Mutah in Islam [Archive] - Ummah.com

MivharMeni

07-05-05, 09:14 PM

Can someone explain mutah to me? Is it really just a reason to "fufill" needs.
Is it halaal, haraam, or just a Shia thing (sorry if I offended any Shia)?
What does the Qur'an really say about mutah?

MMS

07-05-05, 09:26 PM

imagine asking a girls father, hey can i have ur daughter in mutah for one night :wacko:

07-05-05, 09:30 PM

mutah is temporary marriage, which is practiced by shias mostly

i_love_islam

07-05-05, 10:20 PM

My dear brother:

it is long story . during prophet's life it was ok because muslim people were away from their family and they can have sex relation with women in place where they were in war..

but prophet decided to frobid it becasue in our religion we cares about family and raise kids,they stoped this kind of marrige.

to defind this marrige , man can go and ask women to have sex with her for period of time ( more than 24 hours) .

in shiasa they said prophet didntt forbid it it is omar ibn alkatab, that is ridiculous, becasue they said omr ibn alkatab ( allah bless him ) forbid this marrige and something else i dont remmber what it is , the other thing is allowed in sunnah that means story is not true.

just put in your mind how can i accept that to have sex with women for day or week or month , that means i could sleep with 100 womens in year.

that cause alot of problem about kids , helath, creat family, ..........

shiaa by using this way could attract alot of youth people who live abrod to allo them to hvae girl friend by using this permission who is frobidden in islam.

just question

how can i creat family with having decent wife?

how can we respect women rights?

just i want to say something now there are some groups in london who act like that by money you can have sex relation with women by money for short time.

we ara muslim how can we feel inside our self do we respect our soul who came from allah sould, how can we contminate it?

if you go and ask any shiaa perosn can i marry your daughter or sister for 24 hours, i think they will kill you . this marrige is women who sells her body .

may allah bless you

checkmate

07-05-05, 10:50 PM

Can someone explain mutah to me? Is it really just a reason to "fufill" needs.
Is it halaal, haraam, or just a Shia thing (sorry if I offended any Shia)?
What does the Qur'an really say about mutah?

For answers click on:

Mut’ah marriage and refutation of those Raafidis who permit it (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=20738&dgn=4)

Ruling on Mut’ah (temporary) marriage (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=1373&dgn=4)

ScoobyGurl

07-05-05, 11:08 PM

Mutah=another way to treat women like pieces of meat :rolleyes:

MivharMeni

08-05-05, 01:59 AM

My dear brother

I'z a sista. :)

Debater

08-05-05, 09:46 PM

Details of mut'ah you can found at the links below where I have tried to refute shias' claims that mut'ah is halaal.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=54917&st=75

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=54917&st=100

My nick is beeru on shiachat.

ThE aPpReNtIcE

08-05-05, 10:37 PM

it sounds gross to me..like legalized prostitution in Vegas..lol

muslimah85

08-05-05, 10:42 PM

untterly disgusting, either control your needs or get married

Black_Flag

09-05-05, 08:16 AM

untterly disgusting, either control your needs or get married

EXACTLY!

Neyzen

09-05-05, 08:41 AM

Assalamu Alaikum

Mutah is certainly forbidden in islam. Evrything wasnt forbidden all of sudden. Stey by stey islams rules were taught to muslims.

There is no difference between going to a brothel ang mutah niqah. Only different you make religious ceremony. It is worse than going to brother i think. Cause you seem as if u r mocking with rules of Allah. May Allah save us from this kind of behavers.

Before doing anything we should consider it well. If it happens to me or my family. would i be happy? Im sure no one wants his/ her daugther or sister to copulate in this way.

May Allah keep us on the right way.

Ws

bubblez_far

11-05-05, 10:33 AM

I remember our History books (written by kafirs) wud have discussion about Mutah..n the definition they used for it was rotten as hell. Mutah wasnt started with THAT bad an intension, the way it was mentioned in our history books in high school. damn how i blushed those days, for i was the only muslim pupil in the whole school :(. and i dun think a high school student wud be eloquent enuf to debate on Islam n make the bunch of crappy kafirs know what was initiated n when n with what intensions? so i stayed quiet n let it pass as it comes. my frens were like.. "omg! ur hubbies PAY u for getting married?? n that too for declared number of nights? n u call it marriage?? eeewww!! "

Mutah was definitely started with a positive intension by our prophet (sas). but later it was abolished. n now its been practised only by shias.
Massalam

Paris

11-05-05, 11:35 AM

Mutah is forbidden in Islam regardless of whether one is a Shia' or a Sunni.

Hamza_786

11-05-05, 02:21 PM

actually shia's allow mutah

Debater

11-05-05, 10:28 PM

Mutah was definitely started with a positive intension by our prophet (sas). but later it was abolished. n now its been practised only by shias.

Correction: Mut'ah was not started by our Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam but it was the custom of Pro-Islamic-Era (Jahilliyyah) or the Times of Ignorance, I has never been the part of Islam and Quran never supports mut'ah even at a single place (verse). During 1 or 2 Military Expeditions when people were away from homes, some of the soldiers asked Muhammad sallAllahu alayhe wasallam's permission to castrate (depriving oneself of the funtioning of testes) so that they couldn't get overwhelmed by the sexual urge which could stop them from their duty (war), so in hadiths we read, Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed some of them to do mut'ah who were being really frustrated out of sexual desire, but after 3 nights or so he forbade it again.

Please note that Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah, which means it wasn't allowed or part of the Islam.
Just imagine what you can go for in the stress of necessicity, you can even eat pork and drink wine if you don't have anything to eat and you are about to die, exactly the same was the philosophy of permission of mut'ah.
We witness that mut'ah was allowed/permitted by the Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam only twice or so, so those who want to make mut'ah halaal should go back to the period of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and ask his Fatwah/decision about mut'ah.

Obviously a religious verdict is different for everyone, and we don't have our Holy Prophet sallAllau alayhe wasallam with us, so mut'ah can't be permitted now for anyone till the day of resurrection.

The following link will take you to a thread where I have refuted, by the grace of Allah, the position of shias regarding mut'ah, approaching Quran only:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=54711

Shuja3t

11-05-05, 10:45 PM

bloody hell cant view that site, gotta clear my cookies still banned lool, but no i dont agree with you. i think answering-ansar.org does well in proving the case of mutah, debunking myths etc.

although it does seem disgusting like mms said, if someone comes n says can i have ur daughter for a night :wacko: :wacko: well i can see if a person cant afford huge marriage (30 k ?) then he might do it, but it's easily abused and yeah ur opinions echo that.

Songbird

12-05-05, 08:18 AM

mutah is temporary marriage, which is practiced by shias mostly
Mostly, but not all.

I have 2 friends who are Shi'a and neither believe in nor practise Mut'a.

Both are virgins and one of them specifically told me she hopes to marry a virgin brother too, mashaAllah.

MMS

14-05-05, 10:27 PM

i think its disgusting, the people who practice it are disgusting

In my opinion its just as bad as prostitution

14-05-05, 10:29 PM

Mostly, but not all.

I have 2 friends who are Shi'a and neither believe in nor practise Mut'a.

Both are virgins and one of them specifically told me she hopes to marry a virgin brother too, mashaAllah.

yes u r correct songbird

Sophiya

14-05-05, 10:46 PM

so is this like the accelerated version of "uurfi" marriages which arabs i.e. egyptians do weddings in secret and then if the woman falls pregnant deny knowledge

Bashir

15-05-05, 12:19 PM

Salam alaikum

A lot of inaccurate information on this thread and a lot of emotive hocus pocus. People can believe what they like but must not insult the beliefs of others. The fact of the matter is simply that mut'ah was certainly allowed during the time of the Prophet (s). After him, some Companions of the Prophet (s) and after them some Tabi'oon and Sunni legal scholars were of the unreserved opinion that mut'a was never ever abolished and stood current and valid. All Shia subscribe to this view. The dominant view among the Sunni scholars these days is that it is not permissible as mut'a, although some believe in the validity of other mechanisms that effectively lead to similar relationships.

One can talk about alleged ahadeeth of abolition, of donkey meat and khaibar, and pose emotive questions like "would you give your sister in mut'a??". The fact of the matter remains. Important Sunni scholars have agreed with the Shia position knowing all these ahadeeth and questions. This is an issue of the detail of law where the schools of law and scholars within them sometimes differ, and should be dealt with the necessary respect and courtesy.

Undoubtedly, many of you will not believe some of the facts above. So here are some details:

Companions of the Prophet (s)

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of dates or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.

Source: Saheeh Muslim: Book 008, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 3249

Companions, Successors and Makkan fuqahaa

According to Ibn Hazm: "Ibn Mas'ood, Mu'awiya, Abu Sa'eed (al-Khudri), Ibn 'Abbas, Salama and Ma'bad, the sons of Umayya bin Khalaf, Jabir (bin 'Abdullah al-'Ansaari), and 'Amr bin Huraith continued, after the death of the Prophet, to consider it (i.e. mut'a) lawful. Moreover, Jabir reported, regarding all the Companions, that they continued to uphold its lawfulness during the time of the Prophet and of Abu Bakr and almost till the end of 'Umar's caliphate." then he (i.e. Ibn Hazm) adds, "Among the Successors of the Companions, Taawoos, Sa'eed bin Jubair, 'Ataa', and the rest of the Makkan jurists believed in its permissibility."

Source: Ibn Taymiyya al-Harrani, al-Muntaqaa min Akhbaar al-Mustafa, edited by Muhammad Hamid al-Faqqi, 2 volumes, Cairo: al-Maktabat al-Tijariyya, 1931 edition, volume 2, page 520.

You can also find this statement directly in Ibn Hazm's al-Mahallaa as well as in al-Nail al-awtaar of al-Shawkaani, volume 6, page 44.

Other than the Companions and Successors mentioned, we are told that the Makkan fuqaha' were allowing mut'a in their school of law.

Taawoos bin Kaysaan
Died in 106 hijra
He was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal.
Taawoos narrates 85 traditions in Saheeh Bukhari and 78 in Saheeh Muslim

Sa'eed bin Jubair
Died in 94 or 95 hijra
He was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Imam Maalik bin Anas.
Sa'eed narrates 147 traditions in Saheeh Bukhari and 78 in Saheeh Muslim

'Ataa bin Abi Rabaah
Died in 114 or 115 hijra
He was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja, and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal.
'Ataa narrates over 100 traditions in each of Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim

Saifullah

15-05-05, 12:33 PM

Its not allowed full stop.

and who ever distort evidences in its favour, have defied all that Islam stands for and strives for,

what happened to controlling your nafs ? what happened to respecting the rights of women, mothers and daughters ?

The more you allow this, the more crupt yourself and your socities.

Look at Iran ... and the consequences are clear.

Also not all the shais practise this, most just "thoerectically" approve of it.

checkmate

15-05-05, 07:35 PM

MMS

15-05-05, 08:20 PM

i never really understood why shias choose to believe in some hadiths from sahih muslim or sahih bukhari that suit them and reject ones that dont :scratch:

Bashir

15-05-05, 08:41 PM

checkmate

15-05-05, 09:49 PM

Salam alaikum

My point, quite obviously, did not come across clearly to the last two responders.

I am not trying to prove to anyone that they should believe in the permissibility of mut'a. I am trying to prove to everyone that there were always important and respectable people (let's call them Sunni's) who believed in the permissibility of mut'a, and there were of course other Sunni's who didn't. No big deal, happens all the time in legal issues.

Therefore, any insults to the believers of the permissibility of mut'a must also be directed to Taawoos bin Kaysaan, Sa'eed bin Jubair, 'Ataa bin Abi Rabaah who are sources and authorities for Imams Bukhari, Muslim, et al and are respected and trusted by all God-fearing Sunnis (and by many Shia as well!). Not to mention the many Companions of the Prophet (s) who believed in its continued validity after the Prophet's demise.

Alternatively, accept this difference in a legal issue amongst Muslims with grace, and move on.

Let me point out that your very articulate this post and earlier that I repsinded to is nothing but a Shia hogwash and an outright deception, not to mention misrepresention of truth.

Of course one can find Ahadeeth from Sunni sources that may entertain the idea of more than four wives, drinking alcohol and many more thing. But why are not only lying and concealing the truth because, all those Ahadeeth are about the period when things were different and Qur'aanic or Sunnah injunctions were not came into effect.

Let me settle this by asking that, will you give your sister or daughter or other eligible female member into Muta to some one?

If you will, than I can find a disposible spouse for them right now. This will be an acid test for you about cost and effect or cost and consequences. Please respond immmediately.

I have been informed that my links are not working, so here they are again.

Mut’ah marriage and refutation of those Raafidis who permit it (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=20738&dgn=4)

Ruling on Mut’ah (temporary) marriage (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=1373&dgn=4)

Temporary Marriage (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=2377&dgn=4)

Your probelm is that you are lying through your teeth while making statements like >>>Not to mention the many Companions of the Prophet (s) who believed in its continued validity after the Prophet's demise.<<< without presenting any facts and suporting evidence.

But again, you are a Shia who can utter any garbage under Taqqayya.

Bashir

16-05-05, 08:03 PM

Checkmate wrote:

Let me point out that your very articulate this post and earlier that I repsinded to is nothing but a Shia hogwash and an outright deception, not to mention misrepresention of truth.

That's not correct at all.

Of course one can find Ahadeeth from Sunni sources that may entertain the idea of more than four wives, drinking alcohol and many more thing.

Perhaps one can find weak narrations like that. But do you find any respectable Sunni scholars subscribing to any of these ideas in their schools of law? No. The case with mut'a is totally different, there have been Sunni scholars who not only subscribed to the idea, but actually practised what they preached.

But why are not only lying and concealing the truth because, all those Ahadeeth are about the period when things were different and Qur'aanic or Sunnah injunctions were not came into effect.

If you read my posts carefully, I am not trying to prove to you the validity of mut'a, and so I am not selectively quoting certain ahadeeth that suit the purpose of proving mut'a and avoiding others. I am proving to you that certain respectable Sunni scholars (like Sa'eed bin Jubair, 'Ataa bin Abi Rabaah, and Taawoos bin Kaysaan), the sources of Imams Bukhari, Muslim et al believed in the permissibility of mut'a. Go ask them their proof and go accuse them of 'lying and concealing the truth' if you wish. But remember that these individuals are scattered throughout the chains of narration in your copy of Imam Bukhari's Saheeh!

Your problem is that you are lying through your teeth while making statements like >>>Not to mention the many Companions of the Prophet (s) who believed in its continued validity after the Prophet's demise.<<< without presenting any facts and suporting evidence.

I did not lie. And I gave my evidence in an earlier post. Please go and read it. If you find it unsatisfactory then please do come back.

If Saeed, Taawoos and 'Ataa are not good enough for you, let me introduce you to another scholar of great repute:

Ibn Jurayj
Died 150 hijra

'Abd al-Malik bin Jurayj was a highly reliable hadeeth narrator and Prophetic traditions from him are recorded by Imams Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maja, and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal.
Ibn Jurayj narrates around 190 traditions in Saheeh Bukhari and over 260 in Saheeh Muslim

Now let's see what Imam al-Dhahabi says about Ibn Jurayj in his Meezan al-I'tidaal:

انه احد الأعلام الثقات مجمع على ثقته مع كونه قد تزوج نحوا من تسعين امراة بنكاح المتعة و انه كان يرى الرخصة في ذلك و كان فقيه اهل مكة في زمانه

"He is one of the trustworthy notables. There is agreement on his reliability, although he contracted mut'a marriages with 90 women. He was of the opinion that it was permitted. He was a Makkan legal scholar in his time."

Source: Imam al-Dhahabi, Meezan al-I'tidaal fi naqd ar-rijaal, edited by Muhammad Badr ad-Deen an-Na'saani, Cairo, 1325/1907, volume 2, page 151.

Let me settle this by asking that, will you give your sister or daughter or other eligible female member into Muta to some one?

What do you think Ibn Jurayj's answer to that question would be?

Songbird

17-05-05, 02:50 AM

Let me settle this by asking that, will you give your sister or daughter or other eligible female member into Muta to some one?

What do you think Ibn Jurayj's answer to that question would be?
My hope is that you never have a daughter whom you can prostitute to men, inshaAllah.

marjan

17-05-05, 07:44 AM

“Ibn Umar reported, ‘The Prophet said: ‘With Allah, the most detestable of all things permitted is divorce.'"

Anyone entering into a marriage with the aim to terminate the contract within a specific time frame is from what I have read, disregarding the fact that it is a disliked act!

Divorce is seen as a last resort not a goal!!

Debater

19-05-05, 07:22 PM

Especially for Bashir

I am having a debate with shias on ShiaChat and I provided with the link to that debate but I don't think people have visited the link or Bashir wouldn't start a new debate which is already in progress.
So I have decided to paste important parts of the thread along with my replies and I expect it will answer all questions Bashir has raised.

(zainabia @ May 1 2005, 12:45 PM)
And looking all this I remember what Mawla Ali file:///D:/Important%20Files/mut'ah_files/as.gif i.e. had it not been Umar who banned Muttah, no one would have committed Zina in this nation except the wretched ones...

Let's see the real world:

EFAF HOUSE: RELIGIOUSLY LICENSED PROSTITUTION IN IRAN
by Mitra Sistani*

Special to Iran Press Service

KOLN, 4 Aug. (IPS) The growing problem of street prostitution in Iran has called into action national institutions. A highly controversial plan, defended by the Interior Ministry's Deputy for Social Affairs Ms. Ashraf Boroojerdi, met with sharp criticism from women's groups and religious quarters last week.

"Some people believe that talking about such issues is taboo, but they are part of the reality of society, and turning a blind eye will not solve the problem," the BBC quoted Ms. Boroojerdi as saying.

According to the conservative journal "Afarinesh", a committee of several national boards discusses the establishment of a specific institution, somewhat equivocally baptized as Efaf, or Chastity Houses.

Authorities say that Chastity Houses mainly aims at installing religiously legitimate sexual contacts between men and women, who are not able or not willing to enter matrimony. Based on "sigheh", a contemporary marriage arrangement peculiar to Shiite religion, possible couples would be temporarily united according to a bureaucratic scheme.

All applicants have to sign up at a registration center first, which includes a free health check, where contraceptive services and even abortion for unwanted offspring are offered. An advisory center then arranges the couples, while another would issue a temporary marriage license, paid by the man. The couple would then be conducted to specific hotels or guesthouses, where they could consummate their arrangement without police harassment.

The "chastity houses" would not be open to any male -- only those with identity cards proving they were bachelors, widows, or married to women incapacitated by physical or mental illness would be admitted.

Certain Tehran hotels have already been earmarked for possible use, the newspapers said.

The head of the Imam Khomeini Research Centre, named after the revered founder of the Islamic republic, gave his backing to the plans in a press interview Monday.

"It is vital that we set up these decency houses, given the urgency of the situation," Ayatollah Mohammad Musavi-Bojnurdi told the "E’etemad" daily.

Considering the delicate matter, religious officials, the judiciary and the police are designated to constitute the board of trustees of Efaf.

Apart from the fact that sigheh has repute close to legalised prostitution in Iranian society, the question is, who would profit from this new plan. In 2000, a religious official from the city of Karadj, west to Tehran, was condemned for white slave trade. According to other reports, mullah candidates under critical hygienic conditions on the New Cemetery of the Holy City of Qom extensively practice contemporary marriage.

Women's groups and others reacted angrily, denouncing the plan as little more than licensed prostitution.

"It's euphemism for the official establishment of houses of corruption, the normalisation of illegitimate relations, and the destruction of the family", a member of the Women's Social and Cultural Council said.

Ms Boroojerdi nevertheless insists on this plan, describing it as a necessary response to social realities put under taboo.

Given the sharp reactions, it seems unlikely that Efaf houses will become reality.

The plans floated in the press were "contrary to morality and family values," the justice ministry said in a statement Monday, categorically denying any part in drawing them up.

"The judiciary considers that this proposal is completely without merit and warns those who are airing such ideas to stop upsetting public opinion".

But even when the scheduled "Chastity houses" would be set up, it will not help to solve the problem. In a young society with two thirds of the population below 25 years of age, prostitution increasingly appears as the last resort to high unemployment and strictly enforced segregation of the sexes.

According to welfare officials, at least 300,000 prostitutes are working in the country.

Controlling 60 percent of the domestic trade through religious foundations, as well as the clandestine drug and antiquity markets, it appears as if the ruling clergy is looking for a new source of revenue by profiting from socially and politically deprived women. ENDS EFAF HOUSES 4802

Editor’s note: Ms Sistani is a researcher working with German institution.

She contributed this article to IPS

Taken from: http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2002/Aug_2002/efaf_house_4802.htm

Debater

19-05-05, 07:25 PM

Now shias should decide themselves, if this Greatest Number of Prostitutes in Iran is due to Umar's ban on Mut'ah or Imam Ali's favouring it?
Another source:

http://www.parstimes.com/women/chastity_houses.html (http://www.parstimes.com/women/chastity_houses.html)

MMS

19-05-05, 07:26 PM

Ali(r.a) was made khalifah after Umar(r.a) if he wanted couldnt he have just unbanned mutah??

Debater

19-05-05, 07:31 PM

She Found Prostitution Among Iran's Holy Men

They Found a Way to Put Her in Jail.

Week of March 28 - April 3, 2001
Unveiled Threats
by Camelia E. Fard
The Village Voice

... June 1999 - My guide motioned to the driver to stop so I could step out and adjust my black chador. We had traveled an hour from Tehran and were now near the tollbooth where visitors pay an entrance fee. Before us, a sign read: "Welcome to the City of Blood and Uprising."

Minutes later, we were inside the Vatican of the world's 100 million Shiite Muslims, the home of the seminary where mullahs and government leaders are trained. We were inside the holy city of Qom, a place foreigners and researchers rarely go.

Wrapped in their black chadors, women-or "the hidden attractions of Qom" as they are sometimes called-milled among the crowd. They were nondescript, with nothing to set them apart from the flow of students, teachers, and bureaucrats. Yet these were no average women. They had come to agree to a sigheh, a temporary marriage, to lie beside a Muslim man for a few miserable minutes and earn the pittance that sustained their wretched lives. It is for this little-known dimension that Qom is known as a place of "both pilgrimage and pleasure." It's also why clerics and political figures don't welcome reporters here.

The use of prostitutes among Islamic leaders remained something of an open secret until last month, when President Khatami shut down a ring of runaway girls pimped by a mullah who served as head of the local court.

Long before Khatami stepped in, I had come to Qom, hoping to finish six months of reporting about the conditions faced by women here. This article had become so important to me that I couldn't just set it aside.

I would learn these women's stories, and with the help of my former editor, I would find a newspaper or magazine that would tell the world about their plight.

My work soon took me to the Sheikhan cemetery, in the courtyard of an ancient mosque in the city center. The burial ground is not far from the resting place of Massoumeh, a female Shiite saint whose shrine draws a sea of pilgrims to the city every year. There, the women sat silent and motionless on the dirt graves, the black chadors that covered even their faces and hands the only indication that these pitiful heaps of humanity were women.

From the four corners of the courtyard, clusters of young seminary students, clad in the traditional turbans, robes, and capes worn by mullahs, teemed into the courtyard, some smiling as though about to embark on a trip, others looking at the women to see who was new and who had been there many times before. Some surveyed the pictures of the martyrs from the 1980-88 war with Iraq that adorned the walls, but most surveyed the human wares. A thin young boy, watering can in hand, washed the floor of the courtyard all day, looking for a customer who would want his services for an introduction to one of the women.

I didn't need his help. I approached them myself. When one pulled her chador aside, I could see she was a young woman in her mid thirties, hair streaked with cheap blond dye, a brightly colored blouse cinched tight to reveal her cleavage, and a mess of garish makeup giving away her poor, rural background. Another was hardly more than 20. When the women uncovered their faces, the murmurs of the young men hovering around us intensified. Their lips recited holy blessings, but their eyes surveyed the bare faces and necks of the women. In fundamentalist Islam, a man who intends to marry-even if only for a day-is allowed a single glimpse of the woman's face to make his choice. These brief unveilings would be their only chance.

My presence among the women had disturbed the otherwise tranquil business. I asked the woman with heavy makeup to step outside the cemetery with me, but I was worried the men would get suspicious. Mehri fixed the seminary students circling around her with a look of anger and contempt. "I don't care," she said, almost spitting. "I hate these kids."

Safely outside the courtyard, she told me how she ended up selling herself in temporary marriages. She had been married to a truck driver who died in an accident a few years ago, leaving her with seven small children and a teenage daughter who had a baby girl of her own. Mehri said she also weaves carpets, but the money is never enough, so three times a week she takes an hour-long bus ride here. While she talked to me, she looked my driver and guide up and down, considering whether they might be in the market.

Need, sadness, and regret filled her eyes. The pungency of soaking sweat, from hours of waiting under the hot sun, surrounded her. In the busy months of summer, when men travel to Qom from other cities for prayer and fun, Mehri might take a temporary husband three times a day. "Locals don't pay much," she said. "Outsiders are better customers."

And where are these marriages consummated? "If they have a home, they take me there," she said. "If they don't, it's to the New Cemetery." A cloud of dust and wind churns through the ancient, forgotten New Cemetery, several kilometers from Qom. No one comes to this remote, silent cemetery to visit the dead. The only visitors are women with temporary "husbands" in tow.

The women come furtively, believing this life is still more honorable than begging in the streets. They make what passes for a living, fulfilling their own monetary needs and those of their children and other loved ones, away from the prying eyes of neighbors. None believes in selling her body, and unlike prostitutes in other parts of the world who try to attract customers by baring more of themselves, these women clutch their chadors more and more tightly from shame and humiliation. At least in the cemetery, they feel secure. "The home of the dead is a safe place to be," they say.

For a few minutes, until the man is finished and they have their money, they lay their bodies next to the client on an old wooden bed covered with a thin mattress. Here, inside the dusty, cobwebbed tombs, they receive between 20,000 and 40,000 rials-a little less than a week's rent of a cheap house-for the consummation of a temporary marriage.

Originally intended to provide legitimacy to what would otherwise be illicit affairs, the practice of temporary marriage has become a threadbare cover for prostitution and an under-the-table means of social welfare for poor women. The participants no longer follow the rules, which call for a mullah to read a particular blessing. The man just calls, and the woman comes to him. The "brides" are supposed to remain celibate for three and a half months after each divorce to ensure they aren't pregnant, but many flout the statutes. They have no choice. They need the money for survival.

Not surprisingly, they have few options for preventing pregnancy or disease. According to official health ministry statistics in Iran, each year some 90,000 women apply for abortions at hospitals, and every day 221 abortions take place. Though no one claims these abortions stem directly from temporary marriages, health ministry insiders suggest prostitution may be to blame. Shahrbanoo Amani of Tehran, a member of the Iranian parliament, told reporters last year that "because temporary marriage is by definition temporary and is not a permanent agreement, usually men in this marriage do not like that a child is born. And in a case of unwanted pregnancy, the first victim is the woman, and the second, the child."

Children born of temporary marriages face difficulties in getting the identification papers needed for school and work. Without these papers, they are shut off from family inheritance and from government assistance normally available to poor or orphaned kids. The shame follows them all their lives. Women who engage in temporary marriages can find themselves locked out of chances to get better-paying jobs and shunned by their families. For them, the name of the brief marriages-sigheh-becomes an insult.

The stigma hasn't stopped younger girls from turning to prostitution. When teenagers run away, this is often their only means of making money.

Latest estimates suggest some 40 percent of prostitutes who work the street have no permanent home, but live in brothels and sleep in shrines, like the one dedicated to Ayatollah Khomeini. The girls of this new generation have cast aside the flimsy pretense of temporary marriage in favor of a direct cash-for-sex transaction. A guard in Qom tells me that girls of all ages and types come and go in groups. Some sleep in the rooms reserved for pilgrims. "We report some to the police," the guard says, "but we cannot control them all."

He says they take buses to the city-girls who have fled their homes to escape poverty or the fear of dishonor that comes with having lost their virginity. They fear the wrath of their fathers and brothers, but end up in worse shape on the streets. "In the big cities," he says, "nothing awaits them but despair."

I coax Fatima, a 16-year-old girl standing in a corner, into talking. Her heavy lipstick fits neither her young age nor the conservative fashions of this religious city. She motions to her friends to wait for her at the stairs. In the rude language of a teenager, she tells me that her stepmother used to beat her and make her watch her three siblings. She had to do the housework and wasn't allowed to attend school. "They wanted to marry me to a 60-year-old man," she says.

Fatima knew no one in Qom when she arrived. Now she was under the care of a woman named Ezzat, a madam in charge of several others girls. Ezzat gave them a home and some protection from the dangers of the street.

These teenage sex workers present a problem for Iran's law enforcement.

They're too young for prison, and they're no longer good candidates for marriage. Their families are reluctant to tak them back in. As soon as a girl is released from jail, other madams and customers put her back into business. Sometimes when police arrest an underage prostitute, they send her to a place like the Rehabilitation Center for Girls in Tehran-if there's room. The flow of runaway girls never stops, because the cause of the trouble, Iran's patriarchal society, is so difficult to fix. So the girls provide a bit of private fun for the rich men of Tehran, and buy themselves a lifetime of misery.

As more girls drift from the suburb of Qom to the city in search of customers, says Tehran official Hojatol-Islam Mohammad Ali Zam, the average age of prostitutes has dropped from 27 to 20. The girls bring with them the full range of social and medical problems, including a need for abortion. Since most can't pay for proper services, they end up risking their health on back-alley operations.

Source: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/prostitution_holy_men (http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/prostitution_holy_men)

Debater

19-05-05, 07:42 PM

If I had time I would compile my posts and summarise them in the form of an article, would do it some other time inshaAllah.

(zainabia @ May 3 2005, 02:25 AM)
So, there are only 3 alleged Sahih Ahadith (narrated by 3 companions) in Ahle Sunnah Hadith Literature which claim that Muttah was banned by Rasool Allah (saw).

The names of these three companions are:
Rabi Ibn Sabra (who narrates it from his father Sabra Juhani)
Ali Ibn Talib
Salma b. al-Akwa'
All narrations of these 3 companions are contradictory to each other:
The hadith of Imam Ali claims Mut'ah was prohibited in 7th Hijri (at Khayber)
In one Hadith, Ibn Sabra claims that Mut'ah was prohibited in 8th Hijri (at victory of Mecca). While in other tradition, this same Ibn Sabra claims that Mut'ah was prohibited in 10th Hijri (at Last Pilgrimage Hujjatul Wida)
While Salma b. al-Akwa claims that Mut'ah was prohibited in 9th Hijri (i.e. in year of Autas, which was after battle of Hunayn)
They cannot simultaneously use all these 3 in order to prove prohibition of Mut'ah by Rasul (s).


As usual, zainabia has twisted the facts as will be clear from my arguments in the following lines inshaAllah.
Anyways, what I have personally seen in Sahih Bukhari, Baabun Nikah, there are a very few narrations about mut'ah under this topic.
And a very significant and clear fact I came across reading hadiths about mut'ah would wash away zainabia's and other shias' love for mut'ah.

Brothers and sisters would see that mut'ah had been occassionally allowed by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam during military expeditions which our shia brothers hate (i.e the military expeditions, because that is specific with Imam Mahdi alayhis salam).
Let's read the narrations about mut'ah from Sahih Bukhari, Baabun Nikah:

1. Volume 7, Book 62, Number 9:

Narrated Ibn Masud:
We used to fight in the holy battles in the company of the Prophet and we had no wives with us. So we said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we get castrated?" The Prophet forbade us to do so.

If I am not wrong then castration means having one's testes disabled and it doesn't mean masturbation, ast least this is what Encyclopaedia Britanica states. So zainabia's claims that Sahabah were fond of sexual pleasures is a traditional-lie. They were humans and wanted to concentrate on fighty for the sake of Allah but natural desires were disturbing some of them and they wanted a solution for that and so they consulted Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

2. Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o:

Narrated 'Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (2) and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe ! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87)

Again Sahabah wanted to concentrate on what they came for and to perform their duties well (i.e Jihad) they were thinking about having lost the function of their reprdouctive system, but Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam forbade them from doing so and allowed them to do mut'ah.
Please note that zainabia didn't provide with a single example, where sahabah didn't ask Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam to get themselves castrated, and Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam didn't allow mut'ah in normal circumstances.

This stand point of mine is supported by the following narration:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa':
While we were in an army, Allah's Apostle came to us and said, "You have been allowed to do the Mut'a (marriage), so do it." Salama bin Al-Akwa' said: Allah's Apostle's said, "If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so." I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: 'Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, "The Mut'a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful)."

The following points to be noted:
1. They were in an army and there is no mention which Ghazwah it was.

2. Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam said: You have been allowed to do the Mut'a (marriage), so do it. My question is when the sanction of some action is granted? Obviously mut'ah wouldn't be in practice of Sahabah while they were in the company of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, nor they asked Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam to practise mut'ah, but seeing the situation of some young men Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah and we don't see any other occasion other than military expedition where mut'ah had been allowed by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

3. This special mut'ah was allowed for 3 nights. My question is for my shia brothers and sisters, if they perform/believe in a 3-night-mut'ah?

4. The narrators of this tradition are not sure if this sanction of mut'ah was specific for that military expedition or for everyone in general, so we read:
I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general.

It is clear from the above quotations that mut'ah was permitted by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam on certain occasions and we don't see any other instance where it was permitted for Muslims under normal circumstances.

I have employed Sahih Bukhari in order to prove my point because this book is more sahih by consensus and facts than other books of hadith, but surely my next arguments will be based on Sahih Muslim inshaAllah in the coming posts.


The occasions when these three prohibitions took place were major events, with thousands of Sahaba present on each occasion, then how is that only ONE narrator out of the multitudes present was able to recall the prohibition on Mut'ah on these occasions?

In comparison to the above mentioned three reports, there are witnesses of over 20 + Sahaba and Taabi'een (in Ahle Sunnah Hadith sources), which are Unanimous that it was Umar who forbade Mut'ah


First of all this is totally absurd to supply the witness of Taba'een, as they surely were not present at the times of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam , then mut'ah is something which is not announced publicly at least our shias don't do that even in this modern age, you can continue with mut'ah, your neighbours won't know about it.

Saiyidina Umar radhiyAllahu 'anhu is the Successor of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and according to Quran, he is Ulul Amr. We are obliged to follow his orders which are in accordance with Quran and Sunnah.
The official ban on mut'ah by Saiyidina 'Umar radhiyAllahu 'anhu is a clear evidence that Mut'ah is haraam because all Muslims under the Caliphate of Saiyidina 'Umar followed him and all the Muslims who follow Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam , don't do mut'ah just because this is proven haraam by Quran, by Hadith and by Consensus of Ummah.
This is proven through narrations with tawatur (continuity), even you admitted, that Umar banned mut'ah, Umar couldn't do anything from his desires, because he was the Successor of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and all sahabah followed him and all Muslims follow him, as Umar acted according to Quran and Sunnah and the Consensus of Sahabah is a Hujjah (authority) in Islam.

About Contradictions, Allah (swt) says in Quran:

Surat an-Nisa, verse 82: Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.


Wandering thoughts

More Criticism over Hadith of Khaiber by Ahle Sunnah Ulama themselves

In order to stay short, I mention only one Ahle Sunnah Alim (who is even respected by Salafies)
Was Imam 'Ali the ONLY person to have heard this prohibition?

In all the traditions recorded by Bukhari in chapter 155 of Maghazi concerning the events in Khayber, only one Person (i.e. Ali) speaks about the prohibition on domestic donkeys, and there is no mention of Mut'ah.


Sahih Bukhari, along with the chapter Al-Maghazi, does contain other chapters, and there is one chapter called Baab-an-Nikah and it says:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 50:

Narrated 'Ali:
I said to Ibn 'Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."

Your objection that narrations in the chapter al-maghazi don't mention mut'ah will be discussed later inshaAllah.

Note:

When Alcohol became Haram, there were hundreds of people who were witness and streets of Madina were filled with drained Alcohol.

But allegedly when Muttah was made Haram in 7th Hijri, we see:

1) No other witness to this fact that One Person

2) No separation is made between those who were in state of Muttah with women.

How is it possible?????


1. First prove that mut'ah was in practise of Sahabah in general.

2. There is something which is called brain with which Allah blesses everyone, it is upto the man who uses his brain.
In the hadith of Khyber, there is no clear mentioning that mut'ah was made haraam on that day, but it only says that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam didn't allow mut'ah and eating the flesh of domestic ass. But if you want you can make any stories you are fond of.
Definitely, Khyber was a military expedition and it was not a pleasure trip as people make for the Qom, and possibly someone would have expected the sanction of mut'ah by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam but Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam forbade it along with eating of flesh of donkey.
Note that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam didn't forbid mut'ah before, which shows that Muslims can't do mut'ah after this ban on mut'ah by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.
And if Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah at the time of conquest of Makkah for 3 nights, then it was what Allah and His Messenger wished, because after that mut'ah was banned by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam himself.

Now those who still want to enjoy mut'ah should go back to the times of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and participate in a military expedition and ask his permission to do so, otherwise we don't have any witness that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah for Muslims under normal circumstances. Since Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam is no more with us, we can't have his sanction for mut'ah anymore in some military expedition.

Debater

19-05-05, 07:51 PM

(zainabia @ May 3 2005, 05:34 AM)
- Allah revealed the Banning of Mutah and he didn't forwarded it completely to even his some MOST Knowledgeable Companions like IBNE ABBAS.

- And due to this carelessness from Rasool Allah (saw),... many of Sahaba and Sahabiat (who had Muttah wedlock) didn't separate and kept on doing this ZINA till Umar's time.
(Ma'adh Allah)

3) Was it really not possible for Rasool (saw) to prohibit it like Umar Ibn Khattab did durign his reign? Perhaps Umar Ibn Khattab was more courageous than Rasool Allah (saw)?????


Today I learn that Ibn-e-'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu alone would make the Majority of Sahabah and thus the Consensus of Sahabah/Ummah.

This is a lie on Sahabah that many of them continued with Mut'ah without any names provided.

And at last, just comapre it with occasion when Alcohol became Haram and what happened in Madina. But when Muttah becomes Haram that there happens nothing in Madina and people carrying on with this ZINA.

Alcohol prevailed in the masses unlike mut'ah which was not practised by everyone, so zainabia can't prove that mut'ah was practised by Sahabah after it was made haraam by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam except a few cases, about which I have already explained in my previous post.

Debater

19-05-05, 07:55 PM

(zainabia @ May 3 2005, 05:42 AM)As such, there can be no doubt that Ibn 'Abbas maintained this opinion until his death. If some one still going to reject our argument then allow us to cite another tradition that was quoted by Nawawi in Sharh Muslim Volume 4 page 20:

Hadhrath Abdullah ibn Abbas died in 68 Hijri and became blind towards the end of his life. On one occasion Ibn Zubayr sought to mock him in a gathering by stating 'some people's hearts are blind like their eyes, since they deem Mut'ah to be permissible, Ibn Abbas immediately spoke saying 'I saw the Imam of the Praiseworthy, Rasulullah (s) with my own eyes, giving the permissibility to practise Mut'ah'.
We appeal to justice, Ibn Abbas lived almost 57 years after the Prophet (s), and lost his eyesight in his final years, a time when he refuted the comments of Ibn Zubayr, so even then he upheld the validity of Mut'ah, this destroys any notion that he had revoked his position practising Nikah Mut'ah.
Many Sunni hadeeths attest to this fact.

Now the last defence of Shias' Mut'ah is the alleged verdict of Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu.
I came across this narration in Sahih Bukhari, Baabun Nikah:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 51:

Narrated Abu Jamra:
I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut'a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Mut'a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, "That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce." On that, Ibn 'Abbas said, "Yes."

The text in bold might be the extract of that verdict of Saiyidina 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu regarding the sanction of mut'ah, but the question is what status Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas has in Islam all alone by himself when compared to the Clear abrogation of mut'ah by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and later the official ban on mut'ah by the Successor of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, Saiyidina 'Umar Farooq radhiyAllahu 'anhu.
No doubt the consensus of Sahabah goes against mut'ah and this is such a strong proof which not even shias can challenge.
This Consensus of Sahabah alone proves that mut'ah was made haraam by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, because they by agreement couldn't go against Quran/Sunnah, so after the official ban by Saiyidina Umar radhiyAllahu 'anhu, we see all Sahabah stopped from it including those who still practised mut'ah before this official ban, because they might not have received reports on forbiding of mut'ah by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

With this alleged verdict of Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas and this claim that he maintained this position till the end, mut'ah doesn't be halaal as Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu is not our Prophet or Infallible Imam who can make things halaal or haraam.
Moreover Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu is not our Ulul Amr as well, so we can't follow his verdict about which we don't know anything, its background, its extent of working and its context, we don't know anything of it.

But Shias in following their desires, follow Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu's this Unclear verdict which allows mut'ah and in doing so they become the Shias of Ibn Abbas rather than Shias of Ali.
Though Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu is very strict in the allowance of mut'ah which is just a fun game for Shias, anyone anytime can do mut'ah with anyone at any place in any circumstances with any number of wives...

Debater

19-05-05, 08:01 PM

Let's see how mut'ah was never permitted by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam under normal circumstances:

(Taken from Sahih Bukhari, Baabun Nikah)

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 4:

Narrated 'Abdullah:
We were with the Prophet while we were young and had no wealth whatever. So Allah's Apostle said, "O young people! Whoever among you can marry, should marry, because it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty (i.e. his private parts from committing illegal sexual intercourse etc.), and whoever is not able to marry, should fast, as fasting diminishes his sexual power."

And whoever is not able to marry wasn't allowed to do mut'ah which is the easiest game to get a woman.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 10:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf came (from Mecca to Medina) and the Prophet made a bond of brotherhood between him and Sad bin Ar-Rabi' Al-Ansari. Al-Ansari had two wives, so he suggested that 'Abdur-Rahman take half, his wives and property. 'Abdur-Rahman replied, "May Allah bless you with your wives and property. Kindly show me the market." So 'Abdur-Rahman went to the market and gained (in bargains) some dried yoghurt and some butter. After a few days the Prophet saw Abdur-Rahman with some yellow stains on his clothes and asked him, "What is that, O 'Abdur-Rahman?" He replied, "I had married an Ansari woman." The Prophet asked, "How much Mahr did you give her?" He replied, "The weight of one (date) stone of gold." The Prophet said, "Offer a banquet, even with one sheep."

This sahabi didn't practise mut'ah in Madinah, though he was an emigrant and he could easily practise mut'ah, as zainabia (the shia advocate of mut'ah) claims that sahabah kept practising mut'ah always, and this proves his claims a Fat-Lie.

I didn't find a single example where Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah except some military expeditions and not all of them.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 11:

Narrated Sad bin Abi Waqqas:
Allah's Apostle forbade 'Uthman bin Maz'un to abstain from marrying (and other pleasures) and if he had allowed him, we would have gotten ourselves castrated.(1)

This hadith exposes zainabia's lies over Sahabah that they were fond of going for sexual desires.
These chosen men of Allah were even ready to get themselves castrated because they wanted to concentrate on the religion but Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam didn't allow them to remain without marriage, but he sallAllahu alayhe wasallam gave them his own example that he was the most obedient to Allah with the fact that he married women also.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13h:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I am a young man and I am afraid that I may commit illegal sexual intercourse and I cannot afford to marry." He kept silent, and then repeated my question once again, but he kept silent. I said the same (for the third time) and he remained silent. Then repeated my question (for the fourth time), and only then the Prophet said, "O Abu Huraira! The pen has dried after writing what you are going to confront. So (it does not matter whether you) get yourself castrated or not."

Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam didn't allow mut'ah from Saiyidina Abu Hurayrah radhiyAllahu 'anhu.
Isn't it strange for zainabia (a shia on ShiaChat) and other mut'ah lovers?

Debater

19-05-05, 08:13 PM

(zainabia @ May 5 2005, 09:35 AM)For example:

- You are Student in other European country and have to stay there for years.

- Or as in old times, when Traders used to go for trips which lasted for years and they didn't have permanent wives with them. (Only a Blind person would say they were able to control them for years from every kind of Sin, when Fasting Sahaba were unable to control for only 30 nights. 

The student should marry their and people do marry in European countries, that is not something impossible.

As far as Khaiber is concerned, then we have proved you that:

- None of Sahaba mentioned it, except Ali.

- But clearly it is a lie upon Ali, as if Ali had really told this one to Abbas, then he would have not been issuing fatwa in favour of Muttah till his old age.

- Similarly is the case with Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari (and other Sahabas, which I mention latter).

You are depending upon Hadhrat Ibn 'Abbas's verdict and Hadhrat Jabir bin 'Abdullah's experience.
We are not depending solely on Hadhrat 'Ali's narration but other narrations about abrogation of mut'ah in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (after no evidence of mut'ah in Quran) and the most stronger evidence for the abrogation of mut'ah is the Consensus of Ummah which appeared with the official ban on mut'ah by Saiyidina 'Umar ibn Khattab radhiyAllahu 'anhu.
I no where said that our Ulul Amr/Khalifah has any authority to make things halaal or haraam but Ulul Amr establishes the commands of Allah following His Messenger. Since all Sahabah followed Saiydina Farooq-e-Azam radhiyAllahu 'anhu, even those who said that they performed mut'ah during the life time of Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and during the caliphate of Saiyidina Siddiq-e-Akbar radhiyAllahu 'anhu, this is sufficient to claim that Mut'ah is Haraam.

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3250:

Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of Hajj 1846 and Tamattu' with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.

The above narration doesn't prove anything about what Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed or suggested about mut'ah, but it describes the practise of a Companion and it proves that the Companion (Hadhrat Jabir) stopped from mut'ah after Khalifatul Muslimeen officially banned it.
So you are not supposed to reference the case of Hadhrat Jabir bin Abdullah again, as he did not revert to mut'ah after this Command of the Khalifah.
Muslims obey the Khalifah only when he remains inside the circle of Quran and Sunnah, and Hadhrat Jabir's stopping from mut'ah is a proof that Mut'ah is Haraam.

Similarly, the hadith of Sabra..... which was not even deemed authentic by Bukhari.... and we have shown so many contradictions in them.

As explained above, we are not depending on hadiths of Sabra or Ali solely.

Similarly, you never deemed to address the hadith of Iyas bin Salama who is claiming Muttah got only banned in year of Autass (i.e. not Khaibar, and also not year of Victory of Mecca, and also not at Hajjatul Widda)

All these narratoins have a common point which is that Mut'ah was made haraam/forbidden by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.
Isn't it?
About Hajjat-al-Wida', I didn't come across any of such narration by now in Sahihain, so can't comment on them.
In Bukhari we read the mut'ah was made haraam after a temporary sanction on a military expedition, which one, not explained (might be the year of Autas, WAllahu A'lam), and it wasn't allowed on Khyber, which was another military expedition.
There is no mention that before Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam granted the sanction of mut'ah, if mut'ah was allowed or not.
Certainly, if Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam is allowing something at an occasion, it means it wouldn't be allowed or in practise before. So before this military expedition when Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah (as in Bukhari), we don't have any evidence that it was allowed. Same is true with the hadith of Khyber in Bukhari, that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam forbade mut'ah and we don't have any evidence that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah for 3 nights (or so) on Khyber.

Yes there is a confusion in a few narrations of Muslim where it says that on Khyber mut'ah was forbidden till the day of resurrection, but in another narration it says that it was permitted on the Conquest of Makkah.
In such case we would need the Isnad (chains of narrations) of these narrations and then we would accept only those narrations which would be more authentic.
Apart from chronology, the central theme of all these narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that mut'ah was made Haraam by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.
Please note that I am talking about only Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and not about other books of hadith.
And about Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu, I have already explained in my previous posts.

In fact, there is another alleged Sunni hadith which Claims Ibn Abbas forbade Muttah and cited Verse 4:24 (which is impossible while Surah Nisa revealed in beginning of Madinan life, while Muttah was practiced atleast till 7th Hijri)

And there is another alleged Sunni hadith from Aisha, who claimed Muttah to be forbidden after the revealing of verse 5-6 of Surah Mominoon. But again this is not possible whilel Surah Mominoon is a Meccan Surah while Muttah was practiced atleast till 7th Hijri.
So, all of these Sunni Ahadith (i.e. Ali, Sabra, Iyas, Aisha and of Ibn Abbas).... all of them are CONTRADICTING each other, while brother Beeru dreams them as CLEAR Proof.

When you mix rice with pulses, you will have a different taste and the same you are doing unsuccessfully.
The most authentic sources of hadith (Bukhari and Muslim) are clear on the abrogation of mut'ah.
All narrations of both these sources agree that mut'ah was allowed by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam on certain occasions and if something is allowed at a time, it means it wouldn't be allowed before, in other words, there is no evidence that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah before or after those military expeditions, so they prove that mut'ah was specific to a few military expeditions, after those certain military expeditions were over and after Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam abrogated mut'ah in those military expeditions, mut'ah doesn't remain effective or valid, rather the Verdict of Khalifah of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and the Great Consensus of all Sahabah in combination with other evidences prove that Mut'ah is Haraam.

Note: For hadith of Sabra, let me quote again from Ibn Qayyim (which brother Beeru totally neglected, or perhaps unable to answer)

Zaad al Maad Volume2 page 205 Dhikr Fath Makka:

"there exits two Ahlul Sunnah views on Mut'ah: One says that Umar stopped it. Rasulullah(s) issued an order to follow the rightly guided khalifas they don't consider the edicts if Mut'ah being made haram following the victory of Makka on the authority of Sabra bin Juhani to be Sahih since it was narrated by Abdul Malik bin Uzai and Ibn Mueen wrote against him and Imam Bukhari despite its need did not place this tradition in his Sahih Bukhari. If the prohibition on Mut'ah was Sahih then Imam Bukhari would have definitely recorded it in his Sahih".

1. I explained earlier that we are not depending on narraton of Sabra solely.

2. If we depend on narrations of Sahih Bukhari, mut'ah becomes Haraam.

3. Imam Bukhari did accommodate narrations which prohibit mut'ah:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 50:
Narrated 'Ali:
I said to Ibn 'Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."

4. The Verdict (official ban on mut'ah) by Khalifatur Rasool sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and the Consensus of all Sahabah ridhwanullahi alayhim is more strong evidence against mut'ah that is the hadith of Sabra, it means all Muslims (Sahabah and non-Sahabah) are claiming with their action that Mut'ah is Haraam, and there can't be any other evidence which could challenge this great Ijma' of Sahabah and all Muslims against mut'ah.

5. There is only one view of Ahlus Sunnah regarding mut'ah, that mut'ah is Haraam, you can't provide me with a single evidence that Ahlus Sunnah believe in/practise mut'ah.

In this we can rely on the following authoritative Sunni texts.
* Tafseer Kabeer volume 3 p. 97 Al-Nisa
* Kanz al Ummal Volume 8 p. 93 Bab Mut'ah.
* Ahkaam al Quran Volume 2 p 182
* Al Maudhoorath p. 14
* Tafseer al Kabeer, Page 42 & 43
* Sharh Muqassid Volume 3 p. 94, Dhikr Muthaeen Umar
* Zaad al Maad Volume 2 p 205
* Tafseer Qasmi Volume 3 p. 04
* Sharh Tajeed p. 08

You can rely on anything like stories of 7 wives and Shahadat Naamah or story of Karbala, but Ahlus Sunnah rely on the following only:

1. Quran
2. Sunnah (authentic)
3. Ijma' (Conesnus of Sahabah/Ummah)

Books of Tafsir are never an authority in Islam.

We read in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 p. 12 hadith 369

When Umar become Khalifa he issued a sermon to the people of the Quran is the same Quran and Rasulullah(s) is the same Rasulullah(s). During the time of Rasulullah there were two types of Mut'ah, Mut'ah of Hajj and Mut'ah of Nisa.

Now compare this Admission of Umar to Hadith of Jabir, where he uttered the Same words that it was UMAR who forbade TWO Muttahs, which were Halal during times of Rasool Allah (saw) and Abu Bakr.

Apart from the question of authenticity of this narration of Musnad Ahmed, the truth is that Hadhrat Jabir radhiyAllahu 'anhu didn't revert to mut'ah after Saiyidina Umar's verdict over it, which proves that Hadhrat Jabir r.a agreed with the Khalifah.
And when Hadhrat Jabir agrees that mut'ah is not allowed, you don't have any chances left to quote the hadith of Hadhrat Jabir r.a anymore that he supported mut'ah.
In fact he left mut'ah after the verdict came from Khalifah of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.

In brief, on the bases of those 2 Ahadith of Khaiber and Fatah Mecca (which are actually contradicting each other, and they are Ahad, and they have many more reasons to be declared fabricated), brother beerus is saying there is Ijmah of Ummah.

But why is he unable to see all these other lot of Ahadith, which are indeed Unanimous that indeed it was Umar Ibn Khattab who latter commited this Misguided Bidah and banned Muttah.

There is no contradiction in Sahih Bukhari regarding mut'ah, there is one point common in all narrations of Sahih Muslim that mut'ah was forbidden by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.
There is not a single narration in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or I guess in other books also that Mut'ah is made Halaal by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.
Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim do have an authority over other books of hadith, so why wouldn't we follow them instead of following the desires of our shia brothers and sisters?

By now, I haven't analysed the chains of narrations of all these hadiths, zainabia has quoted, but I intend to produce a detailed analysis over Isnad of most of these hadiths soon inshaAllah, then everything will be so clear and I am sure, where there is a confusion, there must be shia-narrators in the chain. Let's see what comes next. May Allah reveal the truth to us all, Aameen.

Some Other Sahaba who Deemed Muttah to be Halal after Rasool Allah (saw).

We read in Fathul Bari,Sharah Bukhari Volume9 p. 72 Bab Nikah...

Neel al Authar Volume6 p. 533 Dhikr Mut'ah states...

Musnad Abu Darda p. 27

Muslim Qurshee states we asked Asma binte Abu Bakr about Mut'ah with women and she said during the life of Rasulallah(as) we ourselves did Mut'ah.

Fathul Bari, Neel al Authar, Musnad Abu Darda etc are not an authority, and this narration about Saiyidah Asma bint Abu Bakr radhiyAllahu 'anha must be a lie of some Kafir.
There must be some infidel in the chain of this narration.

Or this must be a fabrication by the enemies of Sahabah espeically the enemies of the house of Saiyidina Siddiq-e-Akbar and Saiyidina Zubayr radhiyAllahu 'anhum.

Debater

19-05-05, 08:15 PM

zainabia gives two names in defence of their mut'ah, Hadhrat Ibn 'Abbas and Hadhrat Jabir bin 'Abdullah radhiyAllahu 'anhum.

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3261:

'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. 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). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi' b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu 'Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ; then he forbade us to do Mut'a. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi' b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz and I was sitting there.

The above hadith is from Hadhrat 'Urwah bin Zubayr and it also accommodates the hadith of Sabra. At the same time this narration explains the philosophy of mut'ah that it was practised as eating the carrion, the blood and the flesh of swine, i.e under the stress of necessity.
But our shias do mut'ah under the state of fun.

Debater

19-05-05, 08:27 PM

Another Reply to zainabia and answering-ansar

(zainabia,May 5 2005, 07:43 AM)
But I don't know why you forget history of last 13 Centuries of Muslims when Indeed Sunni Khulafa had 100 slave-maids working in their agricultural farms and they were having Sexual Relations with them (and many cases Temporary Sexual Relations and they selling them out to other Masters).

Also nice try to decieve by saying Slave Maids were only the captive Kuffar Woman.... Indeed there were a lot of Muslim believing Slave Maids and they were also saled after Temporary Relationship.

Now there is indeed a relation between Mutta Relationship and Slave_maids Relationship. You people try to prove Muttah to be Zina due to it's nature of Temporary Relationship...... and if it is true then you must first abondon Islam before criticizing Shias.

Can you deny that your infallible imams also purchased (or got for free) slave girls out of whom an infallible imam was born?
Imam Husain was gifted a slave girl by Saiyidina ‘Umar called Shahr Bano who became the mother of Imam Zainal Abideen. Same stories with other slave girls who were bought by imams and who produced the next imam.

Polygamy was also allowed in Islam due to some reasons and Indeed Allah has greater Wisdom.

Similarly, Muttah was also allowed by Allah and it was his Wisdom. Since Muslims lac this wisdom, therefore our youth are involved in all type of Sins like watching Pornos etc. till they get married at age of around 30.

Zina or prostitution is not allowed in Islam due to some reasons, but our shias in Iran (and other parts of world) are badly involved with it due to some reasons. Even they get married but they don’t leave this gift from someone.

[Shakir 2:187] 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,

Note:

- It was indeed the month of Ramadhan and Sahaba were indeed FASTING.

- Allah asked Sahaba to abstain their wives for only 30 days.

- But these Sahaba (who were Fasting), were they really able to abstain for Only 30 days??????????

This is an excellence of those Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum especially Khalifatur Rasool ‘Umar ibn-al-Khattab in whose favour Allah descent this verse.
This is the same ‘Umar who defeated Persian Empire and stopped them from mut’ah.

- It is impossible to control MASSES only through fasting.

- The option of Slave woman is no more there (i.e. Allah already knew that even in those days not every one would have means to do Nikah.

- Our Youths are already involved in all types of Evils like Pornos, adultary, masterbation....etc.

What makes mut’ah different from Nikah and Adultery?
I see, mut’ah and adultery both are easiest. Have intercourse with a woman and leave her.
Turkey is the most secular than Iran was under the influence of shah, still no country has been able to break the record of Iranian-Prostitution till today.

The only difference with what that Free slave of Abbas said, and what we (Shias) believe is this that he said:

---- When women are scare......

While we believe that:

....... When SITUATION is bad and you are in fear of indulging in Sin
Lots of excuses one can make to get a woman for almost free.

As far as Khaiber is concerned, then we have proved you that:

- None of Sahaba mentioned it, except Ali.

- But clearly it is a lie upon Ali , as if Ali had really told this one to Abbas, then he would have not been issuing fatwa in favour of Muttah till his old age.

- Similarly is the case with Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari (and other Sahabas, which I mention latter).

Count the number of Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum who believed mut’ah was Halaal and it wasn’t made Haraam.
The narration of Khayber is supported by the actions of Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum including Hadhrat Jabir himself who practiced mut’ah but stopped from it after there appeared a Consensus from all Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum during the Caliphate of Saiyidina ‘Umar. While the sanction of mut’ah is supported by the action of only one person/companion (Saiyidina Ibn ‘Abbas) who is not an authority in Islam.

In fact, there is another alleged Sunni hadith which Claims Ibn Abbas forbade Muttah and cited Verse 4:24 (which is impossible while Surah Nisa revealed in beginning of Madinan life, while Muttah was practiced atleast till 7th Hijri)

And there is another alleged Sunni hadith from Aisha, who claimed Muttah to be forbidden after the revealing of verse 5-6 of Surah Mominoon. But again this is not possible whilel Surah Mominoon is a Meccan Surah while Muttah was practiced atleast till 7th Hijri.

At the stress of necessity a forbidden thing might be allowed to go for, as in case of mut’ah. The fact is that mut’ah obtains no support from Quran and Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum didn’t go against Quran so they didn’t perform mut’ah unless Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed them to do it on certain occasions (military expeditions only).

So, all of these Sunni Ahadith (i.e. Ali, Sabra, Iyas, Aisha and of Ibn Abbas).... all of them are CONTRADICTING each other, while brother Beeru dreams them as CLEAR Proof.

They are contradicting for you, because you will never abandon the pleasures of mut’ah. To us all these narrations prove that mut’ah is haraam.

Zaad al Maad Volume2 page 206 Dhikr Fath Makka

"If the hadith of Jabir was sahih then how did ibn Masud remain ignorant of this? If it was Sahih then why would Umar say that Mut'ah was practised during the lifetime of the Rasulullah(s), and say: "Now I stop it and shall stone the one who practises Mut'ah?" If the Abrogation hadith was Sahih then why did people practise Mut'ah during Abu Bakr's reign, when it is claimed his was like the Khilafath of Prophethood?"

Saiyidina ‘Umar said, Mut’ah was practiced during the lifetime of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and he didn’t say that Mut’ah was allowed during his lifetime.
Two different things

The Testimony of Sahabi Imran bin Husain.

Tafseer Ghareeb al Quran p. 6 part 5:

The Sahaba of Rasulullah Imran Ibn Abi Husain said the verse of Mut'ah appeared in the Book of Allah and no verse descended to abrogate it. Rasulullah(s) gave order allowing for the practise of Mut'ah and we did Mut'ah in his presence. Rasulullah(s) dies and till then he did not refrain us from practising it, after him Umar gave his personal view and banned Mut'ah.

Books of tafsir are loaded with fabricated narrations from well-known liars like Saddi Kazzab, Kalbi Kazzab, Waqadi Kazzab etc. Amongst Ahlus Sunnah these narrators are believed to be shias and not trusted in hadith but unfortunately their witnesses have been accepted in Books of Tafsir and History.

Except Bukhari, all other Sunni Ulama claimed this Hadith to be about Mutta-un-Nisa.

This alleged hadith must be forged in the Taqiyyah Hadith Factory of Kufah that is why Imam Bukhari didn’t accept it. Then I don’t know by other Sunni Ulama who you mean.

We read in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 p. 12 hadith 369

When Umar become Khalifa he issued a sermon to the people of the Quran is the same Quran and Rasulullah(s) is the same Rasulullah(s). During the time of Rasulullah there were two types of Mut'ah, Mut'ah of Hajj and Mut'ah of Nisa.

It is not proven that Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hambal is the work of Imam Ahmad bin Hambal but this book of hadith has reached us through a single chain:

Chain of Musnad Ahmed bin Hambal
Hambal bin Abdullah Ar-Rasaqi -> Sheikh Abul Qasim Hebatullah bin Muhammad bin Abdul Wahid ibn Ahmad bin Al-Husain Ash-Shebani -> Abu Ali Al-Hasan bin Ali bin Muhammad Al-Tamimi Al-Wa’iz alias Ibn-al-Madhab -> Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ja’far bin Hamdaan bin Malik Al-Qati’ee -> Abdullah bin Imam Ahmad -> Imam Ahmad bin Hambal

Till 5 generations this masnad is narrated by only and only one narrator.

Terminal narrators from Abu Bakr Qati’ee are shias till the end. For details read their account by Imam Dhahabi and Allamah Ibn Hajar.

In brief, on the bases of those 2 Ahadith of Khaiber and Fatah Mecca (which are actually contradicting each other, and they are Ahad, and they have many more reasons to be declared fabricated), brother beerus is saying there is Ijmah of Ummah.

But why is he unable to see all these other lot of Ahadith, which are indeed Unanimous that indeed it was Umar Ibn Khattab who latter commited this Misguided Bidah and banned Muttah.

There is no Tawatur in those narrations which claim the mut’ah was practiced by Companions in Bukhari and Muslim. Those narrations which are in opposition with those of Bukhari and Muslim are automatically nullified because the principle of hadith is that if a narration goes against an agreed Sahih Narration and against the Ijma’ of Ummah, the hadith would be either rejected or interpreted in favour of Sahih Narration.

We read in Fathul Bari,Sharah Bukhari Volume9 p. 72 Bab Nikah:

Those Sahaba of Ibn Abbas from Makka and Mina, remained firm on the position that Mut'ah was Mubah (permissible), and Ibn Jazm states those people remained firm on the positions that Mut'ah was halaal after the death of Rasulullah(s) were Abdullah bin Masud, Mu'awiya, Abu Saeed, Ibn Abbas.
(All of them heighly esteemed Tabaeen and I will come back on this issue latter. Insha-Allah)

Fathul Bari is not Sahih Bukhari itself, but this contains the views and comprehension of Allamah ibn Hajr.
More over, the above names are not of Taba’een but they are Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum, and we don’t see any witness from authentic sources that Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Mu’awiyah, Abu Sa’eed radhiyAllahu 'anhum remained at their position to support mut’ah till the end.

We read in History of al-Tabari, English version, v14, pp 139-140…

Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir bin Yazid Tabari was a shia, who deceived Ahlus Sunnah in the guise of Taqiyyah, his Persian books have been written with the name of Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir bin Rustam Tabari. His Tafsir and History is the platform where Lies and allegations are collected to slander Sahabah radhiyAllahu 'anhum.
Tabari’s books for shias were in the cell of Kitman until Iran was ruled by Safavids.

We read in al Jaza al Masalik:

"Ibn Jazim, states those people that deemed Mut'ah, Mubah (permissible) after Rasulullah were amongst the Sahaba, Abdullah bin Masud, Mu'awiya, Abu Saeed Al Khudri, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Salma, Mubid Umayya bin Khulafa's son, Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, Umro bin Harees".

We read in Neel al Authar:

"Those Sahaba who deemed Mut'ah halaal after Rasulullah, were these seven, Asma binte Abu Bakr, Mu'awiya, Jabir bin Abbas, Umra bin Harees, Salmah's two sons, Umayya bin Khulafa".

Certainly some reports say some people still believed in mut’ah after the demise of Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam till Saiyidina ‘Umar radhiyAllahu 'anhu put the official ban on it which appeared as the consensus of Ummah. Moreover the above alleged names (not proven to be authentic) are not proven to practice mut’ah, as zainabia claims all shias believe in mut’ah but not everyone pracitses it (obviously).

If it was haram and is Zina, then why did the site in law of Rasulullah (s) practise it?

If you conclude the above from the belief in mut’ah then we can comment that your 12 Imams and their Wives, the Mothers of Imams and the daughters of Imams also practiced mut’ah because they are the strongest preachers of mut’ah.

"Mu'awiya contracted Mut'ah with a woman from Taif and this narration carries a sahih chain.

When Mu'awiya arrived in Taif, he performed Mut'ah with an unnamed slave belonging to Banu Hazrmee called Ma'ana, Jabir states that remained alive throughout Mu'awiya's reign, and he gave her yearly stipends every year".

This has been similarly recorded in Musanaf Abdul Razaq Volume 7 p 499

No date/time of this mut’ah is mentioned, how can we know the mut’ah was practiced before it was abrogated or after?

Ibn Jazim said, those that deemed Mut'ah halaal after Rasulullah(s) and remained firm in this position, included Ibn Masud, Mu'awiya, Abu Saeed, Salma wa Majid, Umayya's son, Jabeer and Umar bin Harith, Jabir cited the practise of Mut'ah by the Sahaba during the reign of Abu Bakr and Umar, amongst the Tabieen the jurists of Makkah and Taus and Saeed bin Jabeer and Ata deemed Mut'ah halaal. Those Tabieen that Ibn Jazzim quoted on the lawfulness of Mut'ah, carried a Sahih chain, according to Abdul Razzaq

Strange that we don’t see any names of the purified and infallible men and women in the above list.

We read in Fathul Bari:

In a Sahih chain Ibn Abbas narrates that Umar summoned Umm Iraq, who was pregnant, she states openly that she had performed Mut'ah with Saleem bin Umayya.

We read in Jameer' athul Nasab:

Saleem's son was Mujeed, his mother was Umm Iraq, Saleem contacted Mut'ah with her and this Mut'ah existed during the reign of Abu Bakr and Umar.

This is yet another example of a Sahaba continuing to practice Mut'ah after 'Umar banned it.

Even if this story is true, there is no proof that mut’ah is halaal, also that the narration is incomplete, what happened before and after Umm Iraq was summoned to Saiyidina ‘Umar.

We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 8 p. 4 hadith number 5694:

I was present when someone queried Abdullah Ibn Umar about Mut'ah with women. Ibn Umar become angered replying "We, those present during the lifetime of the Rasulullah(s) were not fornicators"

The above is certainly a lie from the House of Taqiyyah, because we don’t see a single narration on the authority of Saiyidina Ibn ‘Umar regarding mut’ah in authentic hadith sources.

And at end, just add the name of Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari...... and then see the claim of brother Beeru that there is Ijma of Ummah upon those 2 Contradicting and critcized Ahad Ahadith of Khaiber and Fatah Mecca.

In Bukhari and Muslim, no hadith claims (even by Jabir bin Ansari) that mut’ah was Halaal, it only says that mut’ah was permitted and even that a very few narrations as such, almost of the same grade as of abrogation of mut’ah.
The most strong evidence which affirms the abrogation of mut’ah is the Consensus of Ummah at the time of Saiyidina ‘Umar Farooq-e-Azam radhiyAllahu 'anhu.

Rasool Allah (saw) never ordered that Muttah is allowed only during Wars.

But permission was common and included all the situations when one falls to indulge in Sin.

No evidence

Regarding Tabaeen, again your logic is stupid. They could not have accepted Muttah to be Halal if there really existed that alleged "IJMAH Of SAHABA" upon the banning of Muttah by Rasool Allah (saw).

This is a natural phenomenon that a few people differ from Ijma’ at all times and to correct you, this Ijma’ (consensus) of Ummah appeared at the time of Saiyidina Umar.

When these Tabaeen heard fatwa of Ibn Abbas on permissibility of Muttah, they doubted him. And they went to Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, who again reaffirmed Ibn Abbas and made clear that it was Umar Ibn Khattab who forbade.

And Jabir bin Abdullah himself stopped from mut’ah after the Consensus of Ummah against mut’ah. Remember that?

Neither you addressed this point, not that point if Ali had really told this to Ibn Abbas then why he was giving fatwa on permissibility of Muttah at his old age?????

The narration of Khaybar from Saiyidina Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu doesn’t claim that both the abrogation of mut’ah and eating of domestic asses were issued at the same moment on Khaybar.
As for the verdict of Ibn ‘Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu, he would certainly have issued it over his own judgment and knowledge, but the fact is that Consensus of Ummah from the time of Saiyidina ‘Umar radhiyAllahu 'anhu till today, goes against mut’ah.

You are the first one in this universe who is coming up with these conjectures. What happened to your thousands of Ulama who never derived this excuse uptill now, but clearly claimed that muttah was a practice of Jahilliya till Khaiber when Rasool Allah (saw) forbade it.

I didn’t meet and don’t depend on these Ulama. Allah has given me eyes to read and see and brain to think and decide.

Then Ali should have told Ibn Abbas that Muttah was forbidden finally at Victory of Mecca.

The clarity in the statement of Saiyidina Ali is that mut’ah was in general forbidden, it was allowed on certain military expeditions by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and Saiyidina Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu himself witnessed the forbidding of mut’ah by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam on Khayber, so he quoted the Khayber incident, if he witnessed its forbidding on the Conquest of Makkah, certainly he would have referenced both events. This is something about common sense that a person can’t always, all the time be in company with Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam so he referred to what he himself witnessed.

Similarly, there should have been atleast ONE Sahabi who should have mentioned this fact that Muttah was forbidden twice. These are all lame excuses which were fabricated to cover up these Contradictions.

You should change your question as there should have been at least ONE sahabi to claim that Mut’ah was permitted twice.
This could be the case if mut’ah was permitted for everyone, on the other hand we don’t see that mut’ah was practiced by everyone, only a few names we read that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed them to contract mut’ah.
All narrations you have quoted in your defense of mut’ah claim that mut’ah was practiced by a few people (e.g Hadhrat Jabir bin Abdullah, Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ud etc) and not by everyone.

Debater

19-05-05, 08:40 PM

(tahasyed@May 11 2005, 05:20 PM )
The word associated with mut'a is nikah, and not just mubasharah.
Mut'a is a form of marriage, and hence the partners are azwaj for each other.

This is as you say, I am more interested in how you prove it that the Mut'ah partner is the Zauj.

Also, please avoid using the word 'adultery'. The Prophet would never order his companions to commit adultery. 

Big difference between something which is Halaal in general and another thing which becomes permitted conditionally for the person who lives in that condition.
Pork is Haraam in general but you can eat it in the stress of necessity where you don't have any food and to live you must eat something, but note that it becomes permitted only for the person who lives in that condition other wise it is Haraam.

In our religion Mut'ah is adultery, because this has the same conditions as in Adultery except the Name-Disguise (calling sharaab pepsi cola) Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam permitted it only twice or so in the stress of necessity for only a few people as we read in hadiths. It was not allowed for everyone as we don't have any proofs regarding that.
The Holy Book of Allah goes against mut'ah everywhere.

Debater

19-05-05, 08:42 PM

The point which I am repeating is that the permission of mut'ah (and not the order, we don't read the word 'order') is associated with Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and so is the forbidding of mut'ah.

We know that only Allah or His Messenger can make things Halaal or Haraam, so how can we make mut'ah Halaal ourselves when we don't have our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam with us.
If we lived in the age of our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam we could ask him if we could contract mut'ah or not regarding our own conditions.
The Book of Allah, Sunnah of our Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and Ijma' of Ummah have no room for mut'ah.

In my opinion, which might be wrong because I am not a scholar, that mut'ah might be considered in a condition where 4 people (3 men and a woman) survive from a plane crash on a deserted isle where they couldn't have any rescue.
Obviously mut'ah would be a choice for those 3 men in turn which must be better than the fight for women or the group sex etc.

Debater

19-05-05, 08:46 PM

(tahasyed @ May 11 2005)My very emphasis was on the word ORDERED - 'amara'. 

I have always read in Bukhari and Muslim etc that Mut’ah was allowed/permitted, never read it was ordered to do.

Many companions believed mut'a to be halal many years after the Prophet passed away, some even believed it to be halal up to the time of the khalifa Ibn al-Zubayr. Were they blind and deaf about the Prophet's order for decades??

Can you please name many of those who regarded mut’ah halaal?

In fact you can’t find many names who regarded mut’ah halaal after the demise of Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, there are a few names recorded in the authentic narrations. Off course these companions would majorly comprise those who were granted the permission of mut’ah by the Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam for a limited time, as we read as 3 nights or so in such traditions.

And after the demise of Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam or even in his life but absence they would have used their own judgment over performing mut’ah, as we don’t read anywhere that they were permitted by the Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam himself on every occasion they might contract mut’ah. But these companions are speaking of their own experiences and after the consensus of Ummah appeared at the time of Saiyidina ‘Umar all of them stopped from mut’ah including Hadhrat Jabir bin ‘Abdullah whom shias refer a lot.

So what happened to them when they stopped at the time of Saiyidina ‘Umar? If they regarded mut’ah Halaal. It clearly shows that without the permission of Holy Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam whenever they did mut’ah it was based on their own judgment from which they reverted in the Caliphate of Saiyidina ‘Umar radhiyAllahu ‘anhu.

And please give me names of those who believed in mut’ah even at the time of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr radhiyAllahu 'anhu, as you are lying just because of one example of Hadhrat Ibn ‘Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu. And while claiming so you forget that we don’t see that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu himself did mut’ah but he issued fatwa (religious verdict) in favour of mut’ah and if you can read you will read that he regarded mut’ah permitted (not Halaal) when the women are scarce, and you should know that a religious verdict is issued for a hypothetical situation as well.

Finally, you mentioned before that the only reason the Prophet allowed mut'a was so that his companions could temporarily satisfy their needs. Now I have a question. What about the women? Were the women who engaged in mut'a at that time also feeling urges? If not, was the Prophet, in effect, allowing mut'a for the benefit of the MEN, totally ignoring women, and treating them like objects used to sastisfy mens' urges? Wal-'iyadhu billah.

If you don’t have the problem of reading you should read that mut’ah was permitted for 3 nights and in 3 nights you don’t pass your 30 years. And in a military expedition, obviously, you contract mut’ah to satisfy your sexual urge and not to tell her stories of your childhood.

I can’t comment on behalf of those women who were contracted mut’ah in those military expeditions, as I don’t have any report from them, but if you find any please pass them to me so that I can answer your question if those women wanted a Romeo in those 3 nights or something else.

And if mut’ah is really in favour of women, because in this way they can enjoy as many men in their lives as can be, then tell me how many women of the family of Imam Ali contracted mut’ah with how many men (ma’azAllah)?

It is so shameful that a woman who regards mut’ah in her favour more than men, should have 15 children from 15 men and all those 15 children either work as the mut’ah-broker or Ayatullas.

I would also suggest my sunnis brothers/sisters to notice that sahabiyyah women who did mut'a would prepare and adorn themselves. This shows complete free will and their choice in the matter. 

We didn’t dream of those Sahabiyat who did mut’ah, so can’t comment on that.

I asked the same question and did not get any answers for some reason.
How is it that sunnis are ready to condemn mut'a, but seem to get blind spots in their eyes when it comes to polygamy? Or how come they don't have a problem with slavery, or crucifixion, or poking red-hot metal objects in victims' eyes (refer to sahih Bukhari).

I think I already answered this question of yours before without any guarantee that you would understand, which I repeat that we would certainly run after mut’ah if it was Halaal or permitted by Quran or Sunnah.

And to correct your record, we don’t condemn mut’ah, we condemn practicing it against the Will of Allah and His Messenger sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.
Personally I don’t like polygamy, but it doesn’t mean I can hate it, it is made Halaal by the Creator, and same views I have for slavery but it is Halaal as made by Allah and I am not aware of the rest of the things you mentioned, they are irrelevant too so I am not interested.

Debater

19-05-05, 10:40 PM

.InshAllah. (http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showuser=19225)@May 13 2005, 08:17 PM
''AlHakm came to Imam Ali http://www.shiachat.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/as.gif asking him whether verse 4.24 had been abrogated, the Imam replied 'No' and then said 'If هt had not been for Umar prohibiting Mut3a noone would commit the sin of fornication except a wretched person''

The chain of narration,

مُحَمَّد بْن الْمُثَنَّى
AlDhahabi says he is thiqah

مُحَمَّد بْن جَعْفَر الهذلى
AlDhahabi says he was one of the most accurate of transmitters

شعبة بن الحجاج بن الورد العتكى الأزدى
AlDhahabi says he is Ameer Almui'mineen in hadith

الحكم بن عتيبة الكندى
AlDhahabi says he is thiqah and 'sahib sunnah'

So whether you like it or not the hadith IS SAHIH.

1. I have answered all the questions of inshaAllah, on page 4 and 5 of this thread, regarding Ibn Hazam etc.

2. I have explained that the above alleged saying of your Imam Ali has a clash with the narration of Saiyidina Ali radhiyAllahu 'anhu in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim and according to principle of hadith this is enough to discard the alleged saying of Imam Ali.

3. I have proven in this thread and another of mine (Sanction of Muta) that Mut'ah is against Quran, Sunnah and Ijma' (Consensus) of Sahabah, but inshaAllah has the same habbit of repeating questions but I just dislike to repeat my answers.

4. Suppose this is a sahih narration of your Imam Ali then Imam Ali alone is not an authority in Islam, if you can prove me wrong in this regard, then try it please.

5. InshaAllah, I will prove that this alleged narration of your Imam Ali is a lie attributed to him.

.................................................. .................................................. ..

I have already mentioned in my previous posts in the same thread that we are not only depending on a single hadith from a single source, neither the hadith of Sabra nor the hadith of Hadhrat 'Ali.

Our first source to reject Mut'ah is Quran, I have quoted around 26 verses in my thread 'Sanction of Muta' (according to Quran) and all go against MUt'ah, we don't have any authentic proof from hadith literature that 4:24 refers to Mut'ah, there are some evidences which are rejected by agreement, all these evidences are found in Books of Tafsir of Quran which have been loaded with fabricated narrations of liars like Saddi, Kalbi, Waqadi etc.

Our second source to reject Mut'ah is the Consensus of Ummah which appeared at the Caliphate of Saiyidina 'Umar. We have sound evidences that even those people who practised/believed in mut'ah after the demise of Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam did not revert to mut'ah again, and the hadith of Hadhrat Jabir bin 'Abdullah is a proof, he himself stopped from mut'ah whose so many hadiths have been presented by mut'ah advocates.

Saiyidina 'Umar is Ulul Amr according to Quran, and this is the aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah, and our Ulul Amr especially a person like 'Umar can't go against Quran and Sunnah and if he went against Quran/Sunnah, Sahabah wouldn't follow him by agreement. Even shias admit and they quote their Imam Ali's fabricated narration as well that it was 'Umar who banned mut'ah, which shows that the official ban on mut'ah by Saiyidina 'Umar was really effective even that the Infallible Imam Ali is admitting the fact.

Then is left only Saiyidina 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, whose no Fatwa is in record where he allowed mut'ah except a report in Bukhari etc that he showed leniency in permitting mut'ah and we have this condition as well from Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas that mut'ah might be permitted only when the women are scarce and resembling with this situation I put an example in the start of this page (of thread) I guess.
Secondly Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas is not an authority in Islam all alone by himself, neither he is our Prophet nor the Ulul Amr, and we also don't have any knowledge of his fatwa in which he allowed mut'ah.

All narrations in Bukhari and Muslim claim that mut'ah was permitted on a few (2 or so) military expeditions by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam. Which means mut'ah was not permitted before those military expeditions, then we read, mut'ah was allowed for 3 nights (or so) and we don't read that Rasoolullah sallAllau alayhe wasallam made mut'ah halaal forever.
Another thing we note that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam didn't permit mut'ah for everyone, but we read only a few names who contracted mut'ah, and if mut'ah was permitted for everyone we would have more narrations from more people about the sanction of mut'ah.
For this reason mut'ah can't be permitted for everyone.

Even if we ignore the narrations of Hadhrat Ali about the incident of Khyber, we don't have any other narration in this connection that mut'ah was permitted during Khyber, if inshaAllah finds such narration from Bukhari/Muslim, please pass it on to me.

Now if mut'ah was permitted by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam during military expeditions (Ghazwaat) only and it was not permitted in every military expedition, after Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam there can't be a military expedition whose command is by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam.
If something is not permitted by Quran and Sunnah of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam and it was permitted by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam under the stress of necessity as I have proven in my previous posts, how can we go for a Haraam thing in order to satisfy our lust for women and women and women?

Your saying that Imam Ali is our Ulul Amr exactly as Saiyidina 'Umar is, is not established. Unfortunately the Caliphate of Saiyidina 'Ali couldn't be established, he was chosen Khalifah by Criminals at first who murdered the Khalifah and Rebelled against Islamic Caliphate, yes, a small group of sahabah did support Hadhrat Ali afterward but another group of Sahabah was against Hadhrat Ali because they thought Hadhrat Ali had been hijacked by the Rebels, Majority of Sahabah and other Muslims didn't take their oath of allegiance to Hadhrat Ali. Keeping in view all the facts we conclude that Hadhrat Ali couldn't be the Khalifah of his time (but after that period has passed, he is our 4th Khalifah as aqeedah and Saiyidina Ma'aviyah is our 5th Khalifah). So if Ummah was not united on the Caliphate of Hadhrat 'Ali (which is a well known fact) how he can be the Ulul 'Amr?
(This is a Question not only a remark)

The narration you have posted is a lie and we don't believe in such stories which are fabricated in Kufah Hadith Factory by shias of Ali.

Debater

19-05-05, 10:51 PM

(zainabia @ May 16 2005, 02:07 AM)Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:

"The Verse of Mut'a was revealed in Allah's Book, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Quran to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."

[ Note: For the above Hadith, the Saudi translator of Sahih al-Bukhari (Muhammad Muhsin Khan) has changed the word "Mut'a" to "Hajj-at-Tamatu". This is while in the Arabic text of the Hadith of al-Bukhari which is beside the English text, the word "Mut'a" has been used alone: ]


I read it different from you might have read from some shia source, so I will inshaAllah check it myself from Sahih Bukhari (which I don't have with me) today or in a couple of days.

And before that I would still comment on your version of this narration:

1. I asked a question if 'Imran bin Husain is a Companion or a narrator, if you don't answer, I will find out myself. (and now I know he r.a is a Sahabi)

2. If 'Imran bin Husain is a narrator, the question is whose words are they?

3. This narration doesn't clarify anything.

4. It says the verse of mut'ah is in Quran, but where in Quran?

5. It talks about a man, but which man?

6. What is the status of a witness which comes from a single person, i.e. 'Imran bin Husain against the Ijma' of Ummah?

It is very unfair by you Brother Beeru...... instead of this, you must not trust the Nasibi translators. 

I am sorry but that is true that I don't trust shias.
Not a single time but a number of times, I have seen them twisting narrations and verses when quoting.

Now look again upon what Imran bin Hussain is Saying:
1. "The Verse of Mut'a was revealed in Allah's Book, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle,

Therefore Brother Beeru, now you have to show:

- Where is that Verse of Mut'a in Quran, about whom Imran bin Hussain is talking?

Sorry, this is your job.
Get me the verse of mut'ah from 'Imran bin Husain.

2. (and then he further claims)

and nothing was revealed in Quran to make it illegal,

- So, either you have to show the verse, or to blame Imran bin Hussain for claiming of Tehrif of Quran.

Would you please explain, how this narration claims Tampering in Quran.

3. (and then he further says)

nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."
So, he is quite straight that Prophet (saw) never PROHIBITED it, but it was some one else.
My question to you brother Beeru:
[color=purple]
Q1. Who was this "SOMEONE else Person"?

I asked the same question.
In fact you didn't bring a good witness in favour of mut'ah.

Q2. And why Imran bin Hussain and Other Sahaba didn't protested against this person for changing Islamic Sharia?

It shows Sahaba had a different view than that of 'Imran bin Husain, regarding mut'ah.
Isn't it?

And if they protested, then show us that protest?
We don't see any protest, so the witness of 'Imran bin Husain, if supports mut'ah, is weak and unreliable.

Nasibies try to claim that in Hadith of Imran bin Hussain, it is Muttah-ul-Hajj which has been discussed.

- Firstly, there is no word of Hajj in his tradition.

- Secondly, this tradition has also been narrated by many other Sunni Muhaditheen and Mufassireen. And all of them took it under Mutta ul Nisa.

Everything stops at the witness of a single person against whom is the whole Ummah.

- Thirdly, [i]even if it to assume that it is about Mutta-ul-Hajj, still where is "The verse of Mutta ul Hajj" in Quran, and where is fatwa of "Misguided Innovator" upon Umar Ibn Khattab for making it Haram in Islamic Sharia?

Doesn't this fact reveal to you a mistake, when you chose narration of 'Imran bin Husain to prove your mut'ah?

The reason that in the original tradition, Imran Ibn Husain did not mention the name of Umar is that he was mindful of the bad temper of Umar, and because Umar said he will stone anyone who does that.

You might know well, because you might have taken an interview with 'Imran bin Husain, but your interview was not a good one, as you didn't ask him which verse in fact is about mut'ah.

Debater

19-05-05, 10:57 PM

(.InshAllah. @ May 14 2005, 06:06 PM)AlHakim was the most eminent scholar of his time and is a very respected scholar in the Ahlu Sunnah school of thought. In fact AlDhahabi in'Tethkiratul Hufath' page 1039 calls him 'الحافظ الكبير امير المحدثين '- The great Master of Narrators.

Ameer alMuhaditheen Alhakim AlNisaburi says the hadith is sahih:

''Whoever obeys me, he obeys Allah,