₦airaland Forum

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

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


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

Now you come around talking trash

^^^^

Just show us what you ever agreed with Muslims on nl?. None. Why do you think we will waste our time knowing too well you ain't here to reason?

Have told you to read 3 to 4 preceeding verses. That clears the air.

He's probably busy or in the same mode as you ^^

true2god:
Thank God you are a Yoruba muslim who might have a fair understanding of how metaphoric sentences are used. If a Yoruba man says 'maa fo e lenu' (speaking literarily that he will damage your mouth) what he actually mean is that he will punish the person.

I forgive you because you are a Muslim, so I expected you interprete the verse the way you did. What the verse is simply saying is that God will disgrace the corrupt and rebellious priests. A dung on the face of anybody is a sign of disgrace and humiliation. You don't need be a student of literature in English to understand that simple and basic statement (Malachi 2:3) unless you want me to believe that you are a typical Muslim who needs an hadith, Islamic 'scholars' and tasfir to understand what allahh says in the Quran.

Did i ask you for "tafsir" of Malach 2:3?. Why did you interpret the verse?. That's my point. plainbibletruth can relate. He knows what i am talking about. If the bible is clear why did you have to interpret DUNG?

true2god:
It is God's judgement on corrupt priest. If you read Malachi 2:1-9 you will understand better. Yahweh, unlike the fake allahh, is very clear in the Bible. I don't need to use the hadith and tasfir to understand malachi 2:3. An unbiased and unislamic mind will understand the context much more easily.

OK so God literally tossed IGBE (Dung) at corrupted people. Fantastic!

Thanks for speaking the truth

And I can remember 3yrs ago when I posed same question at ifean, she interpreted the verse

jamo90 might be interested in the video above

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLi7qymCKlA

This is what i have been talking about. Parents At Age 12 | Britain's Youngest Mums and Dads


Fascinating documentary about the UK's modern crisis - the worrying phenomenon of teenage boys and girls who have become parents before they've even left school. So what's the fuss about "underage" muslim girls marrying?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0yzKA2-RhE

malvisguy212:
lies, well for argument sake, let me just pretend I did not read your last statement. the questions is who are this prophet who fullfilled this covenant ?

What he and the other guy explained to you is "extended tafsir" i:e explanation. Take it or leave it.

For simple explanation of the verse, all you had to do is read up 3 to 4 preceding verses before it, it is clear just like that.

malvisguy212:
i believe William Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare in love, but its not the yard stick for truth Concerning my salvation.

you skeptical?

I trust true2go would be here. Did you forget to tell your buddy if Malach 2:3 is to be interpreted or taken literally?

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

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


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



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


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

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

what's miss ifeann aka parisbookaddict doing here, to back up your brothers?

How's Finland doing?.

I heard muslims are taking over finland faster than federal express in that country

Let me break it down bit by bit

AlBaqir:
^^^

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

Imam Malik documents:

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

https://sunnah.com/malik/28




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

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

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

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

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

no comment

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

No comment

nairafacts:
1. The Walls of Benin (800-1400AD), in present day Edo State, are the longest ancient earthworks in the world, and probably the largest man-made structure on earth. They enclose 6500 square kilometers of community lands that connected about 500 communities. At over 16000km long, it was thought to be twice the length of the Great Wall of China, until it was announced in 2012 (after five years of meticulous measurement by Chinese surveyors) that the Great Wall is about 21,000km long.

Bro, this picture of wall you posted has long been attributed to area in Oke Eri in Ijebu near burial ground of Bilikis Sugbo known as Queen Sheba as written historically. How come this same wall is in benin?.


I dont understand again. Immediately i saw the pic I recognized it since my childhood, attributed to Oke Eri in Ijebu. Who is telling lie here?

see attachment

Albaqir,

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


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



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


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

Rilwayne001:
Hehe. ^^ egbon, thanks for updating this thread. I've some inputs to make, but time isn't just by my side these days.

This thread is really eye opener. Had them grasping on straw. I had to search for it last night after article surfaced on naijagists website which compared Bible and Quran. The writer deduced that Quran was making reference to truth of the bible, the same thing malvis and co are doing. So he claimed bible is perfect and unchanged. I had to search for my post in the thread but i later lost interest in that article. Luckily enough some muslim challenged the author.

sino:
Bro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:
Emp.iree, kindly offer you view .

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



Why?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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

Rilwayne001:

SAUDI ARABIA TO PERMIT WOMEN INSIDE STADIUMS FOR FIRST TIME


http://www.goal.com/en/news/saudi-arabia-to-permit-women-inside-football-stadiums-for/1ejsgzm5yp95p1e2jlut81iw16?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=enfb

Empir.ee Albaq.ir Dem.mzy15

their cup of gari

Seems there's gonna be dramatic change in saudi that will fall hands of their patriots on NL and elsewhere. They will realize that they have been defending indefensible for far too long to no avail. And albaqir and others will no longer refute albanism anymore but americanized islamic books, where more and more texts will suffer the same fate as bible. So get ready for the worst.

The same entity which created the Saudi is making another move. Get ready for the worst. They will make attempt to corrupt quran like they did before. and they will fail again.

plainbibletruth:
Very smart of you!



You're acting true to type!


Only you can be this "ingenious"!

you dont know who you dealing with do you? All you have to tell me if the bibe verse i quoted is interpretable or not? If it is, then, you have no reason to condemn muslims

This is exactly what we're agreeing on!
You have the ability to change a word like 'Light' to 'Darkness' and in your very own words "... it will mean the same thing still"

Is that not what it's all about?

I was going to post the ayah more appropriately in a very clear term bcus you denied explanation posted by the brother yesterday. Just wait for me in few hours from now to do that. Maybe you will get thte picture.It doesn't change the context or meaning of the verse, rather it gives clear view of what the verse is talking about

This thread never gets old


Updated....

plainbibletruth:
We make things clear.

It's you Moslems who always come up with “ingenious” reinterpretation to “clarify” what Allah REALLY means.

Do you interpret this or not? Malachi 2:3


"Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smart on your faces the dung of your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it".


Sweet dung

So God actually tossed sh!t at people or you need to INTERPRET it or not? .

Things are never as they seem with you guys. [b]If the quran talks in the present tense you can always come up with your ingenious reinterpretation to "show" that the quran REALLY meant past tense.

Get well soon buddy

If the quran and the Hadith day that the sun sets in a pool of muddy water you come up and say that what the quran "really" meant was that "it appears as if" it sets in a pool of muddy water. Every other thing surrounding the naration is thrown overboard. That's "smart" reinterpretation!

once again, get well soon buddy

Here we have a passage about those who are to "help" Mohamed but you guys come up with your "reinterpretation" that the "helpers" did not have to be living at the same time as Mohamed.

Very convenient!

someone already explained to you in p0. I can even help you more to replace the "prophets" with YOU i:e JEWS AND CHRISTIANS. And it will mean the same thing still. How about that?

plainbibletruth:
How can one believe something one has doubt about?

What is the whole purpose of all these discussions?

You have to clear the doubts first. But you're making a poor job at that so far.

so whats the point of explaining if you have no intention of conceding?. You arent new here. I know you too well.

Anyway....


reinterpretation and interpretation, which one do you do or both?

malvisguy212:
this word were directed to who
Surah 3:81:
Allah took a COVENANT with the PROPHETS, saying:

do u believe in that verse of Qur'an?

plainbibletruth:
Illow.

Islam therefore resort to "reinterpretation" of what ordinarily should be simple to understand or interpret. And all this is to make people "see" what they want them to see and not the reality.

why do christians interpret the bible as well?

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





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

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

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

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


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

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

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

UmarIbnShittu:
how do you mean sir

we are acquainted with them. They are dull.

AlBaqir:
6. CHILDREN OF MUT’AH

AlBaqir:
3. MUT'AH WITH CHRISTIAN OR JEWS

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

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

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

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

Isn't the same ayah?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

malvisguy212:
Surah 3:81:
Allah took a COVENANT with the PROPHETS, saying: “Now that you have been given the Book and Wisdom; there will come to you a Messenger (MUHAMMAD) who will confirm that which is with you, you will have to believe in him and HELP HIM IN HIS MISSION. ” Then He said “Do you affirm this covenant and agree to take this heavy responsibility?” The PROPHETS replied, “Yes, we do affirm.” Allah said, “Very well, bear witness to this and I too bear witness with you.”

Now,A careful examination of Surah 3:81 reveals the following:
(1) Allah made a Covenant with the Prophets who lived before the time of Muhammad.
(2) These Prophets were called upon by Allah to pledge their support to a forthcoming Messenger who was to appear to them later.
(3) This coming Messenger will confirm the previous
Book of Allah which is in the possession of these
Prophets .
(4) Since this Messenger will come during the lifetime of these Prophets , they will be on hand to personally witness his confirmation of their sacred Book .

YOu already have problems with you funny explanation. Thats where your #1 started