their enemies before the victory. And after the victory, these women became captives and became slave women to the Muslims”

* ^Parentheses are Albaqir's

sino:

4- Omar bin Al-Khattab

In Tareekh Al-Madinah #1190, by Ibn Shibbah, we find a narration in which Omar suggests that he used to practice mutah and that it was his ijtihad that causes him to reject mutah. However, this narration is weak due to it being narrated solely by Zam’a bin Salih. This narration also goes against the authentic narration that Omar rejected mutah because of the Prophet’s narration and asked for witnesses with evidence that it was permitted after its prohibition.

@bold, Alhamdulillah I have proven to you that the hadith is not only Da'if but Rejected. So the point still remain that Umar ibn al-Khattab prohibited Mut'ah based on his own Ijtihad as he never attributed it to the Prophet.

# There is another hadith in Sunan Bayhaqi. I hope you quote it too to support Umar and in sha Allah we shall expose the weakness in it too.

sino:

5- Abdullah bin Omar

Ibn Omar is mentioned to have made mutah permissible. Authors of a Shia website provide Sunan Al-Tirmithi #832. However, the narration clearly states that Ibn Omar was referring to the mutah of the pilgrimage, so this has nothing to do with mutah marriages. It was narrated from Ibn Omar that he rejected temporary marriage and described as an act of indecency.

Hey yah sorry Na copy-paste you do. For the record, I (Albaqir) never submit so far that Ibn Umar approved Mut'ah. So, your submission is useless here.

sino:

6- Abdullah bin Mas’ud

Ibn Masu’d narrated (Muslim #3396): We were on a expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment. Then, Abdullah recited, “Do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”[Al-Ma’idah: 87]

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

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

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

@Underlined, correction please. Ibn Mas'ud (ra) was never the one that (first) used the verse. Prophet himself recited the verse while ordering Mut'ah Here's the hadith: Abd Allah (b. Mas'ud): We were on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah, 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 nikah (marriage) with the woman, giving her a garment (as the dowry). Then, he recited to us {O you who believe! Do not make haram the good things which Allah has made halal for you; and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits}.
Ref: {al-Bukhari al-Ju'fi, al-Jami' al-Sahih al-Mukhtaṣar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H), vol. 5, p. 1953, # 4787}

Afterwards (after the death of Rasul), Ibn Mas'ud followed the Prophet by reciting the verse while approving Mut'ah. And you can imagine! The verse is in Surah Maidah which happened to be the last chapter of the Quran revealed.

# Bottomline, Whether for exceptional purposes of military condition, for example, or because of those who misuse Mut'ah, the point remained that Prophet recited the verse in approving Mut'ah and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud approved Mut'ah by the same verse, after the death of the Prophet.
Was he not aware of forever prohibition at Khaybar, Fath Makkah and Last Hajj, 7, 9 and 10 Hijrah respectively?

sino:

7- Imran bin Husain

A narration that is often used to support the attribution of this view to Imran bin Husain is the narration of Al-Bukhari #4156 where he says that the verse of mutah was revealed in the book of Allah and it was practiced by him with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, and that nothing forbidding it was revealed until his death, but then a man banned it.

The narration can be found in the chapter of the pilgrimage, which leads us to believe that this is not about the mutah marriage, but the mutah of the pilgrimage.

This is supported by a hadith in Saheeh Muslim #2158 that states that this is the mutah of the pilgrimage.

Thus, the burden of proof lies upon opponents to prove that this is about mutah marriages.

As for the verse that Imran bin Husain is talking about, then it is verse 196 from Surat Al-Baqara.

# First, Albaqir has never quoted Imran ibn Hussein. This is part of your copy-past.

However, as per the hadith of Imran ibn Hussein, @underlined, that's very disappointing. Just because the hadith is arranged or found in the "Book of pilgrimage", that makes it refer to "Hajj-at-Tamatu (i.e Mut'ah of Hajj)"?! It is obvious Imam Bukhari arranged those ahadith under those headings.

This is what even gave audacity to Saudi translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, Muhammad Muhsin Khan to deceitfully change the word "Mut'a" to "Hajj-at-Tamatu". Whereas the Arabic text of the hadith never allude to "Hajj-at-Tamatu".

Ref: Check {Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic version, vol.2, p.375; vol.6, p.34.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal also document the hadith in his Musnad, vol.4, p.436 through Imran ibn al-Qasir.

# There were two "Mut'ah" at the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr and Umar which people used to practice. Mut'ah of women and Mut'ah of Hajj.

Imam Muslim documents:

"Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubayr differed on the two types of Mut'ah (Mut'ah of Hajj and Mut'ah of women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Messenger of Allah. Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them."
Ref: Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3250

So if hadith uses "Mut'ah" or any of its derivative words, that never meant Hajj automatically. It could be either of the two.

sino:

8- Asma’ bint Abi Bakr

Asma’s words regarding mutah has been explained in details in an old article. See here.

The clear conclusion is that Asma’ never had temporary marriage and this was mistakenly attributed to her, rather her narrations are regarding the Mutah of Hajj.

Sorry. You forgot to copy-pasted @bold. We cannot see the argument...so we do not know how to respond.

sino:


10- Mu’awiyah

The narration of Abd Al-Razaq in his Musanaf #14026 suggests that Mu’awiyah performed mutah during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him. Like Jabir, Amr bin Huraith, and others, it seems that he was not aware that mutah was prohibited by the Prophet – peace be upon him. The personal actions of a companion of the Prophet – peace be upon him – cannot be used to legalize an act if there is clear evidence of prohibition.

Al-Baghi Mu'awiyah ibn Hind!The fact remained that he performed Mut'ah after the demise of the Prophet. The fact that he converted after Fath Makkah (in 9 Hijrah), he might not be aware of the so-called previous forever prohibition but he was very much at the last Hajj when the third forever prohibition was said to have taken place. So, Stop assumption and give clear prove that he never knew Mut'ah was prohibited.

sino:


15- Amr bin Huraith

In Musanaf Abd Al-Razaq #14021 we find a narration that explicitly states that Amr bin Huraith practiced mutah during the time of Omar. Like Jabir bin Abdullah, Amr bin Huraith was unaware that mutah was made forbidden during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him.
Amr continued to live on for another six decades after the death of Omar, and it was not known that he ever practiced mutah or spoke of the permissibility of mutah after the death of Omar.

# The onus lie on you to provide a clear text that Amr ibn Hurayth was unaware of prohibition of Mut'ah. Assumption is untenable. What is crystal clear was that Amr ibn Hurayth contracted Mut'ah with a slave girl and got her impregnated. Umar never reproached him by citing the so-called prohibition by prophet, rather he simply said: why the slave?. And that was when Umar forbade it.

Can you imagine! Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari emphatically narrated that Sahabah (including himself) used to practice Mut'ah during the eras of Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr and Umar yet this polemic author want us to believe Jabir was never aware that Mut'ah was forbidden.

# Jabir ibn Abdullah was at Khaybar (he reported ahadith of Khaybar), he was at Fath Makkah and the Prophet's last Hajj (he also reported the event of Last hajj). If prophet truly forbade Mut'ah forever at these three occasions after ordering it, how was it possible that Jabir ibn Abdullah missed and never heard of its prohibition? Don't you guys ashamed of this silly argument?

As per the rest of Sahabah you have mentioned, I have nothing with them concerning Mut'ah. I never mentioned them. So, after failing woefully playing Sahabah card, you still have bulk of Tabi'in practicing Mut'ah. Therefore, again from where does Ahlu sunnah derived their fantasy stand or ijma in banning Mut'ah?

BeansAndBread:
Salam Alaikum, brother sino(may Allaah preserve him) has done perfect justice to this topic, the final note is Mut'ah is banned and forbidden in Islam.

Allahu Akbar! Your comment is as funny as the alias you choose for yourself. Open your eyes to see the contrasting and inconsistent documentations on Mut'ah in your books of ahadith.

BeansAndBread:

AlBaqir criticizes the difference of date [s]but he's okay with the contradictory appointment of his first Imam(Ghadir, Tabuk, etc)[/s]. May Allaah have mercy on us all and protect us from innovations. The sahabas the Tashayyu hates have suddenly become yardsticks for propagating their misguidance, he even went as far as to mention Mu'awiyah(ra), this was the same man AlBaqir said he's a caller to hellfire, but when the issue of Mut'ah is mentioned, he's suddenly a sahaba.

When did you became babasuwe? It is not different of date per se. Rather it is blatant lies of FOREVER PROHIBITION at three different time interval. That's amazingly beautiful

@cancelled, sorry I don't often entertain derailment. As per Al-Baghi Mu'awiyah ibn Hind, kindly prove it was Albaqir that labeled him "Caller of hell-fire" if you are truthful. Nabi (saws) labeled him and also uses the word "Al-Baghi".

# I recognized Mu'awiyah to be Sahabi. Prove otherwise. It was your eminence that play the card that "all hypocrites, apostates" who accompanied the Prophet were not "Sahabah" in sharp contrast to clear Mutawattir ahadith where Prophet recognized them as his Sahabah on the day of Judgment when they were shown the door of doom.

BeansAndBread:

He claimed the "We" used by Jabir ibn Abdullah meant "All Sahabas" this is very laughable because the hadith never meant all the Sahabah, I ask you AlBaqir, since you said it refers to all sahabas, did: Bilal, Umm Ayman, Usamah Ibn Zaid, Zaid Ibn Haritha, Zaid Ibn Khattab, Aqeel, Amr Ibn Al As, Ammar Ibn Yasser do mut’ah?!

Mr interpreter, what does "WE" indicate in that Sahih ahadith? At the time of the Prophet, it meant ALL SAHABAH (except those died before Mut'ah was permitted); at the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, it only exclude the dead. Mehn this has really made you guys babasuwe o

BeansAndBread:

Imam Al Qurtubi says in his commentary on this verse(Quran 4:24); "the payment in the context is the dowry, it has been called recompense because it is a fee for the enjoyment. This is a support for dowry being a recompense. Alhasan, Mujahid, and others said: The meaning relates to what you have 'enjoy'ed through your union with women in proper marriage, so "give them their recompense" that is, their dowries. Ibn Khuwayz Mindad said: There is no support and it is not permissible to use the verse as a permission for temporary marriage as the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) has warned against and has forbidden temporary marriage as Allah Most High said: "So marry them with the permission of their families." It is natural for the marriage to take place with the permission of the parents, this is a proper marriage which has a trustee and two witnesses, temporary marriage is not like that. 'A`isha said: "It has been forbidden in the Qur'an in the words of the Most High: "And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses, then they would have no blame." [23:5]. Temporary marriage is not regarded as a proper marriage, and the spouse does not fall into the category of what the right hand possesses. "

Good point. However that is one house of Ahlu Sunnah. The other house as I have quoted over and over, says Certain Sahabah and Tabi'in agreed Surah Nisa: 24 was revealed for Mut'ah. So you see there was never ijma among these Salaf concerning the prohibition of Mut'ah. That destroyed the already feeble house of Ahlu Sunnah on Mut'ah being forbidden.

...interesting...maybe it isn't that "very simple" as it seems...babasuwes..lol

@cancelled, sorry I don't often entertain derailment.

Please AlBaqir, I'm begging, when exactly was Ali(ra) made the Imam(successor)? Don't run o, if you criticize the difference of dates even though the narrations are 100% sahih then things would go very bad for you!

# I recognized Mu'awiyah to be Sahabi. Prove otherwise. It was your eminence that play the card that "all hypocrites, apostates" who accompanied the Prophet were not "Sahabah" in sharp contrast to clear Mutawattir ahadith where Prophet recognized them as his Sahabah on the day of Judgment when they were shown the door of doom.

Gbam!!!! So in essence, Mu'awiyah(may Allaah be pleased with him and may He disgrace those that despise him) is a true sahabi?! Masha'Allaah, this is why Tashayyu is very inconsistent and based on deception, I bet that if it was Umar(ra) that practice or had the opinion that Mut'ah is halal you would have quoted him and used his opinion has yardsticks! Really smh for you gan ni o!

Mr interpreter, what does "WE" indicate in that Sahih ahadith? At the time of the Prophet, it meant ALL SAHABAH (except those died before Mut'ah was permitted); at the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, it only exclude the dead. Mehn this has really made you guys babasuwe o

Yani virtually all the sahabas I mentioned died after the Prophet, so you need to show us from a reliable sahih narration that they performed or partook in Mut'ah. Ammar(ra) was a very close supporter of Ali and if he had supported Mut'ah, Ali(ra) would have challenged him. So AlBaqir, prove that it refers to all sahabas!

Good point. However that is one house of Ahlu Sunnah. The other house as I have quoted over and over, says Certain Sahabah and Tabi'in agreed Surah Nisa: 24 was revealed for Mut'ah. So you see there was never ijma among these Salaf concerning the prohibition of Mut'ah. That destroyed the already feeble house of Ahlu Sunnah on Mut'ah being forbidden.

Of course there was an Ijma and the majority held the view that it was prohibited till the day of judgment. Even those that held it permissible, deemed it to be Rukhsa(extreme conditions) during wars. This is not what Shia teaches, so you can't use them to justify your points.

BeansAndBread:
Salam Alaikum, brother sino(may Allaah preserve him) has done perfect justice to this topic, the final note is Mut'ah is banned and forbidden in Islam.

AlBaqir criticizes the difference of date but he's okay with the contradictory appointment of his first Imam(Ghadir, Tabuk, etc). May Allaah have mercy on us all and protect us from innovations. The sahabas the Tashayyu hates have suddenly become yardsticks for propagating their misguidance, he even went as far as to mention Mu'awiyah(ra), this was the same man AlBaqir said he's a caller to hellfire, but when the issue of Mut'ah is mentioned, he's suddenly a sahaba.

He claimed the "We" used by Jabir ibn Abdullah meant "All Sahabas" this is very laughable because the hadith never meant all the Sahabah, I ask you AlBaqir, since you said it refers to all sahabas, did: Bilal, Umm Ayman, Usamah Ibn Zaid, Zaid Ibn Haritha, Zaid Ibn Khattab, Aqeel, Amr Ibn Al As, Ammar Ibn Yasser do mut’ah?!

Imam Al Qurtubi says in his commentary on this verse(Quran 4:24); "the payment in the context is the dowry, it has been called recompense because it is a fee for the enjoyment. This is a support for dowry being a recompense. Alhasan, Mujahid, and others said: The meaning relates to what you have 'enjoy'ed through your union with women in proper marriage, so "give them their recompense" that is, their dowries. Ibn Khuwayz Mindad said: There is no support and it is not permissible to use the verse as a permission for temporary marriage as the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) has warned against and has forbidden temporary marriage as Allah Most High said: "So marry them with the permission of their families." It is natural for the marriage to take place with the permission of the parents, this is a proper marriage which has a trustee and two witnesses, temporary marriage is not like that. 'A`isha said: "It has been forbidden in the Qur'an in the words of the Most High: "And those who preserve their private parts except with their spouses or what their right hands posses, then they would have no blame." [23:5]. Temporary marriage is not regarded as a proper marriage, and the spouse does not fall into the category of what the right hand possesses. "

Wa 'alaykum salam brother, its not surprising to see these forms of arguments from AlBaqir, that is the way of the shi'a, they are good at looking for what is not lost. May Allah (SWT) continue to guide us right ameen.

@AlBaqir, it would be in your best interest to respond to the issues about the hadith of Ali (ra) and the narrations attributed to your Imams raised in my posts, and do so appropriately. Thanks!

The Prohibition of Mutah Marriages

The debate on the permissibility of mutah marriages has spanned through centuries. The very act of indulging in a temporary marriage has triggered a multitude of emotional reactions from Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Much of the debate revolves around whether a temporary marriage is moral or not. It goes without saying that those that believe that it is prohibited usually hold the opinion that it is a despicable act. On the other hand, those who find it permissible voice the opinion that it is a necessity, since it prevents people from falling into other sins.

Instead of studying the moral argument though, we at TwelverShia.net decided that it would be more efficient to present to the dear viewer the academic answer and to avoid personal opinions. At the end of the day, it is Allah – praise be to Him – , that decides what is morally acceptable and what isn’t. The limited intellect of man has no place as a deciding factor when such is the case.

This set of articles will first establish the prohibition of mutah marriages through authentic Sunni hadiths. After this has been established, we will look into arguments brought forth by Shias in order to justify the practice of mutah, like the criticisms towards the hadiths in this chapter, the Qur’anic evidence, and other additional hadith evidences, etc.

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

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

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


Contradiction about the Time in which Mutah was Banned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Strongest Views about when Mutah was Prohibited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

حَدَّثنا سُفْيَانُ، قَالَ: حَدَّثنا الزُّهْرِيُّ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي حَسَنٌ، وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ ابْنَا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ لابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا: إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ” نَهَى عَنْ نِكَاحِ الْمُتْعَةِ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ زَمَنَ خَيْبَرَ “، قَالَ سُفْيَانُ: يَعْنِى: أَنَّهُ نَهَى عَنْ لُحُومِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ زَمَنَ خَيْبَرَ، وَلا يَعْنِي نِكَاحَ الْمُتْعَةِ

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

Abu Awana similarly comments 2/278:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

As established in the previous texts, the authentic traditions from the Prophet – peace be upon him -, all point to the prohibition during his time. In this article we have covered the prohibition mentioned by Ali, Sabra, Ibn Omar, and Salama bin Al-Akwa’. In a separate article, we will also take a look at the narration of Omar, in which he also relates that the Prophet – peace be upon him – prohibited mutah.

Source: http://twelvershia.net/2015/02/12/prohibition-mutah-marriages/

@sino

the above article does not solve the problem. it only succeeds in presenting mut'ah as a practice that was of controversy and dispute among the Sahaba themselves.

the article presents what it calls an "opinion" from Nawawi that it was made permissible and prohibited twice, so therefore the conflict in the timing of the alleged prohibition. this is an opinion.

then the hadith in "sahih muslim" says it was made prohibited till the day of judgment, yet there are hadith after the alleged prohibition till the day of judgment that makes it clear the practice was done afterwards and later on prohibited. the author concedes it is a mistake by the narrator.

aside, what of the hadiths that clearly present that it was banned by Umar? what of the hadiths that the practice continued into the caliphate of Abu Bakr and right into the caliphate of Umar by prominent Sahaba?

it is clear that something is missing in those who want to present the prohibition case. then the most problematic issue is that there is a verse of the Quran that is called the Verse of Mut'ah (4:24). that verse has to do with mut'ah as the word is mentioned, and marriage of that nature is described as being for a stipulated time and enjoyment. there is no verse in the Quran afterwards that mut'ah should be discontinued.

all said and done, your article presents arguments that the practice was permitted by the Prophet (s) and banned on two occassions. does it make sense for you guys to call mut'ah "prosti.tution"? so the Prophet (s) permitted prosti.tution twice and forbade it twice? astaghfirullah. does that make sense to you? even if you believe it was prohibited, mut'ah should be no reason or cause to stigmatize or ostracize the Shia. it is not mut'ah that is the topic that should be used. it is wrong because you simply believe it was allowed twice and prohibited twice by the Prophet (s). therefore do not pretend like the Shia are doing something bad or evil or "prosti.tution" as those blinded by sectarian hatred like to portray mut'ah. it is not pros.titution. it feels like it is a game. the shariah was a game in which things can be changed and rules can be bent. yet the same author raised other non-related issues about imamate etc. and trying to sound like he is funny. yet he accepts ridicule as part of his arguments. there being hadiths related to imamate that are weak does not mean there are no sahih hadiths found in Sunni and Shia sources.

mut'ah should not be used as a topic to scapegoat the Shia. in fact the Shia majorly do not perform mut'ah but are in principle only supporting the belief that we should not forbid what Allah (swt) has permitted. and it is people who perform bid'ah like misyar and jihadun nikah that like dramatizing about mut'ah.

ShiaMuslim:
@sino

the above article does not solve the problem. it only succeeds in presenting mut'ah as a practice that was of controversy and dispute among the Sahaba themselves.

the article presents what it calls an "opinion" from Nawawi that it was made permissible and prohibited twice, so therefore the conflict in the timing of the alleged prohibition. this is an opinion.

then the hadith in "sahih muslim" says it was made prohibited till the day of judgment, yet there are hadith after the alleged prohibition till the day of judgment that makes it clear the practice was done afterwards and later on prohibited. the author concedes it is a mistake by the narrator.

aside, what of the hadiths that clearly present that it was banned by Umar? what of the hadiths that the practice continued into the caliphate of Abu Bakr and right into the caliphate of Umar by prominent Sahaba?

it is clear that something is missing in those who want to present the prohibition case. then the most problematic issue is that there is a verse of the Quran that is called the Verse of Mut'ah (4:24). that verse has to do with mut'ah as the word is mentioned, and marriage of that nature is described as being for a stipulated time and enjoyment. there is no verse in the Quran afterwards that mut'ah should be discontinued.

all said and done, your article presents arguments that the practice was permitted by the Prophet (s) and banned on two occassions. does it make sense for you guys to call mut'ah "prosti.tution"? so the Prophet (s) permitted prosti.tution twice and forbade it twice? astaghfirullah. does that make sense to you? even if you believe it was prohibited, mut'ah should be no reason or cause to stigmatize or ostracize the Shia. it is not mut'ah that is the topic that should be used. it is wrong because you simply believe it was allowed twice and prohibited twice by the Prophet (s). therefore do not pretend like the Shia are doing something bad or evil or "prosti.tution" as those blinded by sectarian hatred like to portray mut'ah. it is not pros.titution. it feels like it is a game. the shariah was a game in which things can be changed and rules can be bent. yet the same author raised other non-related issues about imamate etc. and trying to sound like he is funny. yet he accepts ridicule as part of his arguments. there being hadiths related to imamate that are weak does not mean there are no sahih hadiths found in Sunni and Shia sources.

mut'ah should not be used as a topic to scapegoat the Shia. in fact the Shia majorly do not perform mut'ah but are in principle only supporting the belief that we should not forbid what Allah (swt) has permitted. and it is people who perform bid'ah like misyar and jihadun nikah that like dramatizing about mut'ah.

Well, An Nawawi’s opinion (which echoes the majority of scholars) is much more logical and rational than what you guys cling on to, you guys are willing to dismiss an authentic narration, based on difference of dates mut’ah was prohibited, not to mention you guys only choose hadiths within the sunni’s books that seems to support your queer views.

The above article I posted tries to do away with sentimental prejudiced opinions, removing any iota of moral undertones in analyzing this issue, presenting facts. I for one would majorly still look at the moral angle, for Islam is a religion of high morals. Thus when you claim mut’ah is still permissible, we need to look at the moral implications, especially, as it affects the Muslim woman. We also need to understand what Allah (SWT) intends for a man and a woman entering into marriage. Allah (SWT) specifically states,

“And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Quran 30:21)

The above verse cannot be experienced in a mut’ah, divorce is even frowned upon in Islam, even if it is mutual. But again, what do I know.

Equating the prophets permission, especially in the narration of Ibn Mas’ood, to justify the perversion being upheld in the annals of the twelver shi’a is absolutely ludicrous, evidences had been presented, you may look at some posted in my previous post, from your supposed infallible Imams, showing how irresponsible and inappropriate shi’a mut’ah is, yet you guys keep looking for faults in an authentic hadith prohibiting it.
Please elucidate how Quran 4:24 is about mut’ah, was it stated by the Prophet (SAW)? If a narration states that some sahabahs thought it was about mut’ah, and then there are also narrations which also clearly states that the majority, and correct opinion is that it is not, then why are you guys just fixated on this small group? Is there any benefit in mut’ah that you guys fight this hard to prove it is permissible? Does mut’ah grants janah?! Saying that it is about not changing Allah’s (SWT) laws, then you guys are the one doing so, for we have authentic hadith supporting us that Qur’an 4:24 is not about mut’ah, we have authentic narrations from the Prophet (SAW) that prohibited mut’ah forever till day of judgment, we have authentic narrations establishing that Umar (ra) based his verdict on mut’ah on the verdict of the Prophet (SAW), we have authentic narration that states that the Sahabahs present did not go against Umar (ra) when he pronounced the verdict, the majority of the scholars also agreed that mut’ah was prohibited by the Prophet (SAW) and that Quran 4:24 is not about mut’ah.

There is absolutely no confusion here; it is as plain as daylight. If opinions of some few sohabahs (at my count maybe 3 or 4) which we can easily dismiss or put in context, or the opinions of your scholars are what you guys hold on to, na una sabi.

Finally, let me quote Imam Jaffar Sadiq as found in your books:

Ahmad bin Muhammad bin ‘Eesaa reported in his Nawaadir and Ibn Idrees in his Saraa’ir from ibn Abee ‘Umayr from Hishaam bin al-Hakamm from Abee Abdillaah (this is Ja’far as Saadiq) ( about Mut’ah) and he said: It’s not done with us except by the Fujjaar (transgressors and criminals).

You can see this hadith on-line in volume 100, p 318 of “Bihar al anwar”.

Shia sheikh al-Majad said:
سندها في النوادر معتبر , و قد رواها صاحب الوسائل عن النوادر و سنده الى كتاب النوادر معتبر

“It’s chain in “Nawadir” is reliable (motabar), and it was reported by author of Wasail from “Nawadir”, and his chain till book “Nawadir” is reliable”.

One needs to ponder, you asking me why people are calling mut’ah prostitution, the above is your Imam saying only a fujjaar would do such, and let me quote your scholars again.

What does the classical Shia scholar al-Tusi think of Mutah?

He narrated in his “Tahzeeb al-Ahkam” (7/253):

(1089) 14 – 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.”

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

[ 26432 ] 4 ـ وعنه ، عن ( الحسن بن علي ) ، عن بعض أصحابنا يرفعه إلى أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : لا تتمتع بالمؤمنة فتذلها .
قال الشيخ : هذا شاذ ، ويحتمل أن يكون المراد به إذا كانت المرأة من أهل بيت الشرف يلحق أهلها العار ويلحقها الذل ويكون ذلك مكروها .
أقول : وتقدم ما يدل على الجواز ، ويأتي ما يدل عليه .

4 – 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.

The Shaykh said: This is shaadh (odd), and it is possible that his intent by it is when the woman is from a noble family which scandal would be attached to and humiliation attached to her, and that would be disliked.

I say: And there has preceded what indicates upon permission and there is coming what indicates upon it.

Source:http://gift2shias.com/2011/04/27/what-does-the-classical-shia-scholar-al-tusi-think-of-mutah/

Why would mut’ah humiliate a Muslim woman?! Does nikkah humiliate a woman? What relationship with a man humiliates a woman in our society? Well your guess is as good as mine.

Assalam Alaykum.

Well, An Nawawi’s opinion (which echoes the majority of scholars) is much more logical and rational than what you guys cling on to, you guys are willing to dismiss an authentic narration, based on difference of dates mut’ah was prohibited, not to mention you guys only choose hadiths within the sunni’s books that seems to support your queer views.

sino, you are ridiculous. i stopped read from the first paragraph of your reply. you do exactly what you accuse others of doing. honestly, dont you dismiss authentic narrations in your books that mut'ah was banned by Umar and not by the Prophet? that sahaba practiced it into the caliphate of Umar? and dont you cling to hadiths that are contradictory to cling to the claim it was the Prophet (s) that banned it?

you are free to have whatever opinion. you dont have to believe mut'ah is still permissible. in fact most Shia do not perform mut'ah. but is it haram? no it is not haram. we cannot make haram what Allah made halal. that is the point. regardless the views surrounding mut'ah. there is a verse in the Quran that permits it. there is no verse that forbid it, or explains why we should stop its practice or view it as something no longer permissible.

there are people who have distaste for mut'ah. they may also have distaste to even get permanently married, even though permanent marriage is a great sunnah of the Prophet (s). we should not get busy on opinions and emotions and what people feel. the facts are there.

the facts are in the Quran. they are in the hadiths. they are in the contradictory reports on its prohibition. they are in the authentic reports that it was Umar who forbade it, and that the sahaba continued its practice for decades after the Prophet (s). are you trying to insult those sahaba that they were practicing what your fellows unjustly and ignorantly describe as "pros.titution"?

Empiree:
Subject of mu'tah is eternal debate. At least we can agree from both sides that mut'ah is haram WITHOUT "mission".

What sense does it make for a muslim who intent to marry with pure intention to break it off at specific period?. That's evil intent to begin with.

Anyways, everyone should take chil pill. "Mut'ah" is now worldwide practice now without even know it, especially in the west. They would tell you "I just want to be with him/her for a little while".

There is no way Muta'h is halal

When you look at the purpose of Marriage in Islam and how the concept of Zina, you cannot but agree that Mutah is haram.

It is an issue you have to examine side by side with other provisions. You cannot declare it halal when it contradicts the institution of marriage, our understanding of divorce, polygamy, courtship etc.

daretodiffer:


There is no way Muta'h is halal

When you look at the purpose of Marriage in Islam and how the concept of Zina, you cannot but agree that Mutah is haram.

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