SAHABAHS THAT DID THE MUTAH MARRIAGE when it was allowed have no SIN at all.. .AND N0N OF THEM EVER DID IT AFTER RASUL FORBIDS IT. . , YOU THAT MAKE TAKFIR OF ABUBAKAR, UMAR AND AEESHA along with other sahabahs . . y w0nt it be easy for u to say that they c0mmit adultery that they didnt . . . tshew

AlBaqir:


# Trust me if I am here to defend Mut'ah, I will present Ahlu Sunnah stand [with all their evidences that make Mut'ah Haram], and then bring Shi'a counter arguments. I AM NOT HERE FOR THAT. We have done that over and over.


# Again, this thread if you carefully follow the presentation, is about exposing Sunni recognised Sahabah and Tabi'in who continue to perform Mut'ah AFTER the demise of the Prophet. What is their dalil to perform or allow the practice? I am not interested in that. The point remains that MANY of them altogether performed and allowed it AFTER the demise of the Prophet.


Challenge: If Sunni declare Shia "people of Zina" because of allowing (and practising) Mut'ah (for those who are in need of it), why do they refused to pass same declaration on those their heavyweight figures? At least whatever is good for the goose is also good for the ganger.

the same Shia that has legalized transgender. Funny people. You will not be able to deceive any body into your evil practice even a Christian will not agree with you. Is better to be a Christian than to be a shia

shahydbinaliyu MrOlai Aminu212 Rashduct4luv Kaytixy

I think these brothers are missing the point. I am not here to support or oppose op. But based on evidences he presented, that mut'ah was practiced after nabi(SAW), what is or are your counterclaims that sahaba did not practice mut'ah after the demise of nabi(AS)?

None of you presented evidence to counter him. Rashduct was close but his statement is not convincing enough. Matter of fact his statement implicates sahaba further. If we are to go by these brothers' logic, nabi(SAW) was reported to have said we should follow his sunnah and sunnah of his sahaba. If they practiced mut'ah AFTER nabi(SAW) is indicative of its permissibility.


I dont think op has problems with whether mut'ah was halal before it was banned. There are evidences that it was once permissible but is now haram (as myself believe). But what of sahaba who practiced it after nabi?. Do you guys have evidence to suggest otherwise please?.

This is real discussion. You dont need to bring Ayatollah, this and that shia in this. Thats irrelevant. Try to properly refute op rather than diverging. Saheed, you dont need to give your own statement to exonerate them. You need to bring evidence forward. If i was ardent anti-shi'a, i would have done my best to refute him. But since I am not, that's why i showed no interest. So kindly refute op with evidence that those sahaba and tabee'in did not practice mut'ah after nabi made it haram?. This is what op is saying.


But if you can not refute him, then you need to drop your anti-shia rhetorics.

Empiree Albaqir .. he didnt bring any proof that sahabah did mutah after the death of rosul.... he only quoted their imams book and page number ni . . dont fall for his taqiyah o o o .... quote quran or hadith . . bring its number or page number or book or volume . . . without that, forget it

Empiree:
shahydbinaliyu MrOlai Aminu212 Rashduct4luv Kaytixy

I think these brothers are missing the point. I am not here to support or oppose op. But based on evidences he presented, that mut'ah was practiced after nabi(SAW), what is or are your counterclaims that sahaba did not practice mut'ah after the demise of nabi(AS)?

None of you presented evidence to counter him. Rashduct was close but his statement is not convincing enough. Matter of fact his statement implicates sahaba further. If we are to go by these brothers' logic, nabi(SAW) was reported to have said we should follow his sunnah and sunnah of his sahaba. If they practiced mut'ah AFTER nabi(SAW) is indicative of its permissibility.


I dont think op has problems with whether mut'ah was halal before it was banned. There are evidences that it was once permissible but is now haram (as myself believe). But what of sahaba who practiced it after nabi?. Do you guys have evidence to suggest otherwise please?.

This is real discussion. You dont need to bring Ayatollah, this and that shia in this. Thats irrelevant. Try to properly refute op rather than diverging. Saheed, you dont need to give your own statement to exonerate them. You need to bring evidence forward. If i was ardent anti-shi'a, i would have done my best to refute him. But since I am not, that's why i showed no interest. So kindly refute op with evidence that those sahaba and tabee'in did not practice mut'ah after nabi made it haram?. This is what op is saying.


But if you can not refute him, then you need to drop your anti-shia rhetorics.

The reports that some of the Sahaabah (and by extension to the later Salafs) regarded it as being permissible, especially Ibn ‘Abbaas.

The refutation here is the fact that the Raafidis are following their own whims and desires, because they regard the companions of the Prophet (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs, then you see them quoting their actions as permissible in this instance and in others.

With regard to those who said that it is permissible, they are among those who did not hear that it had been forbidden. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) – including ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr – refuted Ibn ‘Abbaas’s view that mut’ah was permitted.

It was narrated from ‘Ali that he heard Ibn ‘Abbaas permitting mut’ah marriage, and he said, “Wait a minute, O Ibn ‘Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.”

Narrated by Muslim, 1407.

I think this is enough!

Rashduct4luv:



The reports that some of the Sahaabah (and by extension to the later Salafs) regarded it as being permissible, especially Ibn ‘Abbaas.

The refutation here is the fact that the Raafidis are following their own whims and desires, because they regard the companions of the Prophet (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs, then you see them quoting their actions as permissible in this instance and in others.

With regard to those who said that it is permissible, they are among those who did not hear that it had been forbidden. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) – including ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr – refuted Ibn ‘Abbaas’s view that mut’ah was permitted.

It was narrated from ‘Ali that he heard Ibn ‘Abbaas permitting mut’ah marriage, and he said, “Wait a minute, O Ibn ‘Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.”

Narrated by Muslim, 1407.

I think this is enough!

JazaKaAllahu....Good. I thought you all not gonna respond academically. Was going to give you guys 3 days to respond before I challenge op. In addition to the fact that some sahaba did not hear muta'h is now made haram, the reason for that was bcus those days there was no telecommunications to reach them unlike today.

Those Sahaba were on assignments like they went to give dawah in other regions or on the battlefield etc. So they did not know. This is what I was expecting from you brothers rather than unnecessary unrelated rants.

It is up to albaqir to refute this rebuttal if he can. As for accusing Raafidis that they considered sahaba to be kufar, this is not shia thing alone. It is historically proven that after the demise of nabi (SAW), strange things happened especially during the regime of Sayyidina Abu Bakr(ra). Some sahaba apostatized. This was common knowledge.

Empiree:
JazaKaAllahu....Good. I thought you all not gonna respond academically. Was going to give you guys 3 days to respond before I challenge op. In addition to the fact that some sahaba did not hear muta'h is now made haram, the reason for that was bcus those days there was no telecommunications to reach them unlike today.

Those Sahaba were on assignments like they went to give dawah in other regions or on the battlefield etc. So they did not know. This is what I was expecting from you brothers rather than unnecessary unrelated rants.

It is up to albaqir to refute this rebuttal if he can. As for accusing Raafidis that they considered sahaba to be kufar, this is not shia thing alone. It is historically proven that after the demise of nabi (SAW), strange things happened especially during the regime of Sayyidina Abu Bakr(ra). Some sahaba apostatized. This was common knowledge.

They regard most of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs, and disavow them, and they seek to draw closer to Allaah by cursing and reviling them. They claim that they apostatized after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) except very few (only seven). This is a rejection of the Qur’aan which affirms their virtue, and says that Allaah was pleased with them and chose them to accompany His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It also implies a slur against the Qur’aan itself, because it was transmitted via them; if they were kuffaar then there is no guarantee that they did not distort it or change it. This is what the Raafidis believe anyway, as stated above.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: As for the one who goes further and claims that they apostatized after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, apart from a small number, no more than ten or so, or that they became evildoers, there is no doubt that he is a kaafir, because he is rejecting what it says in the Qur’aan in more than one place, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed, the one who doubts that such a person is a kaafir is to be labelled as a kaafir himself, because what this view implies is that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kuffaar or rebellious evildoers. The verse says “You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110], and the best of them were the first generation. But according to this view, most of them were kaafirs and rebellious evildoers, and this ummah is the worst of nations and the earliest generations of this ummah were the most evil of them. The fact that this is kufr is something that no Muslim has any excuse for not knowing. End quote from al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool (p. 590).

Rashduct4luv:


.

That's the point now. That some sahaba left Islam after the demise of nabi (saw). The percentage of them is perhaps, what is debatable. So according to ibn Tayimiyah(ra), it means sunnis also believed some sahaba became kafir. However, when we say "SAHABA", they are those who saw, met and accepted nabi (saw). Those who rejected him during or after his lifetime are not even though they were sahaba in nabi's life.

It is true that those who renounced Islam might narrated ahadith too. In Sunni theology, we are simply not taught who those who apostatized sahaba were and their percentage. The basic principle in sunism is that sahaba were righteous and must be respected regardless of their shortcomings. That's fair enough.

I personally do not subscribed to cursing any sahaba even though we know their shortcomings. Me and albaqir have debated this on another platform elsewhere. It is not their fault to do that. They do have evidences in the kitab and sunnah but I argued that cursing those Allah and His messanger cursed is only the right of Allah and His messenger not them. Sahaba are not all in the same level.

So when Allah praises the early generation in the ayah you quoted, it means most likely specific people amongst the sahaba like the "Four Rightly Guided Kulafah" for instance and those who were closed to them and those amongst them. It can not be all of them since Quran and sunnah also critisized some sahaba.

So it depends on which Sahaba the shia considered kufar, Munafiqun and Muslims. You can't say they go against Quran if they curse some sahaba based on evidence they gathered.

Rashduct4luv Empiree

It's like you are either lazy type to read or adamant and fanatical on same point that holds no water. Rashduct4luv has tendered the "ignorance" excuse before. I was surprising seeing him repeating same comment of his, and Empiree too adding fuel to fire. Anyway, for the second time, here's my reply:

AlBaqir:

# Hmmm..."ignorance" indeed. Don't you have a Sahih Hadith that says Ali ibn Abi Talib saw Ibn Abbas issuing fatwa on the validity of Mut'ah and warned him by reminding him of the Prophet's (alleged) prohibition on the day of Khaybar? Yet, Ibn Abbas NEVER ceased in approving Mut'ah.

* Do you still consider that as Ignorance?


# Secondly, according to your hadith of Prophet's (alleged) prohibition of Mut'ah, it was on THREE different occasions that the (alleged) prohibition took place after approving it intermittently: at Khaybar (7 A.H), at Fat'h Makkah (9 A.H), at Hajj al-wada (10 A.H).

* Were ALL the abovementioned SAHABAH absent from those three occasions? If you think there is a possibility, then you need to share it with us. For a fact, Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari (especially) and Abdullah ibn Abbas were present at those three occasions. In fact, Jabir reported ahadith from the three occasions.

* So, we ask again, do you still tender ignorance excuse?

# I advice you to re-read the OP very well and stop exposing your incompetence.

1. Sheik Albani has given us that the ONLY AUTHENTIC report regarding the case of Ibn Abbas is that he NEVER retracted from Mut'ah.

2. We have ahadith reported by Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, in Khaybar and at Hajj al-Waddah proving that he was very much at those expeditions/occasions.


3. We have given you a report about Tabi'ieen ('Ata and Safwan ibn Ya'la) who heard/saw MU'AWIYAH ibn Abi Sufyan doing Mut'ah. This Tabi said that was the first time he would learnt about it. He begin to ask about until he got to Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, who made an big statement that WE (the SAHABAH) DID MUT'AH AT THE TIME OF NABI, ABUBAKR AND UMAR UNTIL UMAR FORBID IT BECAUSE OF A SAHABI WHO IMPREGNATED A SLAVE GIRL...and Umar rebuttal to him was, why not with another woman (instead of a slave)?

So, we have:

A. WE (All sahabah) did Mut'ah except the one we can specifically confirm that he was averse to it. Here, the ONLY available report was Abdullah ibn Zubair.

* Abdullah was a 6 or 7 years old child when Nabi died so its very difficult to tender him as a prove against Mut'ah. Even his Mum, Asma bint Abubakr was a great Mut'ah performer who gave birth to the same Abdullah via Mut'ah with Zubair ibn Awwam.

B. Specifically, the reign of Abubakr and Umar were mentioned by Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari. Abubakr spent 2 years while Umar spent 12 years. Jabir reported it was towards the later part of Umar's reign that Umar opposed it ONLY in the case of another Sahabi called Amr ibn Hurayth who impregnated a slave girl.

C. Imam Ibn Hazm made a grand revelation. After quoting few GREATEST Sunni Tabi'ieen approving Mut'ah, he submitted that and THE REST OF MAKKAN'S JURISTS.

# Finally, it is a woeful situation for you to submit "ignorance" card on those people as regard their Mut'ah practice.

* Academically, you don't submit speculations (perhaps) in serious cases like this. You bring forth SOUND and first hand information.

Empiree:


It is up to albaqir to refute this rebuttal if he can. As for accusing Raafidis that they considered sahaba to be kufar, this is not shia thing alone. It is historically proven that after the demise of nabi (SAW), strange things happened especially during the regime of Sayyidina Abu Bakr(ra). Some sahaba apostatized. This was common knowledge.

# Please stop following the guy purposely derailing the focus of the topic @underline. As you can see, I have reported all non-related sideline topics.

# This thread has nothing to do with Shi'a. It is ONLY for the Ahlu Sunnah to clean their mess provided they can ever do that.

# If ANYONE of you wishes to discuss the apostasy of MAJORITY of Sahabah after the demise of Nabi, kindly open a thread or go to general thread and make my mention. Rashduct4luv tendering Ibn Taymiyyah is the most unacademic thing in such a regard. Ibn Taymiyyah is fond of making untenable and unfounded claims out of frustrations. A good example is here between myself and Rashduct4luv when he quoted Ibn Taymiyyah, and I made sure I DESTROYED ALL HIS SHEIK'S UNTENABLE CLAIMS:

www.nairaland.com/4127018/nasfat-mssn-tmc-ansarudeen-etc/1#61625018


# So, you can make a try on that apostasy too.

Rashduct4luv:


The refutation here is the fact that the Raafidis are following their own whims and desires, because they regard the companions of the Prophet (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs, then you see them quoting their actions as permissible in this instance and in others.

# This has nothing to do with Rafidha. Rafidha absolutely need no approval of anything from Sunni ahadith before they perform an act. They have their own collections of ahadith, and they follow the Aimmah of Ahlulbayt (household) of the Prophet, NOT sahabah.

Rashduct4luv:

The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) – including ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr – refuted Ibn ‘Abbaas’s view that mut’ah was permitted.

It was narrated from ‘Ali that he heard Ibn ‘Abbaas permitting mut’ah marriage, and he said, “Wait a minute, O Ibn ‘Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.”

Narrated by Muslim, 1407.

I think this is enough!

Unfortunately, Abdullah ibn Abbas NEVER heed to 'Ali's alleged refutation. Long after the death of Ali, Ibn Abbas continue to approve Mut'ah. Here's a revelation:

Imam Muslim documents:

Ḥarmalah b. Yaḥyā ­ Ibn Wahb ­ Yūnus ­ Ibn Shihāb ­ `Urwah b. al-Zubayr:

‘Abd Allāh b. al-Zubayr stood in Makkah and said, "Allāh has made blind the hearts of some people as He made blind their eyesight. They give fatwas allowing mut'ah." He was referring to a certain man. So, he (the man) called him and said, "You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense! I swear by my life, mut'ah was practised during the time of the Imām of the pious” - he meant the Messenger of Allāh. So, Ibn al-Zubayr said to him, “Just do it yourself. By Allāh, if you do it, I will stone you with your stones."

Source: Abū al-Ḥusayn Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī al-Naysābūrī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā al-Turāth al-‘Arabī) [annotator: Muḥammad Fuād ‘Abd al-Bāqī], vol. 2, p. 1023, # 1406 (27)


https://sunnah.com/muslim/16/32


* All other available sources of the same Hadith with the same chain clearly confirmed that "the man" whose name was deliberately hidden in the Hadith was Abdullah ibn Abbas.

* And interestingly, Abdullah ibn Zubair's mother, Asma bint Abubakr was also a Mut'ah practised/approved woman who gave birth to Abdullah via Mut'ah.

Sorry that you considered my post off topic. I did not believe temporary derailment to clarify something constitutes derailment per se. Thats why i did not go overboard.

Now to the topic, as i have said early, albaqir, you need to first all clarify the definition of Mut'ah and conventional or permanent marriage. Without this, this thread will go nowhere. This is why i defined it earlier. You need to take a step back a little bit. The reason for this is bcus our people have phobia for mut'ah or call it "mut'ahphobia". This is what was fed to us. You have gotta understand this first. Forget about whether they know what mutah is in the past. They dont know. Tjis young guy on internet who gives lecture on islam was asked what is MUTAH?. He said Mut'ah is zina. Is this definition of zina as given by Allah and nabi(sw)?

I have just done a little research and i have my temporary conclusion for now. I am telling you that majority of muslims, sunnis especially have zero knowledge of what mutah is. what they know is it is a thing attributed to Shi'a. For this reason, if they hear the word MUTA'H, you know their reaction.

Their is a reason Ibn Abass (ra) and other sahabat continued to practice mut'ah. They did not commit zina. But before we go into that, i noticed that sunni or some sunni shuyukh and their students of knowledge are of the opinion that mut'ah being halal at outstart is compared to permissibility alcohol before alcohol was permanently made haram. THIS IS FALSE. In the pre-islamic period, consumption of alcohol existed and was permitted till certain time until finally forbidden. But this is not the case of Mutah. Mut'ah did not exist in the pre-islamic era. The types of marriages in the period of jahiliyya were four(4).

Aisha(ra) reported those four marriages. They are:

#The People's Marriage

#The Marriage Of Istibitha

#The Marriage Of Al-Raht

#The Prostitute


So Mut'ah is not mentioned in this list. This means that Muta'h was originally implemented by Allah Himself. Allah did not order fahisha or immorality (Q7:28). And it is not all sunni that considered Mut'ah to be zina. So the brother was wrong to say mutah means zina. That's like saying Allah ordered zina (awzubillah). The least sunni ulama said is it haram but not zina bcus Allah did not order zina. Now, i honestly dont care what any brother say here. You need to broaden your understanding. This is not sunni/shia thing. It is beyond that. The condition which led to some of the sahaba to continue to practice mut'ah, the condition (same or similar) is there today. If you look closely today, marriage is late but we have too many young brothers and sisters not married for lots of reasons but zina is rampant. Islam has solution to everything. Besides conventional marriage, there is another type of marriage that sunni largely considered today be to be zina. I wanted to say this when the issue of mut'ah was brought up yrs ago btw albaqir and sino but i lost interest.

Mrolai simply needs to educate himself better on this subject rather than copy paste and digging up pictures to make the whole subject boring. It is more than that brother.

Today, sunni say mut'a is zina but majority sunni youngies commit actual zina whereas, the purpose of mut'ah in the beginning was to prevent sahaba from committing zina in the first place. Now, allow me to bring Sheikh Imran Hussein's thought in this. I was hesitant to agreeing with him but air is gradually clearing now. He insists that there are two types of marriages in Islam right now, conventional and 'malkalyamin' as he put it. He said the later's condition is here today contrary to majority opinion that is it no longer valid. However he refrained from mentioning "MUTAH" when questioned if he was referring to mutah. He simply said to them that even if the whole muslim world consider it (that's, the other form of marriage) haram, it is btw the two and Allah and clear their intention with Him. However, to initiate the second marriage, a man MUST NOT coax the girl with money. There must be mutual agreement and no timeline. And if there happens to be child btw them eventually, the child is LEGITIMATE.

This is alternative to conventional marriage which many brothers take forever to get into. But this type of non-conventional marriage unlike many other things are easily abused. I will like to post comments by sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi and some others what they said on this issue later. Let me iterate that in reference to this topic, Sahaba(rodiyaAllah anihum) who practiced mut'ah after the demise of nabi(saw) DID NOT commit zina. Wallahi they did not. So i have to retract my previous statement that "they did not know". S. Umar's independent ruling on mut'ah during his term might be due to something else that i need further research on it. If some sunni claim it is only conventional nikkah that is valid, why then did Arabs institutionalized "misyar marriage"?. Misyar marriage has element of mut'ah marriage in it. So what exactly is the blame on shi'a for?

Let me remind you again that islam has solution to modern fitna between men and women relationship which modern Muslims can not or are not unwilling to respond to effectively. We need to stop saying mutah is zina when in fact, zina, which is FORBIDDEN by islam is committed by same muslims especially young men and women in East and West. Does islam has solution to this?. ABSOLUTELY YES.

Rebuttal is welcome though. Will love to look into it bcus I am not immune to mistake.

I have got some piece to share

Again, albaqir, you need to convince people of its validity in order to convince them that sahab did practice mut'ah
after nabi. But if you still consider this to be derailment, i am sorry, i just have to let go this thread cus i believe this is the way to go about it.

# Empiree, Wallahi you are dragging this thread away from its subject. Although I agreed with your submissions. However, you are not new to this Mut'ah debate on this Islam section. It is usually a one huge boring forth and back thread. The problem which I have learnt so far is that many of these so-called young sunnatic breeds are built with certain hatred of Rafidha, and that alone usually cloud their senses and judgement. This is why I totally refrain from the usual back and forth "Mut'ah is allow, No it is forbidden, No it is allow" method; hence, hitting them at the heart gangan.

# If you study my new approaches very well now it is about hitting the bull's eye. They claim they follow the salaf. So we shall continue to dig the "Dirty graves" of their salaf and let's see if they are truly followers of salafs.


# So, I don't mean to undermine your comment. It is a Dhikr for anyone of them that still has his number 6 intact. However, kindly let's go back to the theme of this thread.

* Their argument: Mut'ah is Zina. Rafidha are committing Zina. Prophet had forbidden it (Mut'ah)

* Our challenge: The Salafs (Sahabah and Tabi'ieen) continue to enjoy Mut'ah AFTER the demise of the Prophet. Were they also "People of Zina"? Were they KUFFAR for rejecting the alleged prohibition of the Prophet?

# So far, NO SENSIBLE submission has been tender to defend the dear Salaf. Therefore, the challenge is still widely open.

Wa salam

.......

AlBaqir:
# Empiree, Wallahi you are dragging this thread away from its subject. Although I agreed with your submissions. However, you are not new to this Mut'ah debate on this Islam section. It is usually a one huge boring forth and back thread. The problem which I have learnt so far is that many of these so-called young sunnatic breeds are built with certain hatred of Rafidha, and that alone usually cloud their senses and judgement. This is why I totally refrain from the usual back and forth "Mut'ah is allow, No it is forbidden, No it is allow" method; hence, hitting them at the heart gangan.

# If you study my new approaches very well now it is about hitting the bull's eye. They claim they follow the salaf. So we shall continue to dig the "Dirty graves" of their salaf and let's see if they are truly followers of salafs.


# So, I don't mean to undermine your comment. It is a Dhikr for anyone of them that still has his number 6 intact. However, kindly let's go back to the theme of this thread.

* Their argument: Mut'ah is Zina. Rafidha are committing Zina. Prophet had forbidden it (Mut'ah)

* Our challenge: The Salafs (Sahabah and Tabi'ieen) continue to enjoy Mut'ah AFTER the demise of the Prophet. Were they also "People of Zina"? Were they KUFFAR for rejecting the alleged prohibition of the Prophet?

# So far, NO SENSIBLE submission has been tender to defend the dear Salaf. Therefore, the challenge is still widely open.

Wa salam

You need to let go of their past. Many more have joined this discussion lately and what they also know just like many of us is "mutah is zina", evil and all that without some scrutiny. Once they understand the basic if it, why sahaba retain it will be cleared to them. You dont need to detail repete to convince. Thats my point. but if you reject to give simple introduction again, your thread will stall

Empiree:
I have got some piece to share

Again, albaqir, you need to convince people of it validity in order to convince them that sahab did not commit mut'ah

but if you still consider this to be derailment, i am sorry, i just have to let go this thread cus i believe this is the way to go about it.

# Absolutely NOT on this thread. They need to first swallow their pride and ACCEPT that their Salafs were "people of Zina" (if they continue to maintain it is Zina).

# If we are able to come to this bitter agreement, then bring it on we can then start the debate afresh on validity/invalidity of Mut'ah.

I simply dont want this thread stall now bcu i believe it is important subject to talk about and bury it once and for all

# Absolutely NOT on this thread. They need to first swallow their pride and ACCEPT that their Salafs were "people of Zina" (if they continue to maintain it is Zina).

# If we are able to come to this bitter agreement, then bring it on we can then start the debate afresh on validity/invalidity of Mut'ah.

I get it

Empiree:
You need to let go of their past. Many more have joined this discussion lately and what they also know just like many of us is "mutah is zina", evil and all that without some scrutiny. Once they understand the basic if it, why sahaba retain it will be cleared to them. You dont need to detail repete to convince. Thats my point. but if you reject to give simple introduction again, your thread will stall

@ Underline, Yoruba used to say, " aì mo isé kòò omorogun lóse nkori bo omi gbonna" and they also used to say, "ki odi leba gboro lafi nso leti omo e".

# Let them feel it hard and see to the reality that their Salafs were great performers of "Zina". Then, they will either go back and challenge their Ustaz or have their conscience worrying them. Then, anyone of them that has his sense intact will try and read further on argument on and against Mut'ah.

# I don't perform Mut'ah but I choose to stand up and defend those who are truly in need of it (never the abusers of the practice). On the other hands, I am a defender of their Salafs at least on Mut'ah issue

What is the difference between Zina, Muttah and Misyar? Muttah and Misyar involve payment to the female while Zina does not. But Modern boyfriend gives some money to the modern girlfriend so its not Zina. Its Muttah or Misyar?














What am I even saying?

Look where this sheikh said what is frown upon in sunni schools is time period placed on it which is also in harmony with what sheikh imran hussein said. He said dont place time period on it

Raintaker:
What is the difference between Zina, Muttah and Misyar?
Muttah and Misyar involve payment to the female while Zina does not.
But Modern boyfriend gives some money to the modern girlfriend so its not Zina.
Its Muttah or Misyar? What am I even saying?

You will see lots of dramas for here

# Empiree, I read all those video screenshot submissions. While they are trying hard to protect the image of Islam [that is: Islam do not order fawahish - immorality, therefore Mut'ah is not Zina], those Sunni ulama are still adamant that Mut'ah is Haram. Isn't that a gross contradiction?

This reminds of just a month ago when ikupakuti said is it (mut'ah) not better than zina when we were discussing sexual perversion in the west. I stylishly refrained from commenting on it but inside me i was like 'so this brother is "mutahbaha"

Empiree:
Look where this sheikh said what is frown upon in sunni schools is time period placed on it which is also in harmony with what sheikh imran hussein said. He said dont place time period on it

# That is exactly what makes it "Mut'ah (timed or temporary)". So, removing that it is no longer Mut'ah. And you can see the Sunni creation of "Az-Zawaj bi niyyat talaq - Marriage with the intention of divorce (only by the man)", they tried to avoid the "agreed time contract between the two consenting adults".

.

AlBaqir:


# That is exactly what makes it "Mut'ah (timed or temporary)". So, removing that it is no longer Mut'ah. And you can see the Sunni creation of "Az-Zawaj bi niyyat talaq - Marriage with the intention of divorce (only by the man)", they tried to avoid the "agreed time contract between the two consenting adults".

How about coaxing or talking the woman into it, is that appropriate?

PART ONE

NIKKAH MUT'A (temporary marriage)


There is absolutely no debate between the Ahlu Sunnah and Shi’a as to the validity of Mut'a as both schools believed it (Mut'a) was established by the Prophet. The point of difference(s) is whether it was later prohibited or not. While the bulk of Ahlu Sunnah school believed it to have been prohibited, few of them and the entire Shi’a school believed in its validity till the end of days.


Nikāḥ al-Mut’ah, or simply mut’ah, is marriage between two consenting adults for a specified period of time.

PROOF FROM QUR'AN

Qur’an states:

“Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah, give them their prescribed dowries; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is prescribed. Verily, Allāh is All-Knowing, All-Wise” {surah an-Nisa: 24}


SUNNI MUFASSIRUN (EXEGESISTS)

# Various heavyweight of Ahlu Sunnah Imams like Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310H) in his Tafsir [Jāmi al-Bayān fī Tāwīl al-Qur’ān (Dār al-Fikr; 1415 H), vol. 5, p. 19]; Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211H) in his al-Musannaf [vol. 7, p. 498, # 14022]; Imam al-Hafiz ibn Kathir (d. 774H) in his Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-'Aẓīm [( 2nd edition, 1420 H), vol. 2, p. 259]; Imam al-Hakim (d. 410H) document with more or less similar versions:


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


Imam Al-Ḥākim and Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 H) comments:
This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) upon the standard of (Imām) Muslim.

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


# Imam Ibn Kathir gives further information [source as. cited above]:

“Ibn Abbās, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Sa’id b. Jubayr and al-Suddī used to recite:
{Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah for a specified period, give them their prescribed dowries}”


So absolutely this ayah legislated Mut’ah, and there are (also) countless Sahih ahadith (traditions) in Ahlu Sunnah and Shi’i reference books that proved its validity.

# On the other hands, there are ahadith, ONLY in Sunni books which claim that the holy Prophet, salallahu alahi wa ahli, later prohibited Nikah al-Mut’ah [forever] at three different periods and locations after approving it intermittently.


Shi’a school however argued that since there exist an ayah in the Qur’an that legislated Mut'ah, NO hadith can ever abrogate an ayah of the Qur’an as Allah Himself declare that “whatever ayah We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it…”{al-Baqarah:106; an-Nahl:101}. This alone questions the integrity of those ahadith that claims the Prophet later prohibited Mut’a after its legislation.


Various other counter argument were presented by the Ahlu Sunnah that certain ayah [e.g surah al-Mu’minin: 1-7] already abrogated the ayah of Mut’ah, but chronologically, a verse or surah [e.g which was revealed early or in Makkah] can never abrogate later ayah or surah [e.g which was revealed later, or in Madina].

* To be continue in sha Allah.

Empiree:
How about coaxing or talking the woman into it, is that appropriate?

I didn't get your question?

AlBaqir:


I didn't get your question?

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