Sometimes, I feel topics like this aren't necessary to keep repeating itself on a yearly basis, and sometimes I think they are just non-issues...but again, I realize the need to always remind ourselves on a regular, because "a reminder benefits a believer" and to also seek more understanding as the case may be.

The argument for and against congratulating non-Muslims (especially the people of the book) already presented are supported with evidences which I believe cannot be dismissed with a wave of hand, especially when it deals with kufr and shrikh.

However, i am more inclined with the fatwa from Sheikh Ibn Bayyah, as well as some other reputable scholars with similar bias. I would like to first state that Allah (SWT) granted us the permission to treat non-Muslims who are not hostile with justice and kindness.

Allah (SWT) says: “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity” [al-Mumtahinah 60:8].

This kind of kindness can be found in the following narration:

It was narrated from Mujaahid that a sheep was slaughtered for ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr by a member of his family, and when he came, he said: Did you give some to our Jewish neighbour, did you give some to our Jewish neighbour? For I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “Jibreel kept urging me to treat neighbours kindly until I thought that he would make neighbours heirs.” Narrated by at-Tirmidhi (1943); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani.

Ibn Qudaamah said: "It is permissible to give some of it to a disbeliever, because it is voluntary charity which may be given to non-Muslims living under Muslim rule and prisoners of war, like all other kinds of voluntary charity." (al-Mughni (9/450) )

In Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah (11/424) it says: It is permissible for us to give meat from the udhiyah to non-Muslims who have a treaty with the Muslims and to prisoners of war, and it is permissible to give it to him on the basis that he is poor, or a relative, or a neighbour, or so as to soften his heart towards Islam, because of the general meaning of the verses in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): (Quran 60: (copied from IslamQA).

Allah Almighty also says: (…The food of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you and your is lawful to them, lawful to you in marriage are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the scripture before your time…) (Al-Ma’idah 5: 5)

Allah (SWT) knows that these people of the book are kafirs, but yet allowed that we can exchange foods, and we can marry their women, and Allah enjoined us to be kind towards them provided they are living in peace within our environment. So If we can give them our sacrificial meat and food during our own eid celebrations, then why should we reject theirs?! How would you feel if after you accepted a gift from your neighbor and then he refuses yours?! Would rejecting their food be part of being kind to them?!

Of course it is unanimously agreed that it is forbidden to celebrate their eids in terms of participating in their practices, but what would stand as being a person of good manners with courtesy, which Islam preaches cannot be overlooked!

Allah (SWT) says: (When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or at least return it equally…) (An-Nisa’ 4: 86)

This verse is very instructive, it did not state which kind of greeting, but greeting in general, so when someone greets you, you are obliged to respond, with either that which is better, or at least return it equally, so we look into another narration:

"It was reported that when a group of Jews approached the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and greeted him with twisted pronunciation, and thus uttered “Assam`alaykum, O Muhammad!” (meaning “death and destruction come upon you”) instead of “as-salamu`alaykum”, `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) heard them and responded by saying, ‘assamu`alaykum also and the curse and wrath of Allah!” The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) rebuked `A’ishah for what she had said. She told him, “Did you not hear what they said?” He said, “I did, and I responded by saying, ‘And upon you,’”(i.e., that death will come upon you as it will come upon me.) He went on to say, “O `A’ishah! Allah loves gentleness in all matters.”(Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallaam! When it is said that the Prophet (SAW) is the walking Qur'an, it is so wa llahi! Our mother, Aisha was already on a defensive, ready to "da pada" as it is hot, no nonsense woman, but the Prophet (SAW) who was sent to complete the best of character wouldn't have her do that, but reminded her as well as all of us that Allah (SWT) loves gentleness in all matters.

If your neighbour is a non-Muslim, and you have been showing acts of kindness towards him during your festivals, Islamic etiquette demands you also accept your neighbour's kindness towards you, except you have both established the fact that you do not share such kindness amongst yourselves, but who would be your example?!

Whether you like it or not, holidays had been declared, you may use the opportunity for camping, or you can stay home or go to work if you must, but when you are being greeted, Islam demands that you respond, either with that which is better, or equal to the greeting!

Fundamentalist:
For those trying to put together my points together , let me summerize it for you

How can I help you (victim) when you are not ready to fight for it. The palestinain government says it must be through dialogue while your oppressors don't understand dialogue

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about the oppression or even seek that dialogue route in trying to solve the problem. But to shy away from talking about it, and make flimsy excuses isn't the way to go!

By the way, Palestinians are the victims, and they have been fighting for it with their sweat and blood!

Fundamentalist:
The Yoruba say (forgive my spellings) "E tin be leyin efa Oju eje lor " .

There is more to what empiree and his allies don't want people to know.

" Jamal abdunaseer was a former Egyptian president who came to power through the support of the Muslim brotherhood, at the time when he became the President, the head of the brotherhood told him to tell all women in Egypt to put on scarfs on the their head and he replied how can I tell 10 million women to put scarfs on their head when you Cannot command your daughter to do same ".

Its a scenario of two houses on fire, Mr A and Mr B. Will Mr A go out to Mr B's house to put out his fire or will he first solve his own fire first.

We want change, but on a platter of gold, the messenger preached tauheed for 13 years (read all Makkah surahs) no jihad, no salat (before 11th year) , no fasting, no hajj just tauheed. If it was that simple, why was he pushed out of his homeland. The Islamic faith was firmly rooted in the hearts of companions through tauheed. That is why they would give their life willingly for its cause.

The reason Mr empiree disagrees with me is not because the shaykh is not correct but to make look it like a political problem. I have made it know in this forum that the Saudis do provide aid not only the Palestinians but Muslims worldwide in need of aid. The Saudi govt even get critics from salafi scholars within the kingdom as regarding some of their policies. Its sad the way empiree and his bed fellows make a meal of this and keep us away from the main issue at point (tauheed).


It would be irrational to take away politics from islam, as the religion addresses all facets of human life.

Is the Iranian Government no responsible for sponsoring the IMN in Nigeria (North) which causes disturbances in many areas why are you not picking that up. When the Sufis start their madness in the name of zikr at night and disturbs peoples sleep, block road and do crazy suffs in the name of Islam. When men like Habib ilorin condemns hijabs and buhary omo Musa tells us no difference between Muslims and kafirs, shouldn't be a problem abi. But calling to Allah and his messenger is a problem ? Hypocrisy

From what I could understand from all what you are saying , that I don't care about what happens to Muslims worldwide. And also, that I don't understand the present world realities that's why a made a thread like this in the first place. This notion is wrong and need to be corrected, there is no one who preaches unity like the salafis, the major reason why we are misunderstood are because we have people who don't like the truth. I earlier quoted , Qur'an 24: 50 and nobody said anything, is the that the verse is vague or what ? Why didn't anybody say anything regarding that.


When the messenger started preaching his message to his people in Makkah, they understood that if they were to follow/accept his message they must do away with jahilliya (life of ignorance) totally, that was the meaning of "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger" . they even offered to compromise their way of life and make the messenger the king of all Arabia if he was ready to compromise his religion (Al bidaya wannihaya ). Did the messenger compromise his religion ? The answer is No.

Why must compromise start with us who claim we love Allah and his messenger.

If we are to look at the history of the spread of Islam to determine how we are to deal with our present predicament, we may be doing ourselves a disservice. Are we to now be preaching only tauheed and neglect other obligations as sanctioned in Islam?! If all what the Qur'an preaches is tauheed, then preaching about the oppressed and Jihad and even dialogue are part of what must be talked about, after all, these topics are in the Qur'an!

Secondly, how many were the Muslims before Hijrah?! Would it make sense that a handful of people should be commanded to fight for their rights when the bigger plan is to spread the religion to the four corners of the world when your oppressors are numerous and adequately equipped?! We are over 1 billion in population, yet we cannot help ourselves, very pathetic!

Thirdly, compromise are made for the greater good, did the Prophet (SAW) not create a constitution that involved non Muslims to defend Medinah from external attack?! Why are we saying we cannot do anything because they are not having the right aqeedah?!

Wait o, are we to start asking the oppressed if they have the proper aqeedah before we respond?! So we are to keep quiet because these people are not on the same "aqeedah" as ours?! Where is that the case according to the Qur'an and Sunnah?! So if a Muslim woman is not putting the proper hijab, you would look the other way if she is about to be raped or being raped?!

This is what Allah (SWT) Says:

"And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allâh, and for those weak, illtreated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help.” [004:075: Al Quran]

I believe this is not meant for Muslims alone, if anyone is being oppressed and cries for help, as a Muslim, you are obliged to assist in anyway you can!

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the Sheikh, yes, tawheed is the core, but it doesn't stop us from talking about the oppression, when it is so glaring and it even involves one of the holy site in Islam! The excuse that they are not on the right aqeedah is pathetic!

I wonder how and where a hydrolysis reaction wouldn't involve water, isn't it very straightforward that hydro means water?!

While the arguments about this hydrolysis had been compounded, we need to first understand that protein, a macromolecule has different levels of structural representations, so when you use denature and hydrolysis, you must know which of the structural levels you are talking about.

Anyways, for those arguing for and against water present or not in hydrolysis, let's read from a textbook of Biochemistry...

"Nucleophilic attack by water generally results in the cleavage of the amide, glycoside, or ester bonds that hold biopolymers together. This process is termed hydrolysis. Conversely, when monomer units are joined together to form biopolymers such as proteins or glycogen, water is a product, for example, during the formation of a peptide bond between two amino acids:

While hydrolysis is a thermodynamically favored reaction, the amide and phosphoester bonds of polypeptides and oligonucleotides are stable in the aqueous environment of the cell. This seemingly paradoxic behavior reflects the fact that the thermodynamics governing the equilibrium of a reaction do not determine the rate at which it will proceed. In the cell, protein catalysts called enzymes accelerate the rate of hydrolytic reactions when needed. Proteases catalyze the hydrolysis of proteins into their component amino acids" (Harpers Illustrated Biochemistry, 26th Edition, pp. 7-

I need not explain that enzymes are not part of the reactive species, they only speedup the process which would have normally taken say 600 years to take place in seconds....

AlBaqir:


# The Hadith is more than enough for a prove that Quran was gathered in full at the time of Nabi, and never in tatters and pieces (to the fact that goat eat some parts or they were looking for other parts here and there) that your history bogusly claimed.

No one disputes the Qur'an being gathered during the life time of the Prophet ( SAW ), there is even a narration whereby a copy of the Qur'an (even though revelation was still on) was given to a sahabah who was sent by the Prophet ( SAW ) to another region. If you can't understand that people had different parts of the Qur'an written for their personal study and use, then you should provide us with the evidence that the Prophet ( SAW ) ordered a specific group to gather the Qur'an between two bindings and distribute this to everyone!

AlBaqir:

# You know me, I don't follow the fantasy of Abubakr or Uthman's compilation for if truly it did happened, then they recompiled Quran against what is already on ground.

Allah ( SWT ) Says He will guard the Qur'an against corruption, so tell us how these companions recompiled the Qur'an against what was already on ground?

AlBaqir:

# Unfortunately, ONLY Zaid Ibn Thaabit was given the task of (re)compiling the Qur'an by Abubakr, and the latter claimed "We (i.e Abubakr and Umar) do not find fault in you (i.e Zaid). Meaning nobody else was ever consulted despite the fact that those who have better knowledge of Quran were very much alive. Is this not a big conspiracy?

Tell us the conspiracy AlBaqir, what did these companions do? Did they change the Qur'an?!

AlBaqir:

# If there is/was no difference between the " recompilation" of Abubakr and Uthman, why the need of Uthman to "re-recompiled" after using Abubakr's (re)compilation? Did he wanna claim credit for a work of somebody else ni?

The reason(s) for doing what these respectable companions did were clearly stated, you may go up few posts to read them again.

AlBaqir:

# Whatever Zaid (and allegedly Imam Ali) said, is 100% contradictory in front of for example another Quran expert, Abdullah Ibn Abbas who argued that there is an error of the scribe in Qur'an. He confirmed a particular ayah was not written as Allah revealed it, and even sworn in another area. Unfortunately, those "errors" are still present till date.

# Please think Mr sino.

So when Allah ( SWT ) Says He would Guard the Qur'an against errors and corruption, it isn't true?! Imam Ali ( RA ) never argued that the Qur'an was tampered with, isn't he more knowledgeable about the Qur'an than Abdullah Ibn Abbas?! So you believe that there are "errors" in the Qur'an?!

And this had always been the belief of the Shi'a, the Qur'an was corrupted by these honourable companions, hence, they don't study the Qur'an in their religious schools and colleges.

You should be the one to think, do you believe in Allah's Words or the words of man?!

”Abu Hurayarah did narrate many Hadith. He was viewed amongst his contemporaries as an authentic narrator and as a man of integrity, as the evidence suggests. There is no doubt that he was criticized by his contemporaries but not denied, yet he was not isolated in criticism. There were others who were also challenged. To suggest and argue that he has narrated more than any other companion is an established fact, in terms of having different chains for one statement but, with regards to the content, there is not an excessive number.

To suggest that he is a prolific active narrator who embellished his reports is unfair for a simple reason that those traditions which he uniquely reports are small in number and most of the reports which he transmits have concomitant and chains of narration.

Abu Hurayrah died at the age of 78 in the year 57 AH/681CE in Madina even though there is a dispute amongst the classical scholars of Hadith about this date. I conclude by mentioning Juynboll’s statement with regards to his status in the Muslim traditions:

“The orthodox…foster the deepest reverence for Abu Hurayra, al-Sahabi al-Jalil. In their zeal to exonerate him from every accusation they bring forward many traditions, in which he is depicted as a paragon of piety and devotion. He is reputed to have recited subhan Al;lah (praise the Lord) 12,000 times every night, to the extent of his sins, as he asserted. Furthermore, Abu Hurayra is alleged to have said that he divided the nights into three parts: one for reciting the Qur’an, one for sleep and one for reciting traditions. There are a great many of these reports, many of which are mentioned by the orthodox in defence of Abu Hurayra. The “Ulama” still hold the masses firmly in hand; the popularity of the Companions is great. People who love cats and handle them in the streets are still tenderly and endearingly referred to as “Abu Hurayra”.”

Source: Usman Ghani, Abu Hurayra a Narrator of Hadith Revisited: An Examination into the Dichotomous Representation of an Important Figure in Hadith with special reference to Classical Islamic modes of criticism. (Ph.D. University of Exeter 2011).

Please see the attached tables. (note: picture 1- Total Number of narrations found in Nine books of hadith from Abu Hurayrah (ra) )

A poet wrote:

"And on the Earth are trees uncountable
But only the ones with fruits are pelted with stones..."

Abu Hurayrah (ra) is indeed a companion with "fruits", those of us who know, benefits, and those who are ignorant, remain so...

Empiree:
Myself would have disagreed with him. Mut'ah is definitely not. If you watched the video i posted earlier, the Sheikh provided solution to widows and divorced women.

I see bro, I haven't watched the video o, I do have a hard time watching videos online sometimes, especially when I am at work. In sha Allah, I'll find the time to watch some of the videos you have presented here.

lanrexlan:
Castration is indeed an extreme case but it begs the question akhee, for how long was these sahabahs away from their wives that they were thinking about castrating themselves? Truth be told, one loves intimacy a lot, I think a or 2 weeks expedition shouldn't make any man think of castrating himself. Castration has NO cure faah.

Secondly, if mut'ah is for necessity like eating swine and alcohol, these two things are still necessities when the need arises but mut'ah isn't anymore?

I do not know how long the duration was before they asked for castration, and yes, castration is indeed and extreme action to take. Again, like the popular parlance, "konji na bastard"

Why mut'ah is different is due to the statement of the Prophet (SAW) prohibiting it forever, there was no clause, it was necessity that brought about it in the first instance, therefore, prohibition becomes absolute! As already presented, Alcohol or swine are to save lives, and in our present society, I doubt you would ever need to take such....

lanrexlan:

Yes, no sunni argues this.

Indeed.

lanrexlan:

Scared ke? Do you know the meaning of my name, Zubayr? It means courageous. "Lako mo wa ni ibon"

Interesting, okunrin meta ati abo

lanrexlan:

This is a wild guess unless you can provide evidences for it. There is no record of mut'ah during pre Islamic period that I know of.

I came across it in a particular article but no reference to the source of the information.

lanrexlan:

His ghost

You can say that again

lanrexlan:

Maybe and maybe not.

Well, it is only the twelvers that still believe mut'ah is permissible, even other shi'ah sects say it is prohibited!

lanrexlan:

Reality and books can be in contradictions many times. Suicide bombers and the Qu'ran are in contradictions, what people see is not what is stated in the Qur'an. Same can be said with polygamy to some extent.

Which should mean there is a problem somewhere. The Qur'an teaches that when in such quagmire, return to the Qur'an and the Prophet (SAW), so the Qur'an didn't give us such permission for mut'ah, it shouldn't be implied, and we have on authentic record that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited it! What then do we seek?!

lanrexlan:

In all narrations, the Nabi NEVER made mut'ah a form of profession, because people have turned it into a profession doesn't make it right.

Yes I agree, so also being a solution to widows and divorcees, it wasn't stated as such too!

lanrexlan:

Wallah, very disturbing but yet it is not a yardstick to judge the prescription in the books. The above has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the deen of Islam. You don't turn a necessity to a business making venture.

But that is what is obtainable and publicly practiced amongst the twelver shi'as

lanrexlan:

The Qur'an even exposed their perversion when they broke the law of 'no sex' during the nights of Ramadan. But their perversion is outta this world ooo So mut'ah is only for Arabs?!

But at least, they were having sex with their wives, and the Qur'an explicitly permitted us (married) to continue because we are meant to be safe haven for each other.

Those with the Prophet (SAW) at the time of permission were most likely to all be Arabs, the reason I brought up their perversion.

lanrexlan:

See logic! This analysis of yours made sense, and I have no reply.

Okay

lanrexlan:

Ameen, most welcome.

Ma sha Allah!

lanrexlan:
No need dragging this over and over. It is not about doubting the narrations, you and Baqir have tackled the hadith traced to Ali and I don't wanna start the saga again.

@bold, if sex isn't life threatening, then how is it a necessity in the first instance? If those sahabahs didn't had sex then, will they die ni?

One of the narrations states castration was what brought about the necessity for the permission, you would agree with me that castration is an extreme action to take, since sex itself isn't haram in itself. One of the narration also depicts a reasoning which a sahabah brought to explain the permission and prohibition by the Prophet (SAW).

"....Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in- the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether)..." (Sahih Muslim)

All in all, the prohibition still stands.

lanrexlan:

Ruhaniyyah can't travel to the other world

Well, he should be able to get you one who has been alive since the time of Ibn Abbas (ra), but i understand if you are scared sha

lanrexlan:

Understood


What you are insinuating is that the Prophet has taught them about mut'ah before and that's why they didn't ask questions??

Perhaps, and it is also possible that it was a pre-islamic practice as some claim based on history.

lanrexlan:

They didn't challenge because they were probably 'afraid' of him

Yeah, Umar (ra) kept terrifying and tormenting them even after he died

lanrexlan:

No problem o, we will going in circles ni.


"Understood"


Nobody even made mentioned of mut'ah at home, Baqir even said it is haram!

Of course it is haram, reason I am quite amazed as to the huge promotion by the twelver shi'as who are the only group who still believe it is permitted till now, and that should raise a red flag, as well as the supposed "abuse" within their community.

I watched a documentary on bbc, were they interviewed a transgender who sells his body for money in the name of mut'ah. I am not swayed by AlBaqir's arguments, because the reality and information from their books and scholars are in contradiction.

Here is an example:

"Salamun Alaykum,

The following question was kindly answered by Mulla Asgher.

Regards

Abbas Jaffer
Moderator - 'Aalim Network

--------------------------------------------------------------

Question:

Is it haram for a woman to make a living at mutah by marrying a man for a short period, receiving a mahr, then observing iddah and marrying another man for a short period and so on so that she is married to say half a dozen men in the year? If it is haram what makes it haram if she is observing the rules for mutah properly? And if it is not haram, does she deserve to be condemned as immoral (or do the men who marry her deserve that)?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Answer:

It is not haram for her to make a living in this way if she follows the rules of Sharia properly. Nor does she deserve to be condemned. This also applies to the men who marry her.

Wasalaam"

I don't know how you would understand the above, but it's very disturbing! By the way this would mean this woman would have to be in a place easily accessible to the men (are they on expedition? or maybe they are on travel...), so as to contract mut'ah with her, I wonder why we should condemn prostitution, if the above is allowed in Islam?!

lanrexlan:

Understood


Irrelevant? Really akhee? If the expedition was three days, do you think the Prophet would legislate mut'ah? The permission should have something to do with the duration. Why will a man want to castrate himself because he missed his wife just 6days or 7days or even 2 weeks? Is sex food for him ni?

Arabs are known for their perversion, Islam came to restructure their lives, I have close relatives who have mentioned how perverted some of them can be even during the month of hajj... The reason why I said the duration of the expedition is irrelevant, the Prophet (SAW) was among them during those periods, he had better information and the divine wisdom to permit it, and I would aslo trust that divine wisdom, especially when it correlates with the Ideals Islam came to preach, when he prohibited it forever!

AlBaqir mentioned that mut'ah is a solution to widows and divorced women, but he also mentioned that women can control their desires better than men, so it is still not a solution for these women, because what they need is a father figure for their children and a man to take care of their needs, but if the children keep seeing different men come in and out severally, what would that be teaching them?! And if she doesn't have children, how would changing men like clothes help her find security and comfort?!

There are so many baggage that comes with this mut'ah, but I guess it doesn't matter, once the men's desires are satisfied, it all good and dandy!

lanrexlan:

Thanks for your replies and time akhee. Jazakumullah khairan

Wa anta, jazakallah khayran, many thanks.

lanrexlan:


Shebi na you gimme work

With this work, You fit get the six packs wey you dey been look for o

nb: sisters are looking for brothers with six packs nowadays o

Empiree:
O ya akh lanrexlan, go dig up his qabr

This is absolutely hilarious

Lanre pele ku ise o!

lanrexlan:
You are still not getting the point. I quite agreed that the reason for its permissions were peculiar. But ask you akhee, weren't there tons of wars and expeditions after the demise of the Nabi? When the needs (wars and expeditions) arose again then, is it permissible to perform mut'ah?

Of course I get you, are you doubting the authenticity of the narrations that stated the Prophet (SAW) prohibited it too?! It is established that it was forbidden by the Prophet (SAW), therefore, such practice remains forbidden. You should read all the narrations that speaks on prohibition, you would then see that Ibn Abbas's opinion cannot be substantiated with regards to permission due to necessity. The reason why necessity makes some haram permissible, is to save lives, and abstaining from sex isn't life threatening. The categorical prohibition from the Prophet (SAW) using the word forever, made it sealed, and not to be revisited again, no matter the number of wars and expeditions that may come.

lanrexlan:

I need Angel Castiel to teleport me to the time and age of Ibn Abass in the desert of Arabia.

Empiree is there for you na, "wan ni awon ruhaniyah lowo"

lanrexlan:

"Give them something", it sounds like the example you brought as regards Arabs engaging in sex for money. The companions understood what to do because they have been doing it before and the Prophet just authenticated it for them?

The narrations available stated this, They did mut'ah with garment, cloak or even dates, these are things. The Prophet (SAW) permitted them to do mut'ah as stated, the cases were peculiar, and afterwards, he forbade them never to do it again. So yes, you may say the Prophet (SAW) authenticated it for those peculiar cases...

lanrexlan:

If it is not a new legislation, then what is it?

If you read through all the narrations of mut'ah, what is most prominent is the permission being granted, you don't grant permission for something new, you tell them that this is new, unlike what you know of before, and this is how to go about it. Does it make sense to tell someone go and do something in which the person is ignorant of?! Wouldn't this person ask relevant questions?! Mut'ah is mut'ah, it was allowed for peculiar reasons and then forbidden permanently.

lanrexlan:

That has always been the bone of contention for ages between Shi'as and Sunnis i.e. Did Mut'ah continue after the demise of the Nabi?

Continuation of a practice after being prohibited isn't something special that should cause doubts, a case of a companion drinking alcohol was reported, do we now say wine isn't prohibited?! Yes there are reports of such, but also Umar (ra) reiterated the prohibition and no companion challenged him. This means they all agreed that it was prohibited!

lanrexlan:

Akhee, I am afraid this comparison isn't the same. The implication of what you are saying is that the Nabi legislated the "having sex for a token" which the Arabs were already engaged in by commanding mut'ah! That is the meaning of the analogy!

Bro, I do not shy away from stating facts, the Prophet (SAW) permitted those who were requesting to castrate themselves to do mut'ah giving a garment according to one of the narrations on mut'ah. The Prophet (SAW) new better and gave the permissions, and within this divinely inspired wisdom, he (SAW) prohibited it forever!

lanrexlan:

Wine was already widespread among the Arabs. They were drunkards among them before the 'advent' of Islam. Allah NEVER made alcohol permissible for them, they were already in the mess. In order not to make them 'run away' from Islam at the start, that's why the prohibition was in stages.

Mut'ah isn't the same with that. No record of any one performing mut'ah before the the first legislation. Moreover, mut'ah wasn't prohibited in stages. I see NO correlation whatsoever between alcohol prohibition and the acclaimed mut'ah prohibition!

I understand you bro, it really doesn't matter if you do not see any correlation between the two, it still doesn't change the fact that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah.

lanrexlan:

What about before the prophet prohibited it? So in essence, Zina was made lawful before the Nabi forbade it?

If necessity was what permitted mut'ah in the first instance (you should read all the narrations on permission), which made the cases peculiar, then the permission wasn't making zina lawful. It should be noted that there is no authentic narration that claimed sahabas did mut'ah during the time of the Prophet (SAW) when they were at home, nor any narration stating that the Prophet (SAW) told them when, where and how to do mut'ah. However, since mut'ah was prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), such actions automatically falls under zina, since it becomes illegal sexual relations.

lanrexlan:

Do you know the implication of what you wrote?! It means the Nabi was impartial for legislating mut'ah during those occasions as narrated in the Ahadith! I only inferred from your submission akhee unless you are referring to those practising mut'ah without at home without any just cause to justify it.

Is polygamy impartial?!

I was speaking generally and particularly on the claim of continuous permission of mut'ah. The women were not with the Prophet (SAW), so the cases of permission were peculiar.

Polygyny isn't the standard form of marriage in Islam, it is allowed for reasons which are peculiar too. It also comes with a strict caveat by Allah (SWT) in the Qur'an, unlike mut'ah, you can find details of this in the Qur'an and from the Prophet (SAW), a woman in polygyny has a full right as a wife, and she has the option to leave such marriage if she wants. But this mut'ah, the woman has no right whatsoever, except for what is given for the dowry. Her status is unknown, and she cannot demand anything except what she asks as her dowry and if she gets pregnant, the man has no obligations to fulfill, for the fact that it is temporary, the man might not even know she is pregnant. If such marriage isn't forbidden, we should be asking ourselves what ideals does Islam really preaches.

lanrexlan:

I never argued this. Expeditions are periodic, so was the legislation of mut'ah during the lifetime of the Nabi. I am curious, what was the longest duration of those expeditions and wars in which mut'ah was made permissible?

I do not have the details of how long those expeditions were, but I think it is irrelevant, since we know that the permission wasn't due to the duration of the expedition, rather it was due to some sahabah wanting to castrate themselves. Regardless, Islam frowns at being away from your spouse for a protracted period of time, it can be a basis for divorce. So to use the excuse of being away from your wife for long holds no water!

lanrexlan:

Alhamudulilah

Ma sha Allah!

lanrexlan:
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. Will you agree with this stance of Ibn Abass? And the pork argument doesn't fly akhee.

But how would they be unaware of the prohibition if mut'ah was prohibited at the battle of Khaybar?! Where many Muslims participated?!

I do not agree with Ibn Abbas (ra), indeed, the reason for permissions during the life of the Prophet (SAW) were peculiar, but Ibn Abbas was challenged, even if he opined that he meant permissible in such situation as documented during the life of the Prophet (SAW).

@ bold, you would have to tell that to Ibn Abbas (ra)...

There are so many theories we can start discussing, but it remains theories, speculations and assumptions, that would only make us start having doubts, making claims of fabrications which cannot be substantiated and all for what?! Is mut'ah the key to Jannah?! There are authentic narrations clearly stating that it was prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), whether the whole sahabah heard it or not is not important, what is important is that those who narrated this prohibition are reliable such as Ali (ra) etc.

lanrexlan:

"Possibly", well let us agree on the first sentence. Secondly, if these conditions weren't stated in the Qur'an, on what conditions did the Prophet permitted the companions to engage in it? Or the command was just that "Go and perform mut'ah and give the woman her mahr". Without the waliy of the lady, without an witness?

We work with what can be established from the Qur'an and the authentic hadith. If mut'ah was a new legislation, then we ought to have the details from the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW) himself. From the narrations which showed permission from the Prophet (SAW) did you find any details beyond for a stipulated period and give them something (e.g garment)?! You would see this is not a marriage as sanctioned in the Qur'an, but the companions understood what to do, have you asked yourself, why they never asked the Prophet (SAW) what they should do?!

lanrexlan:

@the bold is also my fear. People will certainly hide behind it and abuse it but many things have been abused in our society today, even polygamy isn't spared.

If a bad man abuses polygamy, or even marriage itself, he would never say Allah and the Prophet (SAW) permitted me to do such and such, but what we find is that shi'ahs practice this their mut'ah and use the Qur'an and the Prophet (SAW) to back up their practice. Even from the narrations from their books (albeit arbitrarily authenticated), there happens to be good reasons to find this practice not being in line with Islamic ideals.

lanrexlan:

Drinking of wine was widespread among the Arabs even before the advent of the Prophethood of Muhammed (Peace upon him and his household) and they were cases of Sahaabahs who were drinking. So that's why Allah made the prohibitions in stages. Allah NEVER gave anyone the permission to drink to wine (except for necessity) rather wine consumption was one of the vices rampant among Arabs then.

So I am afraid mut'ah doesn't fit in cos it seems to be a 'new legislation' which was allowed at least on two occasions.

Arabs were also having sex and giving a token for sex before the advent of Islam...Examples of a new legislation includes how we perform our Nikkah, how we pray, how we dress, etc. all these have explicit details in the Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet (SAW). There is nothing new about contracting a temporary "marriage" if the details are not special other that a specified period and a token to be given for the duration.
Why I made reference to wine is because it wasn't deemed haram from the onset, it was permitted (not explicitly), and companions during the early part of Islam drank, even the Qur'an states that there is good in it although the bad is more. Then it was finally prohibited. Such can also be said of mut'ah, the Prophet (SAW) permitted it, and then he forbade it.

lanrexlan:

So if it is a sin, what's the huddud for it? What should be the punishment imposed on a man found practising mut'ah? Is it the punishment doted out to fornicators and fornicatresses?! Lesser or multiplied?! I would love to see evidences.

It is zina, once it is established, the Prophet (SAW) prohibited it, such relationship is no longer recognized in the shari'ah, for evidences:

Allah (SWT) says:
"And those who guard their private parts

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

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

This above verse stands till the last day, your wives, and those your right hand possesses(slaves), mut'ah women are not mentioned here, or in any other verse like the above in the Qur'an!

lanrexlan:

So what you are saying in essence is that the main purpose of mut'ah was to serve the sexual urges of men of war on expedition. But akhee, there were tons of wars and expeditions after the demise of the Nabi. So how would you expect soldiers and men on expeditions at that time to fulfill their sexual urges? Don't you think it's impartial?

What is impartial is to let men enjoy themselves as much as they want, and tell the woman (especially the married) to remain chaste, what about when the urges come for them too? What about the single men at home who have urges too?! But Allah (SWT) is the Just, Allah (SWT) says:

"And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah enriches them of His Bounty." (Qur'an 24:33)

Also as quoted above, Allah (SWT) instructs us to guard our private parts against illegal sexual intercourse except with our wives and slaves, if you do not have any of such, then you remain chaste! Moreover, it is legislated for a married man not to be away from his wife for a long period of time, leaving her hanging, so expeditions are meant to be periodic.

lanrexlan:

Wa alaykum Salaam Warahmatulah Wabarokatuh dearest akhee, Alhamudulilah I have been fine by Allah's mercy. How are you and your beloved family? May Allah's mercy always abide with you (Aamen)

Alhamdulillah, the family is fine. Allahuma Ameen, many thanks.

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

@sino, few questions for you.

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

The right question is, who were these sahabah?! Do you have their names?! I had already brought possible explanations for those mentioned, some were wrongly mentioned like Asma bint Abu Bakr (ra), Ibn Abbas (ra), explained himself in another narration using eating Pork as an example. The most notable case is Amr Ibn Hurayth (ra), and his case can easily be explained as being ignorant of the prohibition. Since we do not have the list of these tabi'een and Makkan jurists, and we do not know whether they knew for sure about this prohibition, and for the fact that one of them who was named, Ibn Jurayj, retracted his "fatwa" after he had permitted it, indicating the possibility of acquiring new knowledge which must have facilitated his retraction, all points to ignorance as an excuse.

So if they were aware of the prohibition made by the prophet (saw), or that reiterated by Umar (ra), and still went ahead to practice mut'ah, then they were wrong, but before I can say that for sure, i must have incontrovertible evidence(s) that they knew of these prohibitions already mentioned.

lanrexlan:

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

The narration is still the same as the one that mentioned expedition, and mentioned "we had no women with us" possibly indicating their wives... I was not the one who said it is only for married men, I only asked pertinent questions as who and who should qualify to participate in mut'ah. Qur'an had already stated what singles who are unable to marry should be patient, hence if they are to go into mut'ah, then there would be an explicit verse that would give a clear indication of this permission, not to mention other authentic narration advising young singles to engage in fasting so as to reduce their sexual urge... If mut'ah is a continuous permission, I'm afraid people would not get married, especially in this harsh financial conditions, since you have no obligation to your female mut'ah partner, even if she gets pregnant. You should note that these conditions are not stated in the Qur'an or by the Prophet (SAW), but still we are to believe it was a new legislation?!

lanrexlan:

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

Well, personally, i see mut'ah as the kind of "permission" given to drinking wine before it was totally prohibited. Ibn Abbas (ra) brought the explanation using pork. As I have already asked those who claim it is in the Qur'an, to present details of this new legislation instead of using semantics, but no such information can be found in the Qur'an, the best gotten from the Prophet (SAW) is the permission to do mut'ah for a stated period of time, after which he forbade it.

lanrexlan:

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

The reason why it is a sin is because we have authentic hadith that states the Prophet (SAW) prohibited it. So it is haram to participate in mut'ah, and it is going against the Prophet (SAW), which is going against Allah (SWT). I have already explained the cases of the sahabah and tabi'een above.

lanrexlan:

5) You said that


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

The Prophet (SAW) does not speak of his own desire or opinion on religious matter, thus I believe that permission of mut'ah during those cases as established in authentic narrations is valid, and when authentic narrations also stated clearly of the Prophet (SAW) prohibition forever, that then becomes the final legislation sanctioned by shar'ah on mut'ah, so it will take more than speculations and assumptions and theories to overrule this facts. If you can't find mut'ah in the Qur'an, nor can you find its details, then it was never part of the Qur'an! Allah (SWT) the all wise, made the permission through the words of His messenger, and thereafter prohibited it once it served its purpose.

PS: Assalam alaykum bro, how have you been?!

AlBaqir:


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

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

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

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

I said it, you would look for narrations in sunni books to try to validate the ones in your books, but it is always an epic fail!

He didn't make it haram, he only said he disliked it, he did it once and disliked it, and swore not to do it again. The right question is what would make a man do something supposedly halal and feel guilty?! Only sins cause this kind of guilty feelings for a soul still having Allah's light. But since you want us to believe that he made haram what Allah (SWT) had made halal, that was why he couldn't even marry publicly, compared to the secret mut'ah, then this kind of punishment is quite questionable. Imagine the Imam telling him he didn't obey Allah (SWT) for not doing mut'ah?! So everyone not doing mut'ah are in trouble right?!

AlBaqir:


By "He who splits the grain and sprout off the shoot", it has never ever cross my mind not to mention of practicing mut'a. Why? Mut'a is delicately designed for those in dare need or who could not control their intimate desire or fear not to fornicate. I am none of these therefore do not need it. Same goes for multiple marriage.

https://www.nairaland.com/1946601/wont-stop-opposing-sunnah-mutah/1#27257716

This is your above statement when asked if you will do mut'ah, you swore it never crossed your mind to practice it, i am afraid you are in danger of tribulations as documented in this narration in question, heck the whole sunni community ought to have been finding it difficult to marry in public, I guess we are just immune since we have remain resolute that the prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah forever!

AlBaqir:

Allamah Majlisi declares: Majhul

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

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

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

Your deceit is legendary! the first hadith you quote is graded sahih by Majilisi:

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

Then you stylishly omitted the following hadith:

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

which is also grade sahih by Majilisi...By the way, majhul was never an issue with regards to authenticating narrations, cos Majilisi himself had stated:

“We do not need sanad(chain) for the four books of Usool(principles) and when we place the Sanad we do it just out of blessing and to follow the Sunnah of our predecessors”

Source: [Rasael abi al Ma’ali lil Majlisi page 459]

This is not to mention the compiler of Al-Kafi had already claimed authenticity for his collections....But I know you too well, I wouldn't bother much about this recorded facts....

So this woman is not a wife or slave recognized in the shari'ah, and you can just get as many as you wish according to the Imams...Interesting!

AlBaqir:

And, al-Majlisī submits: Majhūl.


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

You know an hadith being weak does not mean fabricated, so there may still be element of truth in these narrations, and looking at the way you guys have been practicing mut'ah, one can easily conclude that you believe in these narrations as being authentic, hence acting on it. If mut'ah is not for sex, why are you relying on narrations which indicates such?! Do you pay dowry for just having a companionship with a woman?! You should make up your mind AlBaqir, why would an able bodied man go into temporary marriage just for companionship, after you have claimed the reason for mut'ah still being valid is the urge for sex?! It's like your Imams makes it difficult for you to know where you stand...

AlBaqir:

Al-Majlisī says: Ḍa’īf.

Then, he adds:

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

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


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

LOL, this is the most pathetic defense I have read in days, so because sunnis would condemn you if you are found in mut'ah houses?!
i know any narration that speaks against mut'ah is automatically da'if and fabricated, bye bye to science of hadith

but the Imam said : ‘Stay away from it. Do you not feel ashamed of being seen in a place for which your virtuous brothers in belief and friends feel embarrassed?

So where does ignorant sunnis and those who abhor mut'ah come from?! As mentioned above, we know the reason for da'if, it speaks against mut'ah

AlBaqir:

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

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

"We, the Ṣaḥābah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, did mut'ah until `Amr b. Ḥurayth was forbidden."
Jābir also said, “When the time expires, and both (spouses) wish to repeat (the mut'ah), then he must give her another dowry". One of us asked him, "How long is her `iddah?" He said, "A single menstruation."

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

This does not give credence to the narration I had presented, I had said you would look for anything from sunnis to support your practice, but this information is not from the Prophet (SAW), cannot be found in the Qur'an, so it means nothing to me, coupled with the fact that Ibn Jurayj had been recorded to have retracted his fatwa on mut'ah after permitting it. So you can just make a woman "statusless" in the society by just being with her in perpetual mut'ah?! Yeah very honourable for your Muslim sisters...

AlBaqir:



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


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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:



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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Comment: SPEECHLESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:


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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

AlBaqir:

* My submission on Ibn Abbas are crystal clear:

1. He permitted Mut'ah with or without necessity

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

* Umar was very much aware all along

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

# Another desperation trying to score cheap point.

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

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

Faith al-Kashani narrated in his book:


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

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

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


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

Same place as above.

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

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

AlBaqir:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"And those who guard their private parts

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

* You have two ahadith on MUT'AH approval:

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

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

So, please always think before you bring untenable arguments.

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:



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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

AlBaqir:

Then, al-Ṭūsī himself declares:

This report has a disconnected chain, mursal.

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:


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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Empiree:

Sino,

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

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

Empiree:

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

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

Empiree:

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



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



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



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

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

Empiree:

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

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

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

Empiree:

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

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

Empiree:

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

Okay

Empiree:

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

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

Empiree:

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



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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

More narrations from shi'ahs on mut'ah:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Empiree:

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

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

Empiree:

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

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

Empiree:

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

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

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

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

Empiree:

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

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

Empiree:

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

Okay

Empiree:

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

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

Empiree:

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

Okay.

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

Bro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:


Sino, here are the hadiths side by side.


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

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas:

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

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


# A PERFECT SCENARIO

Narrated `Umar bin Al-Khattab:

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

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


# AGAIN HERE'S THE HADITH OF IBN ABBAS


“Abū Naḍrah:

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

Sources:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

@ Bold,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

* Was Ibn Abbas and Ubai Ibn Kaab lying?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:


The above is the best scenario.

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

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

AlBaqir:


There is two roads here:

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:

Here you are below:



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

* Now here's what you copy-pasted:


# What is the topic?

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

That is our context.


Following are what you brought:

A. Ali: Prophet banned MUT'AH at Khaybar

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

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


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

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

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

AlBaqir:



# That's a rookie work there. You don't corroborate a munkar or highly controversial Hadith narrator like that.

# For a start, it was not only Ibn Hibban that accused Aban as your web also affirmed @underline.

# Sino, be attentive and let us explain to you and that website. This is it:

1. Hadith of Umar that he stood up on the minbar and declared Nabi prohibited MUT'AH 3 times. This context is where Aban, our highly controversial figure comes.

NB: For that Hadith in its context to have any usefulness, we need another Hadith of the same context or very similar context without Aban in the chain whereby the new that will come in will be shahid (witness). That is how you corroborate and that is the only way the first Hadith where Aban appeared could become hasan.


2. Ali never reported the context of "Umar climbed minbar and ....". Rather, Hadith of Ali are of two types:

A. That Nabi prohibited MUT'AH at KHAYBAR. This is the ONLY prohibition seemed known to Ali. Not at Fat'h Makkah and Hajj al-wada, the other 2 places/times.

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

# In short, none of the two ahadith corroborate the context of Hadith attributed to Umar.



3. Ibn Umar: He only mentioned that Umar promised to punish whoever practice MUT'AH. Not that, " Umar stood up on the minbar and declare Allah's messenger prohibited MUT'AH 3 times..."



4. Hadith of Sabrah: This is entirely another "prohibition at Fat'h Makkah". It has nothing to do with Umar's Hadith. Sabrah neither mentioned Khaybar nor Hajj al-Wada, the other two places/times.


So, we are dealing with different sort of ahadith here in different contexts. So, again, the Hadith where Aban appeared is not corroborated by any sahih Hadith.


# Lastly, let me give you Hadith that seems to have corroborated it.


Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458H) documents:

Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd Allāh b. Yūsuf al-Aṣbahānī – Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Raḥman b. Yaḥyā al-Zuhrī al-Qāḍī – Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Ṣāigh – Abū Khālid al-Umawī – Manṣūr b. Dīnār – ‘Umar b. Muḥammad – Sālim b. ‘Abd Allāh – his father – ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, may Allāh be pleased with him:


‘Umar climbed the pulpit, and thanked Allāh and extolled Him. Then, he said, “What is the problem of men who are contracting the nikāḥ of this mut’ah despite that the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, had forbidden it? Take note: if anyone who has contracted its nikāḥ is brought to me, I will stone him.”

Source: Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Alī b. Mūsā al-Bayhaqī, Sunan al-Bayhaqī al-Kubrā (Makkah al-Mukarramah: Maktabah Dār al-Bāz; 1414 H) [annotator: Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā], vol. 7, p. 206, # 13949


* Looking at the matn (context) of this Hadith, it is very similar to that of Ibn Majah that Aban appeared. And the Hadith chain does not contain the suspected Aban, therefore, IF all the narrators meet the criteria, then it will be a "corroborating Hadith" for the first. That is how you corroborate in this aspect.


# Unfortunately, the Hadith too is DA'EEF. None of them is of no use.


# In sha Allah, my next post will consider all the Sunni ahadith of prohibition at those three occasions.

Please who is teaching you mustalahu-l-hadith?! If you paid for the lesson, please go get a refund!

You have tried to claim that the hadith is weak due to Aban, due to him being disparaged by some, but you quickly overlooked those who said he is trustworthy and no munkar narration can be traced to him...Yet you claim you are being sincere and using your aql?!

Secondly, where do you get the above that the context must be the same for it to be corroborated?! Na wa o! Which book did you get that from or which hadith scholar said so?! Please bring your proofs and not this your armchair opinions!

Here is what is said about hasan li gayhrihi:

"Several weak ahadith may mutually support each other to the level of hasan According to the definitions of al-Tirmidhi and Ibn al-Salah, a number of similar weak ahadith on a particular issue can be raised to the degree of hasan if the weakness found in their reporters is of a mild nature. Such a hadith is known as hasan li ghairihi (hasan due to others), to distinguish it from the type previously-discussed, which is hasan li dhatihi (hasan in itself). Similarly, several hasan ahadith on the same subject may make the hadith sahih li ghairihi, to be distinguished from the previously-discussed sahih li dhatihi.

However, in case the weakness is severe (e.g., the reporter is accused of lying or the hadith is itself shadhdh), such very weak ahadith will not support each other and will remain weak. For example, the well-known hadith, "He who preserves forty ahadith for my Ummah will be raised by Allah on the Day of Resurrection among the men of understanding", has been declared to be da'if by most of the traditionists, although it is reported through several routes" (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith by Suhaib Hassan, Al-Quran Society, London pp. 29)

"When a Hadith is reported with a weak chain, but has the support of another suitable chain or other texts on the same topic, it can be rightfully judged as sound (hasan lighayrihi)." (See Muqaddimah Ibnus Salah, Sharh Nukhbah and Tadribur Rawi, vol.3 pg.72-75.)

I'll also recommend you read Al-Hadith Al-Hassan li Dhaatihi wa li Ghairihi by Khalid Duraish from page 2083.

By the way, the weakness you are claiming for Aban cannot be used as the basis for discarding the narration, since there are other reports about him being trustworthy and refutation of him narrating munkar hadiths, that alone is enough to grade the hadith hassan even your favourite website Sunnah.com, the hadith was graded hassan by Darussalam!

So we go to the hadith in question,

Ibn Umar (ra) said that when Omar ibn Khattab (ra) became the Caliph he addressed the people and said: Verily, Allaah's Messenger (SAW) granted us the permission of temporary marriage three times. Then he declared it unlawful. By Allaah! I do not know any one contracting a temporary marriage while he is fortified by wedlock, but I shall stone him to death except that he presents four men who bear testimony that Allaah's messenger (SAW) made it lawful after he had made it unlawful.

The topic or the theme of the above narration is the prohibition of mut'ah by the Prophet (SAW), and secondarily, Umar (ra), banning mut'ah, based on the prohibition of the Prophet (SAW) AND NOT UMAR CLIMBING THE PULPIT. The Question is, did this narration go against any other narration with authentic chain?! The answer is NO! DO we have authentic narrations that states that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah?! YES! Do we have authentic narrations that states that Umar banned mut'ah based on the Prophet's prohibition?! YES!

Thirdly, weak hadiths are not discarded, they are not fabrications, even though they can not be used solely to derive rulings, they are used in other ways such as in biographies etc. Hence, if you are adamant that this narration is weak, then it doesn't remove the fact that we have other authentic narrations stating that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah!

By the way Albaqir, who graded the hadith weak?!

Empiree:
Now read this. Remember i asked you like twice if there is other form of nikkah besides "conventional marriage" as we know it?. You said nikah is nikah which means there is nothing like mulikayamin or muta etc. Now read this


Misyar now ‘a widespread reality’

“Misyar is widespread because many need to keep their marriages a secret, either due to the objection of the first wife or other family pressures,” Ali Al-Bakr, faculty member at KSU, told a local daily. Getting married in the Kingdom is no longer easy, according to one report, thanks to countless social and economic obstacles, including extortionate dowries, costly wedding extravaganzas and lack of housing.
In a misyar marriage the woman waives some of the rights she would enjoy in a normal marriage. Most misyar brides don’t change their residences but pursue marriage on a visitation basis. Some marriage officials say seven of 10 marriage contracts they conduct are misyar, and in some cases are asked to recommend prospective misyar partners.

http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/642991


Wallahi, mrolai has no case against shi'a. He needs to read this. Why condemn shi'a for holding on to alternative nikkah (mut'ah) while Sunni arabs do the very similar nikkah(misyar)?. See what the excerpt says, and watch sheikh Imran Hosein lecture i posted up there, he said something similar. And i have said the same that this alternative nikkah helps people from falling into zina. Now sino, why didnt saudi uphold kitab and sunnah injunctions which state to be chaste or fast instead of fornication?. Does the nikkah arrangement by Saudi constitutes zina or not?. Remember the reason for misyar in Saudi is bcus of growing cost of marriage to maintain their wife which Quran directly addressed. Why not order people to be chaste instead of giving them "plan B" solution to conventional marriage?


The article states further,

Some people believe that these factors have led to the widespread practice of misyar, which has flexible conditions compared with traditional marriages, as a last resort. “It remains an option, albeit a temporary one, which is, nevertheless, seen as unfair to women in many cases,” said a national.

Now, do you still believe there is no alternative nikkah?. You said marriage is marriage. Traditional marriage mentioned in this article refers to conventional marriage i have been talking about. Evidently, if Saudi did not employ this tactic, ,millions of their women would not be married bcus men can simply not afford the responsibilities. This is very similar to what the video said.


Functions of Misyra and Muta are the same. نقطة


And, please don't forget to read comments below the article

This is one of the comments. I can't stop laughing

Remember you made fun of albaqir earlier, what's the difference now


[b][/b]

Of course there is no alternative Nikkah! Misyar was not prescribed by the Prophet (SAW) nor can it be found in the Qur'an. Be that as it may, the most important thing for a Nikkah to be sanctioned in the Shari'ah is that it must comply with the conditions, and it must not be temporary. If a nikkah had been performed, and the conditions are met, then it is Nikkah.

Empiree:

Definitely, this would be strange to me too if I am in that region

Exactly what Saudi is doing in times of Hajj. I remembered my sister-in-law went for Umra this year and she was issued certificate of marriage to another man. But my brother to whom she is married to (was not with her) rejected the idea. So i don't get the idea of condemning shi'a now. Mrolai, over to you

I don't think it is Saudi that is doing this, confirm your information properly. What I know is like in Nigeria, because saudi doesn't allow a woman to travel alone for hajj except with a mahrahm, the hajj agency here starts fixing people together so as to make these women travel for hajj.