Empiree:
oh I see. Actually I don't think my arguments since the beginning of this thread is about @bold. It is actually and more accurately is in line with points raised in the video i posted.

My argument about muta since the beginning of this thread is about validity and practice of muta AFTER the demise of nabi (saw). I don't think I have raised issue with constraint about muta so far. I raised it when I posted the video.

Okay

Empiree:

if this is what he meant @underlined, I am sorry to disappoint you that he's right PRACTICALLY. I would imagine you would know this?. It is true that that's what Quran said (to stay chase). Thats theory. People can quote quran but when it comes to practical you know that it is not easy. Many would fall into zina. This is the reality. I don't think you viewed screenshots I posted few days ago. The sheikh said zina is everywhere but marriage is delayed. Why don't people fast?. I won't deceive myself. Don't take this to mean albaqir or me are underrating the solutions proferred by Quran and sunnah. Not at all. I'm am saying that majority of people including anti-muta actually commit zina while condemning muta. My argument for validity of muta is that it is not zina. If anyone says it is zina the implication is that you are accusing nabiy (saw) of recommending zina to sahaba at some point. That's why I said all arguments to ridicule muta are not valid except where it is reported he (saw) banned it at khaybar.

First I find your comment strange, saying what Allah (SWT) says is just theory is absurd! Allah (swt) created us and knows us completely, if it isn't in our capacity to be chaste, he wouldn't demand that from us! Why is sex the issue?! What about alcohol?! Gambling?! Are these vices not everywhere?!

What is apparent is that people are commiting zina in the name of mut'ah, mut'ah had been prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), and this was the consensus of the sahabas when Umar (ra) restated the prohibition, none of them countered him!

Empiree:

question I would like to ask you is that what solution do you have for these kids today who are sexually active and actually committing zina everyday? . Please don't tell me they need to fast bcus practically they wont unless you want to deceive yourself.

First mut'ah is never the solution for this, because even during the time it was permitted, it was during expeditions or long travelling. Secondly, Islam had already provided solutions with respect to training our children and living in the society. Early marriage is one of the solution, rather than allow your 15 year old daughter to be sleeping around, why not get her married?!

Empiree:

Anyways, I would like you to watch the video. If it's 44mins but the real concern actually started at around 18mins. I want to know your view. The sheikh said there exist other type of marriage similar to our normal marriage and that even sunni recognizes it with conditions.

I haven't watched the video, I will try to maybe later in the day in sha Allah.

Empiree:

But if u insist there is no alternative marriage, why do Arab sunni invented misyar which also has elements of muta?. Misyar is not even mentioned in the kitab and sunnah.

Let me remind you again that this is not about ignoring ayah of quran you quoted but I'm saying to you practically that most people do not abide by the injunction. They would commit zina. Maybe I should post the video for you to see. Will do that as soon as I get the chance. It says not all sunni ulama considered muta to be zina. The other video I posted says there is other type of marriage designed for specific female to avoid zina.

Remember people, that Quran can not be translated. We can only explain Quran. We should all know that by now.

Once the conditions of Nikkah are met, there is no issue, If the spouses agree to live seperately or that they would wait till after school to live together, that is irrelevant, once the conditions of nikkah are met, then they are married according to the Shar'ah.

Note: Mut'ah is quite different, for the conditions are not the same as Nikkah, the woman is not even called a wife, she has no right except for what she gets during the contract which is to be cheap, cos if it is expensive, then it defeats the purpose, again if she gets pregnant, it is her wahala, nothing binds the man to do anything, and once it is terminated, there is nothing to be given to her. Why people say it is prostitution is because they are similar, you pay for the services, which is sex! Would you like this for your daughter Empiree?!

AlBaqir:


# No one ask you for all those Tahrif. You are the one that brought what is not needed in trying to absolve Amr. You suggested "the slave is his", because there is no case in "sex with your slave".

# So, thank God for once you dropped your adamancy and accept Amr did MUT'AH with a slave girl and impregnated her.

# So, we are left with the word of Umar, "why not other than her"?

* In my view, that means Umar saw nothing wrong with MUT'AH so long you do it right i. e not take advantage of e.g a slave. What do you infer from the word of Umar?

Ask questions if you do not understand my posts. I asked you if the slave girl was his, which proved why the case was heard in the first instance. Since the slave girl has a master, Amr had no right to go into any relationship with her except through her master. The slave got pregnant, and had to be interrogated.

I never denied Amr did mut'ah, I challenged you to bring Amr's defense for doing mut'ah, and did he argue against Umar (ra)?! And did he continued to practice mut'ah afterwards?!

And Umar asking the question does not mean he sanctioned mut'ah aba! This is how you jump to conclusion anyhow. Umar (ra) banned mut'ah based on the sunnah of the Prophet (SAW), he never though it was permissible if done right, if that was his thought, he wouldn't say the Prophet (SAW) prohibited it!

AlBaqir:
The Hadith is nothing. Don't waste your time on it. And if you are adamant on it, then the problem bounce back upon Umar who permitted MUT'AH for almost entire duration of his reign as caliph.

# If truly, Umar believed that Prophet prohibited MUT'AH as said in the da'if Hadith, why offering Amr Ibn Hurayth an alternative of a free woman other than slave he did MUT'AH with, and impregnated?

# Offering him an alternative simply confirmed he sees nothing wrong doing it. This is the reason Imam Ibn Hazm conclude that:

"...It is narrated that ‘Umar b. al-Khattab only denied it if two just people did not act as its witnesses, and he considered it permissible if two just people acted as witnesses to it."

This explains why he said to Amr, "why not doing it with a free woman".

So I should forget about a narration that has known narrators, and corroboration to accept a narration with an unknown narrator?! And you are asking me to be sincere?!

Bro, there are authentic narrations from others that states categorically that Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah! And where did Umar offer Amr alternatives?! And tell me why I should accept Imama Ibn Hazm's claim when it contradicts authentic reports of prohibition?!

The narration you brought without reference is graded what and by who?!

AlBaqir:

# There are lots of philosophical questions you keep on evading tendering excuses over excuses. Islam is not about "text" alone, your Aql need to come along. And since you have buried your Aql, there is no use continuing with you.

What philosophical questions?! You bring your speculations and assumptions and you want to pass that as being academic and intellectual?! You cherry-pick narrations and quickly claim that narrations which are not inline with your argument are fabrications, and you do not think that your aql has long been buried in your prejudices?!

Abeg talk another story!

AlBaqir:

# Case of Ibn Abbas will continue to hunt you. Whether with or without necessity, he continue to affirm MUT'AH after being challenge by an "uncouth fellow".

You cannot deny the fact thar Ibn Abbas(ra) never did mut'ah himself after being challenged, and he considered it like eating PORK! We all know pork is HARAM!

AlBaqir:

# Please stop tendering that silly " ignorance" excuse. MUT'AH was practised for around 10 years by sahabah after the demise of Nabi yet you are saying it was out of ignorance! Can't you hear yourself.

* Under the watch of Abubakr and Umar only for the later to ban it because of Amr's case. Yet you are saying "out of ignorance"?!

* How is it possible that Abubakr, Umar, Asma bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq, Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, ‘Amr b. Ḥurayth, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and Salamah and Ma’bad – sons of Umayyah b. Khalaf, all never took the alleged prohibition at three different occasions into any consideration? Hahaha...!

Continue, Don't you have a narration that would even state that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali did mut'ah?! Ignorance still is an excuse, Asma bint Abi Bakr Al Siddq never did mut'ah, I had presented the refutation on that in another thread I had presented the link here, You couldn't give us the time Muhawiyyah did his mut'ah, Ibn Abbas himself never did mut'ah and he considered it like eating PORK, Amr Ibn Hurayth was ignorant of the prohibition because he never argued, and lived several years after the incidence and never did mut'ah again! One of the sons of Umayyah bin Khalaf was also a drunkard and eventually left Islam, I guess drinking is also permissible abi?! Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri didn't say mut'ah was permissible after the death of the Prophet (SAW), and there is no record he did mut'ah after it was banned by the Prophet (SAW).

AlBaqir:

# I've known you never to be sincere to yourself when it comes to dialogue like this.

You should ask yourself what is to be gained in your continuous support for mut'ah, what is the reward for it?! You have authentic narrations stating that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited it, even in your shi'ah books, there are narrations from your infallible Imams using derogatory words for it, yet you are adamant on it, tell us what is in it for you guys promoting an act with zero spirituality but many baggage?!

I as a Muslim, I have authentic words of the Prophet to tell Allah (SWT) why I say that mut'ah is haram, what do you have?! Philosophical questions?! Your aql suggesting that the narrations are fabricated?! Your assumptions and speculations that why didn't some sahabah heard the prohibition?

Now you be sincere with yourself!

AlBaqir:


# In Sunni interpretation of Islam, sex with your slave girl is halal. It is neither marriage nor MUT'AH.

So, the fact that the Hadith says it was MUT'AH that Amr admitted to have done with the slave girl, and Umar even proposed, "why not with other than a slave", clearly showed that the slave was not Amr's.

There's no escape bro.

What are you saying?! If you want to marry your slave girl, who do you go and meet to ask her hand in marriage?! You own a slave, this slave is one of your responsibilities, you care for her, you cloth her with what you cloth your family, you feed her with what you feed your family, you shelter her in your own house, so what else do you have to do to show that you want to marry her?! And by the way, you can even sell her without her consent! Of course Islam didn't establish slavery, but allowing for this kind of relationship between master and slave, allows for the slave to gain her freedom.

Allah (SWT) says:
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.(Qur'an 4:24)

Imam Maalik said:

In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta', Volume 2, page 734)

Imam Al Shaafi'i said:

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)

It is clear from the teachings of the Prophet (SAW) not to hurt slaves, so any form of relationship between a master and his slave must be based on mutual consent, and care. So no matter how you want to twist the narrations, Allah (SWT) permitted this relationship between master and slave, but all this is even irrelevant, cos we do not have slaves anymore.

Now Amr impregnated a slave which is not his, and claimed he did mut'ah. First issue is that, a slave has no right to consent to such a relationship, where would you put her owner?! Is a slave FREE to make such contracts on her own?!

AlBaqir:



Inna lillahi Wa inna ilayhi rajiun The Hadith is Da'if. Before given you my proof, let me ask you the following:

Da'if by who? you?

AlBaqir:

# Why didn't Umar stoned Amr Ibn Hurayth when he impregnated a slave girl he had MUT'AH with? Why did Umar even proposed Amr should have done MUT'AH with other than a slave? Is MUT'AH with slave not merit Umar's punishment of stoning?

Lol, you keep asking same questions as if such questions have the master key to prove mut'ah to be permissible. Do you have the information surrounding what happened between Amr and the slave girl?! Do you have the proceedings at the court presided over by Umar?! If you do not have any of these information other that the singular hadith, you cannot start asking silly questions...

AlBaqir:

# Did Umar forgot this alleged Hadith ni only for him to remember few years to the end of his reign? MUT'AH were continuously being performed by SAHABAH during Abubakr, and Umar's reign UNTIL toward the last reign of Umar!

This is another silly question, bring evidences of this continuous mut'ah, who and who are those that continued doing mut'ah?! By the way, saying we used to do mut'ah during this and than time, does not justify anything, for example, after Buhari implemented the TSA, Ministries and MDAs had it tough, because they had several accounts to siphon government money, some don't return the unspent money after the end of the budget year, but share the money. So If someone later now said, we used to share the money during Obasanjo, Yar'dua, Jonathan until later in Buhari's time when he implemented the TSA, does this statement justify the act of sharing the money?! Is sharing the money what the Nigerian constitution dictates?!

So if you want to claim that these sahabas practiced mut'ah based on the permission of the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW), then bring the evidences, those who did it, and referenced the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW), and not the "we used to do it" statement!

AlBaqir:

# Why did Ali said, "Had Umar not banned MUT'AH for people, only a wretched would have commit Zina"? Was it Umar's ban or Nabi's ban? It even clearly showed that People were seriously into MUT'AH then.

I have already provided narrations even from Ali (ra) stating that Prophet (SAW) was the one who prohibited mut'ah. The question you should be asking is why didn't Ali (ra) counter Umar (ra)?! And when Ali (ra) became the caliph, why didn't he revoke Umar's fatwa?! Abi how could Ali (ra) be looking and do nothing when a man just ban what you claim Allah (SWT) permitted and even used the Prophet (SAW) as his evidence for the ban?!

AlBaqir:

Too much discrepancies (as Qur'an puts it).

lol, for the one lacking in knowledge and understanding, yeah there are discrepancies in the Qur'an sef!

AlBaqir:

Ahlu Sunnah, fear Allah with all these fabrications in the name of Rasul and your sahabah.

Of course, you believe the narrations that supports mut'ah to be true, and those against mut'ah to be fabrications, who should fear Allah (SWT)?!

AlBaqir:

# SO TO THE HADITH:

NOTE: The hadith is actually ḍa’if. Concerning one of its narrators,

1. al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) states:

Aban b. ‘Abd Allah b. Abi Hazim b. Sakhr b. al-‘Aylah al-Bajali al-Ahmasi al-Kuf: Sadūq (very truthful), there is weakness in his memory.

Source: Aḥmad b. ‘Alī b. Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb (Beirut: Dār al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Muṣtafā ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā], vol. 1, p. 51, # 140 108


2. Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H) give us more details


Aban b. ‘Abd Allah al-Bajalī, from the people of Kūfa, and he was the one called Abān b. Abī Ḥāzim. He narrated from Abān b. Taghlib and the people of Kūfah. Al-Thawrī, Wakī’ and the people narrated from him. He was one of those whose mistakes were terrible, and who narrated manākīr (repugnant reports) without corroboration. Al-Hamdānī informed us, and said: I heard ‘Amr b. ‘Ali saying: “I never heard Yahya b. Sa'id al-Qaṭṭān ever narrating anything from him” – he meant Aban al-Bajali.

Source: Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān b. Aḥmad al-Tamīmī al-Bustī, Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn [annotator: Maḥmūd Ibrāhīm Zāyad], vol. 1, p. 99

So, how on earth can such Hadith be "Hasan"? Aban was in a worst situation. I wonder how Albani made such blunder grading the Hadith " hasan". I can give you link to those books for verification.

Now you have tried to be reasonable, this is what I expect of one who is sincere in searching for the truth, not your silly questions...

"The narration is authentic, even though Aban bin Abdullah bin Abi Hazim was weakened by some, one finds that he was deemed trustworthy by Yahya bin Ma’een, Imam Ahmad, and Ibn Numair. Ibn Adi adds that he did not find any munkar traditions from Aban. See Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb 1/54.

Yet, even if one were to accept the criticism of Ibn Hibban, who weakened him for relating uncorroborated traditions, we find that the narration by Omar is corroborated by Ali, Ibn Omar, Sabra, and Salama. Thus, to treat this report as an uncorroborated tradition is unjust."
Source

AlBaqir:

# Anyway, the theme of this thread is 100% established: Sahabah continue to approve and perform MUT'AH after the demise of Nabi. Tabi'ieen too followed suit. So, if MUT'AH was Zina, they ALL committed ZINA (ADULTERY AND FORNICATION) 100%..

Mut'ah is HARAM, anyone who did it then may have done so out of ignorance! If you cannot bring evidences of those who did it after being challenged, then you do not have a point! But we all know you don't base your judgement on evidences, you already believed majority of the sahabas were apostates na...

MrOlai:


Jazakumullah khaeran my Brother! The truth is crystal clear!

Wa iyyakum brother, except we want to deceive ourselves, the truth is CRYSTAL CLEAR ma sha ALLAH!

Empiree:
Sino, is your last post to me in reference to the video I posted up there? . In that case, obviously that's referring to men but sheikh is talking about overwhelming single females who can't find husbands bcus most male can't afford to take on second wife etc. .

So that verse appears to be talking to men.

Nope, my post is a response to you and AlBaqir with respect to not being able to do Nikkah due to some constraint like lack of money etc. AlBaqir wants us to believe that it is impossible to stay chaste (for some people), and fasting is not 100% solution. I would have even asked him when is it likely for one to be sexually active and start contracting mut'ah, I mean we have 12 years old who are sexually active, perhaps they can start doing that from that age....

AlBaqir:


Sometimes I ask myself if you think before you post at all. And what an unintelligent "probable insight".

# So your theory is that, Amr Ibn Hurayth actually forced "her slave" into fornication while she wish to be chaste?!

1. If that is the case, why did the report claimed it was MUT'AH?

2. Why did Umar not punished him for Zina, 100 lashes or stoning to death?

3. Why did Umar challenged him on alternative?

4. Did Umar covered the "Zina" up or were the narrators that covered it up, and smuggled that Amr performed "MUT'AH" instead of saying "he forced his slave into prostitution"?

You like chewing more than you can swallow.

First of all, does the slave girl belong to Amr Ibn Hurayth?! Because if she was his slave, then there would have been no case to begin with!

This is probably a case of ignorance on the part of Amr, since his excuse for impregnating a slave girl is that he did mut'ah. The slave girl had no choice because she was a slave! She had no say per se, she might be looking for a way to gain her freedom...So you chew on the possibilities, and stop thinking in one direction!

AlBaqir:


# Absolutely those challenges are big weight on your spine. Wallahi, they are powerful "theories".

Alhamdulillah you made mention of the Qur'an. So let me cite an ayah:

"Do they not contemplate Qur'an, had it been from other than Allah, they would have seen MUCH DISCREPANCIES in it"

# So, this is an open challenge. And here you are very afraid and pathetic of my "theories" upon that distorted, fake Hadith. I don't need to be a Saudi or Sunni scholar before I can challenge any Hadith written 100s of years after the sahabah. Those so-called books of ahadith are not infallible books. They are filled with errors and fabrications.

For your information, we have cases today whereby some ahadith have been EXPUNGED from sahih Muslim, Sunan Tirmidhi etc, whereas are used to be part of those books 100s of years back.

* So, my "theories" are 100% valid against that myth of a Hadith.

O ga o! Go online and see people with shallow knowledge and poor comprehnsion claim that there are discrepancies in the Qur'an, but shouting that this does not make sense or this is in contrary to this does not mean you have an idea of what you are talking about....Again, go to a reputable madrasah and learn and stop this your armchair hadith analyst based on your biased opinions and belief systems...We know that you only believe in hadiths that seemingly supports your weird beliefs, and turn blind eyes to the ones that clearly destroys them.

AlBaqir:

# I can NEVER fall for your little tactics of derailing. If you want my reply on the above, tag me on public thread. Focus on the theme of the thread.

Just say you do not have a response, I will understand.

AlBaqir:

# Please stand down on Ibn Abbas. There's nothing for you on his case. Whichever way you look at it, it is lose lose lose situation for you.

Nope, you are the one on the loosing end here, Ibn Abbas (ra) didn't do mut'ah, and there is a narration where he explained what he meant by permitting mut'ah stating that it is like eating PORK, and PORK is HARAM. So no escape for you on this one

AlBaqir:

# I have presented an athar about Mu'awiyah at the opening of this thread. There's no story on that. And as to "when"? The athar is informative in the fact that the Tabi that witnessed the scene and became bemused by it, going via his biography indicate the "when".

# Case of Amr:

1. Umar too didn't challenge Amr on any prohibition verdict. He even rebuked Amr, " why doing MUT'AH with a slave and got her impregnated, why not with a free woman".

2. Umar's imposed "personal" ruling and punishment of stoning on whoever continue to practice MUT'AH under his watch (as a result of Amr's case).

3. Lastly, @underline:

# Do you now agree there is no "ignorance excuse" of sahabah practising MUT'AH?

# Saying Prophet prohibited MUT'AH while "WE" used to practice MUT'AH after his demise completely make them: people of Zina and devifiant to Prophet's instruction.

Abeg tell us when Muawiyah did mut'ah! You are really funny, you just make up stories in your head and want right thinking Muslims to follow you in such self delusion?!

I have quoted a challenge made by Umar (ra), go and bring a rebuttal for that!

Amr ibn Hurayth impregnated a slave girl and claim he did mut'ah with her. Please inform us what is the ruling for a pregnancy from mut'ah?! Does the man have to be responsible for the upkeep?! Does the woman get anything except for the cheap thing which was used to contract the mut'ah?! What right does the slave girl have in such a relationship?! Why wouldn't Umar (ra) ask him why he had to do such with a slave girl with so many limitations?! Of course, Amr might not have been able to convince a free woman into such a relationship, hence he went for a slave who cannot reject him. Again, Amr did not continue with contracting mut'ah up and down after that, does it not suggest he wasn't aware of the prohibition in the first instance?! Wouldn't Amr ibn Hurayth protest against the ruling of Umar (ra) if he was sure that the Prophet (SAW) allowed it forever?!

AlBaqir:


# Indeed?!

# 1. All your so-called ahadith on MUT'AH prohibition are nothing but MYTH. Just, one of it, prohibition at Khaybar is under heavy shell on this thread. Am waiting for your "right thinking" self to defend our scrutiny over it.

NB: Please don't give me that pathetic excuse, "you have no right to say one Hadith is forged". If Qur'an is open to all sort of challenge to verify its authenticity (as a verse in sura Nisa proposes), what is collection of Hadith compiled 100s of years after Nabi's demise?!.

# So, if you take up the challenge of Khaybar, then we proceed to the other so-called prohibition at Fat'h Makkah and Hajjat wada.


2. Please, am not interested in your fantasies over Iran or whatever is going on there, or your usual ways of digressing the main theme of the thread. Please focus on points.

Bring academic analysis and not this your prejudiced opinions! If this is how to claim hadith are fabricated, then we wouldn't even have the Qur'an as an authentic book!

AlBaqir:

# The word " istamta" is "MUT'AH". Lobatan. And best of your Mufassirun have reported various sahabah and sunni Tabi'ieen that interpreted the verse to be "MUT'AH verse". So, the report is Mutawattir

Like I said earlier, that is the reason why some of your scholars like Imam Shafi'i, Ibn Hazm et al laboured hard to tender other verses that abrogated the verse.

You can lie for africa! Go to the thread I had presented the link previously, were you made similar claim of which I debunked! I don't have the luxury of time to go back and forth on this! A brother gave a challenge on here too, but you stylishly avoided that post

AlBaqir:

# On your second point: the point remained that you have a sahih Hadith which clearly established Ibn Abbas belief on MUT'AH when he claimed and sworn to Allah that the verse do not only refer to MUT'AH but also used to be read with " for a specific period". And interestingly, Ubai Ibn Kaab (best Quranic reciter) and few other sahabah recited the ayah with same phrase as Ibn Abbas.

Bros, bring where such recital is in the Qur'an, if it is not there, and was never there, then it was their personal opinion, they didn't say the Prophet (SAW) told them that it is mut'ah abi?! There is no sababu nuzul that states it was revealed in the case of mut'ah, no prophetic tradition stating that the Prophet (SAW) used it to declare permissibility of mut'ah, why will you, based on odd narrations claim that it is so?! Even Ibn Abba (ra) did not use it as a defence for his leniency! Aba! Na so you desperate so?! And you said you will never participate in it, I wonder why your blood come dey hot like this?! I hope your wife is with you in Iran o....

AlBaqir:

# Please stop messing with yourself. I am not hear to win any medal. You might oppose something, fine but be sincere to your intellect. The challenge is still there for you:

* Jabir reported that "We used to practice MUT'AH at the time of Nabi, Abubakr and Umar UNTIL towards the last reign of Umar because of the case of Amr Ibn Hurayth (a Sahabi that impregnated a slave girl in MUT'AH relationship).

Again Mr sino:

1. Who were "WE"

2. From Abubakr reign to Umar's last years of governing, how many years is that?

Don't be ridiculous, man.

"We" can just be 2 people and can be more. If you claim they are plenty, then you should be able to get the information I requested for na. So the sahabas practiced mut'ah a lot, and we do not have ample narrations of how, why, where and when? Does that make sense?!

AlBaqir:

* The question is NO sahabah other than Ibn Abbas was confronted on MUT'AH yet He NEVER surrender on MUT'AH verdict (whether with or without condition)

Bros, give me just 1 narration that says Ibn Abbas (ra) did mut'ah himself after he was challenged. Ibn Abbas (ra) clarified himself, he said mut'ah is like eating PORK, everyone knows that PORK is HARAM!

AlBaqir:

# Umar after MUT'AH was practised under his watchful eyes for years since the time of Abubakr ONLY imposed punishment on sahabah who used to practice MUT'AH. Umar NEVER EVER cited or reminded people of an alleged prohibition of Mut'ah.

Here is what Umar (ra) did:

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. (Source: Sunan Ibn Majah, Chapter: Prohibition of Nikkah Mut’ah haith number 1963 Grade: Hassan by Albaniy)

Guess what?! No one stood up to quote the verse of Mut'ah or cite the Prophet (SAW)....I guess they were too afraid of Umar.

AlBaqir:


# Why didn't Prophet prescribed fasting for those who intend to castrate themselves when their sexual urge was uncontrollable and their wives were not available with them?


# And can fasting suppress sexual desires? It can for some, and it cannot for some (especially after iftar).

A golden example: Allah revealed the secret acts of some sahabah in the holy month of Ramadan. Note: part of the initial rules and obligations of Ramadan fasting is NO SEX with your couple during the days and NIGHT. Yet, some sahabah were not able to keep up with this rule. Then, Allah revealed:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 187:

It is made lawful to you to go into your wives on the night of the fast; they are an apparel for you and you are an apparel for them; Allah knew that you acted unfaithfully to yourselves, so He has turned to you (mercifully) and removed from you (this burden); so now be in contact with them and seek what Allah has ordained for you, and eat and drink until the whiteness of the day becomes distinct from the blackness of the night at dawn, then complete the fast till night, and have not contact with them while you keep to the mosques; these are the limits of Allah, so do not go near them. Thus does Allah make clear His communications for men that they may guard (against evil).

Empiree,

And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you know that they are good and trustworthy. And give them something yourselves out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them (to prostitution), then after such compulsion, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to those women, i.e. He will forgive them because they have been forced to do this evil action unwillingly). (Qur'an 24:33)

Well, I don't think I need to write much after the above...Allah (SWT) said keep yourself chaste, and didn't say contract mut'ah!

And AlBaqir was asking why a slave girl with regards to Umar (ra)'s statement to Amr Ibn Hurayth, well, the above verse gives a probable insight to the reason behind Umar's statement.

AlBaqir:


# Kindly tell me how I do not have right to fault an out of placed and suspected Hadith?. Who give right to those who sanctions Hadith into sahih, daeef, mawdoo? No one give anybody the right. They only follow a system looking through the sanad and matn.


# That's a very good point @underline. Why is it so? Sunni have yet another sahih Hadith that says Nabi and his entourage only spent 3 DAYS at Khaybar. Remember, Khaybar was just at outskirt of Madina faah, never and never far away from home (Madina).

3 DAYS outing NEAR Madina, and you want me to believe:

1. Sahabah were caught up by sexual necessity (to the extent of castration) hence Nabi allowed MUT'AH for them then prohibited it? There is NO single reference that Mut'ah was EVER in practice before.


2. Now, again @underlined, how is it possible that Jabir Ibn Abdullah, Abdullah Ibn Umar, Anas Ibn Malik (carrier of Nabi's àgé aluwala), Zahir Al-Aslam, Abdullah Ibn Abbas and THE REST of ALL SAHABAH that participated in the conquest of Khaybar except ONE person, Ali missed the "prohibition of Mut'ah" announcement at Khaybar BUT DO NOT MISSED PROHIBITION OF EATING DONKEY'S meat?

Sino, Please think. Empiree, Lanrexlan, kazlaw2000, Rilwayne001, tintingz, and every sensible human being, tori Olohun am I the one assuming nonsense here ni?


3. Lastly, The same Ali that allegedly cautioned Ibn Abbas over MUT'AH referring to alleged prohibition at Khaybar was quoted in yet another Sunni sahih Hadith thus:

‘Alī, may Allāh be pleased with him, said: ‘If ‘Umar, may Allāh be pleased with him, had not forbidden mut’ah, none would have committed zinā except a wretched person.

* Did he forgot the alleged Khaybar prohibition ni?

See all these your speculations are not knowledge, you are just theorizing, and you want everyone to accept that?! Scholars work with what is available, use a very strict process in authenticating a narration, mind you, this is also the process employed with the Qur'an, so if you want to criticize a narration, please do so academically, not your own assumptions and speculations!

Also, I always praise Allah (SWT) for making Ali (ra) come as the fourth Caliph, for one wouldn't have known that Ali (ra) never changed the rulings of his predecessors (because they were on the truth)...So why didn't Ali (ra) revoke the prohibition by Umar (ra)?! And let me also do what you do, why didn't Ali (ra) quote the Qur'an, at least Ali (ra) is the gate of knowledge, he knows the whole Qur'an and knows the Shari'ah, how can he be comfortable to allow a man change the law of Allah (swt) which according to you was clearly stated in the Qur'an?!

Now you THINK!

AlBaqir:

# Now you are talking from two mouths saying:

1. They might not be aware of final prohibition

2. Might think Prophet's prohibition doesn't matter when necessity present itself.

Bro, do you think at all?

* Jabir, Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Umar, to mention but few. All of them participated and reported Hadith from all the 3 occasions (Khaybar, Fat'h Makkah, Hajjat wada) that Nabi allegedly prohibited MUT'AH yet "only Ali refer to old skull Khaybar's prohibition, and not later alleged prohibition"? The rests did not even refer to either of the three occasions!

* Your second assumption is worse. The case of Mu'awiyah or Amr Ibn Hurayth (a Sahabi) who impregnated a slave girl was never out of the so-called "pork-haram-halal" necessity. Kódà Umar gann dasi saying, "why doing MUT'AH and impregnated a SLAVE GIRL? Why not other than her (i.e a free woman)?

See, I am only finding excuses for Ibn Abbas (ra), I can only do that and not pass judgement when I have limited information, and for the fact that Ibn Abbas (ra) compared mut'ah to eating pork, then he probably believed it to be haram as well!

Mu'awiyah did mut'ah when?! And did Amr Ibn Hurayth continued to indulge in mut'ah after the said inciddent?! Ignorance can be used for Amr Ibn Hurayth, because he didn't challenge Umar (ra) nor did he continue to do mut'ah afterwards. By the way, a sahabah involving himself in haram does not justify the acts na abi?! Again, sahabahs are not infallible!

AlBaqir:


# Kindly leave "you guys" out of the picture. So, it seems your conclusion now is that Mut'ah is not Zina IF it is done out of necessity but becomes Zina if there is no condition attached?

My conclusion had always been that mut'ah is haram!And I wouldn't leave you guys, you are promoting what the Prophet (SAW) had prohibited, not to even mention that you guys have turned it into prostitution especially in Iran like those men who had sex change, who eventually sell their fake sex for money in the name of mut'ah.

AlBaqir:

1. # Imam Tabari, Ibn Kathir, al-Hakam, Dhahabi, all documents:

Abū Naḍrah: I read to Ibn ‘Abbās: {Those of them with whom you contract mut’ah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He (Ibn Abbas) 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.”


2. You yourself just quoted Hadith that Ibn Abbas replied that Mut'ah was practised at the lifetime of the Prophet.

I have challenged you to show me this statement in the Qur'an, it is not there, it was never there, and it can never be there! Secondly, I was referring to the narration where Ibn Abbas was challenged for being lenient, he didn't quote the Qur'an, and didn't quote the Prophet (SAW) directly!

AlBaqir:

# Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari (a prominent Sahabi for that matter) made two claims which is the conclusion of my point. While he was lecturing the confused Tabi'ieen said:

1. WE USED TO PERFORM MUT'AH. What does he meant by "WE"?

2. During the time of Nabi, Abubakr and Umar UNTIL towards the end of Umar's reign.

* Abubakr ruled for 2 + years

* Umar ruled for 12 years

Kindly do the math. Even if you conclude at 7 years, am good.

Bros, na you be the information minister na, give us the details, who were they? who did they do the mut'ah with? How did they do this their mut'ah?

AlBaqir:

# So, @underlined, in one word, there is no defence for ALL the sahabah that continued to practised MUT'AH after Nabi allegedly prohibited it.




Perhaps, but:
# The point still remains that Sunni best of the best Tabi'ieen like SA'ID Ibn JUBAYR, A'ta, Tawus and the rest of MAKKAN'S jurists (except he with a clear record of retraction) continue to followed the sahabah who enjoyed and enjoined MUT'AH after the death of Nabi.

There is always the excuse of ignorance, and for the record, I have not seen any narration showing any sahabah continued to practice mut'ah after being confronted or challenged...If you want to claim contrary, bring the narration, let us all see!

Empiree:
As in, aside from CONVENTIONAL MARRIAGE as we know it, does islam allows for other type of nonconventional marriage for necessities but doesn't have to be temporary?.

Okay, Nikkah is Nikkah once all the conditions for a Nikkah are met. I don't know of non conventional nikkah out of necessity, what Islam prescribes is to get married if you can, and if you cannot, then engage in fasting.

Empiree:
Actually, question i have for sino is, do you believe there exist a non-conventional nikkah besides conventional marriage or not?

Bro, I do not understand your question...

AlBaqir:


Ògá Aminu kano, Abeg just dey watch jare





# I submit that this alleged Hadith attributed to Ali is nothing but forgery and I challenge the Hadith for two reasons:

1. Why was Ali's report different from others on the same incident of Khaybar's prohibition? Only Ali's hadith seems to have added "prohibition of Mut'ah" to Donkey's meat on the conquest of Khaybar.

Following are other eyewitnesses of Prophet's order at Khaybar:

# Narrated Ibn `Umar:
The Prophet made the meat of donkeys unlawful on the day of the battle of Khaibar.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/72/48

NB: Little wonder why Ibn Umar had NOTHING to quote from the Prophet regarding "prohibition of Mut'ah" when he was against Ibn Abbas.


# Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:
On the Day of the battle of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle made
donkey's meat unlawful and allowed the eating of horse flesh.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/72/47

NB: No wonder Jabir Ibn Abdullah continue to enjoined MUT'AH after the demise of the Prophet. He was not only100% present at Khaybar, Fat'h Makkah and last Hajj but also narrated what happened in those three outing. How is it possible to have missed the Prophet's alleged Prohibition of Mut'ah in ALL those three occasions?



# Narrated Zahir Al-Aslami:
(who was one of those who had witnessed (the Pledge of
allegiance beneath) the Tree) While I was making fire
beneath the cooking pots containing donkey's meat , the
announcer of Allah's Apostle announced, "Allah's Apostle forbids you to eat donkey's meat ."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/215

NB: You can see English translator's interpolation in bracket. The Hadith is about prohibition of donkey's meat at Khaybar, and obviously the Sahabi witnessed the event. Why is the translator referring us to Hudaybiyyah that was 2 - 3 years before Khaybar? Anyway, no brackets information in the Arabic text of the Hadith.



# Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We reached Khaibar early in the morning and the inhabitants of Khaibar came out carrying their spades, and when they saw the Prophet they said, "Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." We then got the meat of donkeys (and intended to eat it), but an announcement was made by the announcer of the Prophet, "Allah and His Apostle forbid you to eat the meat of donkeys as it is an impure thing."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/238



# NONE of these ahadith made mention of "Mut'ah prohibition" at Khaybr. Were all these 4 sahabah missed the part of "Mut'ah prohibition" when Prophet and his announcer made the announcement publicly? Did Nabi told ONLY Ali privately leaving the rest into "zina". Authubillah!

No doubt, as usual in the so-called sahih, foul play have been made to the Hadith and whose name would have been in a best position to be used other than Ali, the leader of Shi'a?!



2. Why would Ali used the "prohibition of Mut'ah" at Khaybar (7 A.H) as a reference point to Ibn Abbas after the demise of the Prophet?

* This can ONLY make sense and be valid had that "prohibition" be a FOREVER prohibition.

* For a fact, Sunni still have ahadith that claimed Nabi forbid MUT'AH on the conquest of Makkah (in 9 A.H) and Hajjat wada (in 10 A. H) AFTER he allowed it for few nights. At both events, Ali FULLY participated. Why did Ali used the alleged prohibition at Khaybar not the last alleged prohibition?

* Allowing MUT'AH post Khaybar destroyed the alleged prohibition at Khaybar.




# The statement of your Imam Ibn Hazm saying "...and the rest of MAKKAN'S jurists", might be faulty then as you have removed rope from one of them.

# Anyway, Ibn Hazm made mention of few names which did not include Ibn Jurayj. This perhaps in the language of " generality" means "all of the jurists except very few" which in such situations is insignificant. Or Ibn Hazm might not know or seen Ibn Jurayj's stance on MUT'AH.


# Anyway, I have NOTHING to do with "Ibn Jurayj". My business as explicitly highlighted is on "SA'ID IBN JUBAYR, (AND A'TA, TAWUS)", Sunni's greatest Tabi'ieen who liken MUT'AH's easiness and approval to DRINKING water.




# Abeg, which information You can see you are not " right thinking ".

I await more "information ".

Oga Ade! you have no point! claiming a hadith is forgery based on just how you think Ali (ra) should have reported the prohibition to Ibn Abbas (ra)? or why others did not relate the same prohibition...Was it not possible that the prohibition were not done the same day and time at khaybar?! Even from the reports you have presented, it clearly shows that it was likely that the two prohibition were not on the same day or time, and Ali (ra) made reference to that which he was a witness of. If you want to claim forgery or fabrication, go through the process of scholars, and not this armchair hadith analyst you are forming abeg...

The information I had presented paints a clear picture, mut'ah was prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), those who opined the permissibility as with cases of necessity were probably unaware of the final prohibition or still believed that it doesn't matter, since necessity does make some haram permissible like eating pork, and if you do not have convincing evidence(s) to state contrary other than your cherry-picking and assumptive speculations, then I am afraid you are on your own!

AlBaqir:
* You like jumping like "mountain goat" without fully understand the theme of the thread. Am afraid, it isn't about Shia, or about validity/invalidity of Mut'ah. Empiree, only forced my hand to post few note on meaning of Mut'ah and its prove.

Trust me the thread is about your Salafs performing and approving MUT'AH AFTER the demise of the Prophet. Sorry man

Well sorry to disappoint you, I presented relevant narrations to show that no sahabah believed in mut'ah marriage as you guys do, especially Ibn Abbas (ra) who only believed it to be a case of necessity like eating pork! Again, even if some sahabahs did perform mut'ah after the demise of the Prophet (SAW), we do have ample evidences that states that majority of the sahabah were against it, and for the record, none of those who practiced it produced any Qur'anic verse that permits mut'ah, and no direct statement from the Prophet (SAW), except we used to practice it during the life of the Prophet (SAW). What we have, is permission during cases of necessity and direct prohibition afterwards from the Prophet (SAW)!

AlBaqir:

# ALL THE ABOVEMENTIONED AHADITH YOU HAVE QUOTED HAVE BEEN QUOTED ALREADY AND THEY ALL STILL POINT TO THE FACT THAT ABDULLAH IBN ABBAS ALLOWED MUT'AH AFTER THE DEMISE OF NABI

So, pay attention to these few points:

1. There is NOTHING like him being "ignorant of the alleged Prophet's prohibition". Therefore, if MUT'AH is regarded as ADULTERY, that means Abdullah IBN Abbas supported adultery, and for hearing the so-called "prohibition" but continue to support MUT'AH, suggest he didn't agree with his antagonists.

This is what made Sheik al-Albani concluded that most authentic ahadith from Ibn Abbas regarding MUT'AH is that:

A. He allowed it WITHOUT any condition

B. He allowed it with condition/necessity

C. Hadith that say he retracted from it are all DAEEF.

First and foremost, what the prophet (SAW) permitted was not adultery or zina, as clearly stated before, it was a case of necessity, as some were on the verge of castrating themselves.... This is a far cry from what you guys practice in the name of mut'ah!

Ibn Abbas (ra) did not attribute the permissibility of mut'ah to the Qur'an or the Prophet (SAW), he even opined that it is only allowed in cases of necessity which is in congruence with the permissiblity given by the Prophet (SAW) at the expeditions he (SAW) allowed it. Even at that, there were notable sahabas who confronted him, but he didn't give any convincing evidence, he didn't bring the "verse" of Mut'ah, and he didn't challenge those who informed him of the prohibition by the Prophet (SAW). It is clear that Ibn Abbas (ra) was just sticking to his opinion, and mind you, the narrations from Ibn Abbas (ra) clearly explains his position, there are no two opinions of Ibn Abbas on mut'ah...For the fact that his opinion is that mut'ah is like permission to eat pork out of necessity,then you cannot say Ibn Abbas (ra) gave a free pass on mut'ah. Also we do not have any record of Ibn Abbas (ra) performing mut'ah himself, or do you have such narration sheikh AlBaqir?!

AlBaqir:

2. That was Abdullah ibn Abbas, we have mentioned few other sahabah who enjoyed MUT'AH after the demise of Nabi, and there is no record whether they CHANGED their mind on its permissibility. Umar known for his FORCED laws, punishment and temperamental nature forbid the sahabah towards the end of his reign BECAUSE of a case of a Sahabi that impregnated a slave girl in MUT'AH relationship. So, meaning that, as Jabir ibn Abdullah revealed Sahabah enjoyed MUT'AH for almost 12 years of Abubakr and Umar's reign.

You have to present the list of those sahabas that were involved and enjoyed mut'ah for 12 years, not this your market women assumptions abeg! Who were they?! who did they perform mut'ah with?! what was their evidence to continue performing mut'ah after the death of the prophet (SAW)?!

AlBaqir:

3. Those (interestingly including the same Abdullah ibn Abbas) that made analogy of necessity of Mut'ah with dead meat or pork will have to give us their proof from the Prophet.

* Was Amr ibn Hurayth, a Sahabi who impregnated a slave girl during the reign of Umar was in such a "pork-dead meat" situation? Imagine, Umar even told him, "why doing Mut'ah with a slave girl? Why not other than her (a free woman)"

* Was Mu'awiyah who entered into a known woman in Ta'if and performed Mut'ah with her was also in the same so called condition of "pork-haram-halal" necessity?

* At the time of Nabi, as read in the hadith of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, even some sahabah felt reluctant to do Mut’ah after Prophet allowed them, he (saws) further told them with ayah of Qur'an, "Do not make Haram what has been made Halal for you".

Could that scenario be liken to the so-called "dead/pork/Haram/halal" necessity?

All these assumptions and speculations are not tenable in cases of halal and haram in Islam, you don't go assuming things and then make claims...And the actions of a sahabah are his, and there are hidden information which you cannot claim to know of. By the way, sahabas are not infallible, and you would really gain nothing if you go searching for those that commit this or that sin, what is obvious is that, Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah after he had allowed it during cases of necessity like during war! Again it is Ibn Abbas's opinion that mut'ah is only allowed in cases of necessity like eating pork! The narrations from the Prophet (SAW) suggests permissible during necessity, and of course, another clear narration from the Prophet indicates prohibition.

AlBaqir:

4. Ibn Abbas VS Ibn Zubair:

* Apart the fact that the Hadith further confirmed the approval of Abdullah Ibn Abbas of Mut'ah, he SWORN BY ALLAH that MUT'AH was enjoyed and enjoined at the time of the Prophet. Interestingly, Ibn Zubair has absolutely NO counter against Ibn Abbas whether by quoting Prophet's alleged prohibition or somebody else. He only resulted into rough and violent statement.

You know I had advised you to go write for nollywood, you just dey waste your talent ...It is already established what Prophet (SAW) permitted mut'ah during his life, and during his life time, he prohibited it! So if you want to establish how the sahabahs enjoyed mut'ah during the life time of the Prophet (SAW), you should bring evidences of those who did, when they did it, who they did it with!

AlBaqir:

# Here's another man in the thinking of Ibn Zubair. No reference to Prophet's prohibition against Ibn Abbas (who perhaps might rebuked him too as an uncouth being). Ibn Umar too only used his dead father's forced punishment.

First, Ibn Abbas (ra) never brought evidence from the Prophet (SAW), he only said they did so when he was alive, we already know why, where and when the Prophet (SAW) permitted mut'ah. Ibn Abbas (ra) didn't quote Qur'an or statement of the Prophet (SAW)...But what we have on record from the Prophet (SAW) was permissibity during necessity, like during war, then another Prophetic narration prohibiting it forever...So you need to be sure who you are following with respect to what is halal and what is haram...

AlBaqir:

# Please, is that desperation or confusion alagba sino?

1. It was NOT Albaqir that believed MUT'AH to be like drinking water o. It was one of your Sunni greatest Tabi'ieen, Sa'id Ibn Jubayr.

2. Again, It was not Albaqir o, it was one of your Sunni greatest Imams, Ibn Hazm that claimed that, "...AND THE REST OF (tabi'een) MAKKAH'S JURISTS (allowed and approved MUT'AH)"

* Always pay right attention and do not let desperation, confusion and frustration make you lie.

I have quoted one of the jurist of Makkah (d. 150AH) who retracted his fatwa permitting mut'ah, probably this jurist had been in error, and realized so based on convincing evidences that came to light after he had permitted it. What I am really particular about is the fact that we have on record, prohibition from the Prophet (SAW). There is no statement from the Prophet (SAW) that says mut'ah is halal, no Qur'anic verse(s), and an act being permitted as a case of necessity does not equal halal continuously, the reason Ibn Abbas explained his opinion, that it is like eating pork! So do you have the evidences of those you mentioned above that made them approve mut'ah?!

Empiree:
salaam alaikum sino,

Your writeup got holes in my view. You got two problems:

# comparison btw Mutah, pork or swine etc


# and then you said it is forbidden still.


Pork or swine has always made HARAM. There was no time in history of Islam it was halal. It is ONLY exception in case of necessity.

Mutah on the other hand was HALAL at out start(Allah did not order fawaish) before it was forbidden. See the difference?. And now you said it is only an exception in case of neccesity like "scarcity of women" ? . During the time of nabI (saw), was mutah practiced because of SCARCITY OF WOMEN?. WAS THAT THE REASON FOR MUTAH?. Please I would like to see evidence of that. Thanks.

I believe that mutah is indeed a case of neccesity even now in 2017. This is not like the case of pork. Pork was always Haram. The implication is that, according to your post, if mutah is an alternative exception then it is not haram. Now blames are shifted on s. Ibn Abass (r). I have no problems with mutah being banned in the lifetime of the prophet (saw) but why did they continue to practice it afterward? . Were women scarced still?.

Anyways, this is not "SUSHI" thing anymore because sunni arabs themselves practice "misyar", and misyar has element of mutah attached. So what's the fuss exactly?. I have always said that sunni in most cases are guilty of the very same thing they abused shii of.

Once again, similarity you drawn btw mutah and pork is ilogical. If the condition in the time of nabi (SAW) which brought about mutah to begin with is here today, mutah is still valid on the basis of that. Mutah is not about meeting any woman and jump into it.

Wa alaykum salam brother Empiree, first and foremost, according to books of tafsir, there is no verse permitting mut'ah marriage, as i have said earlier, this had already been dealt with, you may read the link provided. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no man that would boldly go against a CLEAR-CUT verse of the Qur'an, and there would be no sahabah who could bring that verse as evidence against him?!

Be that as it may, the permissibility of mut'ah attributed to the Prophet (SAW) were only in cases of necessity as the following narration suggests:

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

You can clearly see that it wasn't a case of free for all... All other permisibility were never attributed to the Prophet (SAW)! Even Ibn Abbas (ra) believed it to be a case of necessity like eating pork, it was Ibn Abbas's opinion, his ijtihad, not mine, and a sahaba's opinion is not binding, since there is an authentic narration which states categorically of mut'ah being banned forever!

You would see AlBaqir and his fellow shi'a condemn fasting during ashurah, observing tarawih in jama'ah and making it up to twenty raka'aat, even though these activities are associated with rewards according to authentic narrations, they would label those narrations lies, fabrications, they even would accuse Umar (ra) for practicing bid'ah, even though these acts which are supererogatory in nature, would have been championed by them if it was prescribed by one of their ayatollah or sheikhs...But when it comes to mut'ah, with absolutely zero reward spiritually, and with loads of baggage, which AlBaqir himself would not practice or allow his daughter to be involved in, coupled with narrations from "infallible" using derogatory statement with regards to this mut'ah, you would see them championing it, writing epistles and trying too hard to rope in the sahabas into their perverted activities...

Anyways, the topic had already been discussed in the past, I'll just present some aspect necessary here:

"These are the Sahih narrations:

5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»

Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.” (Sahih Bukhari)

In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”

What we gather from the above hadith is that, Ibn Abbas thought Mut'ah to be permissible like eating pork due to necessity, this alone defeats any other argument to say that Mut'ah is still permissible, for we know that the ruling on pork meat is Haram! Asliyan!

But did other sahabas agree with him?! we read further that some sahabas questioned his judgement amongst them were...

1. Ali (ra)
5115 – حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ الزُّهْرِيَّ، يَقُولُ: أَخْبَرَنِي الحَسَنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، وَأَخُوهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: «إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنِ المُتْعَةِ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الحُمُرِ الأَهْلِيَّةِ، زَمَنَ خَيْبَرَ»

Al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin ‘Ali and his brother Abdullah bin Ali both narrate from their father [i.e. Ibn al-Hanafiyyah] that ‘Ali said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade from Mut’ah and the eating of domestic donkey’s flesh during the time of Khaybar.”

In Sahih Muslim it is like this:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، وَعَبْدِ اللهِ، ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُلَيِّنُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ، فَقَالَ: «مَهْلًا يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، فَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْإِنْسِيَّةِ»

‘Ali heard of Ibn ‘Abbas being lenient regarding Temporary marriage so he said to him, “Wait O Ibn ‘Abbas! Indeed the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) forbade it during Khaibar and from the meat of domestic donkeys.”

In another version of Sahih Muslim he said to Ibn ‘Abbas, “You are a person who has been led astray…”

2. Abdullah bin Zubair (ra)

حَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ، فَقَالَ: «إِنَّ نَاسًا أَعْمَى اللهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ، كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ، يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ»، يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ، فَنَادَاهُ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ، فَلَعَمْرِي، لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ – يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ: «فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ، فَوَاللهِ، لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لَأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ»

Abdullah bin Zubair stood up in Makkah and said referring to a person, “Allah has made some people hearts blind as they as He has made their eyes blind; they issue verdict in favor of Mut’ah.” So that person called him and said, “You are uncouth and lacking in manners. By Allah, Mut’ah was practiced during the time of the leader of the pious i.e. the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).” Ibn az-Zubair said to him, “Then do it by yourself. By Allah if you do that I will stone you with your own stones.”

3. Ibn Abi ‘Amrah al-Ansari objected to Ibn ‘Abbas on his view on Mut’ah. Hence, Abdur-Razzaq reports in “Al-Musannaf” (14033) through Az-Zuhri from Khalid bin Muhajir:

عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِي، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: أَرْخَصَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ: «مَا هَذَا يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ؟» فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فُعِلَتْ مَعَ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ: «اللَّهُمَّ غُفْرًا، إِنَّمَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ رُخْصَةً كَالضُّرُورَةِ إِلَى الْمَيْتَةِ، وَالدَّمِ، وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ، ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الدِّينَ بَعْدُ»

Ibn ‘Abbas permitted Mut’ah so Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said to him, “What is this O Ibn ‘Abbas?” He said, “I did it during the time of the leader of pious.” Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said, “May Allah forgive. Indeed Mut’ah was an exemption like in the case when the dead meat, blood or the flesh of swine is necessary. Then Allah completed his religion after that.”

4. ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar also raised his voice against Ibn ‘Abbas regarding Mut’ah. Abdur-Razzaq (14035) reports:

14035 - عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، قِيلَ لِابْنِ عُمَرَ: إِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ: «مَا أَظُنُّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ هَذَا». قَالُوا: بَلَى، وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَيَقُولُهُ قَالَ: «أَمَا وَاللَّهِ مَا كَانَ لِيَقُولَ هَذَا فِي زَمَنِ عُمَرَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ عُمَرُ لَيُنَكِّلُكُمْ عَنْ مِثْلِ هَذَا، وَمَا أَعْلَمُهُ إِلَّا السِّفَاحَ»

Saalim said: It was said to Ibn ‘Umar that Ibn ‘Abbas permits Mut’ah with women. He said, “I do not think Ibn ‘Abbas says that.” They said, “Indeed, by Allah he says that.” So he said, “By Allah, he would not say such a thing during the lifetime of ‘Umar. Indeed ‘Umar would punish you on such things. And I do not think of it except as adultery.” – This narration is present in Sahih Muslim but without mentioning Ibn ‘Abbas. "

You may read more at: https://www.nairaland.com/1946601/wont-stop-opposing-sunnah-mutah/2

So we have Sahabahs confronting Ibn Abbas (ra) about his leniency for mut'ah, even with the fact that Ibn Abbas (ra) thought it to be only permissible in cases of necessity just like eating pork! Yet, AlBaqir wants us to believe mut'ah is permissible like drinking water?!

AlBaqir would also claim that majority of the Makkans practiced mut'ah, but the following information put things in proper perspective:

Ibn Jurayj a Makkan Jurist died AH 150 was reported thus...

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani (rah) reports regarding ibn Jurayj’s (rah) opinion of Mut`ah: “Abu `Awanah narrated in his Sahih from ibn Jurayj that he said to them in Basarah: “Bear witness that I have retracted my Fatwa.” After he narrated to them eighteen narrations that there was no harm in it.”
source: al-Talkhees al-Habeer 3/160, Musnad abi `Awanah 3/31 #4087.

With all these information, why would any right thinking Muslim still want to believe mut'ah is permissible?!

AlBaqir:


# Aishah, prior to Umar had said the same thing:

Imam ibn Majah documents:

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“ The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” 


# What else do you need omokunrin yi? Agidi ko, wallahi. This issue is a no defense issue.

Authenticity of the narration:

Whenever we have a narration we ought to see whether it is authentic or not? The narration infact has some problems.
The particular chain given in Sunan Ibn Majah finds one of the narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq narrating it using the word عن ('an) which is rather an ambiguous way of narration and renders the narration weak when used by a narrator known for practicing Tadlis [practice of subtly missing a link] and Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is indeed such a narrator. Thus through particular chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah the narration is weak and unauthentic due the above mentioned defect though it has other issues as well as mentioned in the lines to follow. This is clarified by Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.

In Musnad Ahmad the same narration is given through the same chain but with an explicit way of narration i.e. it does not have the defect like the narration in Ibn Majah’s collection. But the narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from 'Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. And due to thefact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaut has classified it as Da’if in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359.

You should read more Here

Keep on with your independent thinking and cherry-picking of hadiths, it only shows your deficiencies, and raises a LARGE question mark on your sincerity....

AlBaqir:


Now I see how confused you are. He yah. Read the words of your lord Umar once again:


# Imam Bukhari documents:

Ibn Abbas reported Umar ibn al-Khattab to have made the following long sermon:


"...Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the VERSE OF THE RAJAM (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Messenger (s) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession...

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 6830 
In-book reference  : Book 86, Hadith 57 
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/86

* Are you kidding me Mr sino? This is a plain blue black, and your desperation can never make it yellow.

You are not different from the ignoramus who picks an ayah in the Qur'an about killing the disbelievers, and starts shouting all over the place that Muslims are terrorists and the Qur'an confirms it, Allah had instructed them to kill non-Muslims. One other similarity again is that, no matter how you want to help their self-inflicted ignorance, they remain stubborn and obnoxious...

I do not know where you now know better than Umar (ra) himself, when he (ra) had already explained that the verse of stoning was never part of the Qur'an to start with...Let me help with relevant narrations:

"It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said,
'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.' (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih. al-Dhahbi agreed with him)

About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:

"'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)"

"Umar (ra) said:

"Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran."(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151. Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih)

And according to the wording in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 , he said 'I would have written and appended it to the Quran.' "

Now the above narrations put everything into proper perspective, Umar (ra) never claimed the verse of stoning was part of the Qur'an at any given time, he himself wouldn't even try to add it as a footnote or appendix. Just as he feared, and how the Jews and Christians abandoned it, although it was A VERSE REVEALED IN THE TORAH, which we Muslims also believe to be a revelation, some Muslims are also criticizing it and running away from it, saying it is not in the Qur'an!

Allah (SWT) says in the Qur'an about the Prophet (SAW), "he does not speak out of desire, but a revelation that is revealed". So if stoning of the adulterous is established from the Prophet (SAW), and you do not have any concrete evidence that proves otherwise, other than your independent thinking and desire, then you should be asking yourself if you are indeed a believer in the Prophet (SAW) and the message of Islam....

AlBaqir:


# Please where's the defense of Umar in the above copy-paste on his clear statement about "verse of stoning"?

# Please stop copy-pasting and be independent of your thinking for once.

Oga Ade! Umar's (RA) statement in my post already cleared the air. If Umar (ra) himself would rather not write on the margins or like a footnote, then it was not meant to be part of the Qur'anic text. Umar (ra) said it was a revelation, and they memorized it, He didn't say it was part of the Qur'an, or is the Qur'an the only revelation to the Prophet (SAW)?! The narration which you are pointing to had already been analysed, go to the link and read!

Yorubas would say, "Ogbon ologbon ni kii je a pe agba ni were" , and in research, you look into previous studies to learn, critic, or agree. You have been doing your own independent thinking based on one or two narrations, coupled with your obvious prejudices, and you want everyone to follow such path?! I am open-minded, and I read a lot once a topic interests me, unlike you, I am not afraid to read, understand a view/opinion, and then decide what the truth is based on the strength of the argument and evidences provided.

AlBaqir:


Wallahi its hilarious to me. Obviously, Mr sino seem not to know what to copy-paste sometimes or he's very lazy to read and pinpoint the dangers some authors will create for him in the long run. Remember he once accused me of using derogatory term on Umar (in my thread about Umar's contributions in Battle) yet on that same thread he copy-pasted an author that used a more derogatory terms for Umar while defending him.

AlBaqir:


# So, the sheik did not believe in those ahadith in sahih Bukhari (Umar's narration), and Abu Dawud (Aisha's narration)?!

# Obviously, the sheik knew the danger in believing those ahadith therefore made a fastest run by rejecting them. Poor him.

# Empiree, se una see world's eyes (oju aye)?

"Did Caliph Umar actually think some verse was missing?

Most certainly Caliph Umar knew well and understood that the particular words 'When a married man or woman commit adultery, stone them (to death)'are not meant to be the part of the actual text of the Holy Quran. This is clear from another tradition in which he said:

"Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran."(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151. Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih)

And according to the wording in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 , he said 'I would have written and appended it to the Quran.'

Now idea of writing at the margin of the Quran or adding as an appendix clearly shows that he only meant to add it as side note or commentary to the Quran to tell the future generations explicitly about the punishment of stoning whom he feared rejecting this commandment and going astray.

The above detail makes it absolutely clear that never was there any verse about stoning a part of the Quranic text."


Your constant attack on my presentations (which are duly referenced) only shows your desperation, and your inadequacies with respect to knowledge and the means to acquiring knowledge. It is a shame you couldn’t go to the links to read and understand the view of the author/the Sheikh, it is then even worse and pathetic that you couldn’t comprehend the excerpts I had presented here (as well as the reason for presenting it here).

I cannot help your deliberate misrepresentation and mistranslation of hadiths, you pick a hadith at random and form opinions without recourse to other narrations with same theme, which is never the way of people of knowledge.

I’ll advise you again, READ!

AlBaqir:




# I did not make such cheap claim and analogy so I have nothing to prove. I only show you the canal your author's submission entered.

Bros, you did not show anything, you were only speculating, while the author provided evidences to arrive at the fact that the Prophet (SAW) did carryout rajm after surah Nur was revealed. The author did an academic presentation, you on the other hand, are just making up conjectures.

AlBaqir:

# Please look for another better copy-paste. In sha Allah we shall be here to destroy it.

Salam

What have you destroyed?! That you are being parochial and afraid to read?! Well done, Mr AlBaqir the destroyer

Salam to you too.

AlBaqir:


# Most couples found guilty of extramarital affairs usually got divorced or separated. If another marriage were to take place, it is to the likes of their likes.

# Chapter: The Rajm of a married person

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (s) said, "The one who commits an illegal sexual intercourse is not a believer at the time of committing illegal sexual intercourse and a thief is not a believer at the time of committing theft and a drinker of alcoholic drink is not a believer at the time of drinking. Yet, (the gate of) repentance is open thereafter."

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 6810 
In-book reference  : Book 86, Hadith 40 
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 801 

Lol, ki la n so ki lo n so?! You should always try to read the Qur'an in Arabic, the verb used is in the present/future tense, so there is no where it is indicating that the zani is married, the only reasonable understanding is that they are still single. You also forgot the other point raised by the author:
"The verse with hundred lashes punishment cannot be general and Qur’an itself testifies to it. In Qur’an 4:25 the punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of free female fornicator. With this fact known the idea of the totally generic implication of surah al-Nur ayah 2 is laid to proven wrong. Strictly considering the word “zani” used in Surah al-Nur verse 2, it does not differentiate between a slave and a free like it does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise. So to say that it is absolutely universal in application contradicts Qur’an itself"

AlBaqir:

# You see your life?! You are the one that challenged my comment with your usual copy-paste. So why is my challenge useless? Unfortunately, it is your challenge that is useless as it never address my submission. Such is the problem with copy-pasting in replying comment.

I'm really sorry you find it difficult to read, especially if it doesn't go well with you, I know your mo, I can only but laugh at the above....

Empiree:
wallah you are the one getting it wrong. Albaqir, did you get this?. My argument is not about ram is not Allah's. I never said that. My argument is, it is no longer sharia of nabi(saw), it is sharia of the yahud and nasara and still there in their book.

Okay, I understand you, while your claim is plausible, the author disagreed, quoting relevant hadiths, which indicated that the Prophet (SAW) upheld this hadd found in the Torah and which had been hitherto neglected by the Jews and Christians.

AlBaqir:


# Obviously to you it is convincing. To me its another usual cobweb that wind blew away.

# Why did your author ran far away from treating the Hadith of "Ayat rajm" and Sunni understanding of it?

Lol, it doesn't matter, I am not here to convince you.

The author never did such, please you guys should read na, anyways, here is a snippet of what the author thinks...

Scholars' intake:

The idea that there was never any verse on stoning revealed to be a part of the Qur'an and then abrogated is not my brainchild. Infact the above is based on Shaykh Taqi Usmani's explanation (see Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 p.354-61).

Sayyid Maududi held the same view (see his answer to the question HERE -its in Urdu)

al-Alusi quotes Ibn Humam (d. 861 A.H.) to have argued for the same (See Ruh al-M'ani 9/278)

al-Baqilani (403 A.H.) also refused to accept the idea of its once being a part of the Qur'an and then getting abrogated in his al-Intisar. Shaykh Shu'aib Arnaut quoted it in his notes to Hadith 21636 of Musnad Ahmad and seemingly agreed to it.

Source

AlBaqir:


# No doubt Sura Nur was revealed in al-Madinah. But was the whole surah revealed at once or part by part?

# When was verse 2 of surah Nur revealed?

# NOTE: The numbering system of Ayat and suwar we have today were NEVER the way Allah revealed His book. There is no argument on this. This collapse the analogy your author submitted to narrow down the "verse 2" of surah Nur to a specific date/period.

* Sura Maidah was the last sura revealed according a Sunni authentic Hadith. It not only occupied chapter 5 today but also "verse of command of ablution" was inside it and absolutely Muslims had been performing ablution (wudu) 23 years before the "sura maidah" was revealed.

* This is the danger that await your author unless he can prove authentically that verse 2 of Nur was revealed at certain date.

There is no danger anywhere, you cannot prove otherwise either, at least the author presented enough instances giving us an idea to when stoning were carried out during the life time of the Prophet (SAW). Except you want to give us a narration that clearly states verse 2 was the last verse that was revealed, your points holds no water!

AlBaqir:


# It seems you misunderstood my position. Clearly there are some ahadith that indicate "stoning".

# When Nabi, salallahu alayhi wa ahli, allegedly stoned or commanded stoning is not my submission or argument here o. I absolutely have NOTHING to do with those ahadith (whether in Sunni or Shia documents).

# My concern is:

1. On the command of Sura Nur which is generic. Your author proves nothing to restrict surah Nur: 2 to particular individuals (single).

Bro, I had already tackled this, the fact that the verse 3 in the same surah is talking about singles, because Allah (SWT) said, "the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator or a polytheist", shows that it is directed at unmarried individuals.

AlBaqir:

2. The claim of "Ayat rajm" which (both) Sunni (and Shia) documented. I am of firm position that "Ayat of rajm" might probably be revealed as those ahadith suggested but obviously it was abrogated for there's nothing like it in the Qur'an. Here we split into 2:

A. We argue based on sura Baqarah:106 that "verse of stoning" was ERASED and substituted with something BETTER in Surah Nur: 2.

B. You claimed "verse of stoning" was ERASED and abrogated but you FAILED woefully to point out which verse substituted it in both qira'at and hukm.


# So, the challenge is still widely open.

I would state again, the author of the article did not argue based on abrogation, so your challenge is useless!

Empiree:
Ha, brother, this ayah you quoted clearly refers to the time when the Jews came to the prophet (saw) to pass judgement on the two adulterers. Remember the incident?.

This ayah said that the judgment of Allah is in their torah, why is the need for them to come to nabi?. They simply wanted to set him up and test his prophethood too like they did to nabi Isa (as). So nabi enforced Allah's hukm in their book on them.

If a sunni also believes there is a hidden ayah of Quran somewhere, he's no different from shia's

Please stop muddling things up! I tried to present excerpts from a research, I posted a link so you can read further and get the full picture, but it seems your mind is made up, and not that I really want to change it, I just wanted to present an academic view, which I find convincing. The author did not claim there is an hidden ayah, but based on other corroborating evidences, the Prophet (SAW) enforced the hadd of rajm as already revealed in the Torah. That verse establishes the fact that rajm is Allah's Hadd for adultery. So when I said it is implied, I do not mean hidden verse or abrogated verse!

Please go to the link and read the full article.

Empiree:
^^ sino,

This epistle still has implications. If a verse of Quran is abrogared as we know it, abrogated verse remains in the Quran just like many other alleged abrogated verses.

Like for instance, Q2:62 is said to have been abrogated by Q3:85. So both verses remain the in Book. Why is rajm an exception? . This is hanky panky. It means you believe in the very same thing shia are accused of, that Quran is incomplete. That's the implication

Stories can not sit in judgement over Quran. Hukm of Rajm is for yahud and nasara. Not Muslims

Brother, the argument of the author isn't that the verse was abrogated, rather, it is still in the Qur'an in Al Maidah 5:43, although implied. Please don't confuse my submissions with what the Shi'as believe, they are far apart.

Is it the hadiths of the Prophet (SAW) that you are referring to as stories?! Hope you know that what the Prophet (SAW) did is also part of the Shari'ah?!

...Continuation

The punishment for illicit relations given in Surah al-Nur is general?

Another argument is about the general import of the hundred lashes punishment given in surah al-Nur verse 2. They say rajm is, therefore, a contradiction to the Qur’anic instruction.

This argument is flawed for a number of reasons;

i) The verse with hundred lashes punishment cannot be general and Qur’an itself testifies to it. In Qur’an 4:25 the punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of free female fornicator. With this fact known the idea of the totally generic implication of surah al-Nur ayah 2 is laid to proven wrong. Strictly considering the word “zani” used in Surah al-Nur verse 2, it does not differentiate between a slave and a free like it does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise. So to say that it is absolutely universal in application contradicts Qur’an itself.

ii) The context of the hundred lashes verse itself proves it is for fornicators (un-married people) and not adulterers (married people). While the opponents of Rajm are convinced that this verse proves their stance in the light of logic and reason they fail to look at verse number three. How could it be that if the people refereed to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator or a polytheist? In the case of a man one could say that he can marry more than once, but in the case of the woman it does not make sense, as she can only marry one husband which shows that verse number two talks about unmarried people.

For references and access to the whole article, please go Here

The rest of the issues raised had already been discussed....